Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Specifically for ChrisGraley, llcx, and nzsvz9

Recs

29

June 09, 2010 – Comments (135)

And others interested in the other side of the story on Climate Change.

In an attempt to destroy his professional career, Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, decided to investigate the claims of the Anthropogenic Global Warming establishment.

The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that “on virtually every major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements.”

Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined policy preference.”

The findings in the paper are basically what I and the bloggers in the post title (and many others) have been saying for a long time.  The whole "science" of AGW does not stand up to scrutiny.  Anyone who questions it is excluded from the academic proceedings.  It is a cult of lunatics.

As for the followers, well, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds applies here.

I have downloaded and reviewd the 79 page report.  Like I said, it covers much of what we already know: Global Termperature sets are a disgrace, computer modeling is unreliable, feedback uncertainty is glossed over and presented as always positive, peer-reviewed literature paints a more uncertain picture than IPCC reports, etc...

If you are at all skeptical of the veracity of AGW alarmist claims, read the report. Then ask them to answer the questions raised.  You'll never buy their B.S. again.

Why should you do this?  Because the Cap-n-Trade scam is rearing its ugly head again.  Decarbonizing the American economy based on not-science is foolish. Hastily rushing new, difficult (perhaps impossible) to reverse policy through Congress during a major Recession (Depression) is economic suicide.  I think you should care but feel free to make up your own mind.

David in Qatar

135 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 09, 2010 at 8:00 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

Nothing disproves the detailed investigations of scientists like some hack lawyer with an agenda.  I've never encountered an outlandish point of view that some lawyer couldn't find a way to justify.

Your hypocrisy towards the scientific community always amazes me.  You quite rationally understand that business owners have the most expertise in their subject matter and typically are able to much more efficiently handle matters than a bunch of lawyers in the government.  When lawyers get involved, they proposea bunch of inane regulations that show their own ignorance towards the industry they are regulating.  

When it comes to science, however, you've decided that a bunch  of random lawyers and politicians are much more likely to be knowledgeable than scientists.   You try to justify this by claiming the scientists are 'government-funded' (quite often they are not, but you've never let facts get in your way). You concoct bizarre conspiracy theories on how the government wants to promote the idea of 'climate change' as a 'power grab' (which makes absolutely zero sense).  

You seem completely unphased by the fact that 95%+ of the scientific community believes climate change is occuring while about 40% - 60% of the lawyers in the government do not.  Gee ... who do I trust on issues of scientific importance?  Scientists?  Or lawyers in the government? 

Ironically, you chose the latter. 

 

Cap-n-Trade is a scam*, but you merely discredit yourself by aligning yourself with a bunch of pseudo-science.  It's almost laughable to try to post a 'research report' by some guy with a law degree in order to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change. 

If anything, you should be examing the way in which governmental subsidies to the oil industry and to the highway system have helped create more pollution.  If the theories on climate change are correct (as the vast majority of scientists believe they are), then this has been a contributing factor. 

 

* Designed by lawyers, no doubt.  

Report this comment
#2) On June 09, 2010 at 8:06 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

JakilaTheHun,

How does it feel to be so unoriginal that commentors at WUWT already know you are coming?

But he doesn’t have a degree in climatology! He doesn’t have the knowledge or training to understand how the climate works! He was obviously not smart enough to comprehend the established theories and data proving climate change is real and dangerous! HE’S A LAWYER, HE IS NOT A SCIENTIST!!

Now, get back to me when you've read the paper.  I have, and dozens of other papers on AGW. I will discuss its merits only.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#3) On June 09, 2010 at 8:20 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

Not surprisingly, I only had to read to page 8 till the good Professor, Dr. Roy Spencer, is cited as one of his primary sources.  Spencer is a Professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville that the oil industry seems to bring out whenever it needs someone to support its views. He also is a proponent of Intelligent Design, a pseudo-science if there ever were one. 

Once someone crosses into the supporting-ID territory, they've officially discredited themselves in my mind. ID doesn't even meet the basic standards for scientific testing because --- it's actually just a statement of opinion.  Saying that 'things function so well naturally' that it is like 'things were created via some intelligent design' is equivalent to saying "this flower is pretty."  You couldn't disprove that because it's a statement of opinion; not a falsifiable hypothesis. 

 

So yeah ... when someone advertises themselves as being capable of understanding science and they immediately cite a source that has shown his willingness to disregard the scientific method to push an ideological point of view, you can color me a bit skepitcal. 

Give me the report of a real scientist and I might be interested.  

This is not to say I don't think there are great exaggerations on climate change made by various parties (even some scientists).  But as a general rule, I trust that scientists know more about the subject matter they study than a few lawyers, who normally have an ideological agenda.   

Report this comment
#4) On June 09, 2010 at 8:30 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

JakilaTheHun,

Let me know when you are out of ad hominems and wish to discuss the merts of the paper.

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#5) On June 09, 2010 at 8:30 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

Now, get back to me when you've read the paper.  I have, and dozens of other papers on AGW. I will discuss its merits only.

No, you won't. You're not a big believer in things like facts, evidence, and things that get in the way of your ideological views.  You never have been. 

Any time they are mentioned, you conveniently skip over them and either (a) insult the other party, (b) claim the other party is 'predictable'*, (c) create some personal attack, or (d) farrot out some conspiracy theory involving the big-bad gub'mint.   In other words, you're a typical politician.

 

 

* Kind of irrelevant, is it not?  Reality is not determined by whether one is 'predictable' or not.  If I consistently say that a 'Hydrogen atom contains one proton', does that make it incorrect? 

Report this comment
#6) On June 09, 2010 at 8:31 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

JakilaTheHun,

Are you done yet? 

Paper

Merits

Not Hard

Otherwise, take off.  I addressed this blog to three people specifically.  You are not one of them, nor are you interested in discussing the paper itself. 

See ya later,

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#7) On June 09, 2010 at 8:32 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

Let me know when you are out of ad hominems and wish to discuss the merts of the paper.

What ad hominem appeared in the previous post, David?  

I challenge you to back up your assertion.

Report this comment
#8) On June 09, 2010 at 8:37 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

To anyone interested in the actual contents of the paper,

I'm actually the one taking off :)  My fiancee is coming in to town (been a good week for me!) and as exciting as exchanging unrelated insults with the AGW crowd is (never roll around in the mud with a pig because you're both going to dirty.. and the pigs gonna like it), I have a date tonight.

But I'll back tomorrow if anyone wishes to discuss the paper itself.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#9) On June 09, 2010 at 8:42 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

You are not one of them, nor are you interested in discussing the paper itself. 

Post #3 addresses the paper itself.  (That was the post you claimed was full of ad hominems*).  As I said, it only took 8 pages for dubious sources to start appearing.  I even provided you a link on him. 

 

* I'm still a bit confused as to where I insulted you in #3.  I see not one ad hominem in the post.

Report this comment
#10) On June 09, 2010 at 8:50 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

It's always been a hack science with data manipulated to paint the picture that they want.

If they stuck to science instead of manipulatiing data, I might be more inclined to listen, but this is just politics masked as science.

Report this comment
#11) On June 09, 2010 at 8:55 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

Hominem
Do doo be-do-do
Hominem
Do do-do do
Hominem
Do doo be-do-do be-do-do be-do-do be-do-do-doodle do do do-doo do!

(Improv. by Hominem)

Repeat Chorus

(Improv. by Hominem)

Repeat Chorus

(Improv. by Hominem)

Repeat Chorus

(Improv. by Hominem)

Repeat Chorus twice

Report this comment
#12) On June 09, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Turfscape (44.09) wrote:

Jakila wrote:
"I'm still a bit confused as to where I insulted you in #3.  I see not one ad hominem in the post"

You attempted to discredit the paper by discrediting Roy Spencer. You didn't debate any merits in the paper itself...you attacked the person being cited in the paper. That's sort of the definition of "ad hominem".

Report this comment
#13) On June 09, 2010 at 9:36 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

Sorry for my last comment. I was feeling playful.

I believe we need to do our best to take care of this planet. After all it is where we live and keep all our stuff. But seriously, I think using crap science and scare tactics to coerce tax dollars from us in order to feed this machine of lies is wrong. I am glad there are scientists out there willing to offer contrary evidence, and to stand by it. The reason media outlets give these renegades little to no attention is they would have to admit to being possibly wrong for supporting the wrong people over the last few decades. The same can be said of governments around the world.

As I said above I believe we need to do our best to take care of this planet. It is our home. Other forms of life depend on us to do our what we can to make it as clean for them as possible. All that can be accomplished without scare tactics, lies and crippling taxes. The last time I looked around us those things were not helping.

Cato,

P.S. - I know I'm not ChrisGraley, llxc, or nzsvz9. All three of them are better looking and better dancers. *sigh*

Report this comment
#14) On June 09, 2010 at 9:48 AM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

"If you are at all skeptical of the veracity of AGW alarmist claims, read the report. Then ask them to answer the questions raised.  You'll never buy their B.S. again."

If we can ignore this paper for just a moment, and also ignore the "disputed" IPCC reports, and all that stuff...

How do you explain the fact that the polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate? That seems to be the gaping hole in the picture being painted by the global warming denyers.

Oh, I forgot I'm not supposed to post in this blog because I don't agree with you. Feel free to ignore me.

Report this comment
#15) On June 09, 2010 at 9:52 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

If they stuck to science instead of manipulatiing data, I might be more inclined to listen, but this is just politics masked as science.

Quite the reverse.  This is politics trying to manipulate science.  

What incentive does anyone have to eliminate man-made processes that improve people's lives, unless there were actual evidence that these processes were creating negative side affects, in the form of things like pollution, environmental degradation, and climate change? 

On the other hand, what incentive do those with entrenched interests have to try to discredit legitimate science that suggests that their practices are harmful? 

 

There are a lot of legitimate criticisms of climate change alarmism, but I very rarely see them made.  Rather, most climate change deniers are simply promoting that viewpoint because it either (a) conflicts with a vested interest they have or (b) violates ideological beliefs.  

I actually agree that cap-n-trade is bogus, and many of the other schemes to 'remedy' this problem are likewise poorly thought out.  This does not mean that climate change is not occuring; merely that the political process often yields poor solutions.  

Personally, I believe that government subsidies, taxes, and poor organization account for a large amount of our excessive energy usage.  The oil and auto industries are heavily subsidized, while railroads have been heavily taxed.  The highway system is being subsidized by general income taxes and sales taxes, rather than being fully-funded by gasoline taxes (which politicians refuse to raise).  Passanger rail in the US is handled by a public corporation (Amtrak) that has very little incentive to improve efficiency and has to deal with political struggles to even get proper funding.  Inner-city taxes in places like DC, NYC, and Philadelphia deter denser urban development and encourage people to move out to the suburbs. 

The point I'm getting at here is that 'more government' is not always the solution and oftentimes has negative affects that were worse than the original problem.  Proposals regarding climate change are no different.  That does not, however, mean that climate change is not occuring.  In fact, it's difficult to deny that climate change is occuring based on evidence generated over the past century and a half --- the question is whether it's man-made and if so, how much?  Scientific opinion generally supports the idea that it is, at least in part, man-made, but the degree that it is man-made is under question.  

 

The climate change denier movement is almost entirely based around manipulation.  Just a quick glance at Wikipedia should display how much of the movement is based around trying to 'spin' the credentials and support level of those following it.  There are really only two major climate scientists who disagree with the 'general scientific consensus' on climate change and one happens to be in the pocket of the oil industry and also a proponent of an obvious junk-science (Intelligent Design).  

 

My honest belief is that the climate change denial movement is simply based on a political agenda.  The adherents of that agenda would do better to rationally attack certain flawed public policy proposals (such as cap-n-trade) on the grounds that they will not achieve the desired results.  

There are obviously sensationalist liberals out there taking the view that we must enact some huge program to stop climate change immediately, so I'm not disagreeing with the idea that this happens with ideologues of differing political stripes.  

Regardless, climate change denialism is sort of a red herring.  Even if climate change is not occuring, that doesn't really change much of anything.  We still need cleaner energy sources --- having our oceans polluted by oil or having our air filled with smog is a negative thing no matter how you spin it.  You can't improve the planet by destroying it.  

The only real question is what is the best way to improve the situation.  I feel like climate change deniers are *admitting* that their views are severely flawed, so they simply resort to trying to 'manipulate science.'  

 

Report this comment
#16) On June 09, 2010 at 9:55 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

You attempted to discredit the paper by discrediting Roy Spencer. You didn't debate any merits in the paper itself...you attacked the person being cited in the paper. That's sort of the definition of "ad hominem".

The author relies on data provided by Dr. Roy Spencer to support his views.  Dr. Roy Spencer's faithfulness to the scientific method is under question due to (a) his funding from the oil industry and (b) his support for Intelligent Design, which violates the scientific method in every way imaginable.  

There's nothing "ad hominem" about that.  He's an unreliable source in many ways. 

Report this comment
#17) On June 09, 2010 at 9:59 AM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

David,

It's an interesting approach that Mr. Johnston has used toward examining AGW. It is noit a scientific paper, it is a legal brief on how to perform a systematic point-by-point cross examination of any witness which may be involved in a case where AGW has been presented as truth.

This would be invaluable to any attorney who needed to take on a case where AGW needed to be countered - and would appear to contain significant cited sources to counter the AGW opinions such that reasonable doubt, if not outright finding for the barrister would be the likely outcome.

He lays out the arguments and cites what one could produce to cast doubt on the AGW claims - problems with temperature data, climate models, feedback mechanisms, relationship between CO2 and temperature, secondary effects ... and the existence of significant dissenting research - of which we were told by Al Gore that "the debate is over".

I will continue to read.

Thanks.

Known as the grateful nzsvz9

Report this comment
#18) On June 09, 2010 at 10:02 AM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

JakilaTheHun,

And we all know that funding from the government is all sweetness and light.

Known as skeptic nzsvz9

Report this comment
#19) On June 09, 2010 at 10:06 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

I can't give a response justice while I'm at work, but everyone please post the most rock solid foundation of climate science that you can find and I'll show you where that data was manipulated later on this evening.

I've actually researched this topic, and I can debate most of those foundations off the top of my head.

I've read the IPCC reports. I've read the emails and I know about the faulty data used in the hockey stick so come prepared if you want a debate.

ETF'srule I'll answer your question first when I get home.

Report this comment
#20) On June 09, 2010 at 10:11 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

ETFsRule,

I know I am not the person your last comment was meant for, but I am a amateur, yet accomplished, buttinski and think I may have a really short answer for the polar ice caps. From what I have read (can't remember exactly when, or where) that the sun is presently experiencing an unusually active phase, throwing out a bit more energy than normally recorded. This *phase* has been going on for a decade or more and could be the cause of some of the warming waters that are erroding the ice caps.

I have attached a few links below that you may find interesting, entertaining or infuriating on this subject.

Cato

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=551bfe58-882f-4889-ab76-5ce1e02dced7

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

 

 

 

Report this comment
#21) On June 09, 2010 at 10:25 AM, angusthermopylae (40.17) wrote:

I'll bite:

From the paper's (lawyerly-long) intro:

       To conclude that establishment global warming science is not an objective or unbiased assessment, but instead is an attempt to support the prior belief that human ghg emissions are causing global warming and that such emissions must be dramatically and quickly reduced, is not to say that the established view will ultimately be disconfirmed.

Possibly the best part of the introduction.  Johnson repeatedly uses loaded words like "establishment", "glossed-over", and "minimized."  However, he is an attorney--his entire premise is that, because AGW science is shaping laws, it should stand up to  the same legal scrutiny that every new expert must endure in the courtroom.  Think that ballistics test and DNA had it easy when they were first used in courts?

(I also tend to completely agree--I'm not against AGW as a complete fraud--I just believe that the current frenzied cries of "Save the Planet!" are pushing people to do stupid or shortisighted things).**

The rest of the paper boils down to 3 basic areas of lawyerly inquisition:

  1.  The lack of forthrightness by the IPCC and other AGW organizations about the uncertainty involved in their findings.  Basically, they aren't publicizing "We're only X% confident about this data."

  2.  The lack of observable prediction in the AGW models.  "Sure, the theory says this should happen, but we're seeing that."

  3.  The repeated assumption of certain possibly non-existent mechanisms in the AGW models.  (At the same time, ignoring other known-but-unaccounted-for mechanisms.)

So, to the merits of the paper...

Overall, Johnson does a good job of finding actual words, references, and articles that question the absolute "clear consensus" that is oft repeated by AGW supporters.  Some may argue "Well, he obviously has an agenda!", but if you must remember--he's an attorney.  His "agenda" is a well-established, time-honored, and necessary part of almost every legal system in existence.  Don't take things on faith--question it.  (And if you don't believe me, just look up the original use of the term "Devil's Advocate.")

Johnson doesn't say that AGW science is crap--what he does say is that AGW science is portrayed in an unrealistic and (for some) self-serving manner that ignores real scientific questions about how conclusions are reached and what (if any) policy decisions should be made based on that science.

As for those who would cry "But he's not a climate scientist!", I say "Duh!"  Most people aren't.  In fact, without really looking up the numbers, I am confident that 99.999% of the world's population is composed of non-climatologists...yet a good portion of those people assume that everyone must suspend their own judgement based on  what <0.001% of the world espouses.

Read the paper, folks.  It's worth the time and effort, even if you don't like his conclusions.

**BTW, as a computer science grad student, I'm finishing up my final project in Machine Learning, where we deal with modeling all the time.  From a ML point of view, the problem with AGW predictions is that they have no test data--or rather, it comes very very slowly (one day at a time).  Ask any ML professor--it's easy to model all your training data (past temperatures), but still come up with absolutely worthless predictions...especially if you do not have a complete understanding of what the hell is going on in the first place.

Report this comment
#22) On June 09, 2010 at 10:29 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

I've actually researched this topic, and I can debate most of those foundations off the top of my head.

I've read the IPCC reports. I've read the emails and I know about the faulty data used in the hockey stick so come prepared if you want a debate.

Chris, what credentials do you have to address the issue?  

I don't say this to be insulting, but your previous posts on science have shown an ignorance of a lot of the subjects you speak about authoratively.  I am by no means an expert of physics, biology, or climatology --- nor do I claim to be.  I think by trying to represent yourself as an 'expert', you are merely undermining your credibility. 

Could I refute a lot of your claims?  No.  But an actual climatologist would probably tear you apart.

Could I refute a lot of the claims of a quack doctor?  No.  But a top-notch, legitimate doctor could tear him apart. 

As a general rule, the people with the greatest credentials and expertise also happen to be the most knowledgeable.  This does not mean they are always right; but when 95%+ of those considered most knowledgeable say something is occuring, the odds very much suggest that it is occuring.  

 

Of the notable dissenters, Dr. Roy Spencer seems to be the most prominent, but he has conneections to the oil industry and has promoted junk sciences in the past.  Moreover, he has tended to be *VERY VERY WRONG* on a lot of issues --- including the recent BP oil spill, where his 'estimates' of the oil spilled seem to go against the claims of just about everyone else on the subject.  In other words, the guy's track record isn't exactly fantastic. 

Report this comment
#23) On June 09, 2010 at 10:53 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

As for those who would cry "But he's not a climate scientist!", I say "Duh!"  Most people aren't.  In fact, without really looking up the numbers, I am confident that 99.999% of the world's population is composed of non-climatologists...yet a good portion of those people assume that everyone must suspend their own judgement based on  what <0.001% of the world espouses.

No one says you have to 'suspend your judgment'.  But let's be realistic here --- no matter how much experience you have as an IT guy, it's really largely irrelevant to your ability to credibly discuss climatology.  This is not to say you might not have a great understanding of climatology, but seriously speaking, I've seen not a single person here who speaks authoritatively on the subject (e.g. David, Chris, others) show one iota of knowledge on the issue.  

All attacks here seem to be based on weak evidence taken out of context that require huge conspiracy theories (the East Anglia-email thing) - or - an attack on the computer models.  The former is uncredible to begin with.  The latter seems to miss the point.  

It's not as if there's one model of climate change out there and it's advertised as "perfect".  Computer models, by their nature, are flawed, but that does not mean they do not have any use.  Given that nearly all climate models produced by those with a high level of knowledge about climatology have suggested that climate change is occuring and that it is partially created by man-made processes ... well, that's a pretty high standard.  It's not a "fact", but there's a hell of a lot more evidence to support that view than there is to support the opposite view. 

Moreover, most people supporting the "opposite view" seem to shift back-and-forth on what they support (including Dr. Spencer, who can't seem to decide whether global warming is not occuring at all or whether it's merely not created by man-made processes).  This really calls into question credibility and suggests that their primary objective is to merely oppose the general scientific opinion on the matter. 

 

There's really only one obvious conclusion to me about the climate change denial movement --- is rooted in a distrust of science.  Which is a shame, because there are legitimate criticisms of climate change models out there (and proposed solutions) and they get drown out by all this ideological nonsense being spewed.  

Report this comment
#24) On June 09, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Turfscape (44.09) wrote:

Jakila wrote:
"There's nothing "ad hominem" about that.  He's an unreliable source in many ways."

Perhaps he is an unreliable source. Please show what is unreliable in the paper, though. If you can't, it's ad hominem. That's the definition of ad hominem.

If a paper was written about tax policies in the Clinton era, and it cited Al Gore...would it be fair to dismiss the entire paper because Al Gore once claimed to have created the information superhighway, therefore making him an unreliable source?

If an unreliable source says the sky is blue...it doesn't change the color of the sky. If there is bogus science in the paper, from Roy Spencer or anyone else, you should be able to point it out. You can't dismiss it by saying Roy Spencer is unreliable, therefore the whole paper is BS.

Report this comment
#25) On June 09, 2010 at 10:59 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

My credentials are nothing more than researching the topic enough to produce evidence of manipulated data.

May I ask your credentials to dispute the above paper?

I'm not presenting myself as an expert, but I can actually present evidence in a debate which most people debating for the other side can not.

Report this comment
#26) On June 09, 2010 at 11:02 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

And we all know that funding from the government is all sweetness and light.

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, but if anything, governmental pressures encourage climate scientists to understate their conclusions or reach alternative conclusions that suggest climate change is not occuring.  

The idea that some modern economies need to be radically restructured is not exactly an appealing thought to a politician, especially one who receives his/her campaign funds from the oil or coal industries.

There's really no benefit to this from a politicians' self-interest perspective.  From their perspecitve, climate change requires (a) educating the public, (b) pissing off a political donor, and (c) potentially making extremely unpopular decisions.  None of those are attractive options.

 

If anything, government is helping create this mess with huge subsidies to the oil industry, high inner-city taxes, highway/road subsidies from general revenue sources, etc.  So your idea that you should be skeptical of the government is correct --- but you seem to miss the mark on what the government is supporting.  

Report this comment
#27) On June 09, 2010 at 11:09 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

If a paper was written about tax policies in the Clinton era, and it cited Al Gore...would it be fair to dismiss the entire paper because Al Gore once claimed to have created the information superhighway, therefore making him an unreliable source?

(A) Al Gore didn't claim to create the Internet.  That's a myth.  

(B) If the paper were based on a study about the effects of tax policies conducted by Al Gore and that study's validity was extremely questionable, then yes.  If the paper merely contained a quote by Al Gore on tax policy, then no. 

If an unreliable source says the sky is blue...it doesn't change the color of the sky. If there is bogus science in the paper, from Roy Spencer or anyone else, you should be able to point it out. You can't dismiss it by saying Roy Spencer is unreliable, therefore the whole paper is BS.

The entire idea about the paper is to gather skepticisms from various scientific sources about climate change.  In a mere 8 pages, it had already cited a highly questionable source.  This does not disprove the paper's conclusions --- but it should lead one to conclude that the paper is not worth their time unless it contains something more substantial. 

The idea that one is obligated to read every piece of junk science they come across is simply a bogus idea.  This guy has made a career questioning climate change and he's put forward not one unique argument; nor are his ideas subject to scientific scrutiny/peer review, so there's little reason to bother them, unless one has a specific agenda and this paper just happens to fit in with that agenda. 

Report this comment
#28) On June 09, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Turfscape (44.09) wrote:

Jakila wrote:
"(A) Al Gore didn't claim to create the Internet.  That's a myth.  "

Yeah...that's why I didn't say that. But, you've shown you like to respond prior to reading, so no surprise there.

Report this comment
#29) On June 09, 2010 at 11:36 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

My credentials are nothing more than researching the topic enough to produce evidence of manipulated data.

What do you know about climate models?  Do you understand the modeling used to predict hurricanes?  Do you have an advanced understanding of climate science?  Has your work been peer reviewed by other scientists?  Do you have a model that is superior to the model of other climate scientists? Can you honestly assert (with a straight face) that your understanding of climatology and the scientific method is anyone on par with any people on this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

Supporters of Intelligent Design use the exact same tactics that you are using right now.  They say they deserve 'fair recognition', but seem to ignore the intense scrutiny and skepticism inherent in the scientific process.  It is not "perfect" and people are, of course, wrong at times.  But to suggest that someone who has never had his opinions peer reviewed by other experts in the subject matter should be considered a viable source is simply bogus.

 

If I told you that I'm not a doctor, but I can operate on your heart, would you trust me?  It's true that someone who has a M.D. and went to one of the best medical schools in the country might have shortcomings in their knowledge, but you'd certainly be more willing to trust them, then you would me (or any other non-doctor).  And you'd be right in doing so.

I'm not saying climate scientists' views are infallible.  I am saying that the group of people here on TMF challenging these views based on their own made-up science is a bit dubious.  I can spot holes in it from a mile away and my scientific training is minimal (college-level Biology, Astronomy, and Physics in the past decade).  

 

May I ask your credentials to dispute the above paper?

I haven't 'disputed it.'  I've merely questioned its usefulness and suggested that a brief glance at it suggests that it recycles bogus arguments and presents them as some sort of much needed "skepticism" that is missing.  The paper's role is to fulfill an ideological agenda; not to make an legimitate criticism of climate change models.  

 

I'm not presenting myself as an expert, but I can actually present evidence in a debate which most people debating for the other side can not.

So can I.  So can anyone.  But when we're talking about a highly technical area of specialized knowledge, there's really no reason to debate with people who have very little knowledge on that subject matter.  Realistically speaking, we're all a bit dependent on the understanding of these issues provided by experts --- that's how our economy and society is structured. 

We could debate one another on what the appropriate course of action would be for a certain heart transplant patient given their particular predictament, but the argument would inevitably be completely idiotic since both of us would be talking out of our a@#es! A doctor would have better specialized knowledge on these issues, and unless his views were challenged by a lot of other doctors, we'd probably be better off to defer to him. 

The difference here is that I'm not claiming to have some advance knowledge of climatology, whereas nearly all climate change deniers seem to imply that they have this (in spite of never even paying basic creedance to the scientific process).  Yet, I can see major holes in their views and I'm amateur at best. 

None of this would be even worth noting (bogus economic theories pass through on TMF every day, after all), but it's such an obsession here, that it becomes taxing.  

If you have advanced knowledge in climatology, you should consider going to school for several years, getting the appropriate degrees, and then conducted peer-reviewed research that will be published in scientific journals.  Otherwise, those views are going to be considered unreliable, just as a random bum off the street's views on heart transplants will be. 

Report this comment
#30) On June 09, 2010 at 11:37 AM, tfirst (27.51) wrote:

 I get so angry at you people that only use select scientific evidence to prove your points. I think the real debate should be if this warming is caused by man's activities, are we also causing the global warming that is taking place on Mars and Venus? You people overlook the sunspot cycles of the Sun, of which we are going into a period of more sunspot activity which causes global cooling. Also the volcano in Iceland is going to contribute more to the cooling of the Earth. If the heat is not reflected off the suface of the Earth back into the atmosphere, it is not a greenhouse effect. I think you'll see a significantly colder winter this year in Europe. The real effect of this cycle is going to be the fact that companies that own satelites face the risk of their satelites being destroyed by solar radiation. What are you going to do without your cellphone or internet, or sat tv. How am I supposed to listen to advice from you people concerning stock investing, when you guys don't even understand how the basic scientific theory of surface area works? 

I think you ought to be more concerned with what is going on with the HAARP project. This has the potential to make man extinct a lot quicker than global warming.

Basically this global warming scam is just another attempt of some group trying to socialize this country. They want to control you from cradle to grave. And the only way to do that is to control the money.

Don't bother replying to this, because most of you don't have any scientific credibility in my eyes. Just go collect your unemployment,  food stamps and free health care, and do exactly what they tell you. Independant thought and creativity have no place in today's society. Do as your told Dammit!

Report this comment
#31) On June 09, 2010 at 11:44 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

tfirst, yes sir!

Report this comment
#32) On June 09, 2010 at 12:16 PM, angusthermopylae (40.17) wrote:

From Jakila

But let's be realistic here --- no matter how much experience you have as an IT guy, it's really largely irrelevant to your ability to credibly discuss climatology. ...I've seen not a single person here who speaks authoritatively on the subject (e.g. David, Chris, others) show one iota of knowledge on the issue.

Not just an IT guy--aerospace engineer, military pilot, private investigator, amateur blacksmith, part-time teacher, and farmer--as well as current IT guy.  None of which have anything directly to do with climate science, but have a lot to do with a) understanding the fundamentals of scientific research, and b) being wary of the unforeseen outcomes of policy decisions and legal inquiry.

Which is my point (again):  Anything espoused by experts, be it economic forecasts, political calculus, military planning, or laws and regulation, should stand up to the scrutiny of laymen.  After all, it's the unwashed masses who have to live with those decisions.

Report this comment
#33) On June 09, 2010 at 12:19 PM, davejh23 (< 20) wrote:

"How do you explain the fact that the polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate?"

The antarctic ice cap volume is actually at an all time recorded high. 

"b) his support for Intelligent Design, which violates the scientific method in every way imaginable."

There are plenty of scientific theories that are unverifiable, but are widely accepted by the scientific community.  You could just as easly discredit EVERY scientist that supports ANY scientific theory.  A theory, by definition, hasn't been verified.  Global warming, and the causes of it, are still just a theory.

Report this comment
#34) On June 09, 2010 at 12:25 PM, davejh23 (< 20) wrote:

"This does not mean they are always right; but when 95%+ of those considered most knowledgeable say something is occuring, the odds very much suggest that it is occuring."

Where do you pull this 95% from?  It's made up.  Thousands of scientists have attested that they cannot confirm evidence of man-made global warming.  Show me a survey where every climate scientist on the planet was questioned and 95% of them state that man-made global warming is a scientific fact.  If you can't, I've just discredited everything you've ever said...

Report this comment
#35) On June 09, 2010 at 12:47 PM, davejh23 (< 20) wrote:

"Can you honestly assert (with a straight face) that your understanding of climatology and the scientific method is anyone on par with any people on this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists"

How can you trust wikipedia?  Maybe these names are all made up.  I've contributed to wikipedia before and I'm not considered one of the most knowledgeable scientists in the world.  Again, I've discredited everything you've ever said.

Report this comment
#36) On June 09, 2010 at 12:55 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

"The antarctic ice cap volume is actually at an all time recorded high.  "

So? The global ice cap volume is clearly decreasing.

Cato: I will reply to your links as soon as I have more time.

Report this comment
#37) On June 09, 2010 at 12:56 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

@JakilaTheHun

You can pick any basic foundation that you wish of Climate theory. I'll show you a flaw in that foundation.

You don't have to be an expert to see that the scientific process was violated.

You don't have to be an expert to see that data was manipulated.

You don't have to be an expert to see that reports were contrived and misleading.

When you spend a little time and look at the rampant corruption in the process, you would be less likely to follow your advice that people should just shut up, not question, and blindy follow the experts that happen to be after our money.

 

 

Report this comment
#38) On June 09, 2010 at 1:04 PM, smartmuffin (< 20) wrote:

As usual, the leftists line up to discourage independent thought and discredit anyone who isn't part of the intellectual elite.  Trust the experts, they know what's best for us!

Report this comment
#39) On June 09, 2010 at 1:13 PM, USNHR (32.10) wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Report this comment
#40) On June 09, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Turfscape (44.09) wrote:

smartmuffin wrote:
"As usual, the leftists line up to discourage independent thought and discredit anyone who isn't part of the intellectual elite.  Trust the experts, they know what's best for us!"

Sorry, are you referring to those trying to discredit the AGW position? Or the folks who support the AGW position?

Or were you simply hoping that your baseless, hyper-partisan remark would somehow convince everyone that you are oh-so-smart and therefore above reproach in all fashionss?

Report this comment
#41) On June 09, 2010 at 1:56 PM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

 Where do you pull this 95% from?  It's made up.  Thousands of scientists have attested that they cannot confirm evidence of man-made global warming.  Show me a survey where every climate scientist on the planet was questioned and 95% of them state that man-made global warming is a scientific fact.  If you can't, I've just discredited everything you've ever said...

Here's something you might not know about surveys.  They are conducted based on a process called "random sampling."  There are statistical models used to guide this process.  There is no survey where every member of a population will be asked questions because such a survey is not actually possible, except with small populations.  Moreover, it would defeat the purpose of a survey.  

Really, if you don't even understand the methodology behind around population sampling and elementary statistics, then you don't understand anything at all about climate change.   

In any case, here something on the very subject:

 http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

76/79 = 96.2%

This is more than 95%.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Notice that there are only three people on that list that have supported the view that 'climate change is not occuring.'  (one is a "coal chemist", the other a geologist).  The rest can be broken up as follows:

(a) challenge some of the more extreme models,

(b) believe that global warming is occuring, but due to the flawed nature of the models, it's difficult to reliably make predictions based on this,

(c) global warming is occuring, but negative affects are overstated, 

(d) the cause of global warming is unknown, and 

(e) global warming caused by natural processes. 


(a) and (c) are not all that radical of departure from the scientific consensus and could even be a 'minority viewpoint' amongst the scientific consensus.  (b) is a pretty reasonable argument, but it hardly disproves climate change, (d) is essentially a statement that we don't have enough evidence to cite a cause, which isn't really that far out of the mainstream.  However, those with this view agree that climate change is occuring. 

Only (e) falls in line with any of the views regularly espoused by people here at TMF (other than the 'climate change is not occuring' crowd).  Notice that (e) is mostly mathematician, geologists, and people who don't actually study climatology.  

 

Really, this is neither here nor there.  My point is that all the so called 'climate change skeptics' here seem to fall in with an extreme minority of scientists; and their views appear to coincide with their own ideological anti-government view.  They are all hostile to any criticism whatsoever of their dogmatic assertions that hundreds of scientists who actually study this phenomenon are all wrong and they are right.  

All the climate change "skeptics" here desperately search for any and every piece of evidence to refute the general views of climatologists on the subject.  

 

 When you spend a little time and look at the rampant corruption in the process, you would be less likely to follow your advice that people should just shut up, not question, and blindy follow the experts that happen to be after our money.

B.S.

The "rampant corruption" is largely a fabrication that seems to be supported by people with certain ideological views who have been trying desperately to discredit it for years, because they believe it threatens their own anti-government views.  

 

 Which is my point (again):  Anything espoused by experts, be it economic forecasts, political calculus, military planning, or laws and regulation, should stand up to the scrutiny of laymen.  After all, it's the unwashed masses who have to live with those decisions.

None of the "laymen" here or anywhere else are publishing detailed research on the issue that is peer reviewed by other climate scientists.  Hence, "laymen" are not subject to any scrutiny.  Moreover, you assume that these views haven't been challenged and largely repudiated.  

 

This whole "controversy" is largely manifactured.  There is very little "controversy" as to whether climate change is occuring.  About the only real dissent in scientific circles is on the details such as, which models are most accurate, how much of climate change is caused by human activities, etc.  

I see nothing but faux-skepticism. 

Report this comment
#42) On June 09, 2010 at 2:33 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

This whole "controversy" is largely manifactured.  There is very little "controversy" as to whether climate change is occuring.  About the only real dissent in scientific circles is on the details such as, which models are most accurate, how much of climate change is caused by human activities, etc.  

You really want to go there?

The IPCC itself has a ton of dissent.

 

Report this comment
#43) On June 09, 2010 at 3:42 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

"I think the real debate should be if this warming is caused by man's activities, are we also causing the global warming that is taking place on Mars and Venus?"

Ok, you and Cato have gotten my attention. Let's approach this theory with a little due diligence:

1. Can you present us with some climate change data from Mars, Venus, Earth, Mercury, and the rest of the planets in the solar system, and show that they all exhibited warming throughout the same period of time? Please be as detailed as possible.

For instance, one of Cato's articles mentioned the melting of some ice caps on Mars as evidence of global warming on that planet. However, this was only on one hemisphere of Mars - and as we know, climate changes in one hemisphere are not necessarily consistant with climate changes on the entire planet. So, it is important to also review the data from the other hemisphere of Mars, over the same period of time.

Also, no timeline was presented, so there is no way to draw a conclusion from this "evidence". When exactly did these Martian ice caps melt? How long did it take for them to melt?

Can you prove with 100% certainty that this event coincides with similar changes in climate throughout the entire solar system?

2. Assuming that this climate change is consistant throughout the solar system, can you prove that it coincides with the "sunspot cycles" that you have alluded to?

If you're going to be skeptical about the greenhouse gas explanation for climate change... I hope you are prepared to defend your own theory against a similar level of scrutiny :-)

Report this comment
#44) On June 09, 2010 at 4:09 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

I listen to a doctor about health matters. I listen to an auto mechanic on car issues. I listen to climate scientists on climate issues. PERIOD. The consensus is overwhelmingly in one direction and until that consensus changes, I'll stick with that. This ridiculous debate is pointless. The fact of the matter is, energy efficiency is a virtue no matter what. The threat of climate change is just one reason why we should be energy efficient and abandon fossil fuel based energy.

Report this comment
#45) On June 09, 2010 at 5:11 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

I get a second opinion when a doctor wants to prescribe meds or cut me open, and I tell the mechanic that tells me that I need to replace the winter air in my tires with summer air, to shove it up his ass.

Some people liked to be screwed. Some people like to be sheep. I'm not either of those people.

To each their own.

Report this comment
#46) On June 09, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Turfscape (44.09) wrote:

BetapegLLC wrote:
"I listen to a doctor about health matters. I listen to an auto mechanic on car issues."

But do you ask a barber if you need a haircut?

Report this comment
#47) On June 09, 2010 at 6:02 PM, angusthermopylae (40.17) wrote:

I've known too many doctors to automatically trust them, and I work on my own cars...

As for haircuts, my wife tells me when to cut it, then she does the cutting.  Hmmm....

Report this comment
#48) On June 09, 2010 at 6:13 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

To all 3 of you...

When the vast majority of doctors are saying the same thing, I think I'll defer to them. If you want to play the 'I am my own expert' card, especially regarding climate change, be my guest. I guess that makes me a "sheep" for deferring to the experts, huh?

Report this comment
#49) On June 09, 2010 at 6:44 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Since everyone is posting that all the climatologists agre and we are idiots for doubting, I'd like to post a few links...

 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

 http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

BTW, Lindzen has not only fantastic credentials but is very good at explaining things at the level of the layman. I suggest you do a search on youtube.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm

 http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/Misreprestn_Views/IPCC/ResignationAllegations.htm

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/ipcc-correspondence.pdf

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20100205/india-ipcc-un-climate-change-global-warming.htm

This whole site is maintained by a guy that resigned from the IPCC

I've got a whole lot more links if you want. All of these guys are considered climate experts as well. At least the IPCC thought they were climate experts. 

You said that I need to blindly follow the experts. Which ones should I follow?

Report this comment
#50) On June 09, 2010 at 6:50 PM, angusthermopylae (40.17) wrote:

I guess that makes me a "sheep" for deferring to the experts, huh?

Not necessarily...but when you play the "listen to the experts" card, then you open yourself to lots and lots of counter examples.

Maybe it all just boils down to a way of thinking--and I'm not categorizig as "sheep" and "non-sheep."  For example, I pretty much automatically look at any news, good or bad, with a sizeable dose of skepticism.  Hussein and Al-Qaeda are buddies?  Never made sense.  BP can handle the Gulf spill?  Of course they would say that.  Economy going strong?  Lots of indicators otherwise.  Economic collapse?  People usually find a way to make things work.

Who benefits from AGW news?  Pro-AGW officials get to ride the wave of popular opinion.  Pro-AGW researchers get more funding.  News organizations get to be "taken seriously" on a serious issue.  Politicos get behind opinions that get them re-elected.  Government officials get bigger budgets if they can show that AGW is part of their bailiwick.

To be fair, the same goes for anti-AGW types:  Energy companies heavy into fossil fuels fund anti-AGW studies...and push any results.  If AGW is proved to the point of actual uncertainty, then large areas of Texas, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania are going to collapse.  Political types from those areas also  get behind opinions that get them re-elected.

The biggest thing that gets my goat with pro-AGW argument is the monolithic "if you're not for us, you're against us" approach.  As far as I have been able to tell from news, research papers (yes, I read these), and editorials, to show even the slightest questioning of the "clear consensus" automatically puts you in the "drill, baby, drill" camp.

That attitude worked well for Joe McCarthy, the Spanish Inquisition (as expected!), the Crusades, Puritan villages in New England, and Karl Rove.  However, since I would rather align myself with none of those, I'll keep on   asking questions.

Take that for what you will...

Report this comment
#51) On June 09, 2010 at 6:58 PM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

You really want to go there?

Yes. 

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf


Almost all the major "dissenters" are not climate scientists and, instead, are industry geologists.  Big surprise that people whose economic livelihood is dependent on the oil or coal industries would be climate change "skeptics" given that their industries are under the most scrutiny. 

But once again, this has little to do with government, because the private sector is pushing against those industries as well.  

 

The IPCC itself has a ton of dissent.

You are mistaking "dissent" for "disagrees with the idea that climate change is occuring."  Climate scientists have differing views on (a) the severity and rapidity of global warming and (b) how much man-created activity has contributed to it.  There is virtually no disagreement that climate change is occuring and the vast majority of scientists believe human activity is contributing to it on some level. 

Report this comment
#52) On June 09, 2010 at 7:08 PM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

When the vast majority of doctors are saying the same thing, I think I'll defer to them. If you want to play the 'I am my own expert' card, especially regarding climate change, be my guest. I guess that makes me a "sheep" for deferring to the experts, huh?

 

We must be real suckers, Betapeg.  

I'll admit that I'm stupid enough so that if a doctor told me I had a cancerous tumor and needed to have surgery to have it removed --- and three other doctors said the same thing --- I would probably have the surgery. 

How naive I would be.  I should have realized that the doctors are indirectly funded by the big, bad gub'mint, and that there are other self-annointed doctors who have differing views.  Some might even say natural herbs would cure me.  And think --- those herbs cost a fraction of what sophistical medical procedures might cost me!  

A real sucker I be.  

Report this comment
#53) On June 09, 2010 at 7:26 PM, angusthermopylae (40.17) wrote:

This ridiculous debate is pointless.

And yet we all continue...

The fact of the matter is, energy efficiency is a virtue no matter what. The threat of climate change is just one reason why we should be energy efficient and abandon fossil fuel based energy.

Hear, hear!  I completely agree with those statements.  Yes, energy efficiency is a virtue in its own right--better efficiency = better usage of resources = better standard of living for everyone.

And the threat of global warming is just one reason for energy efficiency.  Not necessarily the largest, strongest, or even clearest reason, but a reason nonetheless.  But instead of saying (yes, hyperbole here) "We're all going to drown/freeze/burn/starve because of anthropogenic global warming!", how about a few simpler reasons:

--National security:  While the country remains dependent upon far away sources of energy, our entire country is held hostage to a logistic Sword of Damocles...and some people who really don't like us very much are holding a pair of scissors.

--Economics:  Higher efficiency means less resources devoted to digging for, purifying, and transporting fossil fuels.  Those resources can go to other things...like food, water, iPhones...

--Politics:  Those with the rice bowls will distort government to their own ends (note that this is not one-sided).  Remove a major rice bowl, and you've removed a source of political distortion...perhaps even making government a little more fair (not holding my breath, though)

--Species survival:  Some day, some when, fossil fuels will probably run out.  It really doesn't matter if it's next month, next century, or next millenia.  If it happens before the human race is ready, lots of regular folk are going to suffer miserably and die when they don't have to.

--Social equity:  Energy production and distribution pretty much trump everything.  As long as access is controlled by a few (companies, countries, whatever), then there are haves and have-nots...and haves always get more.  But if [insert your favorite sci-fi tech here] becomes a reality, then cheap energy levels the playing field.

All of these reasons together are enough to push for using something other than fossil fuels...and none of them require an attitude of "you're killing the planet."

AGW is pretty far down the list among my own concerns.  There are plenty of ways for people to kill, control, or steal from each other without a Righteous Crusade to justify it.  While I don't believe in a global AGW conspiracy, I do believe in the ability of individuals to push their own beliefs while not really understanding them themselves.

Report this comment
#54) On June 09, 2010 at 8:30 PM, awallejr (79.37) wrote:

It is beyond contestation that global warming is occurring.  It has been doing that for thousands and thousand of years.  14,000 years ago NYC was under a mile high sheet of ice.  Nice little link here:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CEAQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.esd.ornl.gov%2Fprojects%2Fqen%2Fnerc130k.html&ei=dyUQTJP6EML88AbxgriVBQ&usg=AFQjCNGTuqCQ51moYKP8E5WWE8GO6OXfMw

I do submit that mankind has thrived as a species BECAUSE of global warming, but that isn't the real issue.  What is being debated is the science of projection models. Personally I think it is presumptuous to think that mankind can actually control the weather.  Yosemite explodes and we are facing a drastically dangerous scenario.  Throw all those projection models out the window in that event.

I submit, however, that the use of "global warming" is really a disingenuous attempt to  force addressing pollution issues, not climate issues.  Shouting do X to stop pollution gets a different reaction than shouting do X or we all die from global warming.  I am all for pollution control.  I am, however, concerned that pushing a "climate control" bill while the economy is still trying to recover from one of the worse recessions in history might not be wise.  And in the end this thread really is about Cap-and-Trade.

Report this comment
#55) On June 09, 2010 at 8:45 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

You are mistaking "dissent" for "disagrees with the idea that climate change is occuring."  Climate scientists have differing views on (a) the severity and rapidity of global warming and (b) how much man-created activity has contributed to it.  There is virtually no disagreement that climate change is occuring and the vast majority of scientists believe human activity is contributing to it on some level.  

click on the links in #49 and actually read the articles.

If you are saying that they are in agreement then I must also be in agreement and you must be in disagreement. Because a couple of the statements that you are arguing about above I got from them.

Ok, so now you guys are saying that a whole team of doctors say to cut off BetaPeg's arm so he does it. How would you feel the next day when you read the paper and find out doctors are doing unnecessary operations in cancer cases because they fear lawsuits because the liberals are bought by trial lawyers and won't allow tort reform.

How would you feel about that small minority of doctors that said it wasn't necessary that were ignored.

They are the experts after all.

After all physics would be much better off if it weren't for that stupid patent clerk named Einstein. I believe he flunked Physics, didn't he?

You know I might get the operation if the doctor told me to as well, but un-like you, I'm going to do a little research on the topic and consult more than one source.

I'm not going to do my best "Goofy" impression and sweep one foot side to side, wring my hands and say "We'll garsh! Your the doc! Go ahead and cut it out!"

Keep up the "Everyone agrees that is smart, and the rest that do not are idiots" routine and you may find that you lose more followers than you gain. 

 

 

Report this comment
#56) On June 09, 2010 at 8:51 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

The fact of the matter is, energy efficiency is a virtue no matter what.

I totally agree that we should pursue energy efficiency, but it has nothing to do with climate change. 

Report this comment
#57) On June 09, 2010 at 10:43 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

ChrisGraley,

You said that I need to blindly follow the experts. Which ones should I follow?

I never said blindly follow the experts, but when most of them are saying one thing, that one thing tends to be correct. I readily admit I'm not a climate scientist, so I readily defer to the consensus of the experts. I know there are dissenting opinions and I have watched a documentary on just that. I have two opposing views I can subscribe to and I have just chosen to agree with the majority consensus, after, already reviewing the dissent. I've done my critical thinking and I've made my choice as to what to believe just as you have. You're not changing mine and I'm not changing yours. So we can end on the, "The fact of the matter is, energy efficiency is a virtue no matter what." and leave it at that.

Report this comment
#58) On June 09, 2010 at 10:48 PM, RainierMan (76.72) wrote:

Oh the irony.

He's criticizing the scientific method applied, but putting this in a research paper that, as far as I can tell, isn't even published in a scientific, peer reviewed journal. As you must know, it is standard practice to publish in sources where what you are publishing gets reviewed.

Worse, he put it on a social science oriented website. This guy is a law professor. 

I see we're lowering the bar considerable--again--for those occasions where the argument just happens to fit our own political bias.

Anyway, continue with your serious scientific discussion among the completely unqualified. 

 

 

Report this comment
#59) On June 09, 2010 at 11:09 PM, ozzfan1317 (82.83) wrote:

I havent read through the discussions but they look fascinating i will be back in the morning ive always enjoyed a good debate:)

Report this comment
#60) On June 09, 2010 at 11:16 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Ranierman, Did you read the paper and have something you can rebuff or are you another drama queen in the conga line?

Report this comment
#61) On June 09, 2010 at 11:59 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Beta the only people that are telling you that most of them are saying one thing are your own party. If you do just a little bit of research, a few of those same people are now saying the opposite. A few other people are reporting a cover-up and political agenda. A few more are reporting abuses by those in charge.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm pretty much a party of one in all my beliefs anyway. I'm not planning to run for office. I don't want a following. But I did invite any of the people that disagree here to provide a basic fundamental premise of climate theory that is solid and indisputable. There are actually 2 things that you could post in response that I couldn't dispute. All the people that are against my opinion will not post either one of those things because they are not popular in your group and actually lead to a paradox.

I was actually expecting someone to step up though. There are a lot of things posted in your group that are considered fact. I was expecting a sheep or two to throw out the dogma that they have now memorized.

I still agree that energy efficiency is extremely important! I will definitely agree with you there. I actually think it's critical for our economy. I vary in that I think that it should be an investment from our government and not a revenue stream. but if you want to find middle ground that's your spot.

Beta, investment wise I follow you a lot. I have a lot of respect in your investment decisions and think that you are a decent person, but when I threw out the "name 1 solid thing and I'll respond" post, I was expecting you to be the first to line up. Seriously, if you can't find solid ground, you need to research more. If you can and don't want to, you need to evaluate your support.

I'll meet in the middle if you want to hash it out. If you want to argue, I'll be there. You have to bring something other than everyone should worship climatologists though. The conservatives have already failed with the worship without thought thing. It doesn't matter what the side is, I'm not going to surrender thought.

Report this comment
#62) On June 10, 2010 at 12:26 AM, awallejr (79.37) wrote:

But I did invite any of the people that disagree here to provide a basic fundamental premise of climate theory that is solid and indisputable.

This is an impossiblity.  Climatology is much about speculation and prediction than an exact science.  That is what the underlying "cross examination" was establishing.  When cross-examining you first attack the underlying science.  Breathalizer tests or radar guns were initially disallowed at trials until the underlying science became incontrovertible.  The next step was to cross-exam the mechanics during specific instances (to wit: were the machines working properly).

Climatology is not and can never be incontrovertible since there is always the possibllity of an intervening event (solar flares, volcanic activity, asteroid impacts, orbit shifting, etc) that could change projections.  Also causation and correlation are not the same.

This IS about Cap-and-Trade.  That is what the author was really driving at:

Because the Cap-n-Trade scam is rearing its ugly head again.  Decarbonizing the American economy based on not-science is foolish.

But in the end it boils down to the "good news" "bad news" theme.  The goods news is we stop global warming, the bad news is we started a new ice age.

 

Report this comment
#63) On June 10, 2010 at 12:33 AM, RainierMan (76.72) wrote:

Graley: are you like 5 years old or did you forget to break the pill in half? 

Report this comment
#64) On June 10, 2010 at 1:33 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Rainerman, I'll bet you a dollar that I'm older than you are based on your 2 half witted responses.

I'll bet another dollar that you don't know what the word climate means.

I'll bet a 3rd dollar that you can't go without  saying the word "dude" for 72 hours. 

I'll bet a 4th dollar that you don't understand how stupid that you looked in your first 2 posts.

Are you a betting man? 

Report this comment
#65) On June 10, 2010 at 1:43 AM, awallejr (79.37) wrote:

Bah Chris you got sidetracked by Rainierman's ad hominem attack.  I hate wasting time on pithy replies that are ignored ;p

Report this comment
#66) On June 10, 2010 at 2:02 AM, 1315623493 wrote:

ChrisGraley,

I honestly don't want to get into the nitty gritty details of climate science, as I've made up my mind already. I didn't post anything because I see this descending into a link throwing contest where we each find links that agree with our point of view, but really, we get nowhere. But I'll give it a shot. So I am on the University of Texas (I'm currently majoring in financial analysis) research database, where I have access to a myriad of peer-reviewed research journals for students to use while writing papers, etc. 

I found this excellent peer-reviewed academic article from the World Policy Journal. Enjoy :-)

THE REALITIES OF GLOBAL WARMING

http://betapeg.com/TheRealityofGlobalWarming.pdf 

Report this comment
#67) On June 10, 2010 at 2:06 AM, 1315623493 wrote:

Here is your consensus...from the peer-reviewed academic article <--- because I can't stress it enough  The panel’s first working group dealt with the physical science, the second with impacts and adaptation, and the third with mitigation. The summary for policy makers, the most political of thousands of pages, puts together the fruits of a ten-year study and the collective conclusions of some 2,000 scientists worldwide. With its publication in Valencia on November 17, years of obfuscation and denial concerning climate change effectively came to an end. By December, in Bali, where the road map agreement was reached—despite continued foot dragging by the United States and some other governments—most agreed that, in the longer term, climate change was a bigger threat to prosperity and security than almost any other that our world faces.

Report this comment
#68) On June 10, 2010 at 8:25 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

I love the fact that NO ONE here,

not JakilatheHun

not Betapeg

not any Climate Change supporter

has addressed a single point in the paper.  

And yet, I didn't even address this post to them, but they felt so unbelievably insecure about their religious belief in global warming that they had to come on a post and argue irrelevant nonsense.

Unreal. You guys are religious fanatics.

Now, I have made many posts on global warming. ChrisGraley has broken down the not-science of AGW a number of times in his posts.  You religious freaks?  Nothing.  Blindly accept...

peer review

peer review

peer review

(and I bet you never read the ClimateGate emails that discussed how peer review was conducted.)

You're a bunch of mindless losers.

Get off my post so we can discuss the merits of the paper.

PAPER

MERITS

OR P*SS OFF YOU MINDLESS LOSERS

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#69) On June 10, 2010 at 8:35 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

That's not an excellent peer reviewed academic article.

It's a political advertisement.

Objective non-biased articles don't have headlines like "An Apocolypse Grimly Seen"

If you only want to hear one side of the story, that's all your ever gonna hear.

 

Report this comment
#70) On June 10, 2010 at 9:14 AM, RainierMan (76.72) wrote:

Graley: Are done with your emotional meltdown now? The fact that you "know" so much about me is exactly how you approach this debate; you are so sure but know nothing.

You're same dim wit that uses articles from Rupert Murdock political rags to paste up on this website to present your earth shattering new facts about climate change. Murdoch?! And you want a rousing debate about the facts. You wouldn't know a fact if it walked up an wiped the foam from your pie hole.

I really don't have time for you guys other than to poke you in eye just to watch you get p.o.'ed. 

Report this comment
#71) On June 10, 2010 at 10:08 AM, JakilaTheHun (99.94) wrote:

You're a bunch of mindless losers.

You're a class act, kiddo. 

I'll admit I like Graley, because I see him as honest and cordial; even if I disagree vehemently with him on issues like this.  I've never seen the same demeanor from you.  

 

peer review

You don't seem to understand the concept of "peer review."  

Posting a bunch of conspiracy theories on a TMF blog and then angrily insulting anyone who disagrees with you --- not peer review.

Conducting detailed research, creating models, testing your models, testing assumptions, collaborating with other scientists to refine and improve your models, publishing your results in academic journals, having your research and work subjected to scrutiny by hundreds of other scientists, then going back and refining your model some more to make it more accurate --- that's peer review. 

 

Is every scientific paper that is peer reviewed 100% correct?  No.  

Is scientific work that has been studied, research, and tested by hundreds of scientists, who have all reached similar conclusions, and have had their conclusions scruintized by hundreds more of scientists with significant knowledge in the subject matter 100% accurate?  No. 

But it sure as hell is more accurate then a bunch of people with virtually no grounding in science, climatology, or biology postulating outlandish conspiracy theories because they (inaccurately) perceive a scientific model as a threat to their own ideology.  

Report this comment
#72) On June 10, 2010 at 10:42 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Sorry Dave things seem to be breaking down in this thread. I've read the paper, (unlike just about everyone else above) and the author has a lot of good points.

I especially likes how he points out the failure of Tropospheric measurments to support the climate model. (Which is kinda like crucial to their case)

Don't be afraid of people arguing only because of their ideology and then blaming you for doing the same.

They didn't read the paper.

They don't intend to read the paper.

They wouldn't understand it if they did read it.

They are just gonna keep towing the party line.

It doesn't matter if you put up a rebuttal to every premise that they put out. They are still gonna cling to the "All the experts agree!" line even after you point out that they don't all agree. They'll call the experts that don't agree crackpots. You'll point out that a few of those crackpots actually worked for the IPCC and then they'll say that those guys actually do agree to a point.

It's a losing battle because these guys don't ever want to change their mind. Their need for belonging out-weighs being open to reasonable thought.

Report this comment
#73) On June 10, 2010 at 11:13 AM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

Chris, you never answered my question. It seems that you are so busy trying to be clever, trying to outsmart the experts, and trying to find procedural errors in their scientific methods... that you have lost sight of the big picture.

If the "standard" explanation is wrong, then how do you explain the fact that the ice caps are melting?

Report this comment
#74) On June 10, 2010 at 11:21 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Sorry ETFs, I did forget about you. The short answer is don't confuse weather with climate. If you'd like a longer answer, I can provide one.

Report this comment
#75) On June 10, 2010 at 12:04 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

I don't think I'm confusing anything.

What is causing the ice caps to melt?

Report this comment
#76) On June 10, 2010 at 12:29 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Heat, but that doesn't mean that the heat will be sticking around.

Report this comment
#77) On June 10, 2010 at 12:56 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

ChrisGraley, 

That's not an excellent peer reviewed academic article. It's a political advertisement. Objective non-biased articles don't have headlines like "An Apocolypse Grimly Seen"

It's from an academic journal...I will accept "The summary for policy makers, the most political of thousands of pages, puts together the fruits of a ten-year study and the collective conclusions of some 2,000 scientists worldwide." over a dissenting law professor (not even a climate scientist), any day. If the conclusions these scientists are reaching are so dire, why would they not try to influence policy makers to avoid it? What other motive do they have? Is there some conspiracy by the science community to destroy the industrial world? What is it?

If you only want to hear one side of the story, that's all your ever gonna hear.

Remember when I said, "I didn't post anything because I see this descending into a link throwing contest where we each find links that agree with our point of view, but really, we get nowhere." It's not like you're not posting links that you've found agrees with your preconceived point of view. 

Report this comment
#78) On June 10, 2010 at 1:04 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

David in Qatar,

I love the fact that NO ONE here,not JakilatheHun not Betapeg not any Climate Change supporter has addressed a single point in the paper. And yet, I didn't even address this post to them, but they felt so unbelievably insecure about their religious belief in global warming that they had to come on a post and argue irrelevant nonsense. Unreal. You guys are religious fanatics.Now, I have made many posts on global warming. ChrisGraley has broken down the not-science of AGW a number of times in his posts.  You religious freaks?  Nothing.  Blindly accept...peer reviewpeer reviewpeer review(and I bet you never read the ClimateGate emails that discussed how peer review was conducted.)You're a bunch of mindless losers.Get off my post so we can discuss the merits of the paper.PAPERMERITSOR P*SS OFF YOU MINDLESS LOSERS

Why would I want to even contemplate the opinions of someone calling me a 'religious freak' or 'mindless loser'? If anything, it's you who exhibits religious fundamentalism in more than just skepticism to climate change.

I don't have time to read 80 pages so if there a specific point on a specific page you'd like me to look at, I'm not reading anything beyond the abstract and conclusion which I did read. 

Report this comment
#79) On June 10, 2010 at 1:10 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

ETFsRule,

Here's an answer to consider: The same processes that has been going on before man took his first significant step toward civilization on this planet. Climate change.

There is a false premise you and many others adhere to while considering AGW - and that is that there is a global climatic (or should I say climactic) norm. Such a thing does not exist in nature, only in the mind of man. What is true is that throughout the history of the Earth the climate (as it were) has always changed.

Looking at AGW through the limited lens of one's life and experience is a second fundamental false premise - but it's what people commonly do - (i.e. during my lifetime the greenland ice caps have been melting faster than ever before* - in recorded history - but remember, Greenland hasn't always been covered in ice - it formed 2-5 million years ago. Global cooling? Man made?).

David,

I did address the premise of the paper - and the usefulness of it for any lawyer who would take up a case which may include AGW as a basis or as partial basis for a lawsuit. This paper outlines an effective set of arguments any lawyer could use to dispute the purported facts by experts in order to de-legitimize any claim based on AGW.

For that purpose alone it is useful.

I particularly like the "climate models have no backwards compatability" segment around page 75 or so. To an IT guy that was funny.

As for AGW - well, if Chewbacca lives on Endor then we all know AGW doesn't make sense, since Chewbacca is a Wookie and the natives of Endor are Ewoks. There are no glaciers on Endor, and it's not warming. It just doesn't make sense - or, if you like - "If the data don't fit the hockey stick, you must acquit".

Known as nzsvz9 resting his case.

Report this comment
#80) On June 10, 2010 at 2:08 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

LOL nzsvz9!

Report this comment
#81) On June 10, 2010 at 3:08 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

I wouldn't say their aren't unopened questions. But the fact of the matter is, as I said before, energy efficiency is always a virtue, no matter what you believe. And the less our activities change the chemical balance of the biosphere, the better, no matter what you believe. So it's best we leave it at that and reduce our emissions and other pollution, whether you believe it affects the climate or not. 

But I for one, do believe that all the millions, billions, or trillions of tons of chemicals we release into the environment has an effect on that environment and to deny that fact is just disingenuous. There is far more truth to AGW than the skeptics admit and without that, there would be no reason to have the urgency we have now, in converting our fossil fuel economy into something sustainable. 

Now that I've restated my beliefs, I acknowledge yours, and respectfully disagree, agree to disagree, and let's move on to the important issue of energy independence and efficiency. 

Report this comment
#82) On June 10, 2010 at 3:15 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

nzsvz9:

Ok, so it looks like you are abandoning the "solar activity" theory for global warming throughout the solar system?

Now, if you believe the climate change that we are currently seeing is just a normal cycle, can you provide some context for it?

I understand that there have been global ice ages, and warming periods, etc... but, has there ever been another point in the Earth's history when the ice caps melted at the same rate that we are currently seeing? If your answer is "I don't know", then your theory is nothing more than pure speculation.

Report this comment
#83) On June 11, 2010 at 2:15 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Betapeg

Why would I want to even contemplate the opinions of someone calling me a 'religious freak' or 'mindless loser'? If anything, it's you who exhibits religious fundamentalism in more than just skepticism to climate change.

I don't have time to read 80 pages so if there a specific point on a specific page you'd like me to look at, I'm not reading anything beyond the abstract and conclusion which I did read.

Then why are you on this post?  Are you that insecure in your beliefs that you have to come, uninvited, on this post and leave meaningless comments?

Or are you that bored now that your Census worker gig has expired?

Get a life.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#84) On June 11, 2010 at 3:06 AM, 1315623493 wrote:

whereaminow,

Then why are you on this post?  Are you that insecure in your beliefs that you have to come, uninvited, on this post and leave meaningless comments?Or are you that bored now that your Census worker gig has expired?Get a life.David in Qatar 

Welcome to the internet. If you can't handle criticism of your views, perhaps, it's you who needs to get a life? 

Report this comment
#85) On June 11, 2010 at 8:29 AM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

"I particularly like the "climate models have no backwards compatability" segment around page 75 or so. To an IT guy that was funny."

I find this funny too - particularly because it also contradicts your theory for global warming; the theory that the warming we have seen in recent years is just a "natural cycle" of the Earth.

Anyway, the entire "cross-examination" is basically just an attack on things like methodologies, procedures, etc. Predictibly, he uses words like "uncertainties". Typical lawyer stuff. And he's right - all we have to work with are theories. Much like the theories of relativity, gravity, and evolution, we can't prove 100% that they are true.

But, none of this changes the fact that man-made causes remain the most likely cause for the global warming that we have seen in recent years. End of story.

It's also very telling that the section, "The Existence of Significant Alternative Explanations for Twentieth Century Warming" is very short.

In fact, all of these so-called "alternative explanations" were discussed together, in just one paragraph. And with absolutely no supporting data provided for any of them. That pretty much tells me all I need to know.

So, David, the reason no one wanted to discuss the merits of this paper is very simple: it has no merits.

Report this comment
#86) On June 12, 2010 at 1:34 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Betapeg,

Welcome to the internet. If you can't handle criticism of your views, perhaps, it's you who needs to get a life?

Thanks. You, the Census Worker, welcoming me, the IT professional, to the Internet.  That's fantastic.

What views have you ever criticized?  In order to criticize other work, you first have to read it.  I think I've covered this with you before, but now I'm starting to understand why you can't support yourself without taking government handouts.   Simple instructions baffle you.

ETFsRule,

Thanks for reading.  You are one step ahead of the curve.  I'm assuming this is the first global warming paper (pro or skeptic) that you've ever read?  Otherwise you would know that the purpose of this paper was to examine the case for human-caused global warming, not to examine the case for "other explanations." 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#87) On June 12, 2010 at 4:07 AM, 1315623493 wrote:

Thanks. You, the Census Worker, welcoming me, the IT professional, to the Internet.  That's fantastic. What views have you ever criticized?  In order to criticize other work, you first have to read it.  I think I've covered this with you before, but now I'm starting to understand why you can't support yourself without taking government handouts.   Simple instructions baffle you.

LOL, am I supposed to be butt hurt? I wouldn't care if you had a PHD in astrophysics (by the way, I congratulated you on your certification). Do you revile service to one's country?

In actuality, if you had read my comments, I agreed to disagree, respectfully, until you came around to accuse me religious fanaticism...ironically at that...I read enough to get the gist of the paper (abstract and conclusion)...maybe I should throw 80 pages of global warming literature your way, and demand you read every word, or else, you're not allowed to have an opinion! There may be open questions, fine, but science historically adjusts to new facts, so I am confident that we will have unanimity regarding this subject. So let's agree on one thing. Energy efficiency is a virtue no matter what you believe. 

Report this comment
#88) On June 12, 2010 at 4:40 AM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@ChrisGraley,
"http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html"
You need to get up-to-date. Check Chris Landsea current views'.

"After all physics would be much better off if it weren't for that stupid patent clerk named Einstein. I believe he flunked Physics, didn't he?"
Ahh, the Galileo gambit, a classic.

@whereaminow,
"In order to criticize other work, you first have to read it."
Let me use your own logic against you:
- In order to criticize other work (e.g. climate science), you first have to learn it and then read the vast literature. Tell me when you're done.
- Since time is scarce and there are opportunity costs involved, I won't read a random paper which hasn't passed a minimum quality control (i.e. peer-review). Tell me when this diatribe gets published in a serious journal of climatology, Earth sciences, environmental science, resource economics, energy economics, environmental economics, energy policy, public policy, environmental law, environmental philosophy or related subjects.

"now I'm starting to understand why you can't support yourself without taking government handouts."
Aren't you a retired marine? I guess that double standards, hypocrisy and intellectual honesty mean nothing to you.

@JakilaTheHun and other people grounded in reason,
There's little point in debating ignoramuses, crackpots and political hacks. They're deeply invested in their cultist ideology and worldview. They're victims of the Dunning–Kruger effect. They can't distinguish science (probabilistic statements about the natural world) from policy (open to debate based on economics, values, worldviews, special interests, risk-aversion, technological changes, etc). They fail to understand the most basic notions of physics (PPT). There's no point in investing huge amounts of time to fact-check the pseudoskeptics and set the record straight. Half-truths, lies, distortions and misrepresentations are like zombies, it's impossible to shut them down, even when there's enough material on the net to form an informed opinion.

Report this comment
#89) On June 12, 2010 at 5:23 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

lucas1985,

Have you apologized yet for calling me a Holocaust denier?  For using hate speech?  And for saying that science is a weapon for Progressives to use against liberty?

Lucas, I need to break this down for you very simply,

You've been here for over a year.  No one listens to you.  No one goes to your links.  You have no credibility.  You are wasting your time.  (Though it is amusing.)

You can't win kid.  Grad school was a bad choice.  Especially since you claim that you can't debate in English very well. Which is really sad, since I work with people of all backgrounds that don't claim to have such grand scientific training as you, and yet they can write in English just fine.

I guess it depends how you apply yourself.

BetapegLLC,

I could care less.  I just find it amusing that you spent the last year here insulting the intelligence of "goldbugs" and "wingnut libertarians" and everything else you can't understand.

Yet, we are more successful than you.  We don't need handouts.  Why do you?  If you're so much smarter than me, then why did I make it in life while you failed?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#90) On June 12, 2010 at 6:13 AM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@whereaminow,
"Have you apologized yet for calling me a Holocaust denier?  For using hate speech?  And for saying that science is a weapon for Progressives to use against liberty?"
Lies, lies and more lies. Are you mentally sane?

BTW, do you still support neo-Confederate positions (another case of historical denialism)?


"No one listens to you."
How do you know?

"No one goes to your links."
How do you know?

"You have no credibility."
How do you know?

"You are wasting your time."
You may have a point here. I'll think on how to extract productivity from idle time early in the morning. Refuting uneducated morons has diminishing utility.

"Though it is amusing."
I have mixed feelings. Clowns like you aren't always entertaining.

"You can't win kid."
I already said so. You're delusional and there's little that logic and evidence can do for you.

"Grad school was a bad choice."
Yeah, tell that to my bank account (an important parameter according to you) or ask my acquaintances.

"Especially since you claim that you can't debate in English very well."
Another misrepresentation and a non-sequitor. New lows for you.

"I guess it depends how you apply yourself."
I'm very applied, the evidence is clear. If I were to judge you based on your writings on this forum I'd say that you must be a chronic underachiever, maybe a social parasite according to your own standards.

Report this comment
#91) On June 12, 2010 at 6:16 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

lucas,

Out of curiosity, how did you even find this post?  Like, what are the mechanics of being a troll?  I haven't posted on global warming since Pachauri's lie on the Himayalan study was exposed about four months ago.  I notice you don't comment on any other posts on Motley Fool. just mine. (Ok, occassionaly Chris' posts, but for a long time it was just mine.)

Do you stalk the site every day, every other day?  Do you look for my posts on an RSS feed or something?

I am really curious to know how you actually go about stalking me?  It's kinda creepy, kinda flattering, kinda sad and kinda funny.  

I picture you in your parents' basement every night, checking to see if I have written on global warming that day.  Or is it less common than that? 

It just seems weird that you disappear for months, but then within 36 hours of my posting about AGW, you arrive on the scene.

Walk me through it.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#92) On June 12, 2010 at 2:00 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

I could care less.  I just find it amusing that you spent the last year here insulting the intelligence of "goldbugs" and "wingnut libertarians" and everything else you can't understand.

Of course, why would I let this website be overrun by extremists of any kind? And I've said plenty of times, being bullish on gold or being libertarian, is fine, given it doesn't descend into conspiracy theories and utopian ideology. 

Yet, we are more successful than you.  We don't need handouts.  Why do you?  If you're so much smarter than me, then why did I make it in life while you failed?

Funny, I'm 23, studying for my MBA, have my own company with investors, my own e-commerce store, tutoring service, in addition to being a stock analyst, with a website for the public to view my work free of charge, having developed over thousands of hours of work a series of proprietary quantitative financial algorithms, which enable me to trade stocks, options, commodities, and currencies. I haven't had a "real" job since I was 21. I'd be willing to bet you and all your friends, at 23, weren't doing 1% of the stuff I do everyday. If it makes you feel better, keep thinking you'r more successful than me (even though I congratulate you on your success and continue to). Only an idiot would equate service to one's country as government welfare. I assumed being an IT professional meant you were smart, but more and more, you're proving that isn't the case. ;-)

Report this comment
#93) On June 12, 2010 at 2:06 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

BetapegLLC,

I wasn't aware that you were the self proclaimed guardian of this website.

Besides, I think you have failed.  Look at the most rec'd bloggers here.  Look how many are "goldbugs", "extremists", and "utopian ideologues"

(btw, retard, we covered the utopia crap before as well. Man, you are dumb.  Who coined the term?  Whose book was freaking called UTOPIA?  Name one Libertarian writer that supports or claims that it brings utopia.  Just one.  Otherwise, shut up loser and try a different theme.  You are just making yourself look like uneducated buffoon - which you are.)

I can see why you need to government welfare. (government service??? ROFL!!!!  Try going to Afghanistan and telling those kids about your selfless government service!  I think they'd call it welfare too.)

This is getting too good.  Whatever you do troll, please don't leave this site.  

DEFENDER OF THE HONOR OF MOTLEY FOOL, BETAPEGLLC!!!!

ROFLMAO!!!!!

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#94) On June 12, 2010 at 3:48 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

Guardian? No. Just voicing my opinion when I see utopian fundamentalist Libertarian garbage being splattered all over the place. You seem to enjoy assuming I mean all Libertarians. 

(btw, retard, we covered the utopia crap before as well. Man, you are dumb.  Who coined the term?  Whose book was freaking called UTOPIA?  Name one Libertarian writer that supports or claims that it brings utopia.  Just one.  Otherwise, shut up loser and try a different theme.  You are just making yourself look like uneducated buffoon - which you are.)

I've said it before, maybe you don't know how to read. Moderate Libertarianism is something even I would subscribe to if it fit my idea of pragmatism. What's utopian is the belief that markets are perfect. So it would help you if you didn't twist my statements to suit your agenda. 

I can see why you need to government welfare. (government service??? ROFL!!!!  Try going to Afghanistan and telling those kids about your selfless government service!  I think they'd call it welfare too.) This is getting too good.  Whatever you do troll, please don't leave this site. DEFENDER OF THE HONOR OF MOTLEY FOOL, BETAPEGLLC!!!!ROFLMAO!!!!!

You know when I said, "Only an idiot would equate service to one's country as government welfare. I assumed being an IT professional meant you were smart, but more and more, you're proving that isn't the case. ;-)" I feel sorry for IT professionals everywhere.

Report this comment
#95) On June 12, 2010 at 4:14 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

BetapegLLC,

And I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is no such thing as Utopian Libertarianism.  You obviously are a freaking retard that needs a government welfare check.  Senseless worker, alright.  Look at you giving life and limb for your country.

You faithless servant.  Boy are we lucky to have you.

You came on this post, writing nonsense about unrelated topics (that makes you a trolll, and a loser that probably masturbates way too much but I'm just guessing.)

So I feel it is my duty, nay my selfless duty in defense of the gallant website Motley Fool, to ridicule, insult, and mock you each time.

Anyway, let's see one shred of evidence that I promote utopianism.  (Or any libertarian.)

Waiting.....

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#96) On June 12, 2010 at 4:21 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

And I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is no such thing as Utopian Libertarianism. Anyway, let's see one shred of evidence that I promote utopianism.  (Or any libertarian.)

Prime example of a religious denial that any and every view can be taken too far. Don't you adhere to anarcho-capitalism? You don't think that's utopian? Complete absence of government? No?

You obviously are a freaking retard that needs a government welfare check.  Senseless worker, alright.  Look at you giving life and limb for your country.You faithless servant.  Boy are we lucky to have you.You came on this post, writing nonsense about unrelated topics (that makes you a trolll, and a loser that probably masturbates way too much but I'm just guessing.)So I feel it is my duty, nay my selfless duty in defense of the gallant website Motley Fool, to ridicule, insult, and mock you each time. 

You sound like a blabbering fool. IT "professional"? I wouldn't trust you with a calculator. 

Report this comment
#97) On June 12, 2010 at 4:29 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

BetapegLLC,

No, you have to submit evidence. Or just be total loser that makes unsubstantiated claims.

EVIDENCE.....

Waiting.

After all, it's the paper money fetishists that think permanent prosperity is a wise policy away.  We have covered that too.  The central planners have always been the utopians.  So this is odd.

But that's what happens when you don't study. Beta, you need to study, son. 

So, Betapeg, by your own definition, you are an extremist.  Everyone else understands that the central planners have always been the utopians (ummm, because they said we will bring utopia.  See the book, Utopia, by Socialist More.)  You are the only one that thinks libertarianism and not paper-money-prosperityism is utopianism.

I mean, really, what the heck is so hard here extremist?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#98) On June 12, 2010 at 4:54 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

BetapegLLC,

I think only like 15 more comments on this post and you defeat lucas1985 and alex1963 and become top troll in whereaminow blogging history.

That would be some feat.  Pat yourself on the back.  Best Troll Evahhhh!

Hopefully, in one of those 15 comments you will offer a shred of evidence that:

1. You understand the meaning of the word "utopia"

and

2. That either myself, or any major anarcho-capitalist or libertarian has ever promoted it.

But i doubt you will do that (and by "doubt", I mean "know" because like all other trolls you don't back up your comments... which is why you are a troll.....)

ok, gotta go.

Love you baby,

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#99) On June 12, 2010 at 6:07 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

After all, it's the paper money fetishists that think permanent prosperity is a wise policy away.  We have covered that too.  The central planners have always been the utopians.  So this is odd.

Basically, the entire world chose not to have...1) De-centralized, volatile, wildly fluctuating currency...2) Constrained by the gold standard during periods where monetary stimulus is needed. So I guess the entire world is a utopia huh?

But that's what happens when you don't study. Beta, you need to study, son. 

I have studied. We have just come to different conclusions. Why can't you just accept that? How much Mises and Rothbard do I have to read before I am allowed to have an opinion, according to you? 

So, Betapeg, by your own definition, you are an extremist.  Everyone else understands that the central planners have always been the utopians (ummm, because they said we will bring utopia.  See the book, Utopia, by Socialist More.)  You are the only one that thinks libertarianism and not paper-money-prosperityism is utopianism.I mean, really, what the heck is so hard here extremist?

I choose to work within the system, whereas you choose to dismantle it and replace with something already tried and failed. By my recollection, it's not the moderates who advocate radically changing the status quo, as you do.

I think only like 15 more comments on this post and you defeat lucas1985 and alex1963 and become top troll in whereaminow blogging history.That would be some feat.  Pat yourself on the back.  Best Troll Evahhhh! 

Another hallmark of religious fervor is the inability of anyone else to question their beliefs. The voicing of my opinion is seen by you as "trolling", and yet, you partake in almost nothing but ad hominem arguments. I try to make sure first posts are absent personal insults, wouldn't it nice if you did the same?

You understand the meaning of the word "utopia"That either myself, or any major anarcho-capitalist or libertarian has ever promoted it.

You actually believe a society absent of government is possible? 

But i doubt you will do that (and by "doubt", I mean "know" because like all other trolls you don't back up your comments... which is why you are a troll.....) 

Riiiight. Because I don't hurl 80 page papers and ideological books (usually from Mises.org) your way, demand you read every word, and if not declare you are incapable of having an opinion, doesn't mean I don't back my comments up. 

ok, gotta go.Love you baby,David in Qatar 

Lovely chat. Perhaps, next time, we can have a discussion without insulting each other's intelligence?

Report this comment
#100) On June 12, 2010 at 6:33 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Troll,

You would need to have intelligence for me to insult it.  

I reserve the right to mock any loser that wants to write 20 comments on my posts about crap completely unrelated to the post subject.

You still have not presented any evidence that I, or any other libertarian, believe in utopia. It's what you "think."  That's not evidence. Unless you are about to overturn hundreds of years of political philosohpy, both pragmatic and radical of all stripes, you should probably check out what the word utopia means.  

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#101) On June 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

You would need to have intelligence for me to insult it.  

Still have your panties on too tight huh? 

I reserve the right to mock any loser that wants to write 20 comments on my posts about crap completely unrelated to the post subject.

Actually I did, until you decided to insult practically everyone in this blog who disagreed with your point of view. 

You still have not presented any evidence that I, or any other libertarian, believe in utopia. It's what you "think."  That's not evidence. Unless you are about to overturn hundreds of years of political philosohpy, both pragmatic and radical of all stripes, you should probably check out what the word utopia means.  

"I choose to work within the system, whereas you choose to dismantle it and replace with something already tried and failed. By my recollection, it's not the moderates who advocate radically changing the status quo, as you do." Do you want me to post a 300 page PDF book or something, demand you read every page, and declare you are incapable of having an opinion until you read everything I throw your way? 

Utopia, hmmm. Let's see. Everyone pretty much agrees government ownership of everything, is pretty utopian, wouldn't you agree? But for some reason, you exempt absence of government from everything, from the same standard. After all, that's what an anarchist advocates no? 

-------------------

I try reconciling with you, or agreeing to disagree. But I guess to an extremist, such words don't even exist in your vocabulary. Woe to anyone who even dares question the Libertarian agenda of David Qatar! 

Report this comment
#102) On June 12, 2010 at 7:41 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

Anyways buddy, I'm done flinging poo at you. You can have the last word. By the way, I want your input in my latest blog posting. Thanks.

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/what-is-your-ideal/406464 

Report this comment
#103) On June 12, 2010 at 10:33 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

No thanks. I don't have any interest in your thoughts.

Like I said before, I have no problem with disagreement. Are you that arrogant to think that you are the first person I have ever disagreed with on Motley Fool?  I have disagreements with everyone here, even Chris and Cato and many other libertarians.  They just happen to respect my point of view and I respect theirs.

 I do, however, have a problem with the 80+ comments on this board that have nothing to do with the original post, and the fact that the people who supposedly disagree never addressed the content in question before they ran their mouths, even though nobody was talking to them in the first place.

I just think that's really lame and worthy of ridicule.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#104) On June 13, 2010 at 1:23 AM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

"1. You understand the meaning of the word "utopia"
and
2. That either myself, or any major anarcho-capitalist or libertarian has ever promoted it."

Let's check what one of the few serious libertarian scholar* says:
"Libertarianism, Nozick tells us in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, is a ‘framework for utopia’ (297-334). It is ‘inspiring as well as right’" [1]

"I do, however, have a problem with the 80+ comments on this board that have nothing to do with the original post, and the fact that the people who supposedly disagree never addressed the content in question before they ran their mouths, even though nobody was talking to them in the first place."
Nobody addresses your original post because it's a compilation of discredited talking points and a piece of bad scholarship. For instance:
- "Legal scholarship has come to accept as true the various pronouncements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientists who have been active in the movement for greenhouse gas (ghg) emission reductions to combat global warming."
The author is making the claim that the IPCC is part of a movement created to combat GHGs emission. He offers zero evidence for this claim. What does the evidence says?
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.
The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports.
The IPCC is an intergovernmental body, and it is open to all member countries of UN and WMO. Governments are involved in the IPCC work as they can participate in the review process and in the IPCC plenary sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau and Chairperson are also elected in the plenary sessions.
Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive."
[2]

- "A review of the peer-edited literature reveals a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions regarding many of the key processes involved in climate change."
Climate establishment? Empty rhetoric.
Oversell what's known and downplay uncertainties? Let's see:
"Key uncertainties

Climate data coverage remains limited in some regions and there is a notable lack of geographic balance in data and literature on observed changes in natural and managed systems, with marked scarcity in developing countries. {WGI SPM; WGII 1.3, SPM}
Analysing and monitoring changes in extreme events, including drought, tropical cyclones, extreme temperatures and the frequency and intensity of precipitation, is more difficult than for climatic averages as longer data time-series of higher spatial and temporal resolutions are required. {WGI 3.8, SPM}
Effects of climate changes on human and some natural systems are difficult to detect due to adaptation and non-climatic drivers. {WGII 1.3}
Difficulties remain in reliably simulating and attributing observed temperature changes to natural or human causes at smaller than continental scales. At these smaller scales, factors such as land-use change and pollution also complicate the detection of anthropogenic warming influence on physical and biological systems. {WGI 8.3, 9.4, SPM; WGII 1.4, SPM}
The magnitude of CO2 emissions from land-use change and CH4 emissions from individual sources remain as key uncertainties. {WGI 2.3, 7.3, 7.4; WGIII 1.3, TS.14}"
[3]

- "Fundamental open questions include not only the size but the direction of feedback effects that are responsible for the bulk of the temperature increase predicted to result from atmospheric greenhouse gas increases: while climate models all presume that such feedback effects are on balance strongly positive, more and more peer-edited scientific papers seem to suggest that feedback effects may be small or even negative."
Those aren't the fundamental open questions. The real questions are other:
"Nature  has singled out four areas — regional climate forecasts, precipitation forecasts, aerosols and palaeoclimate data — that some say deserve greater open discussion, both within scientific circles and in the public sphere." [4]
Strong positive feedbacks are not an assumption of the models, they're the output of GCMs not a fudge factor or a parametrization. BTW, net positive feedback isn't only present in models, you can calculate such net feedback from empirical evidence [5]

Conclusion: you need to write a 300-page essay to fact-check and deconstruct this piece of junk scholarship. It's riddled with lies, selective reading of the evidence, misrepresentation and other actions improper of a serious scholar.
Refuting scoundrels isn't an easy task.

1- Robert Nozick, Libertarianism, And Utopia. By Jonathan Wolff.
2- Organization of the IPCC. IPCC website.
3- Observed changes in climate and their effects, and their causes. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 Synthesis Report.
4- The real holes in climate science. Nature News 2010.
5- How sensitive is our climate? Skeptical Science.

*Serious libertarian scholars: Robert Nozick, Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman, Joseph Schumpeter.

Report this comment
#105) On June 13, 2010 at 1:34 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

There's got to be a Lucas1985 hotline!

He's not really good at this stuff, but he's the smartest guy that they've got.

He only shows up on climate talks and claims to be scientifically trained but appears to be more politically trained.

So scientifically trained Lucas, pick one staple for global warming that I can't dispute and then I'll dispute it. You being so scientifically trained, you should then destroy me and then explain how Galileo being persecuted by the church compares to my point that when your group clings to the point that average people aren't smart enough to understand climatetologists and my point that scientists that study physics are smarter and that a patent clerk that failed physics is the smartest scientist of all is invalid.

You haven't done well arguing with me up to this point based on science. You have done pretty well politically though. I don't know how many times that I've heard you call me a strawman. So it's up to you now, prove just 1 point that I can't show as a fallacy. I'd rather kill your posts now, than have you linger on this site every time someone calls Lucas911. If they really understood science, they wouldn't call you in the first place. You sell how smart you are better than you prove it.

So pick that 1 indisputable point wisely.

 

Report this comment
#106) On June 13, 2010 at 2:25 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

lucas,

In regards to Nozick, it always helps if you have actually read what you are attempting to criticize (we've covered this how many times?)  Nozick asks people to seek their own utopias, but does not offer libertarianism as one.  Try reading it first.  When you do, get back to me.

Anyway, can you answer the question I posed in comment #91?  Were you in your underwear, masturbating to free internet porn while checking my blog to see if I had written about AGW?

How did you come across this post?  I'm much more fascinated by this than your links or any discussion on Nozick.  I've already gone to all your links a year ago, and they have all been discredited. 

So, how did you know that I posted?  This is what the world wants to know!

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#107) On June 13, 2010 at 4:00 AM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@Chris Graley,
"He's not really good at this stuff"
Don't project your own deficiencies onto others.

"So scientifically trained Lucas, pick one staple for global warming that I can't dispute and then I'll dispute it."
There are many "core findings" that can't be factually challenged without doing mental gymnastics and straight lies:
- The Keeling curve.
- The Vostok ice core.
- The isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2.
- The thousands of data points indicating a warming of the system.
- The physical properties of GHGs.
- Line-by-line radiative transfer models (not GCMs)
Pick up any of the robust findings of the IPCC AR4 and show us how much you can torture logic and evidence:
"Robust findings

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level. {WGI 3.9, SPM}
Many natural systems, on all continents and in some oceans, are being affected by regional climate changes. Observed changes in many physical and biological systems are consistent with warming. As a result of the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 since 1750, the acidity of the surface ocean has increased. {WGI 5.4, WGII 1.3}
Global total annual anthropogenic GHG emissions, weighted by their 100-year GWPs, have grown by 70% between 1970 and 2004. As a result of anthropogenic emissions, atmospheric concentrations of N2O now far exceed pre-industrial values spanning many thousands of years, and those of CH4 and CO2 now far exceed the natural range over the last 650,000 years. {WGI SPM; WGIII 1.3}

Most of the global average warming over the past 50 years is very likely due to anthropogenic GHG increases and it is likely that there is a discernible human-induced warming averaged over each continent (except Antarctica). {WGI 9.4, SPM}
Anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has likely had a discernible influence at the global scale on observed changes in many physical and biological systems. {WGII 1.4, SPM}"

Also consult the recently released "The America's Climate Choices" suite of studies done by the most prestigious science body in the world: The National Research Council of the National Academies of Science.

"You being so scientifically trained, you should then destroy me"
In the eyes of whom? Anonymous people in an investment discussion board?

"explain how Galileo being persecuted by the church compares to my point that when your group clings to the point that average people aren't smart enough to understand climatetologists and my point that scientists that study physics are smarter and that a patent clerk that failed physics is the smartest scientist of all is invalid."
I'll let Carl Sagan speak for me:
"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
You score well on John Baez Crackpot Index:
" 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
  40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
  40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
  40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)"

Finally, learn why the consensus of experts does matter.

"You haven't done well arguing with me up to this point based on science."
I don't remember a discussion of science on this board. Do you call science the task of fact-checking your error-riddled writings and pointing out where the logic breaks down?

"I don't know how many times that I've heard you call me a strawman."
I'll stop pointing out your logical fallacies when you stop making them.

"So pick that 1 indisputable point wisely"
Make a fool of yourself trying to refute the Keeling curve.

"If they really understood science, they wouldn't call you in the first place."
(¿?)
Nobody has called me. I found this piece of comedy by chance when it showed up (lower-right corner) when I checked the Fool's homepage.

"Anyway, can you answer the question I posed in comment #91?  Were you in your underwear, masturbating to free internet porn while checking my blog to see if I had written about AGW?"
Are you projecting onto others?
See above. You're not the center of the world. Want more details? I was wearing khakis, Oxford shoes, a shirt and a wool sweater, drinking green tea and checking investment sites before watching the Korea-Greece football match.

"they have all been discredited."
According to whom? Screaming/hand-waving is not refuting. Science is hard, specially for morons like you.

"In regards to Nozick, it always helps if you have actually read what you are attempting to criticize (we've covered this how many times?)  Nozick asks people to seek their own utopias, but does not offer libertarianism as one.  Try reading it first.  When you do, get back to me."
Jonathan Wolff provides endnotes to check his claims. Interested people can grab a copy of Nozick's book and check by themselves.

"This is what the world wants to know!"
The members of this board want to know which pathology afflicts you. We want to help you afford the cost of your meds.

Report this comment
#108) On June 13, 2010 at 5:12 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

lucas,

Make a fool of yourself trying to refute the Keeling curve.

I'll be sporting with the Keeling curve. I'm familiar with the arguments for and against it being "proof" of man-made global warming.  Instead, why don't you tell me what you think it proves and why.  (And again, as before, you need to tell me in your own words.  Don't just post endless links. Don't copy and paste.  Just tell me.)

But, back to the important topic.  Why were you checking the Motley Fool homepage?  Is this something you do every day?  Or do you check for anti-AGW posts?  Are you saying that every day (or thereabouts), you check the homepage for investment advice, but you only comment when I post about AGW?  I find that hard to believe, but I'll let you try to convince me.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#109) On June 13, 2010 at 9:36 AM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

"So scientifically trained Lucas, pick one staple for global warming that I can't dispute and then I'll dispute it"

I assume you meant, "pick one staple for global warming caused by humans"... because you have already admitted that the ice caps are melting, and that their melting is being caused by "heat".

Anyone who disagrees with the conventional theory of global warming should propose a theory of their own, and support it with facts. For instance, if you believe that the recent warming of the Earth is just a natural cycle: prove it.

Report this comment
#110) On June 13, 2010 at 9:45 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

You've got to be a little more specific than that Lucas. For instance what about the Vostok ice core?

I'll admit that it exists, but what basic fact are you saying that it proves?

Thanks for bringing up the Galileo reference and then trying to make it look like I did. It just shows that you are more interested in political posturing than the truth.

Report this comment
#111) On June 13, 2010 at 10:18 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

ETFsrule I've done so many times. You can check back in my previous posts for something more detailed.

The fact is though we've been warming since the last Ice Age and it's a normal part of the climate cycle. 

If you really want to battle mother nature, try to battle the global cooling that is coming next. It's much more certain to kill off the population than warming.

Report this comment
#112) On June 13, 2010 at 10:41 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Link for ETFsRule

I find it amazing that I have to prove the natural climate cycle and people blindly except warming made by man.

We are talking about 380 ppm Carbon.

To put that in perspective, if you are reading this post at a decent resolution and the entire real estate of the screen was the global atmospere, the amount of Carbon in the atmospere would compare to fewer pixels on the screen than it takes to type my name.

Report this comment
#113) On June 13, 2010 at 12:27 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

"I find it amazing that I have to prove the natural climate cycle and people blindly except warming made by man."

You have that backwards. There is a wealth of evidence supporting the idea that global warming has been caused by man. In contrast, there is little to no evidence supporting your theory.

Please, provide us with some peer-reviewed research which supports the theory that the recent melting of the ice caps can be explained by the Milankovitch Cycle.

Report this comment
#114) On June 13, 2010 at 7:00 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

ETFsRule 

The Milankovitch cycle is not my theory. It's peer reviewed and generally accepted.

but since you asked

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

It's been my experience that when someone asks for peer reviewed data he either doesn't read it or doesn't understand it. 

Report this comment
#115) On June 13, 2010 at 10:02 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Be careful Chris :)  If you start pointing out the CO2 is a trace gas that historically has followed temperature rises, rather than leading them, they start shouting "Coleman!" at you, as if merely uttering his name and attaching it to you invalidates what you are saying. 

And if that doesn't work, they yell "Creationism!", which I find bizarre since I'm not even a practicing Christian.

But you know how the game is played.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#116) On June 14, 2010 at 1:32 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Thanks Dave,

They'll argue the same thing that they always do when you point out that Carbon lags warming. (by about 1000 yrs btw) They say that a different forcing started it, but Carbon escalated it. That makes sense until you realize that Carbon lags cooling as well. If Carbon really had the influence that they say it does it would have to precede cooling. What they don't want to admit is that water vapor gets escalated faster than Carbon in warming, it has a bigger greenhouse effect, and and falls out of the atmosphere quicker. Quick enough to start the cooling while the Carbon is still up there.

They keep wanting to flock to those that they consider experts, the same experts that stand to get the biggest paychecks when they convince the masses that AGW exists.

The first rule of the snake oil salesman is to create the disease and the second is to get the payoff from selling the cure.

 

Report this comment
#117) On June 14, 2010 at 8:36 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

The comments to recommendations ratio of this blog is off the hook.

 

The first rule of the snake oil salesman is to create the disease and the second is to get the payoff from selling the cure.

That sounds like what we have done by electing all those lawyers to congress.

Report this comment
#118) On June 14, 2010 at 9:18 AM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

Cato:

I thought you had left! Please, provide some peer-reviewed sources for your theory of global warming throughout the solar system, caused by solar activity. I would like you to respond to post #43 in this thread, so that we can see how your theory holds up to scientific skepticism.

For the record: if anyone can propose a realistic theory for global warming, with the science to back it up, I would gladly change my position on this subject. But so far, the "human-caused" camp has made the best case for their theory.

Chris:

I read the first of your sources, and nowhere does it explain or predict the melting of the ice caps that we have seen in recent years. I assume the other links are more of the same.

It sounds like you didn't understand the question: I was not asking for evidence that the Milankovitch Cycle exists.

I was asking for evidence that the Milankovitch Cycle can explain the precise amount of polar ice cap melting that we have seen in recent years. Obviously, it cannot do this.

"It's been my experience that when someone asks for peer reviewed data he either doesn't read it or doesn't understand it."

You can use all the ad hominem attacks that you want, but it won't change the fact that you cannot answer a simple and direct question.

You claim to be a skeptical person, yet you accept the Milankovitch Cycle theory, despite the fact that it cannot accurately describe what we are seeing in the real world.

It's obvious that your position is based more on politics than on science.

Report this comment
#119) On June 14, 2010 at 10:01 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

ETFsRule,

If I thought doing so would actually serve to change your opinion or help you better understand my position I would certainly comply. However, I don't think you are are interested in any of that. I think you are looking to fight. That holds no appeal for me.

Cato

 

Report this comment
#120) On June 14, 2010 at 10:30 AM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

Cato:

I am not looking for a fight. You are the one using disrespectful terms like "snake oil salesman" for people who disagree with you. I have not resorted to those sorts of tactics.

I am only interested in the facts. If there is not adequate support for your theory, why not just admit it? That way we can advance the discussion, and try to identify the true reason that the ice caps are melting.

It seems that it is "fair game" to be hyper-critical of the mainstream theory of global warming. But for some reason, challenging the other theories is off limits. Quite a double standard if you ask me.

Report this comment
#121) On June 14, 2010 at 10:56 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

ETFsRule,

Your entire reply is an attempt to provoke me, thus proving my  idea in comment #119 to be true. You have no interest in facts or truths on this subject or any other. Your only purpose here is to start and fuel conflict. I have no interest in following you down a rabbit hole of negativity.

Cato

 

 

Report this comment
#122) On June 14, 2010 at 11:10 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

ETFsRule,

Before I even respond to comment #118 that the polar ice caps are melting, ask "in comparison to what?"  Because in all things AGW, we never get the answer to that.  So, that being said, I can respond with surveys of polar ice that show they are not melting at all, but before I do that, you made the assertion, so let's see some peer review, with dates.  Just as you would demand from me :)

I'll check back later tonight.

David in Qata

Report this comment
#123) On June 14, 2010 at 11:48 AM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

David,

As I read this blog/troll/war I'm reminded of why there's a great deal of difficulty discussing the dissenting view - it's the lack of open mindedness. Science, in particular, must include the view that the hypothesis and theory being testing could be wrong and must stand up to scrutiny - before it can be accepted as proven or incontrovertible. Politics is the parctice of the closed-minded. Libertarians, I believe, try to practice open-mindedness in the political field, and that is why we are maligned so much.

The advent of the scientician (part scientist and part politician - with a nod to character Troy Mclure) has birthed the platform for the pseudo-religious government-spawn socialist to have the appearance of credibility in order for us to give up our rights (Cap and Trade anyone?) in order to clamp down (as only government can do) on the problem du jour.

We are told to listen to the scientists - why? Bercuase they all agree? They do not - as many links in this blog war show. Because they are so learned and have so many degrees? Invention and discovery and the parctice of science are not the sole responsibility of the academician - because everyone knows bicycle shop owners can't build an airplane? Becuase the science is settled? Newton's laws were peer reviewed and accepted since the late 1600s until Einstein proved them to be approximations of a larger theory at non-relativistic speeds, not to re-mention the sicence of the coming ice age of the 1970s, and so much science that ends up on the scientific scrap heap of term papers and doctoral thesae ... and so on.

What is true is that many of the papers and articles cite computer models as proof of AGW but this is a flawed assumption - as David reviewd Harry the Programmer (the code and data from EAU modeling) many months ago. As an IT professional, I feel confident (based on both training and practice) in commenting on the modeling and data management issues which David (and many others) also pointed out in great detail. Aside from the problems with the code and modeling from EAU there is a serious ripple effect, since many articles and papers are based on this flawed research - including the findings of the IPCC.

Computer modeling is very tricky stuff - and there are always simplifications: the first 16 elements and compounds alone in the atmosphere (from N2 nitrogen to NH3 ammonia) not including about 1% water (H2O), in main 5 named layers, pressure variations, cloud formation, precipitation patterns, solar cycles, the average and continued variations of weather around the world over very long periods of time, ocean currents, sea temperatures, albedo changes, and more and more and more ...

Are we to believe that any computer model accurately predicts what is going to happen when they are all gross over-simplifications of the global climate? The skeptic looks at this and sees the science is seriously flawed. The scientician looks at the outcome (or manipulates the data and the model to produce a desired outcome) based on their own agenda.

So - what is the lay non-climatologist supposed to believe?

And here we have this paper, by a lawyer - it is an excellent compilation of retorts for any laywer in a suit where AGW is involved in a claim and needs to be refuted. That's all it's meant to be. The scienticians miss this in their AGW jihad. 

For any lawyer in an AGW claim-based suit it's is worth it's weight in compressed metamorphic carbon - that's diamonds to the scienticians out there.

Known as the degreed but not scholarly nzsvz9

Report this comment
#124) On June 14, 2010 at 12:15 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

David: The ice caps are melting. Get over it.

Everyone in this discussion, on both sides, have agreed on this. Cato, nzsvz9, ChrisGraley, etc, have all acknowledged this as a fact. The only disagreement is on the cause for this melting.

If you want to debate this, then do so on your own time. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with a conspiracy theorist who wants to argue that 1+1=3.

I am only here to discuss the important issue at hand: why are they melting? And, the related issue: what is an appropriate course of action for our policy makers to pursue at this time?

Report this comment
#125) On June 14, 2010 at 12:24 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

Cato: Fine, take your ball and go home.

I'm sure you have extensive data on every planet in the solar system, showing that they all exhibit similar global warming, and that it corresponds perfectly with increased solar activity.

Even though no one in the world has ever published this research, I'm sure you have it all sitting on your computer, proving that your theory is true beyond the shadow of a doubt. It's just a shame that you won't share it with the world.

My posts throughout this thread have been asking for facts and evidence, over and over and over again. People like you and Chris can only respond with ad hominem attacks, or by posting unrelated links. Yet, I press on, asking for the facts that support your theories. Where are the facts?

Report this comment
#126) On June 14, 2010 at 12:32 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

ETFsRule,

The more you write the more you prove my point.

Cato

Report this comment
#127) On June 14, 2010 at 12:40 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

nzsvz9: I agree with a lot of your points. There are some flaws in the methods that some climatologists have used. There are a lot of flaws in the models that they have created. And, you're right that there is not a 100% consensus on the issue of global warming.

Personally, I'm not looking for a perfect theory to explain the melting of the ice caps. No theory will ever be perfect. I am just trying to look at the issue independantly and objectively, and identify what is the most plausible theory.

Regarding open-mindedness: I have to disagree with you on this one. I believe the mainstream has actually been more open-minded on this issue than the denyers have.

What I am trying to accomplish here, is to apply an equal amount of scrutiny to all theories regarding global warming. Do you agree that it would be foolish to be skeptical of one theory, but then accept another theory without properly examining the evidence behind it?

So, for both sides of the issue, it is important to get all the facts out in the open. It doesn't help anyone to say, "I know why the Earth is warming, but I'm going to keep all the evidence to myself". So, for a theory like the Milankovitch Cycle, it is important to look at it with a skeptical eye, to see if it can accurately account for the things that have been observed in the real world. Do you agree with that?

Report this comment
#128) On June 14, 2010 at 12:43 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

Cato: The feeling is mutual. With every post, you confirm my idea that you have no substance to support your theories.

Report this comment
#129) On June 14, 2010 at 12:54 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

ETFsRule,

Yes, they have..... for 20,000 years.  This is why I ask "in comparison to what?"

Just as if I pointed out that arctic sea ice has expanded since 2008 according to USN surveys and that antarctic sea ice is expanding according to NDISC, you would say "in comparison to what? what about 2007? or trends from 1948-2010?."

It's all about "in comparison to what?"

So yes, the recent trend is less ice (last 30 years).  But the long term trend is down over the last 20,000 years.  I don't think humans played a part in that.

You say that AGW is the best theory.  That's like saying Aaron Gray is the best free agent 7 footer in the NBA.  So what?  He still sucks and you're not building a winner around Aaron Gray.  AGW is Aaron Gray.  It might just be the best theory out there, but it has more holes than an afghan blanket.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#130) On June 14, 2010 at 1:21 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

ETFsRule,

I do think that all science needs to be scrutinized - for it does become the basis of much policy and has over the course of history. Unless you are Tom Friedman, the world is not flat, but a sort of oddly rough oblate spheroid.

There are many factors contributing to the current changes in climate, only some of which we understand anything about. From what I've read it appears the sun is a candidate for the primary warming and cooling of the planet - and not man. Variations in solar output move in cycles for reasons as yet undetermined - including the life cycle of the sun so far. The Milankovitch Cycle being only another but interesting mathmatical theory.

We know so little about all the factors. My concern is in the persons who grab a single variant model or correlation and wants to base public policy on that alone - or the appearance of some trend which supports a political agenda. Do you think the IPCC was apolitical as scientists should be? I do not.

There are no conclusions to draw from the available information - as the EAU debacle shows - that politics drove the AGW scare, not from science. Hence the advent of the scientician. They are closed-minded, as even their peer reviews were like-minded rubber stamping of inbred conspiratorial proportions.

As for me, I would look for a model which would have some large confience interval, of perhaps 95%, which would take global climatic conditions and run them backward and forward for changing conditions (for at least 2,000 years at any time - my arbitrary mark) and have a strong positive (.95) as a solution. That's not 100% either.

And, I am not a deiner - nor am I an AGW liar. (Yes, they lied - a lot.) As a Libertarian, the people crying out that we must change our lives due to this "science" are the ones reaching out to curtail my liberty - they are the scary ones. Hi Lucas1985.

Understanding is a 3-edged sword. Your side. My side. And the truth. (It's not easy being Kosh).

Known as Kosh - or in our language - nzsvz9

Report this comment
#131) On June 14, 2010 at 1:49 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

nzsvz9,

I know I get over the top in my condemnation of AGW, but that is my reaction (albeit a bad one) to being labeled a "denialist" and all kinds of crazy stuff just for asking questions.  

You mention the rubber stamped peer review.  Nothing illustrates that point better than the Himalayan Glacier debacle.  In the end, he was "peer-reviewed", but not by anyone allowed in the IPCC process, a process that he directs and from which he has made millions of dollars.  Same goes for the $22 million man Phil Jones.  We can only speculate about the wealth of Michael Mann.  

But my position on AGW is unchanged:

The CRU emails, poor temperature set quality, unsatisfactory computer model programming, massaged and manipulated data, and outright lying and evading information requests.... all this does not mean that anthropogenic global warming is false. 

It simply means that these people can not be trusted.  They have wasted our time and money.  They should be held accountable.  I want the $22.6 million Dr. Phil Jones has received in research grants given back to their rightful owners - the taxpayers and whatever other private institutions chipped in.  Same goes for Michael Mann, Dr. Pacharui and the rest of these merry bunglers.

If global warming is truly a threat, and if it is really man--made, we are no closer to finding out the truth than before this band of idiots started flying around the globe taking temperatures. - whereaminow

So you are right.  No policy can be based off AGW in its current state. And if the world comes to an end because we didn't act it will absolutely not be the fault of libertarians or greedy coal & oil companies.  It's the fault of the IPCC and the scientists who were more interested in glory, money, and not upsetting the apple cart than science and presented us with a half-baked theory that could not withstand scrutiny.

That being said, I am open to future studies that show more concrete results, discard the mathematical tricks that have made AGW infamous, avoid the obvious conflict of interest of having the IPCC engaging in policy and science, and allow serious analysis of dissenting opinions.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#132) On June 14, 2010 at 1:59 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

ETFsRule

Yep, happened exactly how I said it would. You didn't read the other 8 links because you didn't know how in the first link solar activity would effect the Ice caps melting.

Don't ask me for research again unless you are actually prepared to look into it. Being a skeptic is fine, but it requires some diligence other than than to say that you doubt what others put forward without putting something forward yourself.

I answered your question. The fact that you don't understand that I answered it isn't my fault.

A couple of those links lead to articles printed in science magazines that are put in easier to understand terms.  

I'm not sure why you think that melting Ice caps are some unique event we are having. We've had melting before and we'll have melting again along with freezing. 

If you really take this seriously enough to make an informed decision, you're going to need to do your own research. Most people that you're asking for info have formed their own opinion.

It's OK to ask them for it, but at least give them the courtesy of reading it when they give it to you and do your own DD on it's accuracy. 

Report this comment
#133) On June 14, 2010 at 3:07 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

Chris:

I have since waded through your repetitive pile of link-spamming, and nowhere does it provide a direct answer to my question. I am not going to extrapolate anything from their other findings - in other words, I'm not going to do their work for them.

Just answer the question.

I understand that you're trying to save face by avoiding the question... your forced condescension isn't fooling anyone.

"I'm not sure why you think that melting Ice caps are some unique event we are having. We've had melting before and we'll have melting again along with freezing."

When did I say that it was a unique event? I just want to see some evidence that the current rate of melting can be explained by your theory.

Report this comment
#134) On June 14, 2010 at 5:46 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

I did answer the question. I'm not going to do your work for you either.

I should not have to, after all point out to you that I showed you a link between solar activity and climate and a further link that current solar activity has excessively warmed Indo-Pacific region.

I also showed that the same ocean temperatures were this hot before during the Medieval warming period. Which shows a cyclical pattern along with the cyclical solar pattern.

The point I was making above, is that if the current melting is not a unique event, (which it's not) then it's better explained as a cyclical pattern than something new created by man. If you want to argue that something new is happening, then you should point to an indicator that something new is happening.

Melting Ice Caps is not unique and the current rate of melting is not unique. Otherwise it's like you are asking me prove that sky has always been blue, when no one has shown any evidence that it have been a different color before. 

Report this comment
#135) On June 14, 2010 at 5:50 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

"Yes, they have..... for 20,000 years.  This is why I ask "in comparison to what?"

Personally, my gut tells me that the rapid loss of sea ice over the last 30 years is probably happening too fast to be consistant with a 20,000-year long trend of global warming.

Yes, we have seen warming for the last 30 years, and we have also seen warming for the last 20,000 years. But, unless someone has proven that these two rates of global warming are consistant with one another, we don't have enough information to support this theory.

"That's like saying Aaron Gray is the best free agent 7 footer in the NBA." 

Dirk Nowitski is expected to opt out of his contract this summer and become a free agent. So, that gives me hope that the IPCC will be able to improve their methodologies and win over more of the skeptics with their 2014 report.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement