Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Commenter Highlights Error in Thought by Deniers

Sure, I see the problem now. You're experiencing a credibility drain. This is what happens when you yoke yourself to a political movement in its infancy. The movement makes white hat claims, hucks in a hockey stick graph, pumps a couple hundred thousand data points into a model and blammo, you all save the world. But because you don't understand the politics behind the science, you don't get why those of us who have done our homework look at you sideways. To us you look like a schill; all over the talking points, ready to pivot when the predictions fail. You have likely never read the "Limits to Growth" its where we first see the hockey stick graph (PS...its used to describe a pending ice age). You likely go cross-eyed when someone asks you about the Hegelian Dialectic. You think up is down, if I'm not with you I'm against you, you love Rachel Maddow. Does that sum it up? You're a parrot. And you don't want to consider positive feedback or that a year of heat cannot be used to determine climate, or that your hero Am Gore groomed you personally to help him makes billions on cap and trade. You're just a good guy feeling very superior, but you're not a scientist and you never intended to yeild a cash prize. Which if you had would clearly go to Dan Pangburn. You want the moral high ground but you haven't earned it; you are derisive and dismissive when you aught to be listening. Here's what you're not understanding, we all believe that climate changes, we all believe carbon dioxide levels are rising starkly, and we all like green things. We know that humanity is driving atmospheric carbon levels to "scary levels". My worst fear is waking up to a lush garden and juicier fruit trees. Your worst fear is that the ocean levels will rise 20 feet and that we're all doomed because nothing will survive the changes we've inflicted on the planet. And if you weren't talking so stupidly about carbon dioxide, and if you didn't insist on the warming...you would have me. But you don't have me, because you're a schill. The oceans are not going to boil and we have real pollution issues to deal with. Plus as a guy who's planted two million trees, I'm certainly not going to imagine that you somehow care more than I do about the science of sustainability or conservation. You cherry pick your data, which you like to believe we do. You are actually intollerent to the diametrical and like I said, your challenge is a fraud. Its click bait. Bravo

Let's start with the only thing said here that has any merit, "You're just a good guy feeling very superior, but you're not a scientist and you never intended to yeild a cash prize. Which if you had would clearly go to Dan Pangburn."

Here is the real meat of this comment, Mr. Genius is stating that, in fact, someone submitted a valid proof that AGW is not real and I reneged on the deal. But, what is missing in Mr. Genius' comment is just how the submission is valid and/or my comments on it were invalid. See how that works? He makes it look as though his claim has validity, but he never provides any kind of proof to support his claim or to invalidate mine. I go through the hard work of showing why the claims are invalid and he does nothing and will pretend his stand is superior.

I have received a few comments like Mr. Genius' and my response is the same: Show me how the submission is valid and my comments are not. I am sure it comes as no surprise to learn that I am still waiting. I am sure Mr. Genius will be no exception. It sounds good to make the claim, but let's see him do the hard work and prove it. The reality is - he wont because he can't.

That is a perfect example of nearly everything said by the denier industry ('Warming has stopped.' 'Warming is good for us.' 'Models don't work.' 'Climate scientists are just alarmists.") They make claims they won't substantiate because they cant' and the expect everyone to simply believe them. Anyone that questions them is somehow an inferior person. Well, if it makes me inferior to demand proof of your statements, then I guess that makes me inferior because I will always demand the proof. It would make it more interesting if any of you guys could ever produce any. This is why I say the only way someone can deny climate change is to deny science. 

Let me complete my comments on these two sentences before moving on.

Yes, I am a scientist (Ph.D. in physics), but that really is irrelevant. I have done the hard work of proving my point in the my book (Undeniable! Dialogues on Global Warming) so the challenge was never about me. What I did would be equally valid if I was not a scientist. It was all about people like Mr. Genius that make claims and can't back them up. I gave them a chance to do just that and no one was able to come even close.

Another important part of his claim is the one where he claims I never intended to yield a cash prize. Just like all of the other deniers that have made this claim, this is not only false, but they can't produce anything to support that claim. That is how they operate - accusations without any evidence. Of course, if they needed evidence to believe something they wouldn't be deniers. Yes, in fact, I fully intended to award the prize to anyone that could prove manmade global warming isn't real. The problem, Mr. Genius, is that no could do it and I knew that going in. Simply said, not a single person provided anything new and original that had anything even resembling science to it (there were a few original claims that made me think the submitter was on drugs - or should be). Everything submitted has already been examined and found to be invalid. I would have loved for someone to prove AGW is not real. I would love to learn that we are not really heading down this path we are on. And, I would have gladly paid if someone could have removed that concern from my mind. But, no one came anywhere even close and the majority of submissions were so bad that even if AGW wasn't real (and it is), they still would not be valid. Yes, they really were just that bad.

As for Dan Pangburn, he did not, to the best of my knowledge, make a submission. I reviewed all submissions and his name was not on any of them (there are several submitted as 'Anonymous' and he could be one of those). Since he didn't make a submission, I don't owe him anything (is that logic really that hard to follow?). I have seen his name on numerous comments and they are all scientifically invalid, so it would be easy to conclude that he would not win, even if he had submitted.

Another comment by Mr. Genius was, "But because you don't understand the politics behind the science, you don't get why those of us who have done our homework look at you sideways." This really demonstrates the lack of understanding by deniers. Science is not politics. It is not an opinion. It is not a 'party' issue. It is not something you believe in (do you believe in gravity?) It is the understanding of how the universe works and the universe will do what it does with, or without, any understanding or action taken on our part. Are politics involved? Certainly. Just look at how the Republican party is making a major issue out of denying any science they don't like. But, no amount of politics will change the way the universe works and you should be pretty ashamed of yourself for suggesting otherwise. As for doing your 'homework,' you clearly have not and your comment shows that. That is why you look at us sideways (and, yes, we know why you do). That sideways look of yours is the look of ignorance and comes from denying science. If you would educate yourself that look would go away.

Most of Mr. Genius' comment is merely a diatribe, such as the comment, "your hero Am (sic) Gore groomed you personally to help him makes billions on cap and trade." For the record, I have never met Al Gore, he is not a hero of mine, I have never quoted him in any of my responses and he has never groomed me for anything. I wish I could take part in making billions (or even thousands) of dollars, but I'm afraid I'm not part of any such gambit. And, there we go with another example of the lack of logic that deniers constantly put on display. Where in the world did Mr. Genius come up with any of this?

 
He (just like the denier crowd everywhere) goes on to embarrassingly display his lack of knowledge, his ability to do homework, or to even think clearly by using $50 dollar words in an attempt to impress. There is a simple rule, the better you understand something the easier it is to explain it to people that don't understand. Mr. Genius displays his lack of understanding by pulling out terms like Hegelian Dialectic and The Limits to Growth. Why is that Mr. Genius? In case you are not familiar with the terms, a dialectic is a method of resolving arguments and is credited to the Greek philosophers Plato and Socrates. The Hegelian Dialectic is one form of a dialectic. Why didn't you just say so? You merely engaged in an attempt to look intelligent so that it would make you claims look intelligent. It didn't work. What is interesting is that I have actually used the dialectic approach with the challenge. And, Limits to Growth is a book from the early 1970s that basically found if we continue the way we were (in the early 70s) our society would eventually have to collapse under its own excess. This is very strange that Mr. Genius would quote it and makes me think he is the one that hasn't read it because the argument on climate change is practically straight out of the pages of that book. It is a perfect example of how bad things will happen if we don't change our ways.

And, I don't know who 'Rachel Maddow' is. I have never heard of her, so I cannot comment on if I 'love' her or not. Nice job of assuming something without having any evidence to support your belief. But that is what you (and other deniers) do, isn't it, Mr. Genius?

The last part of his comment continues to show the failure in logic on display by the denier crowd. He has gone through and found what he wants, and I don't mean just the comments that lead me to believe he thinks global warming is a good thing ("My worst fear is waking up to a lush garden and juicier fruit trees."), but also to his claims about what I think (or anyone else, for that matter). No, I do not believe the oceans will boil and that nothing will survive. I am not aware of anyone that is making any such claim. Once again, his lack of homework is a demonstration of why he is a denier. Things are going to change and they will not be for the good. But, it will not be the end of humanity. But, let me ask you something, Mr. Genius. What if I said 20% of humanity will die because of climate change? That still leaves 80%, so we are not talking about the end of humanity. But, wouldn't that be a calamity? What if you, or your loved ones, were in that 20%? Would you care then? But don't worry if that happens, because the rest of the 80% will continue, no matter how much their standard of living has been decreased. 

And, that, is why the logic of deniers fails. And, Mr. Genius has done a wonderful job of demonstrating just that.

One more comment, apparently I really do care more about the science of sustainability and conservation than you do. You convinced me of that.

57 comments:

  1. Professor, I'm reasonably certain that Owen vs. the Genius just cobbled together a bunch of memes to see if you'd respond. I'm not sure he's a denier. He may just be good at making fun of them.


    In a way, he wrote his comment the way SB 1070, the infamous anti-immigrant bill, was written here in AZ. That bill was an agglomeration of dissociated arguments which at first blush seemed like the ruminations of an idiot. But on reflection, it was more likely written to include all the wishes of the anti-immigrants in the hopes that one or more would withstand challenge. It was, if you will, a bigot's wish list, written in the same weird ad hoc way as Owen's comment.


    I think it's more likely than not that Owen versus the Genius was, in fun, just cobbling together the denialists' wish list to troll then for your amusement. Either that, or he, like the people who wrote SB 1070, is a shit-tossing monkey.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In my experience, it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between a real denier and someone pretending to be one for the sake of parody or comedy. The problem is that the normal device for parodying something is to take the idea to its extreme as a method of highlighting the absurdity of the idea. In this case, the ideas are so extreme that they've already reached the level of absurdity and it is impossible to parody them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you're right. I notice in comment sections that people I think are obviously satirizing deniers often get attacked because, for a lot of people who share their worldview, the satire is not obvious.


    Though in fairness to true deniers, I was, in fact groomed by Am Gore. Everyone who accepts climate physics was. So, they have caught onto that, at least.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You may be right. I try to watch for people like that. He is not what I would call a regular, but he has commented before. The other type to watch out for are the ones that are just here to take up my time. They will comment frequently and use the same arguments over and over, trying to get me to waste my time answering the same question repeatedly. So, it's possible this guy is a fake, but I think he's real. Take a look at his most recent comment in response to this posting:

    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/second-10000-challenge-submission.html#comment-1714141319

    ReplyDelete
  5. You probably have me on this one, Professor. The link, which I thought was taking me to Owen's response to this post and comments, is to a submission over the summer, so I don't know what his most recent comment was. I can only see me and the estimable elfish. If Owen is a nutball, or the selfsame nutball who made the June submission I just read, I was wrong to defend him. He wouldn't be the first nutter to whom I gave the benefit of the doubt.


    Personal note: I'm glad you persevere in the face of the onslaught of ignorance that buffets you. It's the worst kind of ignorance too, arrogant, derisive ignorance. I definitely lack your patience. Good on you.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry, I didn't mean to indicate that I discuss you with my family. I don't. I was speaking in general terms concerning how deniers like to accuse me of being a liberal, progressive, etc.

    I do interviews all the time so I would be glad to interview with you. It is not possible for you to present any denier argument that is in any way valid, so I'm not worried.

    Additionally, I have a standing invitation to anyone that wishes to make a guest submission.

    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/p/rules-and-guidelines-for-guest.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate it. And, I thought you might like to know he has invited me to be interviewed by him. He has promised to spank me. I accepted the invitation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Poe's Law: "Without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Nice. And, illustrates the problem with emails and text messages. What is the author's intent?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'll let you know when I'm prepared to cut your legs out. I've just brushed up on the science, and I'm sorry to tell you its not looking good from any angle where you're concerned. If I were you I would give up now, the way you've been debated into the past has given you wiggle room to unleash a couple damning points. But what happens when your best talking points come unravelled? When the "science" you cling to is found to be speculative at best. What happens when the man youre paired against in so well prepared to demoralize you that he can do it while eating a sandwich? If I were you I would drop your carbon premise now before its too late and you go the record looking like an idiot. I'll give you a hint, it has to do in part to HadCRUT, Frohlich and arisols. I'm actually going to teach a professor. Nice

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh, you mean Svensmark? What a gas!


    "The lower panel shows the match achieved by removing El Nino, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols, and also a linear trend (0.14 ± 0.4 K/Decade)." (Svensmark, "Reply to Lockwood and Frohlich", 2007)



    Fascinating. So if we _remove_ the observed global warming, we show there is no global warming!


    Brilliant!

    ReplyDelete
  12. It sounds like his plan is to produce a bunch of papers that have been refuted and claim they prove his point.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I suspect those are papers he has not read. Or perhaps he has read them, but decided not to follow the chain of citations to the rebuttal papers.


    In any case, I think this question reveals his plan: "What happens when the man youre paired against in so well prepared to demoralize you that he can do it while eating a sandwich?"


    The intent apparently is not to exchange information, critically evaluate it, and update or refine each other's perspective -- No, the intent is simply to demoralize and humiliate in some contest of rhetoric. The idea is to do whatever it takes to claim victory without actually having to learn anything. It is a book-burner's mentality.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I believe you are correct and I think he is planning an ambush strategy where he'll try to pull out something so obscure he figures I have never heard of it. This will be his 'proof' that all of the climate scientists in the world are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  15. OK, I clicked on your name and read some of the comments you've made on other sites. I can now officially say you don't have a clue. You are a nearly perfect example of a denier. You reached the conclusion you want, you reject anything that is contrary to your preconceived belief and you desperately grab at extremist statements to try and support you position.

    As an example, you cited the claim that scientists were predicting an ice age in the 1970s. Not only has this claim been totally debunked (several times), but is also irrelevant. In what way does a scientific opinion of the 1970s prove, or disprove, the science of today? Do you think we haven't learned anything in the last 40 years? Tell me, do you refuse to go to the doctor because some of the medical opinions of the 1970s were wrong? So, you not only pull out a false claim, but it is also a false argument at the same time.

    Your comments are all of this nature. I have already dealt with entire lines of people like you. There is nothing new or original in your claims. Nor is there any science or logic.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I like your reasoning here. I think, and i'm sure you will agree, science is advancing. For instance, our ability to survey our planet. Great leaps are being made today, and tomorrow those leaps will look primitive. Its true that we are growing our understanding of our planet. Its exciting, I think you will agree there as well.
    And I find it very interesting that you seem to prefer data over opinion for the most part (I've gone over some of your interviews). For instance, you have claimed that the world is actually in a natural cooling at the moment, and that driving that downward trend up to a flat line is human produced carbon dioxide. I actually find this refreshing. You don't assume the party line and claim falsely that the earth has warmed over the last 18 years. At least that was the case with your interview with Dr. Ball. You seem to agree with Frolihch 2009 from WRC that the last solar minimum was a weak one as compared to the previous two. I'm curious if you think the next one will be weaker still. Also I'm curious as to why you prefer the WCR survey over ACRIM and RMIB? Have I misrepresented you here? I'm open to clarity. Also, its true that I ventured into this argument skeptical of the science due to the massive fear campaign I'm forced to suffer through every time I want to watch a science documentary. Its just nausiating the amount of fear being peddled. But recently, and I have you to thank for this, I was actually able to debate the genius on this subject and not sound like an idiot. He agrees with you to be fair. But he's an intellectual monster, and I am just a normal slightly clever inquisitive who hastes tyranny, we clashed hard and not once did it get insulting; the way it did with you and Dr. Ball...who actually has cut his teeth on the science of climate. You basically called him a liar. And it pissed me off. I wonder of you regret it? So here's the thing, you brush aside any notion that the IPCC is a political body. Chew on this. "I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for our sakes might not be too clever in the long run," Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.
    Why would Peter say that?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Actually I didn't mean that at all. Frohlich 2009 vs ACRIM and RMIB. Of the three, which do you prefer as authority?

    ReplyDelete
  18. If you want reliable data on total solar irradiance, I suggest you refer to SORCE website at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) in the University of Colorado - Boulder:

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/

    ReplyDelete
  19. from http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html
    "A few climate scientists have now scanned through the research
    literature of the time. For 1965 to 1979, they found seven articles that
    predicted cooling, 44 that predicted warming and 20 that were neutral.
    The results are being published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.




    You can also read summaries on RealClimate and on ScienceNews,
    though if you're interested in how the myth of global cooling was
    turned on its head, it is well worth reading the researchers' own
    version, which is freely available (as a PDF)."

    ReplyDelete
  20. I remember a very well written article in Scientific American a few years ago that did an article research, as well. The conclusion has always been, this was something the news media made a fuss over, not the scientists.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thank you, I'm eager to read the articles. I for one am happy the ice age scenario was debunked, it got a lot of play. National Geographic ran with it enough that I stopped assuming they were credible. Warming makes sense to me, considering we're interglacial. For me, even though carbon dioxide is definitely a greenhouse gas, making the case that it actually drives climate...its just a hard sell. I need to see surveys that are gapless, I need to see that ocean systems are mapped emuculatelty, that all arisols are surveyed as to their effect and interplay throughout the system, I need to see that the solar cycle and its radiant effect are well understood...these things take time. I know we're on our way to meeting these criteria...but we're miles away as of this writing. And lastly, I want the science separated from various agendas.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It isn't really much of a hard sell about CO2. Believing CO2 is driving global warming isn't any harder to believe than the idea that a coat keeps you warmer. As for your need for the data and science to be more complete, all I can say is that science is never complete and we have to deal the best we can with what we have. That, in no way, means we should merely sit back while the evidence builds, literally, every day.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You did a lot of work here without checking the details on the challenge, first. The challenge ended July 31st. I will take a look at you submission anyway (without accepting it as a submission) and give a response. However, I can tell you that with just a cursory look I have already seen several fatal flaws, including claims that have already been included in prior submissions and refuted. You should have done a better job with your homework. I can already tell you, your submission is not scientifically valid and does not prove that global warming and climate change are not real.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I needed to take a break and spent some time debunking your claim. See it here:

    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/12/way-past-deadline-claims.html

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yes I have noticed that global warming deniers tend to use rants and poor punctuation.

    To me it shows they do not value what they say.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Absolutely, if the coat I was putting on covered .04 of my body. So like draiping a half grain of rice sized cashmere sweat over a mole on my shoulder. (I thinj we can all avree that cashmere really is king when it comes to comfort, breathability and warming)Then to say that the half a grain of rice sized sweater drives my body temp...hard sell

    ReplyDelete
  27. Did you honestly mean to say CO2 covers only .04% of the planet?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Nope, it accounts for approx 400 parts per million of the atmosphere. So if you want, take that tiny sweater and stretch it out over the human body so its barley perceptable, maybe. Not quite a coat now. Now its like an atomic dusting. And yes, there is a warming as a result, it will affect us in some way over the next 10 million years or so. Now I say that, because the photonic discharge of carbon is randomly directional. Which means that statistically less than half of the photonic discharge will be aimed at the earths surface. So now we're talking about a trace gas which is .04 % of our atmosphere radiating less than half of its stores at the earths surface. This radiant effect is like being punched in the face by the heat radiating off an ants fist. And then if I were to say that over the short term the heat coming off that ants mighty punch was going to heat my head up 2 degrees Celsius over the next hundred years...well that would be a hard sell. Over the next several million years...it might . but these effects are compounding, so I may have only two to three million years before I squished the ant...or asked him to stop. Maybe I could offer him incentives to stop punching my face with the heat radiating off his fist.
    You have said before that you think something should be done about the ant. I agree, first we need to measure the effects from every angle in an unbiased way...we need to know all we can about our globe, and its place in our galaxy. Then we need to be strategic in which battles we fight, we need to have priorities, like an astroid deflection system...that aught to be near the top. Also cleaning up our atmosphere and oceans aught to be right up there, fighting poverty, economic inequality, vaulting the military industrial complex, clean energy aught to be up there. But focusing on carbon dioxide at this point...go ahead, I just don't think this one is as pressing as the others by a looooooong shot. And to say atmospheric carbon dioxide drives global warming is to present effects without context.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I really hope this isn't an example of your scientific argument you plan to use when you 'cut my legs off'. This false argument has been made innumerable times. You can see one of the times I addressed it here:

    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-greenhouse.html

    Here's more:

    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-co2-doesnt.html

    Here's some more on the topic:

    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/07/30000-challenge-submission-black-bodies.html

    There's more, but I hope that will be enough.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Just as you will reject any science that does not support your preconceived conclusion!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Sorry. Wrong again! I have to go where the science leads me. If the science, any science, shows us AGW is not real, then that is what I will go with. As it is, there is absolutely no science at all that indicates AGW is not real. The science is conclusive.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The science is not conclusive! There are many award winning and respected scientists that once believed in AGW that are now rejecting it (along with the many that never supported AGW is the first place). Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  33. The science is absolutely conclusive. There are a few climate scientists that do not support the science. Most of those have been to be frauds with manufactured science. Several of them have permanently destroyed their reputations in the scientific community (ie. Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, the Idso family, etc). The fact deniers hate is that 97% of climate scientists and over 80% of all scientists in general acknowledge the reality of AGW. No credible person can produce even one piece of scientific evidence that AGW is not real.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Saying that the science is absolutely conclusive is unscientific! Conclusions are not considered facts. I also refute that scientist that dispute, question, challenge AGW are disreputable, but are actually doing what scientist are supposed to do. Empirical evidence continues to discredit the IPCC. I don't hate the statement that 97% of climate scientists agree on AGW, I laugh at that statement since it's so erroneous. There is no consensus when John Cook already planned marketing strategies "cooked" the 97% preconceived conclusion. Dr. Tol has deconstructed the consensus myth. Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper that does that, and they follow up with more supporting evidence after it was refuted.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The amount of science is absolutely massive. Thousands of climate scientists around the world have worked for decades, going back over 150 years, to figure out what is going on. Science is always questioned, but there is a scientific method to follow. Climate change denying "scientists" routinely reject the scientific method and have almost universally been shown to be taking payoffs from the fossil fuel industry. You are wrong about the IPCC and your statement even shows you have no idea of what you are talking about. Do a little homework and at least learn what the IPCC is and what it does. I love how you mentioned Richard Tol. Tol actually found out the percentage was a little bit higher than 97%. In fact, the 97% consensus has been determined through multiple methods, all of which consistently find the same result - including the denier Tol.

    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/06/deniers-confirm-consensus.html

    ReplyDelete
  36. I have done immense amounts of research and readings about the subject,
    and have a decent understanding of the IPCC. I am not a scientist and
    don't pretend to understand many of the theories. Maurice Strong who had much do do with the creation of the IPCC was caught and striped of many of his awards for corruption. The scientists don't control the research projects, the political leaders do. And since the first IPCC report that attributed climate change was natural rather than cause by man, has now become the opposite. It seems the main goal of the IPCC is to end the debate, not prove the science...Climategate. How is that science? Emails that revealed a coordinated effort to keep many esteemed scientist who found that the data didn't add up out of the discussion, and had a preconceived agenda and outcome even before the data was gathered.

    It's a shame you had to bring up big oil, I was hoping for once that argument wouldn't be made. So lets get back to the scientists that are supposed to be getting that big oil money, and forget for a minute about the politically motivated (carbon tax), lets support alternate energy IPCC. Big oil has HUGE investments tied up in "green" energy. Big Oil also has huge amounts of funding going to many environmental groups, including the likes of the Sierra Club, and Greenpeace. So attacking genuine scientists as receiving big oil money is a classic tactic to avoid close examination of the BILLIONS of dollars funding the Global warming project. According to the Washington Post, British Petroleum has donated over $600 million to green groups. The fact that climate change activists have enjoyed such a powerful funding advantage, but yet insist that skeptical AGW scientist are being bought off is pretty ironic!

    Where is your source from Tol's quote?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ah yes, the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper. Have you even read it? Ninety-odd pages complaining about an analogy.

    Casual observer: "It's so hot and humid outside, it's like a sauna!"

    Gerlich and Tscheuschner: "NO! A sauna is an enclosure with benches! The outside is NOT enclosed! And there are no benches around! Here, let me show you my calculations on the geographic density of benches. (90 pages later) As you can plainly see, benches are so sparsely distributed they could not possibly have any contribution to the humidity! Your 'sauna' has been falsified!"

    Please cite papers you've actually read. And you didn't even have to read all of it. The utter failure of the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper is found as early as the second half of its abstract.

    ReplyDelete
  38. If you read my comment below in response to Christophers'... "The amount of science is absolutely massive..." I have stated, "I am not a scientist and don't pretend to understand many of the theories."... Shows that, in no way, I pretend to understand the math and physics that support the papers that many scientists (award winning, honored, and former IPCC members), challenge with support and theories, that CO2 is the main driving force of climate change. I have actually read the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper, so you are incorrect in your criticism. Though I must confess I didn't understand the details but did get the general hypothesis of it. And that's why I, and other average citizens that don't specialize in climatology, physics or other scientific fields, have to rely on scientists expertise on the matter. Not only do I see a large number of scientist that don't support AGW, as a great indicator that the "science is settled", I also consider the growing number of scientist that are defecting from the IPCC as another indicator that the science is far from settled.

    What bother's me most is the lag of CO2 behind rise or decline in temperature. It shows that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate. Milankovich cycles, Solar Activity and Cosmic radiation are the more likely candidates. However those elements would be extremely difficult to tax.

    Trying to insult me, "Please cite papers you've actually read..." does not sway me to listen to your opinions with an open mind. It's really tiring that many AGW advocates bully and insult.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Your comments will be used as a guest submission. Hopefully tomorrow. I also note, without meaning anything, that you changed your login name.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by guest submission. Since I never bothered to modify my disqus profile linked to my social media website , I decided to do so today since some people seem hostile, I though better to not use my complete full name.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Sometimes, when I find a notable email or comment, I will use it as a new posting.

    I am sorry to hear you feel threatened, but can fully understand. We can have disagreements, even arguments, but there is absolutely no justification for violence or personal attacks. There is simply no place for it in the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hopefully, my notable email or comment is not to be used as a dubious honor.

    ReplyDelete
  43. No more so than as a comment. I make a posting of comments if they are long, the response is long, or I think it is something of a significant nature. It will be treated the same as it would as a comment, just highlighted.

    ReplyDelete
  44. As promised, I provided a more detailed response to your comments.

    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2015/01/doing-homework.html

    ReplyDelete
  45. correct! the laughable idea that CO2, absolutely essential for any plant life that uses photosynthesis to produce oxygen for us to breathe, is somehow bad for the environment was debunked before this "competition" (and i use that term VERY loosely after seeing the preformed conclusions presented by Christopher) is simply wrong.
    here is an article summarising the premises and some data to support the arguement that CO2 is not causing 'man made climate change':

    http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html

    ReplyDelete
  46. when you start quoting jewpedia as a "scientific" source, you know you dont have a case

    ReplyDelete
  47. There are many issues with what you said. The first is the paper you referenced which leaves out 93% of all warming - the oceans. And, we can see just what kind of effect that has now that we are going into an El Nino and that energy is being released by the ocean and put into the atmosphere. 2014 was the warmest year on record (interestingly, not included in that paper) and that was without El Nino. This year will be even warmer.

    As for plants, this is the perfect example of how deniers work. The thing to note is we are not debating whether or not CO2 will increase plant growth - it will. In fact, we are counting on it. The problem is that some of that plant growth is not wanted, such as weeds in farm fields, invasive species that are moving into higher latitudes and ecosystems that are being transformed due to different plants growing there (grasslands and tundra). Also, it has been shown that while CO2 leads to greater plant growth, that growth is concentrated in the plant infrastructure and the crops are actually less nutritious. What that means is as CO2 levels go up, plants will grow more but will provide less nutrition. Couple that with the fact that higher temperatures reduce crop yields and you get a bad combination of lower yields that are also less nutritious.

    So, why don't deniers want to talk about all of that?

    ReplyDelete
  48. First, Wikipedia is a good source to use with non-scientific people. It mostly does a good job explaining scientific concepts without the technical jargon and in terms a layman can understand. But, more importantly, it provides links to authoritative sources. If you are not satisfied with Wikipedia, go to the links and read the source information for yourself.

    Is that really all that difficult? Education, it's good for the mind.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Addressing your comments about the challenge. If you feel any of what I said was not scientifically valid, feel free to point it out. If you feel you have a proof that would satisfy the challenge, feel free to send it to me. I will not accept it for the challenge (it closed on July 31, 2014), but I will be glad to post it as a guest submission. Use the email address at the top of the page.

    But, I know you wont' do either, because you can't. Deniers like to say the challenge was rigged or that my responses were not valid, but they can't seem to produce anything to support those claims. The invitation has been open for anyone to respond to. Amazingly enough, not even one person has done so. You would think if my responses were not valid, SOMEONE would be able to show the public why.

    That alone, tells you everything you need to know about deniers.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Here is a rebuttal to your paper.
    http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979214820037

    ReplyDelete
  51. When you refer to Wikipedia in that manner, it's obvious there are some issues at play than science, and you are not seeking a rational response. If I were the moderator of this site, I'm not sure I would permit such language.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I have to agree with cunudiun's comment about this. That is an offensive statement and doesn't apply here. You should be pretty embarrassed. I missed what you said before and I'm embarrassed about that.

    ReplyDelete
  53. cool website discus, my favorite bit is the censorship

    ReplyDelete
  54. Really? Racial slurs are okay with you?

    ReplyDelete
  55. racial slurs are perfectly fine with me, im not a weak-assed pussy who gets injured by words.
    fucking mods who think they can control what other people think need to fuck off from the internet entirely. learn some freedom of speech you childish little bitch

    ReplyDelete
  56. This person has been black listed because she not only is offensive, but has apparently decided to leave the realm of civilization behind. People who wish to discuss things in a civil manner are welcome. This person is not among them.

    ReplyDelete