Climate Change

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Delfin

I am use the totals from the survey. And that is what I said.

But only 40% of geoscientists ascribe to nature only.

Ok, fine. And only 24% think Kyoto makes sense, and another 25% are deeply skeptical about the UN IPCC. The entire point I was making was to point out a consistent and blatant lie put forth by AGW promoters and that is that there is some kind of scientific consensus about man made influences on climate. There isn't, and the repetition of this lie simply undermines the promoters case and makes the rest us with working 'crap detectors', to use your term, suspect we are being fed a load of crap.

And I don't think you can walk your statement back by discounting the opinions of the only scientists in the survey. If you would like data on meteorologists and climate scientists skepticism about the UN findings I am happy to provide those as well.

Bottom line, AGW proponents assert that the science is settled and we should DO SOMETHING. Since this clearly is a fraud, more sensible people would like a little more data before we drive off an economic cliff just for drill. Since there is no evidence of warming for over 15 years, we're still looking for the data that proves your case. You are entitled to your own opinion, but as they say, you are not entitled to your own data.

[RaymondR]

Supporters of AGW continue to assert, like GoBoatingNow, that somehow the question is so settled that they can make declarative statements that man made global warming is a fact. This is nonsense. In fact, a majority (64%) of geo-scientists now are skeptical of AGW, and for good reason - the data is too weak to draw scientific conclusions, much less conclusions that dictate we should damage our economy pursuing some leftists view of good climate policy.

I tend to the opinion that there always were a large body of knowledgeable scientists who doubted AGW theories but that they kept their heads down to avoid a blizzard of invective from the AGW zealots. Now that a number of their authoritative fellows have stood up and challenged the theory they feel more comfortable in doing so.

And yes, it is a political issue because yes, most AGW enthusiasts also just happen to be big government enthusiasts, a.k.a. liberals.

Or the vast flock of parasites which accompanies big government with no other motive than to get their hands into the taxpayers pocket.

Speaking of which, if a denier is someone who denies that something is or has happened that clearly did or is happening, and it's ok for some on this thread to refer to AGW skeptics as 'deniers', (like the majority of geo-scientists I suppose), would it be ok to call supporters of AGW climate fools, since a fool is someone who believes in something that isn't happening? Seems fair, doesn't it?

The purpose of the "denier" label is to lump the skeptics in with the "holocaust deniers" who, because of their support for a murderous and criminal government responsible for the death of millions are abhorred by all right thinking people. If you can equate AGW "deniers" with "holocaust deniers" you can transfer the same level of public abhorrence to them and discourage them from expressing their doubts.

And yes, it is a political issue because yes, most AGW enthusiasts also just happen to be big government enthusiasts, a.k.a. liberals.

Look at where the money will go. One of their mad schemes is the so called "carbon trading" scheme. Countries who create CO2 by creating the wealth which allows their citizens to live fruitful and comfortable lives, generally the most democratic, will buy "carbon credits" from those who do not and consequently have them to spare.

Firstly, Sweden isn't socialist. Cuba is. Guess where people from Cuba would rather live...
Secondly, the Swedes themselves are starting to realize their welfare state might not be sustainable. Any system the redistributes income creates incentives for people that are more productive to leave. In the end you are left with nobody to hold the safety net up. Sweden is also increasingly having problems with the permanent underclass it created. Witness the recent riots in Stockholm

The social welfare systems in these countries were generally bought into being by a desire to ensure that good honest workers who, by no fault of their own, fell on hard times did not excessively suffer. Unfortunately these schemes attract those who would prefer a restricted but relatively effortless lifestyle and state employed bureaucrats, as is generally the case, either lack the skills or the will to prevent them being miss-exploited.

Comparing Sweden, or Denmark with the US is also a bit of a dishonest comparison. Sweden is a small country. It's easy to be special when you are small. I would like to see a breakdown of HDI for each US state. I wouldn't be surprised if several US states scored in the same league as Scandinavia.

The prevailing circumstances are entirely different, these countries have had fairly stable populations for a long time and are situated in a climatic zone relatively unattractive to third world migrants. They did not suffer excessively during WW2 and did not bear the enormous cost of this conflict to either their industrial or social fabrics. After this conflict they were able to develop their social and economic systems behind the shield provided by the US taxpayer.

Whilst the US is one of the bigger producers of CO2 it is also one of the most productive countries in the world and the massive improvement of Asian living standards is largely due to the willingness of US consumers to buy their industrial products.

The US constitution is one of mankind's great aspirational documents and the majority of the population are enthusiastically supportive of it's social and human right tenets. Whilst to other members of the anglosphere the US may appear at time a little too enthusiastic about things on careful consideration few will dispute that over all the United States is a force for good in the world.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

And I don't think you can walk your statement back by discounting the opinions of the only scientists in the survey. If you would like data on meteorologists and climate scientists skepticism about the UN findings I am happy to provide those as well.

I will accept that 40% of those members of APEGA who study rocks beneath the earth's surface (geologists and geophysicists) and completed the survey believe that GW is natural cycles. And that 60% believe that human activity a part of the cause.

Please show a peer-reviewed study of

1) meteorologists views on AGW
2) climatologists views on AGW

please keep the two separate.

[RaymondR]

Read all the Marx and Engels stuff when I was fairly young and I can't recall but it may have held attractions to a young, idealistic youth but life experience has taught me that whatever the theories they expound the lefts underlying, and generally secret, unspoken, agenda is the control of every aspect of how everyone else lives their lives.

Whilst the citizens of most western countries are "free" that is not constrained in their travel or day to day living they have less and less "liberty", which is the ability to do what they please.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Read all the Marx and Engels stuff when I was fairly young and I can't recall but it may have held attractions to a young, idealistic youth but life experience has taught me that whatever the theories they expound the lefts underlying, and generally secret, unspoken, agenda is the control of every aspect of how everyone else lives their lives.

Whilst the citizens of most western countries are "free" that is not constrained in their travel or day to day living they have less and less "liberty", which is the ability to do what they please.

Much like the theory and practice of democracy and capitalism.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I will accept that 40% of those members of APEGA who study rocks beneath the earth's surface (geologists and geophysicists) and completed the survey believe that GW is natural cycles. And that 60% believe that human activity a part of the cause.

Please show a peer-reviewed study of

1) meteorologists views on AGW
2) climatologists views on AGW

please keep the two separate.

Since you have once again distorted the data and the results of the study, a trait I find fairly typical of AGW proponents, I'll pass, other than to note that the peer reviewed study on APEGA members that you misquoted or misunderstood is the only peer reviewed article on attitudes I have seen. However, there is plenty of other data for open minds to consider who want to understand why the oft repeated canard about consensus among climate scientists regarding AGW is just so much bilge water.

It's time to pray for global warming, says Flint Journal columnist John Tomlinson | MLive.com

Climatologist David Gee summed up the rationalist position on this issue pretty well, quoted in the link above:

"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"


Indeed.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

The purpose of the "denier" label is to lump the skeptics in with the "holocaust deniers" who, because of their support for a murderous and criminal government responsible for the death of millions are abhorred by all right thinking people. If you can equate AGW "deniers" with "holocaust deniers" you can transfer the same level of public abhorrence to them and discourage them from expressing their doubts.

Precisely so. When you really have no argument, you call your opponent a name in lieu of making your case. Which is why that term has been tossed around by some posters on this thread - what else have they got but insults? God knows the data doesn't help them.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Since you have once again distorted the data and the results of the study, a trait I find fairly typical of AGW proponents, I'll pass, other than to note that the peer reviewed study on APEGA members that you misquoted or misunderstood is the only peer reviewed article on attitudes I have seen. However, there is plenty of other data for open minds to consider who want to understand why the oft repeated canard about consensus among climate scientists regarding AGW is just so much bilge water.

It's time to pray for global warming, says Flint Journal columnist John Tomlinson | MLive.com

Climatologist David Gee summed up the rationalist position on this issue pretty well, quoted in the link above:

"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"


Indeed.

How have I distorted the data?

You told me that you could point to studies of meteorologists and climatologists.

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

from that reference
"
The survey the author cites isn’t “scientists” as stated in the title of the op-ed, it is a survey of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta. That’s like surveying tobacco company CEO’s about the dangers of smoking. It would be a reasonable piece about the opinion of petroleum engineers in Alberta if that was made clear, instead that was hidden. I wonder why?
"

Alberta, !!!!!

This is the trouible with the deniers, use half-assed reports and media savy noinsense to muddy the waters.

AGW is accepted by climate scientists, that debate is over, The debate now, is what is the effect and time scale. Some scientists point to smaller change, others model and report larger more dramatic effects.



stuff and nonsense, US politics and laughable from outside the US perspective. Im a fiscal conservative,social liberal, centre right, controlled capitalist, social democrat. Of course that puts me to the left of Castro as far as the Tea party and its followers are concerned.

Whats a "big government" enthusiast, how that view work out in the last election huh.



I dont know, two terms of republician presidents and silly right wing nonsense and their ego-wars did quite a nice job of damaging your economy.


Dave

Surely you dont believe that a war was started because of someones "ego" ..."your economy",my understanding on that is it is a "world economy", that being said it is in a hell of a mess but it is the start of a new century and we have new tech that will be brought on line and some old school thinking and ways of doing things must come to an end in order for the new to come into existience..Some time you need someone that is brash ,daring,egocentric etc. to get the job done ,but I dont think brash ,daring,egocentric mind sets rule Wasington DC and start wars because they are brash,daring and egocentric,surely there is a real good reason for all of this waring that is going on and we have to assume that ,or we all become pessimistic and cynical and life sucks...

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

How have I distorted the data?

You told me that you could point to studies of meteorologists and climatologists.

You don't seem to be able to help yourself, do you? I didn't say I would provide you with 'studies', which is a distortion of what I wrote. I wrote 'data', as in this piece of data:

At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. There's some data. There's lots more you can find yourself if you like.

How did you distort the data from the APEGA study? Well, one way was distorting the listed meaning of the different points of view of the scientist respondents. For example, you said:

... 60% (of geoscientists) believe that human activity a part of the cause.

Well, not so much, but a skillful lie nonetheless.

40% - "believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth."

10% - "More than any other group, (this group) underscore(s) that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life."

14% - "consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are sceptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling: ‘The number of variables and their interrelationships are almost unlimited"

Your statement that 'human activity is a part of the cause' of GW is the usual tap dance around what was actually written to suggest that human activities are contributing to a problem these scientists think is a problem. Since the entire point of the UN IPCC position is that mankind is responsible for GW which is a crisis, these scientists explicit statements contradict that position, which is a contradiction your statement intentionally glosses over.

As I said, a distortion.

We're done.

[jackdale]

Two pictures





Courtesy of Home Page

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Alberta, !!!!!

This is called the fallacy of the ad hominem. Used to discredit the person, not the argument.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

This is the trouible with the deniers, use half-assed reports and media savy noinsense to muddy the waters.

The fallacy of the red herring, pretending something is relevant to the argument when it is a diversion. Also an adroit doubling up with another ad hominem by calling those you disagree with 'deniers', with all that connotes.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

AGW is accepted by climate scientists, that debate is over,

The Seeping Generalization fallacy. Certainly some climate scientists accept AGW, but a very great many do not. Maybe that is because CO2 levels have been increasing for 18 years, while temps have been stable and no warming is present? Whatever, still a falsehood based on fallacious reasoning.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I dont know, two terms of republician presidents and silly right wing nonsense and their ego-wars did quite a nice job of damaging your economy.


Dave

Demonstrating the truth of the observation that AGW supporters tend to believe what they believe for political, not scientific reasons, with the most outspoken people in support of the proposition being the looniest lefties.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Two pictures





Courtesy of Home Page

Another example of how proponents of AGW must distort facts to buttress an argument that has little data to back it up.

Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. There's some data. There's lots more you can find yourself if you like.

OK I found some stuff

This is 2nd time for this bogus question; its misleading bull.
I reviewed the conclusions of subject 1- 12 Dec., 2008 meeting in Poznan plus any sites found by Google that were well documented. Over 8,400 scientists attended this congress. There were no mention of this "speech" by Dr. Gee or his associates or his group nor of key technical findings that global warming has somehow changed to a trend of global cooling. The latest meeting of the International Geological Congress (Aug. 6- 14, 2008) is well summarized on the web; there appears at least 17 scientific papers on current/ future global warming being real and needing work and ZERO papers on near-future global cooling. Dr. Gee (from Uppsala Univ. in Sweden) was Chair of the Artic Working Group; not Chair of the Congress. Any remarks by Dr. Gee or by others on global cooling in near future were not recorded there.
Recently, there’s been a curious amount of misinformation &/or repeated false-hoods by several posters on this site and in some publications, such as recent one by Christopher Horner. What’s their motivations? If they help find small problems with the data gatherings and efforts of climate researchers, why don’t they be helpful versus only throw hand grenades and hateful phrases? Understanding our earth and future is very serious, not just petty politics. What’s/ who’s their financial supporters? "Follow the Money" is a frequent suggestion on investigations. Who has big financial interests here? Who supports (beyond Exxon-Mobil) groups like Competitive Enterprise Institute(CEI), the center of the global warming misinformation campaign? ( fyi: Mr. Horner, a lawyer, has been a Senior Fellow at CEI since 2002) Who hopes that misinformation will influence efforts of the new administration in USA?

» Global Warming alarmists: Why would 650 climatologists say Man made global warming is a myth? scientistsandengineersforchange.org

Not sure what your source is . But google put me back to your Flint conservative.

I also went to the Conference web site - nothing.

So I am calling bull doo doo on this one.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Delfin

At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. There's some data. There's lots more you can find yourself if you like

This is actually a lie , distilled through several blogs. It didnt happen . While Poznan ( 2008 by the way) wasnt much of a success, that event didnt happen..

Here's quote from a reporter. From the UKs guardian newspaper who was at Poznan

"The Americans weren't helping. It was the last conference for Harlan Watson, who has been President Bush's chief negotiator for the past seven years and has consistently blocked international progress on climate change. Asked if he had any regrets he quipped: 'My only regret is that I'm not 20 years younger, maybe a lot taller, and a lot more handsome.' I walked past him in the hall later, resisting the urge to knock him over.
"

And further on
"
The queue to get into Alpine Accentor (a type of bird) was hundreds deep on Friday, the final day of the conference. Al Gore had arrived and, after days of frustration, his speech was inspirational. 'We cannot negotiate with the facts,' said he. But the woman next to me tried. 'He's mad!' she cried, as Gore received his fifth standing ovation. I realised that I was sitting next to the one climate change denier at the conference. She was there working for the Information Radio Network in Tennessee, a right-wing news service. She was angry and very out of place. I tried to be polite, but left quickly.
"

So there was one denier there it seems , hardly 650



This is the trouble with deniers , no facts and the promulgation of lies , mis truths , quackery and out of place information. Mostly all of US right wing origin. Deniers know the science is against them , now they are simply trying to spread falsehoods and and fear.

Dave