|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/5/2008 6:21:20 PM | Look at what Troy Media just released today:
Editor's note: All content on troymedia.com is free to use. Please credit Troy Media Corporation.
Interview
July 2008
Interview with Lawrence Solomon - National Post columnist
Lawrence Solomon is the author of The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so. He is Energy Probe's executive director, a columnist with National Post and a past columnist with the Globe and Mail. He founded or helped to found several environmental organizations, including the World Rainforest Movement, Friends of the Earth Canada, and Lake Ontario Keeper. Along with Jane Jacobs and others, he helped found Energy Probe. Lawrence Solomon's first book, The Conserver Solution, was a best seller and the bible of the environmental movement in the late 1970s. A subsequent book, Breaking Up Ontario Hydro's Monopoly, led to Hydro's dismantling after the leaders of all three provincial parties endorsed it. The UK privatization of its power system followed Solomon's model for the breakup of utilities. He also invented satellite toll road technology that the EU and which the UK seem set to adopt by 2014. Solomon was an adviser to US President Jimmy Carter's Global 2000 Report. He was interviewed by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Frontier Centre: Can you tell us a bit about your environmental credentials? You have been a prominent critic, for example, of the energy industry.
Lawrence Solomon: I founded Energy Probe Research Foundation in 1980. Energy Probe has been one of the main critics of the energy industry since that time. We have opposed nuclear plants. We have opposed large hydro dams. We have opposed Arctic pipe lines and tar sands and we promote conservation and renewable energy.
FC: So why did you write the book The Deniers?
LS: Energy Probe has long thought that climate change could be a serious problem. We were, in fact, one of the first organizations in Canada, perhaps the first, to warn about the potential dangers of climate change. But over the years, the evidence that has emerged hasn’t really been that strong. And scientists who have pointed out the weakness of the case for global warming, of the Al Gore view, have been vilified I became interested in knowing who these scientists were, what their views were precisely and whether they really were kooks or in the pay of the oil industry, as their critics claim. So I decided to start profiling them in my weekly column for the National Post. I thought I would find a few who were credible but it turns out that I found a great many who were credible.
FC: If you listen to the media dialogue, it seems to be quite one-sided. Why does the media not present a more balanced view of this topic?
LS: The media believes that the science is settled. They have bought into what Al Gore has said, that the science is settled, that there are 2,500 scientists associated with the United Nations’ Panel on Climate Change that all agree with the United Nations’ conclusion. But the media is simply wrong. It hasn’t done its homework. It hasn’t contacted top scientists to find out that in fact the science is not settled. And it has not contacted the Secretariat for the UN’s climate change panel, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Had they done that, as I did, they would have discovered that the 2,500 scientists are not endorsers of the United Nations’ position. Those scientists are peer reviewers of background studies that went into the climate change documents and many of those peer reviewers don’t agree at all with the United Nations’ position.
FC: You could position your work as certainly critical of the environmental orthodoxy out there. Have you been attacked or criticized by your colleagues in the environmental movement?
LS: I haven’t. I expected that I would be attacked by them but to my surprise there has been to date not one criticism that I’m aware of from any of whom I would consider an environmental colleague. There has been criticism from a global warming blog site that is backed by someone from the public relations industry but that’s not an environmental criticism. Environmentalists, I believe, are torn on the issue. Many of them, I feel, are not convinced that the science is settled but they’re happy to see the Kyoto-type reforms being put in place because it accomplishes what environmentalists want. They want to see less use of fossil fuels. They want to see fewer tar sands. They want to see fewer arctic pipe lines. They want to see more conservation. They want to see less use of the automobile, fewer roads, fewer suburbs and sprawl. And they think they can accomplish all those things by going along with the climate change debate whether or not the science is right. Climate change is a secondary issue.
FC: So these groups are just using this as a convenient vehicle for various agendas?
LS: Some of them are, some of them I’m sure are entirely sincere. And it’s not just environmental groups. Those who find climate change convenient include groups concerned with third-world development. They’d like to see the Kyoto plan proceed because they see it as a way of transferring wealth to the third-world. (Some of these groups include) businesses. This is very big business now and many businesses are in the carbon trading field or think they can capitalize on it. There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars at stake here and businesses realize that. The research community has an interest. There are billions of dollars in research grants, $4 billion a year now in research grants. There are economists who don’t like the personal income tax system, the progressive income tax system and they would prefer to see a system based on commodity taxes. They see carbon as being a good way to accomplish that goal. So all the interest groups are trying to take advantage of the climate change reforms that seem to be on their way.
FC: Let’s get to the heart of the matter: is carbon dioxide or CO2 and global warming a problem for us as a society and the environment?
LS: Many scientists believe that CO2 is a problem. Many others, perhaps the majority of scientists, believe that CO2 is not a problem. Many scientists believe that CO2 is actually a benefit. It wasn’t actually that long ago that CO2 was universally regarded as beneficial, as plant food. CO2 is nature’s fertilizer. Only recently have we started to view CO2 with suspicion in this way.
FC: Some people seem to talk about CO2 as a form of pollution. Would you agree with that?
LS: No. I think people often confuse CO2 with other types of emissions. Coal burning produces lots of emissions, it produces NOX (nitrogen oxides) and SOX (sulphur oxides), mercury emissions. Those are known to be harmful. The carbon component of coal burning is not known to be harmful. CO2 may be benign. It may be beneficial. And yet we are putting it in the same category as known poisons. Carbon after all is the building block of life on Earth. We are a carbon-based planet. There is something dangerous about attacking the basis of life on Earth.
FC: You mentioned in your speeches to the Frontier that the Earth has never been greener, that we’ve never had more biota (the plant and animal life of a region). This is a very optimistic viewpoint. Yet we constantly hear Armageddon-type doom mongering about the environment.
LS: It’s not an optimistic viewpoint. It’s a viewpoint based on the data. Until a little while ago, we didn’t have a way of measuring how planet Earth was doing on the whole. Well now we have a measure. For the last few decades we have been measuring the growth on the planet. We’ve been measuring the amount of greenery we have, the amount of biota we have and the data shows that the Earth is greener now than since we’ve begun to take these measurements. Now it’s not as green as it has been in much earlier times. The Earth has been much hotter, much greener in earlier times but it’s the greenest it’s been in recent times. Some people see that with alarm. I don’t see why we would view heat and greenery with alarm. Normally we see that as good.
FC: If CO2 has benefits why would our policy makers construct complicated schemes around reducing CO2? People don’t understand how they work but cap and trade, carbon taxes, all these things.
LS: Politicians don’t realize that the science is not settled on climate change. They think it’s a done deal and it’s inevitable that they have to take action so the question that they face is what type of action should we take? But I think they need to step back and do the science because it’s not clear that there is a problem because of climate change. There may be no problem at all. It may be that we are about to enter into a cooling period. There’s a great deal of science that we don’t know and there’s vanishingly little that we do know about the climate.
FC: So what do you say about cap and trade and carbon tax schemes? Are they good ideas or bad ideas?
LS: Premature ideas. If we had a problem with carbon then it might be sensible to have an upheaval in our economy. Then it might be sensible to increase the costs of our fuel. Then it might be sensible to increase the costs of food as we’re doing because of bio-fuels. Then it might be sensible to increase our taxes. But in the absence of information I don’t think it’s sensible to do these things at all. I think what we need to do is get the information because these carbon schemes not only can harm the economy, they can harm the environment as well. And in fact they are harming the environment.
FC: So you are saying that we are unnecessarily raising the costs of our lifestyle, essentially, by going down this road?
LS: Yes but I wouldn’t characterize it as merely lifestyle. I would say that we are raising the costs of life. We are raising the cost of food and fuel. These are very basic to human life. They may translate to lifestyle for us in the West but for people in the third world it’s much closer to life than to lifestyle. When you are living on $1 a day and your food costs double, you are in trouble and your family is in trouble.
FC: The Feds are giving Saskatchewan $1 billion for a carbon capture project in the oil fields. Again, if CO2 is not a problem, can we say that we are essentially burying $1 billion in the ground?
LS: Well you could say that but it could be worse than that. Because not only might you be burying $1 billion in the ground but these carbon sequestration schemes, according to a recent study at Columbia University, could be inducing earthquakes. So we could actually be doing a great deal of harm to our cities because these carbon sequestration schemes are often located near cities.
FC: Could we also say, for example, that diverting that $1 billion into public housing, or whatever would be a better use of the resources?
LS: Certainly, putting money down a rat hole is not a good use of resources.
FC: In Manitoba we are closing a coal burning plant out by Brandon. Why is coal seen as a dirty fuel by the policy community?
LS: Coal used to be a very dirty fuel but coal has become cleaner and cleaner over the decades. Clean coal now is quite clean. Clean coal now has the same emissions profile as natural gas. Clean coal can become cleaner still. We can take even more of the pollutants out of coal and I believe we should. Clean coal, I think, is the immediate answer to Canada’s energy needs and the world’s energy needs. There are hundreds of years available of coal supplies. We shouldn’t be squandering that resource. We should be using it prudently.
FC: You’ve said that Kyoto has emerged as a destroyer of the environment. Can you describe this ultimate irony? You’ve already mentioned bio-fuels but you had several other examples.
LS: Kyoto, through various mechanisms, acts to destroy the global environment. One of those is through carbon offsets. When we buy a carbon offset in the West what we are often doing is buying a part of a carbon sink in the third world. That carbon sink might be a fast growing eucalyptus plantation. Eucalyptus is a fast growing tree that takes a lot of carbon out of the air. To get the land for that plantation farmers in the third world are often evicted from their land without compensation. Or an old growth forest may be converted to a eucalyptus plantation and there we lose the environmental amenities in that old-growth forest and the residents of that forest, the forest people, who make their living by collecting nuts and berries from the forest, lose their livelihood as well.
FC: What about ethanol?
LS: Ethanol is an enormous economic and environment boondoggle. It doesn’t have the environmental benefits that are touted for it. In fact, some studies (show) that air quality is worse in certain air sheds from ethanol burning. But apart from that even if you are concerned about greenhouse gases ethanol is not an answer. Ethanol increases the amount of greenhouse gases. But most damagingly, ethanol is contributing to the inflation that we’re seeing in food prices and this is leading to enormous upset especially in the third world where people are now protesting, sometimes rioting, because of the effect on them and their families from the high food prices.
FC: Why are there really no political parties who strongly oppose all this policy that’s emerging with Kyoto and the obsession with being green? Is it that politicians are afraid?
LS: I think it is fear. I think politicians have been cowed into backing what they think is an inevitable reform. They think that the public will accept nothing less than serious climate change reforms. That might be a carbon tax, it might be a cap and trade system, it might be different type of regulation. But politicians feel that they can’t lag on this issue. I think they’re wrong. I think politicians should demand a debate before they create enormous changes to Canadian society.
FC: What’s your view of the “Green Shift” plan put forward by federal Liberal leader Stephane Dion, which seems to be quite ambitious?
LS: In many ways, it’s not a principled plan at all. Stephane Dion is giving a pass to the car. People are not being hit at the gas pump. The reason he is giving people a pass at the gas pump is because he is afraid of the political consequences of going too far. But Stephane Dion’s plan ultimately is based on ignorance. He believes that there is a consensus on climate change. He is simply wrong on that. There is no consensus on climate change. I believe that if he realized that there was no consensus and if the public realized that there was no consensus that the Liberals would not be taking the Canadian society down this road.
FC: Who will the plan impact the most?
LS: The plan initially will be affecting home owners to a great extent. The average fuel bill will be going up $200 or $250. But in a way, Albertans are the real target of this. This is in some way the repeat of the National Energy Program because the lion’s share of the revenues will be coming from Alberta and then those will be mostly redistributed to the public at large. So Alberta is going to be victimized. The rest of the country is going to get some of Alberta’s spoils. I think the country as a whole will be worst off as a result of this exercise.
FC: How will Alberta, and I assume Saskatchewan, pay more through this plan? I don’t quite understand.
LS: Well under the Dion plan it’s the industries that will be providing most of the revenue. Those petroleum industries are largely concentrated in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
FC: It’s been curious, the response of Alberta and the oil industry. The energy industry’s approach has been to lie low and hope this all goes away. What do you think of that strategy?
LS: It hasn’t worked. Just the opposite. It’s playing into the hands of those who would like to see them shut down. The energy industry is afraid to fight for its rights and the public senses that. What the public gets from anyone who is afraid to fight for his rights is that he’s not proud of what he’s doing. And if the energy industry isn’t proud of what it is doing well, why should other Canadians be proud of the energy industry? The actions of the energy industry, more than anything else, are acting to undermine it. It should try to make its case. Some people would criticize it and everybody should treat arguments that come from the energy industry with some skepticism. But everybody would realize that they have a right to make a case. While the public should be skeptical of energy industry facts, the onus then comes on the skeptics to disprove the energy industry facts. If the energy industry presents its facts fairly they would not be easily refuted. They have not done that and they are suffering for it. And all Canadians will be suffering for it.
FC: So if you were asked for advice by the oil industry in Alberta, what would your advice be to them?
LS: I’d say ‘Come clean.’ Make your best case. Challenge people to knock it down. If they can’t knock it down, the Canadian people will be able to recognize that. If they can knock it down, well then you’ve made your case and you’ve lost. And you will have deserved to have lost. As it is, you’re losing and it’s not clear that you deserve to be losing.
FC: Where is this whole thing going? Do you think it’s going to fall apart?
LS: I think it will fall apart. I hope it falls apart before too much more damage is done. To date we have not had compelling evidence that climate change is either man-made or harmful. We are seeing a backlash in certain political jurisdictions. Case in point: England is one of the fiercest champions of the United Nations’ view on climate change. The London government has already fallen, some people say, because of the position on global warming. Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of England, seeing his job in jeopardy because of some of the climate change policies, is trying to back away. Governments are starting to realize that it’s not easy to just go along with public opinion because public opinion can turn around and bite them quite quickly. That should be an object lesson to Canada’s politicians as well. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/6/2008 8:47:49 AM | NovaScotiaLass;
Mr. Solomon has it essentially correct. There are minor points that are incorrect, such as the "2500 scientists," which are actually 600 scientists, 600 "expert reviewers," and 1300 "bureaucrats" are what makes up the IPCC. But the fact remains, despite what some of our entrenched advocates say, that the science is far from settled on the topic. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/6/2008 9:08:15 AM | Mr. Solomon is an active environmentalist. That's what drew my attention to this particular release. I bet it will cause a very large commotion in the political and science circles.
My own personal theory is that climate change is complex, that we as a species are contributing to the problem through increased emissions in CO2, but that the weak solar cycle might very well hide the effects of our actions until 2030 or so, when we will enter into the next strong solar cycle.
My fear is that the politicians, large enterprises, and the public will not believe the researchers any more, because there won't be evidence of climate warming, and so any strides we've taken to remedy the problem will be reversed. Then we'll be in a position where we have astronomical amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and we'll head into a warming period.
In any case, this book might cause people to reconsider the whole issue. It remains to be seen whether that's good or bad...I simply like to know the truth and make decisions based on that...ones that are good for the environment of course | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/6/2008 3:38:42 PM | | Solomon of course has no science education what so ever, and has built a small career around global warming denialism. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/7/2008 9:03:34 AM | | Believe the researchers about what, NovaScotiaLass? That the science is "settled?" When that's not true, they'd best be disbelieved. Currently, there is no climate problem caused by human greenhouse emissions to be "remedied." Hurricanes aren't getting more frequent or stronger due to warming (human caused or not), sea levels aren't rising any faster because of melting glaciers or polar ice (whether caused by human emissions or not), there's no danger of the thermohaline or other circulations of the oceans stopping due to any human cause, or any other catastrophe that is commonly touted as a reason to act in ways that might prove detrimental to human society. As a US President once said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." (Franklin D. Roosevelt) | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/7/2008 9:44:01 AM | | The most difficult aspect of Gobal warming for me is how much is really attributed to man made CO2 emissions and what is the likely outcome Earth after it is summed up with naturally occurring green house gases. I don't doubt that there is some man-made global warming that is occurring or the fact that where the green house gases come from at this point is irrelevant, but is the outcome huge or a small perturbation? | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/7/2008 10:20:00 AM | Fear and ignorance are the most effective tools for political power. To quote Mao, into empty minds, many wonderful things can be put.
I find it disturbing when someone says something along the lines of "the science is settled." IT CEASES TO BE SCIENCE WHEN SOMETHING IS "SETTLED", IT HAS BECOME A BELIEF THEREFOR; RELIGION. Science always doubts its conclusions.
Those leading the charge for government controls based on global warming theories are politicians. Think about that for a while.
I feel there are two related issues clouding the global warming debate. The current primary evidence for global warming concerns glacial and polar ice melts. Both feed fresh water into ocean currents thus feeding ocean current propulsion simply due to the mixed water density causing an imbalance. The mechanism of thermally driven propulsion is based on the same principal of density change. Geography plays a part in how and where these currents flow. Glacial melt cannot continue forever and once it stops, it stands to reason near polar propulsion in the ocean currents will stop. The result will be a rapid cooling in the near polar regions lasting a very long time. The new white ice reflects the solar energy and the ice age hardens with massive growth in glaciers. In the mean time, volcanic activity and the collection of extraterrestrial dust deposits on the ice and the very cold temperatures reduce precipitation to cover the dust. The darker color begins to absorb solar heat and the ice begins to melt. The fresh water into the salty oceans feeds a restart of the near polar currents and the thaw begins. "Dams" to ocean currents, such as the Bering straights reopen allowing even more thawing from the warmth of ocean currents further accelerating the currents. The decades and centuries of dust accumulated by the growing ice now begins to concentrate on the ice surface and accelerates the melt. I would suggest those who are interested, research the descriptions of the "alarmed scientists" who have visited the example glaciers. The interesting thing about this "global warming" is a reduction in tropical ocean heat and reduced storm activity until the near polar currents stop. The whole ice age to global warming cycle is not sinusoidal, its asymptotic! As we approach the end of the melt, the near polar regions accelerate their warming and once some peak is reached, a rapid freeze ice age begins. A question to be visited concerns ice age timing between the northern and southern hemispheres. Are they in sync? Does one drive the other? Can we devise a way to look beyond the frequency of ice ages but to the shape of the cycle? Is it sinusoidal or asymptotic? Are there geological structures that would have a similar effect on currents? Are there extraterrestrial events that could effect the cycle? The reality is that there are a great many questions and theories to be visited before the politicians begin to strangle us selling their religious beliefs.
I hope I have put this theoretical scenario in perspective but I doubt the religious believers would be convinced by anything. That would take a scientific thought process. I'm sure many here will cite their litany of sources like citing biblical quotes instead of using their own minds. Such anemic minds are the fodder for the politicians.
Conserving energy and the environment have plenty of motivation by themselves without some religious-political motive. Its like the stupidity of smoking and other self abuses we do to ourselves. (by the way, Al Gore got his start from tobacco money) Just stop the brain atrophy and think for yourselves instead of citing this and that expert "beleiver" or "denialist". We are here on this scum covered ball of magma for too short a time. Make that time a wonderful one for yourself those that follow you. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/7/2008 5:54:03 PM | Notice how the latest disambiguation is to misconstrue the understanding of how the atmospheric CO2 mechanism works to mean the science is settled in an absolute manner. The entire science is substituted for the understanding of the mechanism. This subtle change is then connected with “settled” (outside of context) to mean defined and unquestionable. Now the straw man is savagely beaten. “Calling the science of climate change “settled” is just being a zealot of fundamentalist proportions”.
Nothing new, it’s just the same old straw man tactics to denigrate the current understanding. No science is presented because there really isn’t any that truly supports the denier’s stance. Sure, we get deflections with asides about ocean currents etc… but those have already been discussed ad nauseam.
Nova…
Mr. Solomon is an active environmentalist. That's what drew my attention to this particular release. I bet it will cause a very large commotion in the political and science circles.
No need to be too worried, Nova. Solomon’s book is really nothing more than a rehash of the same stuff we see on these threads. Solomon is cagier (after all he is a seasoned editorialist) and carefully weaves in disclaimers in his book. Somewhere in the first 50 pages (around page 47) a reader will find that Solomon himself admits he really isn’t saying the mechanism behind anthropogenic is incorrect, or that anyone really accredited in the field is denying that understanding. Then again, he will go on for hundreds of pages more with specious references (most of which we have seen on these threads).
Solomon’s book is the usual cherry-picked data and out-of-context “support”. Solomon pulls out the same old stuff from familiar denial heroes. Is he an environmentalist? Sure, who can’t call themselves that? Why does he do this? Two reasons… Money is one. The other is that he has been a strong anti-nuke power advocate in the past (thus the environmentalist title) and recent policies are not in favour of a nuke-power-plant free environment. This is expected as most well-known deniers have a clearly conflicting agenda. Sometimes it’s an old wound like a run in with academia decades before, sometimes it’s a newer one.
Essentially right? Nope. Essentially junk.
My own personal theory is that climate change is complex, that we as a species are contributing to the problem through increased emissions in CO2, but that the weak solar cycle might very well hide the effects of our actions until 2030 or so, when we will enter into the next strong solar cycle.
You are correct.
You will notice that although this thread is clearly about the atmospheric CO2 mechanism and how it contributes to climate. However, deniers will use this thread as another launching point for promoting this agenda to falsely label anthropogenic climate change as only the product of “alarmists” who base their decisions on faulty science.
Any poster who speaks out is immediately attacked with direct or indirect personal insult and comments on how they are merely “sheep”. Furthermore, those who use the science and explain how science is carefully scrutinized are speciously called “religious” as to denote a certain “blind faith”. This is just a smoke screen to imply that any counter accusation is just retaliation. It’s a typical defense of those that actually employ “faith” rather than objective reasoning. Pre-empt the opposition with accusations that they are doing what you are actually doing… see how that works?
The truth is that science IS a self-examining process. Now that there is clear correlation between the CO2 mechanism and global climate, deniers have altered their attack. The suggestion now is that any outlying data, postulations of alternate mechanisms, model refinement or general empirical error is “proof” that the main theory is “unsettled”. This is nothing more than careless or uneducated (or worse yet, purposely ignorant) interpretation of the process.
We have gone over this ad nauseam. There is nothing new here. Furthermore, when the proponents of this propaganda have demonstrated a weak grasp of logic and science (or purposeful ignorance of them), or have been shown to employ subterfuge in the form of red herring and straw man arguments, this continued grandstanding is just petty defiance. It is neither sincere nor is it science.
My fear is that the politicians, large enterprises, and the public will not believe the researchers any more, because there won't be evidence of climate warming, and so any strides we've taken to remedy the problem will be reversed. Then we'll be in a position where we have astronomical amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and we'll head into a warming period.
The dissent we see here is normal to what communities experience when change is required. The denial camp is typically small but very vocal. No matter how many times they proudly declare how skepticism is growing the reality is that they are just trying to convince themselves.
Education is the key to success in getting the public onside. Why do you think deniers like to flood threads with half-truths, deflections, and conclusions based on illogic? It is hoped that their agenda will be promoted by the subterfuge of false education. Denial only has to be met with honest debate. Challenging deniers is educating the public by demonstrating how deniers either dance around the subject (mere evasion) or resort to name-calling and personal attacks (in hopes to mask a false position with a “shouting” match), but never admit to faulty logic. When cherry-picking or false interpretations are exposed, they avoid further discussion and move on to the next position.
Deniers like to promote the idea that just having controversy means equal and opposite camps of thought. If not that, they will promote the false logic “if anyone disagrees, then the science is wrong.” If this were so, one only has to say that the moon is made of green cheese and ignore any evidence that it isn’t in order to give it equal merit. If anyone challenges that, call the challenger a “religious fanatic” or “a mindless sheep”, because apparently that is rock solid logical debate. RoFl.
This exposure of intolerant behaviour is all that is required to show the public at large the reality of denial.
It is assured that deniers will prove it again by rehashing old myths, personal attacks, name-calling and other subterfuge. (Other mechanisms have also been covered ad nauseam, so bringing them up in a CO2 thread is just trying to deflect attention.)
In any case, this book might cause people to reconsider the whole issue. It remains to be seen whether that's good or bad...I simply like to know the truth and make decisions based on that...ones that are good for the environment of course
There will be those that will feel that the book is the truth and look no further (or no further than anything else that agrees with the false logic). It happens. However, these people will likely be ones who hold a notion and hunt for ONLY for reasons (regardless of how contrived) that justify their belief. This is denial.
Even at the levels of key decision makers, we will probably have a small percentage of deniers. It happens there too. However, education works for most… even CEO’s and politicians.
To those that think name-calling is mature debate…
Go ahead…LoL… parrot and name-call The Collective as that is the typical defense of those without merit. It’s either that or just a retreat into another false (and previously tried and debunked) position.
You have engage the B0rg.
“Resistance is Futile”
| |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/7/2008 8:51:55 PM | The term troll is the appropriate here. It is characterized by anonymous posters with little to no substance, only dismissal of opposing views. Their posts wreak of theater and when discussing science, they tend to confuse science and science fiction as the general public has little ability to discern the difference. As an example, the claims of debunking are patently false. The effect of ocean currents distributing heat around the planet are well known and have been known for centuries. They account for much of the current population distribution. The mechanisms fueling the currents are well known. The quantitative analysis of the currents is sketchy at best as space observations only cover surface temperatures, not temperatures and salinity distributed and in motion throughout the oceans. A sprinkling of monitors at best can only see a few points in an environment with at least a half dozen significant dimensions. If the trolls had any substance, they would stand behind them with their reputation on the line but that is not the nature of trolls. Instead of actually expanding an open mind, they tend to obsess with science fiction or mythology.
I used to keep bees (Borg) on the ranch. I harvested the product of their hard work. A few moths moved in and killed all the hives all the way down to the last bee. Hive resistance was futile.
On a related topic, the "evil oil" religious fanatics promoted biofuels in the form of ethanol. The cyclic nature of corn crops for ethanol results in nutrient surges in rivers, lakes and around the mouths of rivers. The result are algae blooms that die off when the cycle ends. The dying algae starve the water of oxygen when it decays. The current dead zone in the gulf around the mouth of the Mississippi is expected to be the largest ever this year at over 79000 square miles. Think in terms of all sea life destroyed in an area of 79000 square miles! A side result of the decay and the reason the oxygen is gone is the production of massive amounts of CO2 from the decaying algae and other sea life. Another gas is also produce in the decay process: methane. Methane, if you love the green house gas concept, is six times the IR absorber that CO2 is. Yet another side effect of the global alarming political movement is the higher cost of food and lack of surpluses formally used to relieve third world famine. The the president of India has labeled the alcohol for fuel mandates as a crime against humanity. Yes, the politics of this religion and the trolls who so elequently support it do a real bang up job don't they? If these trolls are blindly followed, just think of the damage they will do to planet Earth. Resistance is not futile, its necessary. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/8/2008 11:39:00 AM | Message 210
The term troll is the appropriate here. It is characterized by anonymous posters with little to no substance, only dismissal of opposing views. Just because one says so? LoL. Nope. It would only be appropriate if one really did that. However, since it’s pretty easy for any viewer to check the history of posts for participants, they can see the label wouldn’t apply to The Collective. There’s got to be a better comeback than that. People can decide for themselves who behaves more the troll. At any rate, this is excellent proof of the modus operandi of deniers, “name-calling and personal attack” instead of staying on topic. Good job.
Message 210
Their posts wreak of theater and when discussing science, they tend to confuse science and science fiction as the general public has little ability to discern the difference. As an example, the claims of debunking are patently false.
Confusion? How apropos. This would be an “add homonym” ad hominem! (You probably meant “reek” as “wreak” is a homonym and nonsensical in your usage of the word). To be theatrical would be compliment when conversing on “dry” topics such as CO2, and that too is likely unintentional but we will accept it with the usual grace.
As far as confusing science and science fiction, that would be more in line with those who feel their concept of the CO2 mechanism is far more accurate than that of the academia at large. Speaking of Science Fiction… deniers reference “fictional science”. Most astroturfing organizations like OISM push out “fictional science”, but The Collective is fully sentient of the line between reality and fantasy (something those with delusions of grandeur are not so clear on).
As far as the debunking being “patently false”, it takes only a few minutes of searching the remaining threads on climate change or “global warming” to prove such statements to be pure fantasy too. The Collective has supplied detail, ample links and discussion in the past. As it is now a forgone conclusion that contrarian’s really only wish to flood threads with the same old debunked junk, The Collective only has to refer people back to those threads.
Message 210
The effect of ocean currents distributing heat around the planet are well known and have been known for centuries. They account for much of the current population distribution. The mechanisms fueling the currents are well known. The quantitative analysis of the currents is sketchy at best as space observations only cover surface temperatures, not temperatures and salinity distributed and in motion throughout the oceans. A sprinkling of monitors at best can only see a few points in an environment with at least a half dozen significant dimensions.
This thread is on Atmospheric CO2. The THC is not on topic. Asides like this only prove the modus operandi of deniers again. This time it’s the “deflect with dialogue into other issues”. Why not bring up cosmic rays? Whoops… someone already tried that.
Message 210
If the trolls had any substance, they would stand behind them with their reputation on the line but that is not the nature of trolls. Instead of actually expanding an open mind, they tend to obsess with science fiction or mythology.
That might carry a tiny bit of weight if it were not for the fact that The Collective always encourages viewers to study the posting history of all posters to get an idea who is or is not being sincere. Reputation is built on deeds, not on a mug shot. Not on topic and nice try.
LoL… as if a mere avatar or a quote or two are proof of obsession; the definition of a forum troll doesn’t indicate obsession with science fiction or mythology. Actually, forum trolls tend to employ personal attacks and inflammatory comments to get a rise out of others. We’ll let the viewers decide who is using those tactics.
Message 210
I used to keep bees (Borg) on the ranch. I harvested the product of their hard work. A few moths moved in and killed all the hives all the way down to the last bee. Hive resistance was futile.
An irrelevant fantasy. LMAO. Besides, harvesting moth dust can’t be nearly as lucrative as honey. Hopefully they are useful for something. Maybe they can come in handy in case a gang of woollen sweaters attacks you. Rofl.
Message 210
On a related topic, the "evil oil" religious fanatics… … a crime against humanity.
Not really relevant to the atmospheric CO2 mechanism. Feel free to start a thread on this, if it hasn’t been discussed yet.
Message 210
Yes, the politics of this religion and the trolls who so elequently support it do a real bang up job don't they? If these trolls are blindly followed, just think of the damage they will do to planet Earth. Resistance is not futile, its necessary.
Politics? This is a thread on the science. Nice try but people can easily check out The Collective’s posts to see the constant reminder for people to “steer clear of the politics”. Wow. This really is like shooting fish in a barrel. What did B0rg just say in message 209?
“It is assured that deniers will prove it again by rehashing old myths, personal attacks, name-calling and other subterfuge. (Other mechanisms have also been covered ad nauseam, so bringing them up in a CO2 thread is just trying to deflect attention.)”
Yep. Same old name-calling, personal attacks and deflections instead of being on topic… Just keep proving this prophecy… LoL!
You have engage the B0rg
“Resistance is Futile”
(Bring on the Moths… LMAO)
| |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/8/2008 7:17:41 PM | If the definition fits, then the definition stands. TROLL although mindless drone would be fine if preferred.
The previous threads did not prove anything about the quantitative analysis of the ocean currents. Speaking as an expert on measurement technologies with a real identity as opposed to some borrowed identity from a canceled TV show, we are not there. At best, there is nothing more than publish or parish academic opinions for grant money.
Speaking of reviewing old threads, applying the ironic term "evil oil" and religious beliefs is quite appropriate for the TV show villain collective. 7 of 9 was hot but the spiked heals? Pretty much jumping the shark. What characterized the assimilated creatures was an inability to think for themselves so I suppose it could be an appropriate moniker.
Back on the topic of CO2; one cannot separate atmospheric CO2 from its sources. As an example, the collective should revisit the ethanol scheme its ilk forced on us. Its easy to research but as I prefer people to think for themselves therefor, I let them find their own sources. One can find a vast array of pro and con sources on the internet on just about any topic. I see no reason to quote a few biased to my argument when my focus is to get people to think for themselves. Very different from the TV science fiction portrayal of the drone Borg. To continue; the massive die-off resulting in large part from the ethanol effort has resulted in massive releases of CO2 in the oceans and is killing the coral reefs just like its killing other sea life in the dead zones and beyond. The borg-like drone disciples of CO2 global warming religion interpret the CO2 as coming from fossil fuel burning as they are blind to their own political activism being a cause. If one is able to see the big picture, when discussing man made issues, the root cause is political. After all, the intent of the GW crowd is political controls on the activities of society. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/8/2008 8:40:45 PM | Corn is already grown in vast quantities for human and animal feed. Use for ethanol is a red herring. Use of corn production to create bio-fuel increases the cost of corn as food, but but does not necessarily increase the growing of corn or pollution resulting therefrom. You directly blame the "die off" on ethanol production, yet the term "corn desert" is decades old.
disciples of CO2 global warming religion interpret the CO2 as coming from fossil fuel burning
Because it's traceable. The statistical increase in CO2 mirrors human production, and the isotope content mirrors the isotope content of the sources humans burn. Neither factor correlates with natural sources.
After all, the intent of the GW crowd is political controls on the activities of society
In contrast to governmental or corporate dominance of continued profit from sources of CO2? In contrast to the complaints of the affluent first world public who lament the fact that it costs them more and more to consume more and more and produce more and more CO, CO2, CH4, NH3, and O3. please sir...tuppins? just tuppins? i can't afford to burn anything else without tuppins to do it...
the collective should revisit the ethanol scheme its ilk forced on us
Another misdirect. Confabulating a misguided solution with the actual problems does nothing to negate or solve the actual problems.
but as I prefer people to think for themselves therefor, I let them find their own sources.
In full knowledge that the majority are a fairly ignorant bunch who read the first 5 lines of an editorial before leaping to a conclusion about the actual science? That's constructive. Just what we need. More people who don't understand what they're reading, picking one paper they like, then picking similar papers they like, and drawing conclusions without ever giving consideration to additional data or arguments. | |
|
| |
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/8/2008 10:29:56 PM | I'm gonna poke my head in here hoping it doesn't get shot off like it does on most AGW threads. I'm a scientist. BS Chemistry. I don't believe it's science yet. I believe it's a burgeoning science but not yet ready for prime time.
One of the formative steps of a hypothesis is the proposal of a falsifiable test. That is, at test that at least makes the hypothesis more likely than not. AGW hasn't gotten there yet. Really, no fault of the researchers as this is a very complex problem. I can't even imagine the number of variables they're trying to model. All that being said, there is not yet a falsfiable test of the AGW Hypothesis.
Certainly, the planet seems to be warming. The physics and geophysical foundations of the AGW Hypothesis have strong underpinnings but I'm loathe to cut these guys a break because they didn't do the same for me. Seriously, science is science and nobody gets a free pass. There must be falsifiabilty before this thing even gets to the point of hypothesis. Not there yet.
I can't help but remind everyone of yet another similar hypothesis that had strong underpinnings yet fell flat on its face. Malthusian cataclysm predicted that the Earth would run out of food, fuel, space a long time ago. Didn't happen. Too many assumptions that didn't come true.
So, I wait and watch. Nervously. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/9/2008 4:32:47 AM |
I'm gonna poke my head in here hoping it doesn't get shot off like it does on most AGW threads. I'm a scientist. BS Chemistry. I don't believe it's science yet. I believe it's a burgeoning science but not yet ready for prime time.
One of the formative steps of a hypothesis is the proposal of a falsifiable test. That is, at test that at least makes the hypothesis more likely than not. AGW hasn't gotten there yet. Really, no fault of the researchers as this is a very complex problem. I can't even imagine the number of variables they're trying to model. All that being said, there is not yet a falsfiable test of the AGW Hypothesis.
Certainly, the planet seems to be warming. The physics and geophysical foundations of the AGW Hypothesis have strong underpinnings but I'm loathe to cut these guys a break because they didn't do the same for me. Seriously, science is science and nobody gets a free pass. There must be falsifiabilty before this thing even gets to the point of hypothesis. Not there yet.
I can't help but remind everyone of yet another similar hypothesis that had strong underpinnings yet fell flat on its face. Malthusian cataclysm predicted that the Earth would run out of food, fuel, space a long time ago. Didn't happen. Too many assumptions that didn't come true.
So, I wait and watch. Nervously.
I couldn't agree more with what you've said. The unfortunate aspect of AGW is that it as taken on both a philosophical and political life and the science behind it has taken a back seat. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/9/2008 6:52:18 AM | Is too hot;
You've got it essentially right. The notion of the falsifiable test is one that the AGW hypothesis refuses to even consider. But you might check out youtube, for Bob Carter's "5 tests of Co2." He applies 5 tests to Co2 and whether or not it actually causes climate change, and it fails all 5. Including the test of correlation; it even failed that one.
Don't worry too much about getting your head shot off. Words aren't like gunfire.  | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/9/2008 11:13:29 AM |
Corn is already grown in vast quantities for human and animal feed.
Yes but not to the extreme it is being grown to meet the ethanol mandates. It does not take fertilizer to cause the nutrient surges and algea blooms, the simple act of farming and the surge nature of rain runoff will do the job. The CO2 I referred to as killing coral reefs is linked by the AWG crowd purely through speculation on the part of the observers. The CO2 from sealife die-offs originates from recent atmospheric CO2 and will reflect its isotope signature.
In contrast to governmental or corporate dominance of continued profit from sources of CO2?
If you would read more of my rants, you would realize I am not a fan of wasteful use of any resources, least of all the human mind. To that end, I am disturbed when science becomes religious beliefs and then political action implimented by scientifically incompetent politicians. You stand openly behind your posts and to me, that makes you one of the more respectable forum participants even if we often disagree. Government mandates usually produce unintended side effects often more harmful than the problem they were intended to address. MTBE is a good environmental example and now we have this growing ethanol mess. In my lifetime, I have seen and experienced many others. Political mandates have the effect of numbing free thought and the liberty to pursue real solutions. In virtually all political power grabs in human history, the first tool of control is fear. The political power grabs based on AGW follow this pattern with its leading proponents already set up to personally profit from the political system they are trying to create. Note "carbon credits".
Confabulating a misguided solution with the actual problems does nothing to negate or solve the actual problems.
Poorly thought out "solutions" for the very problem claimed that actually add to the problem and create or expand other problems is an issue worth considering with an unbiased mind. Custer style arrogance leads to disaster. Coral reefs are by far the greatest storage of carbon on the surface of this planet. The misguided AGW driven political ethanol mandate meant to address their religious belief in AGW is killing the coral just like the expanded fuel farming is killing massive amounts of other sea life.
In full knowledge that the majority are a fairly ignorant bunch who read the first 5 lines of an editorial before leaping to a conclusion about the actual science? That's constructive. Just what we need. More people who don't understand what they're reading, picking one paper they like, then picking similar papers they like, and drawing conclusions without ever giving consideration to additional data or arguments.
Would you prefer censorship? Few AGW proponents even read the first five lines! They will listen to celebrities for their opinions. The picking and choosing of papers is exactly what has sold the AGW concept playing on fear and building a political movement yet you somehow extrapolate that is what I have done. It is that process I run counter to. The AGW fear is then sold by incompetent celebrities to the masses, not open discussion forums. Those of us skilled in physics who see problems with the theory itself, and see alternate explanations for their supporting observations, see disasterous consequences from the proposed and implemented solutions. We are alarmed but we don't have the celebrities with us. Maybe we need to smoke dope with them to get their attention. It is in the interest of this planet's inhabitants, we do our best to enlighten that "ignorant" majority. Its my opinion they actually have a brain, it only needs some exercise. Free thought is not memorization or quoting someone else's thoughts but the seeking of knowledge for themselves. That is why I challenge people to find the sources themselves so they can see all sides. If the technological solutions to the issues facing mankind were in a text book, then we would have already solved them. The solutions will take creative technical thought, not political rallies highlighted by celebrities and the latest popular rock band. Unfortunately, the myopic seeing only one issue are leading the ignorant. Its the way the AGW leaders want it. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/9/2008 11:51:16 AM | Message 218
Would you prefer censorship?
The tactics employed by deniers IS to achieve this very goal of censorship. By flooding threads with illogic, deflections or totally false claims, and then attempting to bully critics into silence by name-calling and personal attack, they clearly are not supporting open dialogue. Claiming that dissent is merely appropriate skepticism is unlikely when repeated requests for corroboration are evaded with one excuse or another.
Those five-or-so lines are critical to this discussion.
Message 212
If the definition fits, then the definition stands. TROLL although mindless drone would be fine if preferred.
LoL. The definition doesn’t fit. According to most deniers, even if there WAS a consensus, only a few vocal dissenters saying “not a troll” are all it would take to be “not a troll”. RoFL. Nope. Not a troll, not matter how one tries to convince themselves or others by merely repeating a clearly false accusation.
As was mentioned before…
“Actually, forum trolls tend to employ personal attacks and inflammatory comments to get a rise out of others. We’ll let the viewers decide who is using those tactics.”
Sticking to the topic would be preferred, but proving that one has little to offer other than degenerating to personal attacks is still a choice. All deniers have pretty much taken that route once their false arguments were stripped away.
Message 212
The previous threads did not prove anything about the quantitative analysis of the ocean currents. Speaking as an expert on measurement technologies with a real identity as opposed to some borrowed identity from a canceled TV show, we are not there. At best, there is nothing more than publish or parish academic opinions for grant money.
The previous threads showed all of us who were lurkers a distinct dichotomy between those that sincerely studied the science, and those that chose to speciously promote dissent. The former openly examined evidence, and stayed on topic. The latter were quick to employ childish name-calling when challenged (just as they do today).
The sidetrack into the THC is merely the typical diversion. Denigrating the moniker an opponent chooses is yet another example of irrelevant disparagement. Neither of these tactics has proven effective in the past. It isn’t working now.
We believe the colloquialism one is clutching for is “publish or perish” and not “parish” (got to love those “add homonyms”… LoL is this “pastor” present?). Even so, such a condition is irrelevant.
Message 212
Speaking of reviewing old threads, applying the ironic term "evil oil" and religious beliefs is quite appropriate for the TV show villain collective. 7 of 9 was hot but the spiked heals? Pretty much jumping the shark. What characterized the assimilated creatures was an inability to think for themselves so I suppose it could be an appropriate moniker.
LoL. We were not aware that the fictitious characters of The Borg had a religion. Either way, it’s irrelevant. Yes, we are so incapable of “thinking for ourselves” that this very text is being written by artificial intelligence. It is sad indeed to be bested so soundly and so often by software generated replies. We’d feel sorry for The Collective’s opponents but emotions are irrelevant (We love that word!)
By the way, the word is “heels”. The Collective isn’t big on spelling (heck we spell our avatar with a zero), but come on… you have to do better than that to maintain some level of credibility.
Message 212
Back on the topic of CO2; one cannot separate atmospheric CO2 from its sources. As an example, the collective should revisit the ethanol scheme its ilk forced on us. Its easy to research but as I prefer people to think for themselves therefor, I let them find their own sources. One can find a vast array of pro and con sources on the internet on just about any topic.
ROFl. This excuse of “look it up for yourself” was unsuccessful when you were challenged to provide support for some rants in the past. If one sincerely wanted people to research this for themselves they would stick to the science.
Deniers only HOPE that people will think that there are similar proportions of equally valid pro and con sources. The truth is that the dissenting crowd is very small, populated mainly by self-proclaimed experts like Solomon and promote their opinion via “fictional science”. Those that follow these pariahs do so as a means to feel superior by the false notion that merely being skeptical is a sign of higher intellect or less gullibility than those who understand the science as it is. It’s a very personal thing with deniers. If it were not so, there wouldn’t be the predictable retreat to personal attacks and name-calling whenever illogic or subterfuge is exposed.
Message 212
I see no reason to quote a few biased to my argument when my focus is to get people to think for themselves.
One can speciously ignore the consequence that credibility is out-the-door when support in the form of peer-reviewed research cannot be produced. It only proves that there is little more than feigned bravado behind the dissent.
Message 212
Very different from the TV science fiction portrayal of the drone Borg.
Actually, The Star Trek Borg thought “collectively” and impersonally. It is quite an advanced and socially redeeming way of thinking. One may want to exercise that concept. Most denier heroes that are often quoted by the deniers are literally supporting denial for selfish reasons. They get a pay cheque for telling half-truths and generating dissent. The recently elevated Solomon does so to further his agenda on anti-nuke power policies.
Message 212
To continue; the massive die-off resulting in large part from the ethanol effort has resulted in massive releases of CO2 in the oceans and is killing the coral reefs just like its killing other sea life in the dead zones and beyond.
The topic is really about the atmospheric CO2 mechanism and how rapidly elevated concentration has been correlated to global climate change. If it so interests you, please feel free to start a thread on the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone. Be sure to specifically state that it has an effect in the same magnitude as atmospheric CO2 in respects to climate change as you are implying.
Message 212
The borg-like drone disciples of CO2 global warming religion interpret the CO2 as coming from fossil fuel burning as they are blind to their own political activism being a cause. If one is able to see the big picture, when discussing man made issues, the root cause is political. After all, the intent of the GW crowd is political controls on the activities of society.
So let’s see… The Collective asks all to steer clear of the politics and THAT is seen as being a political activist… Right. If politics did nothing towards controlling the activities of the public at large, we would eventually be in a state of anarchy. Even the collection of taxes requires some form of control for few would pay if there were no penalty for not doing so. Anyways, that politics, and this is a discussion on atmospheric CO2. Molecules don’t vote.
Message 215
I'm gonna poke my head in here hoping it doesn't get shot off like it does on most AGW threads. I'm a scientist. BS Chemistry. I don't believe it's science yet. I believe it's a burgeoning science but not yet ready for prime time.
Actually don’t worry at all, Too Hot. As you will see from all these threads, those that draw from the current state of the science are both reasonable and mature. The record will also show that most (if not all) personal attacks come from deniers, who when challenged on their unsupported opinion, will resort to all sorts of juvenile behaviour like name-calling and selective cognition in attempts to bully their opposition into silence. So as long as you are perceived by deniers to not be in opposition to their view, you will unlikely be personally attacked.
The disciplines applied to measuring the variables associated are bona fide sciences. They are certainly “there” and will provide the empirical record necessary to refine the overall model. It was testing the null hypothesis that debunked the “cosmic ray” correlation theory.
Message 217
You've got it essentially right. The notion of the falsifiable test is one that the AGW hypothesis refuses to even consider. But you might check out youtube, for Bob Carter's "5 tests of Co2." He applies 5 tests to Co2 and whether or not it actually causes climate change, and it fails all 5. Including the test of correlation; it even failed that one.
The null hypothesis is not ignored by the scientific community no matter how often deniers pretend it is. Bob Carter? As usual, instead of peer-reviewed reference all you get is some astroturfer. Bob Carter is yet another Exxon funded propagandist. Here are some handy links to why his “science” is not valid…
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1134
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/bobcarter.html
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/2007/08/28/bob-carters-mythology-is-global-temperature-meaningless/
No doubt there will be those who will try to deflect this by saying “these are not peer-reviewed science. They are just other popular blogs with opposing views”. Well… the illogic to that is that these are presented to debunk Bob Carter, not the science. Deniers have been given every opportunity to present REAL peer-reviewed support. Yet, as usual, all you get is reference to the likes of Bob Carter.
This is just another attempt to pass off “fictional science” as proof of legitimacy by deniers.
Just like always…
”Education is the key to success in getting the public onside. Why do you think deniers like to flood threads with half-truths, deflections, and conclusions based on illogic? It is hoped that their agenda will be promoted by the subterfuge of false education.”
You have engage the B0rg
“Resistance is Futile”
(Bring on 7 of 9, “heals” and all) | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/9/2008 2:56:54 PM | I see the paranoia of the TV character wannabes shines through. An anonymous AGW troll listing a personal attack web site as "unbiased" as exxonsecrets in an attack on some non-anonymous PHD?
How is it possible to make a personal attack on a non-person? What the "collective" is so vigorously attacking is open minded doubt all the while screaming "lies" yet not offering anything to refute the so called lies. Where are the refuting facts? Those who claim the jury is still out only wish for more science, not dogma and condemnation of their logical concerns. Where is the "censorship" except for the rants of "lies" themselves? The quest for more data to make conclusions is about is as far from censorship as one can get yet any observations not following the "collective" talking points are labeled lies. Except for such illogical things as spiked heels, the TV borg were far more logical and certainly more self controlled.
I would like to see how my theories and explanations are half truths without a speck of facts to prove it. Some more reasonable people following your religious chanting will at least parrot the biased conclusions of the AGW movement. You simply resort to citing personal attack web sites and padantic but empty rants. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/9/2008 5:28:09 PM | Message 220
I see the paranoia of the TV character wannabes shines through. An anonymous AGW troll listing a personal attack web site as "unbiased" as exxonsecrets in an attack on some non-anonymous PHD?
ROFLMAO! What did The Collective just say in message 219?
…No doubt there will be those who will try to deflect this by saying “these are not peer-reviewed science. They are just other popular blogs with opposing views”. Well… the illogic to that is that these are presented to debunk Bob Carter, not the science. Deniers have been given every opportunity to present REAL peer-reviewed support. Yet, as usual, all you get is reference to the likes of Bob Carter…
By the way was that PhD in climate science? This is yet another groundless comeback along with yet another personal attack. Deniers do little but this.
Message 220
How is it possible to make a personal attack on a non-person?
Well… that’s easy to answer. One attacks the logic or the foundation of the logic, not the poster. You choose to attack the poster yet again. Therefore you are employing a personal attack. Whether you personally believe that poster to be a non-person is… irrelevant. That was too easy. It’s really like shooting fish in a barrel.
Message 220
What the "collective" is so vigorously attacking is open minded doubt all the while screaming "lies" yet not offering anything to refute the so called lies. Where are the refuting facts?
Nope. People can easily check the posting history to see that The Collective has always been in support of diligent skepticism. Purposely misrepresenting willing dissent to be the same as scientific skepticism is in essence a lie. As far as the other theories, most that have been following these threads are aware of who has offered up CO2 theories that have been challenged on numerous occasions in the past. That these threads have now been eliminated, and subsequently we see the reemergence of the posters that posted the junk science within them in is, LoL, curious. If these threads are all deleted, members who viewed or participated in the past are still well aware of whom these deniers were.
Message 220
Those who claim the jury is still out only wish for more science, not dogma and condemnation of their logical concerns. Where is the "censorship" except for the rants of "lies" themselves? The quest for more data to make conclusions is about is as far from censorship as one can get yet any observations not following the "collective" talking points are labeled lies. Except for such illogical things as spiked heels, the TV borg were far more logical and certainly more self controlled.
If one truly “wished for more science”, they would not actively shill the likes of Bob Carter (yep… you just did that). The attempt at censorship lies in the constant lacing of postings with insults and name-calling (which is intended to make people reluctant to respond). That is pretty obvious (no matter how much you wish to speciously deny it).
Nope. “Observations that do not follow” are rarely anything more than cherry-picked data or text disingenuously presented to support denier claims. This too has been shown time and time again on these threads (not just by The Collective either).
Self-control is exhibited in responding to challenges WITHOUT resorting to name-calling, false accusations and insults. We leave it up to all viewers to decide who is or is not practicing self-control.
Message 220
I would like to see how my theories and explanations are half truths without a speck of facts to prove it. Some more reasonable people following your religious chanting will at least parrot the biased conclusions of the AGW movement. You simply resort to citing personal attack web sites and padantic but empty rants.
It is doubtful that anyone’s memory is so short as to not remember the various threads from last year where contrarian theories on atmospheric CO2 were presented (especially if they participated in them). It is equally doubtful that anyone can honestly claim to be promoting “open mindedness” while actively denigrating others with name-calling and insults merely because they have exposed one’s logical fallacies.
The posting history will show that The Collective has gone at length in the past to dismantle many a half-baked theory. It is always the same “fictional science” presented ad nauseam. Anyone who has been following these threads is well aware of who employs argumentum ad nauseam. One can lie to oneself all they want, but that will not change the memory of others.
By the way, the word is “pedantic” and irrelevant. Contempt for something doesn’t make it have any less impact (that applies to anthropogenic climate change, academics or other members of this forum).
The tactics employed by deniers IS to achieve this very goal of censorship. By flooding threads with illogic, deflections or totally false claims, and then attempting to bully critics into silence by name-calling and personal attack, they clearly are not supporting open dialogue. Claiming that dissent is merely appropriate skepticism is unlikely when repeated requests for corroboration are evaded with one excuse or another.
You have engage the B0rg
“Resistance is Futile”
| |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/10/2008 8:54:40 AM | Credibility is characterized by one standing behind their statements. Quoting a fictitious TV character with no other background carries no creditability. I trust readers to be open minded enough to use their own resources to verify my comments. Your comments berating popular media are ironic to say the least as the popular media are your most powerful allies.
At no time did I ever cite "peer reviewed". I cited obvious bias. Peer review is itself questionable. The reason I created technologies never done before and obtained patents on them and the instruments I designed to implement them was because my peers did not believe them possible. A vote is not proof. It is the realm of politics, not science. Beliefs are the realm of religion. The quest for knowledge with an unbiased open mind is science, not religion or politics. Doubt clearly falls in science. Riticule of non-believers is clearly religion.
Bob Carter was cited by others yet has real credentials. The "collective" has none he is wiling to divulge. Who should we believe? I neither cited or defend Carter, only questioned the bias of the collective's personal attack cite. I posed explanations for much of the anecdotal evidence used in the man-made global warming arguments and answered every counter argument as an actual "published" expert on measurement technology. The only thing published about the Borg are references to a cancelled TV show. Most of my patents are currently implemented in precision high end test equipment produced by Fluke Corporation who purchased them in a series of mergers and acquisitions. They are not some grad student thesis or publish-or-parish CYA from a no-name professor who never left the protection of academia. It really didn't matter to me that my peers claimed what i was doing was impossible. I let the results speak for themselves. There is a trite but all to often true saying: Those that can - do. Those that can't - teach.
When you actually present something meaningful instead of simply claiming it has been done, then you will begin to have some legitimacy. You will not obtain legitimacy until you have proven yourself and are willing to stand behind your statements. An empty profile with impressive words doesn't mean squat.
Perhaps your most glaring error is accusing those who feel there is insufficient information as arguing that the theory is false. The reality is, we are open minded to arguments from all facets. Your parroting questionable dogma is little more than a religious chant. In the overall scheme, your posts cast more doubt on the legitimacy of AGW than bolster the theory. In light of the disasters resulting from legislation born out of the AGW movement so far, it seems legitimate to hold off on all such efforts. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/10/2008 6:46:24 PM | Global warming by CO2 is a total scam. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and human contributions of total CO2 is also minor
This is an example of poorly informed posting. Please refer to my thread above, The Science of Global Warming for clarification.
Istoohot...i think you might want to finish grad school before lecturing us on falsifiability. No disrespect intended, but thats elementary stuff. And the fact that you can state that there is no falsifiablity on global warming indicates you are not acquainted with the literature.
I suggest you read this July edition of The New Yorker on the Danish eco island experiment as a primer. This will provide you with a minimal level of data to continue the discussion. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/10/2008 10:37:23 PM | Your thread seems to have started as a place to wave a resume. Ok.
I would suggest people get out the universities and into the real world. The university environment is a great place to stroke the ego of the tenured but as one of my former professors said to me a couple of years out of school: How do you like the real world where you can learn something?
One lesson I learned from the real world and the academic environment was the origins of NIH. It was a core component of most university curricula although denied by its greatest proponents. What should one expect from such chanting in unison? I did not enter school naive. I had been fluent in physics and electronics since childhood. In high school, I had already butted heads with some university profs. I beat out grad students to become an engineer with IBM at 18 then chose to leave their offers and get a degree at a university known for its alternative energy research as that was my core interest. The prof I mentioned earlier was it's lead researcher in the field. I have been surrounded by phds in my work ever since but find myself being labeled the guru.
An interesting note about one of my measurement technology patents concerns a specific math algorithm I first conceived as a college freshman. Although my use of the algorithm was proven more accurate on real world data in comparison to accepted algorithms before I submitted it, along with the comparison, I was given a failing grade. It became the first of many appealed grades to be changed. I felt the algorithm would be useful in my future so I put the punch cards in a safe place. Although I never again found that "safe" place, I re-worked the algorithm some years later and use it quite often. I find it useful in time and frequency domain analysis of real world data. My extensive work in this area leads me to question the academic projections and assertions of the AGW religion as so much of the "proof" is full of questionable analysis from inadequate sample windows. I also question the physics assertions made concerning IR absorption of atmospheric CO2. The assertions of the thermal blanket effect is pretty much played out in the first few hundred feet of the miles of atmosphere. Changing that few hundred to a few hundred minus a few tens of feet would be minimal. On the other hand, the geological dependent propulsion of near polar ocean currents due to ingress of low density but cold fresh water would potentially accelerate deep ocean currents distributing equatorial heat to the polar regions. This would account for much of the accelerated ice melting along with accelerated surface melt due to concentrated dust on the ice surface simply from a continuous melting over time. Note descriptions of example glaciers cited by AGW religious zealots. All this has nothing to do with biology. Its physics on a real world, and very complex scale, not a controlled and idealized academic exercise. In all the AGW hype, there seems to be an avoidance of questions concerning previous heating and cooling cycles long before man discovered oil. That would be frequency domain data projected onto time domain observations. Sound familiar?
With your vast academic expertise in biology, what comments do you have concerning ethanol mandates, food prices, famine relief, algae blooms, release of CO2 and CH4 from sea life decay, rapidly expanding oxygen depleted "dead zones" around river mouths, and coral reef decline from similar causes? Hint: Its all related to political action from AGW religious zealots. Not unlike the MTBE boondoggle prior. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 7/11/2008 7:48:57 AM |
Istoohot...i think you might want to finish grad school before lecturing us on falsifiability. No disrespect intended, but thats elementary stuff. And the fact that you can state that there is no falsifiablity on global warming indicates you are not acquainted with the literature.
I am well acquainted with the literature and the physics behind the forming AGW Hypothesis. To date, proponents of said hypothesis have not offered a falsifying test. Perhaps you better start grad school.
I suggest you read this July edition of The New Yorker on the Danish eco island experiment as a primer. This will provide you with a minimal level of data to continue the discussion.
I suggest you not waste my time with recommendations to get my science from mass-market arts magazines.
Science is published in peer-reviewed topic-relevant journals, not the New Yorker, Time, NewWeek, Star, etc. Unless you have a valid argument as to why there is a paper announcing what the scientific world would consider a major finding in pulp magazine, I think I'll give your "valuable" suggestion a pass. | |
|
|
| Page 9 of 11
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
|
Home
login 
