There’s just no point to continuing this.

How much information can we provide from scientists in the field and policymakers only to have it tossed away without consideration by Reasic, this inquisitor from the flat earth society.

You’ve got an anwer for everything and understand nothing.

You’re one of the best examples of someone who has politicized science to the point of distortion where the scientific method no longer has any validity.

What a shame! Such an important issue and you have built a impregnable wall of willful ignorance that’s sure to prevent any real understanding.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Also, I just noticed another thing:

Plus, will you now disregard it when we bring in more scientists and more papers who disagree with your global warming crowd? 7-8 this time, another 12 dozen next time….”not enough I say, not enough”. I have a feeling we could bring in a thousand of em and you will ignore it also.

Curt, I didn’t simply “ignore” the citations that Mike provided. I also didn’t just “disregard” them without any basis for it. I read over them and provided detailed reasons for why I felt that they did not qualify as skeptical arguments. Most of them were about solar irradiance, but the ones that were didn’t state that TSI was the dominant cause for the warming we are seeing. In fact, some specifically stated that it was no dominant.

So, I’d love to see more references. But don’t go thinking that I’m just going to dismiss them without looking at them. Also, don’t think that I’ll just accept that they are what you say they are without actually looking them over.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mike, I’m still waiting on some evidence or examples.

Curt also claimed that you guys have lots more peer-reviewed research that you could provide, but I haven’t seen any of it:

Plus, will you now disregard it when we bring in more scientists and more papers who disagree with your global warming crowd? 7-8 this time, another 12 dozen next time….”not enough I say, not enough”. I have a feeling we could bring in a thousand of em and you will ignore it also.

I am still waiting. You can be sure that I will look them over to be sure that what you’ve provided is indeed what you say it is, but I haven’t seen anything. Do you guys want to debate the facts, or do you just want to write me off as a liberal and move on? Curt, you’ve said that you believe that this warming is just part of the Earth’s natural cycle:

While my mind could be changed by new science in the years to come at this point I believe the global warming is just the climate on the earth going through it normal changes.

Well, provide some scientific evidence to support it, and we’ll debate it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Reasic admits he is no expert. I haven’t heard what other credentials he may claim in this field.

So I can only conclude that his opinions are not peer reviewed and he has no professional experience in environmental issues.

He can correct me if I am wrong.

Nope, you’re right. I’m not expert. However, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who had a part in the making of their most recent Assessment Report are. Do you trust their opinions? No, you’ve said you don’t. So apparently credentials are not what’s stopping you.

Listen, I spelled out for you what examples or evidence I wanted and yet again you’ve failed to provide me with anything to back up your claims. I’ve backed up mine, and you’ve done nothing to substantiate yours. Are you going to do so, or not?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I am just going to repeat what I said in the post further down in case Reasic missed it:

Alright… I’ve heard enough to reach a few conclusions.

Reasic admits he is no expert. I haven’t heard what other credentials he may claim in this field.

So I can only conclude that his opinions are not peer reviewed and he has no professional experience in environmental issues.

He can correct me if I am wrong.

But until I see verifiable documentation that his opinions are set upong a better foundation than his ideology, they are invalid and not worth discussing.

That’s the same rule he has applied to everyone else, so I apply it to him.

And I’m sitting here with my EPA badge. Show me yours and I’ll show you mine

It’s obvious to me we have another case of a lefty who wishes to have sole rights to set acceptable terms for a debate. That’s about as intellectually honest as Harry Reid’s claim that the Republicans are preventing debate in the Senate.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Hey, Wordsmith. I’m glad you replied. I really think we all are a little closer in our beliefs about this, but because we can’t sit down and chat about it over a beer, it’s harder to really hash it out. One comment you made really made me think that, and I’ll get to it in a minute.

I’m saying that if all the nations, including the ones that were required to do NOTHING themselves (China and India helped to ratify the protocol without being required to reduce carbon emissions themselves), actually bothered to honor the Treaty and meet their goals of reducing emissions, that at the expense of the global economy- which you say you don’t want to harm- they will have influenced the global temperature by only about .2 degrees, for better or worse. Who the frak cares?!

What time frame are you talking about? I’ll give you an example of the difference that can be made, in terms of emissions, first. In reply to someone else, I looked up the emissions of the US versus the EU nations for the period from 1990 to 2004. During that time, the US GHG emissions went up 16%, while the EU’s emissions has gone down by almost 1%. The EU’s goal is to be at 8% less than their 1990 levels by 2012. Even if we stay constant, it’s better than doing nothing, which will result in continued increases in GHGs.

What I’m confused about in your comment is that you’re saying 0.2 degrees F period, as if that’s the total difference we’ll ever see if we try to cut back on emissions. I think that’s disingenuous. If the world continues to increase their GHG emissions, warming will get even worse. If we curb our emissions, we will prevent the warming that would have otherwise occurred.

You and many other skeptics also seem to be overly concerned about what other nations are doing. If we were to take action, we’d have the moral authority to force other countries to do the same through political pressure or even sanctions. So, I say who cares what India or China are doing? We need to do what we can, within reason, and then we can deal with them also. Kyoto would not wreck our economy. There are some US states and cities who have already enacted similar restrictions, and they are doing fine.

Even if I conceded the DEBATEABLE claim that global warming is largely induced/accelerated by man, why should I care? Oh yeah…we’ll experience hurricanes, land masses will be submerged by melted glaciers, yadda, yadda, yadda.

When meteorologists start hitting a .300 batting average, call me. They can’t even predict tomorrow’s weather with any reliable consistency let alone what may or may not happen 100 years from now.

I have two issues with this one. First of all, if you truly conceded that global warming is caused by man, and you also decided that we shouldn’t do anything about it, you would also have to accept that temperatures would continue to rise. I think you may be thinking that they go up 0.2 degrees or something and then they stop. If we are causing it, and we don’t do anything, they just keep on rising, along with sea levels and melting, as you’ve pointed out. Then, we start messing with ecosystems and we could lose large land masses into the sea. If the sea level in a couple hundred years was several feet higher than now, that would be catastrophic to many islands and coasts. Is it that you’re not thinking about the long term, or have you just said that you’d concede the GW argument for argument’s sake, but then really didn’t?

The other problem I have with this is that you’re talking about the reliability of meteorologists. There is a HUGE difference between weather and climate. If you’re basing your distrust of climate scientists on the reliability of your local meteorologist, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree.

So congratulations on setting up and knocking down your own strawman point. But that’s what happens when you selectively cherry-pick, ignoring the rest of what I wrote so you could pat yourself on the back and feel like you accomplished something here.

The straw man I was referring to was the one where you said that we’d ruin our economy by trying to curb emissions, and it would only make 0.2 degrees F worth of difference. That claim is patently false. If that were the case, that would be stupid and no one would be for it. So, by claiming that this is the choice we are left with and pointing it out as stupid, you’ve set up and successfully knocked down a straw man.

I’m all for conservation of energy and such, and discovering alternative fuel sources. But I vehemently disagree with the global warming hysteria.

This is the part I was glad to see. That’s all I’m talking about. I think a lot of you guys see me arguing in favor of taking action, so you assume that I’m some alarmist wacko that wants to backrupt Exxon. All I want is for us to do what we can, and I think we can do more than what we are doing. Let’s do more research on alt. fuels, produce more fuel efficient vehicles, curb emissions from power plants, etc. I’m not talking about drastic actions here. I think you guys are assuming that I am. Anything would be better than nothing, which is what we are doing right now.

After I said that I’m tentatively for Kyoto, you said:

Well, then that would contradict your statement above, where you said: I can tell you that I am not for ruining our economy.

I can’t think of a single nation that signed on to Kyoto, that was serious about it. Did any of the countries achieve (or even try) to reach their pledged, target goals? Or was it all a “feel-good” meaningless facade to give nations the appearance of doing something high and mighty? So they can appear to be an enlightened society?

First of all, I don’t think Kyoto would ruin our economy. It doesn’t even matter, because we aren’t doing anything. If we were at least trying to curb emissions a little, maybe we could talk about what’s doing to our economy, but instead, the skeptics just sit back and complain about what it would do to our economy.

Second, it’s impossible to say whether any countries have reached their targeted goals under Kyoto, because their goals are set for 2012. We’ll see when we get there. I can tell you this much: the US will go down in the history books as not doing anything at all.

Not even our Congressional leaders during the previous Administration were for Kyoto. They unanimously rejected it. Under the Clinton Administration, it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification, but passed off to the current Administration as a political hot potato. Yet of course, as in all things, let’s blame Bush.

Congress didn’t reject Kyoto. The Senate passed a resolution stating that it would not support any treaties unless certain guidelines were met. The treaty was never presented to the Senate for ratification. However, Clinton was at least in talks with them and trying to figure out a solution. Bush just tossed it out the window. He even made campaign pledges that he would curb CO2 emissions, and then pulled out of that too.

Hey, you’re the global warming alarmist who thinks the apocalyptic end of days is at hand; I’m the cool-as-a-cucumber denier. I don’t have to propose anything except this: It’s been so cool these days out in Los Angeles, that I’m thinking of buying a little electric heater. Any solutions for that?

I’ve not said that the world is coming to an end. All I’m saying is that we are causing the warming and the warming will continue to happen until emissions are reduced. It’s about thinking about our grandkids and their grandkids, and taking care of the planet that God put us on.

You keep making arguments against the proposed mitigation methods, when it seems that you don’t even believe there is a problem. That is a waste of time. Let’s just debate the problem and the science behind it, if that’s what you don’t agree with. I’ll provide for you my logical argument that we are the cause of the warming that we are seeing, and you then tell me what you disagree with:

I think that there are greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. I believe that they are at much higher concentrations than ever before. I also believe that human activities, especially in recent years, emit those same greenhouse gases. Now, I draw the logical conclusion that A is true and B is true, therefore C is true(C, being that humans are the source of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.)

Now on to the effect of such gases. I believe that the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere produce a warming effect on the planet. As the concentration of the gases increases, more heat from the sun is trapped in.

One more logical step. If humans are the source of the high concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, and those gases have a warming effect on the planet, I then draw the conclusion that humans have caused this new warming trend.

Which of these statements do you disagree with? You pick one or more, and then we’ll debate that specific statement. Be sure to be ready to back up your claims with scientific research, though, and I’ll do the same.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Oh…another Wordsmith solution, since you asked: Eat more hamburgers.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Wordsmith,

Is that really all we’re trying to do? Save a total of 0.2 degrees F? C’mon, now. The concern is that we are in a warming trend that is caused by us and, while small in the short term, will begin to add up very quickly and will only get worse.

I think you misunderstood the point. I wasn’t saying global warming is only going to affect climate temperatures by .2 degrees Fahrenheit; I’m saying that if all the nations, including the ones that were required to do NOTHING themselves (China and India helped to ratify the protocol without being required to reduce carbon emissions themselves), actually bothered to honor the Treaty and meet their goals of reducing emissions, that at the expense of the global economy- which you say you don’t want to harm- they will have influenced the global temperature by only about .2 degrees, for better or worse. Who the frak cares?! Who’s to say that a .2 degree increase or decrease is good or consequently bad? Climate temperatures have gone up and down; land masses have sunk and risen; continents have drifted over time….so what? SO WHAT?! Change is a part of life. Get used to it. Adapt. Climate change has been happening regardless of man’s influence since the world began. Even if I conceded the DEBATEABLE claim that global warming is largely induced/accelerated by man, why should I care? Oh yeah…we’ll experience hurricanes, land masses will be submerged by melted glaciers, yadda, yadda, yadda.

When meteorologists start hitting a .300 batting average, call me. They can’t even predict tomorrow’s weather with any reliable consistency let alone what may or may not happen 100 years from now.

So in the long term, which is how the issue of global warming should be viewed, we are talking significant warming that we could experience. If you don’t agree with the science, let’s talk about that.

I’m not really interested in talking to you at all. I’m just here, because you are.

It doesn’t do anyone any good when you set yourself up a straw man that no one proposed and then easily knock it down.

You wrote: If it’s happening and we’re the cause, shouldn’t we do something?

To which I brought up Kyoto where nations supposedly were trying to do something; then I mentioned in the same breath: but you didn’t bring up Kyoto. I did.

So congratulations on setting up and knocking down your own strawman point. But that’s what happens when you selectively cherry-pick, ignoring the rest of what I wrote so you could pat yourself on the back and feel like you accomplished something here.

I can tell you that I am not for ruining our economy. I am well aware that we depend on the big industry corporations that do a majority of the polluting.

How about building nuclear power plants? It’s worked out for France. Oh, but we might offend the environmental whackos…

I don’t want anyone to go bankrupt. I also don’t think everyone should start walking and riding bikes. I do think that we can begin monitoring emissions and making honest attempts at cutting back. I would start slow. If we can make progress without hurting the economy, let’s push for more reductions.

I’m all for conservation of energy and such, and discovering alternative fuel sources. But I vehemently disagree with the global warming hysteria.

I don’t know about Kyoto either. Right now, I’m for it, for lack of any other proposals.

Well, then that would contradict your statement above, where you said: I can tell you that I am not for ruining our economy.

I can’t think of a single nation that signed on to Kyoto, that was serious about it. Did any of the countries achieve (or even try) to reach their pledged, target goals? Or was it all a “feel-good” meaningless facade to give nations the appearance of doing something high and mighty? So they can appear to be an enlightened society?

You are the one that is against the current proposal on the table (Kyoto), and you want me to provide another one?

Not even our Congressional leaders during the previous Administration were for Kyoto. They unanimously rejected it. Under the Clinton Administration, it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification, but passed off to the current Administration as a political hot potato. Yet of course, as in all things, let’s blame Bush.

Maybe you should provide the alternative. Or is yours to do nothing? If that’s the case, then we are back to discussing whether global warming is happening, so there’d be no point in discussing remedies.

Hey, you’re the global warming alarmist who thinks the apocalyptic end of days is at hand; I’m the cool-as-a-cucumber denier. I don’t have to propose anything except this: It’s been so cool these days out in Los Angeles, that I’m thinking of buying a little electric heater. Any solutions for that?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Curt,

Pielke’s research is tainted with oil money. I know you think that I’d say that about any skeptic, but I’ll provide you with the evidence, if you don’t want to look it up yourself. You can also see it in the erroneous claims he makes in his paper. For example:

Even more egregious was their selection of the

Willis, J.K., D. Roemmich, and B. Cornuelle, 2004: Interannual variability in upper ocean heat content, temperature, and thermosteric expansion on global scales. J. Geophys. Res., 109, C12036, doi: 10.1029/2003JC002260

paper to cite (which documents a strong ocean warming in the 1990s), but ignores the more recent paper

Lyman, J. M., J. K. Willis, and G. C. Johnson (2006), Recent cooling of the upper ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L18604, doi:10.1029/2006GL027033

which reports on significant recent ocean cooling!

This is so disingenuous. You skeptics will reference anything. I actually read through most of the paper by Lyman, et. al. that he cited. It’s not a skeptic argument. It states that there was a two-year period of cooling in the upper layer of the ocean, but it is not meant to debunk the science of global warming. As a matter of fact, I found this article, which contains quotes from a couple of the authors of the Lyman paper. From what they say, you can definitely tell that they did not intend for their research to be used to debunk global warming:

Although the average temperature of the upper oceans has significantly cooled since 2003, the decline is a fraction of the total ocean warming over the previous 48 years.

“This research suggests global warming isn’t always steady, but happens with occasional ‘speed bumps’,” said Josh Willis, a co-author of the study at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “This cooling is probably natural climate variability. The oceans today are still warmer than they were during the 1980s, and most scientists expect the oceans will eventually continue to warm in response to human-induced climate change.“

Now why would Pielke quote this in his work as though it were meant to prove that global warming is not happening? Surely you agree with me that he did not use it correctly. But that’s what he’s paid to do. And that’s how this game works. Everyone has an agenda, so you have to weed through the arguments and see if they pass the smell test. Pielke’s does not. I have the same problem when I read other skeptics’ works. They are small in number already, and what little there is, is generally not peer-reviewed and usually contains misleading statements such as Pielke’s.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mike, you keep making claims without backing them up. When I made my argument, I spent a long time looking up numbers and reading articles. Then, I argued against your main points and backed each of my dissenting arguments with data or sound reasoning. You, however, are tell me that I’m cherry picking without telling me how. Then, you tell me that none of the “science” I “cling to” is accurate, but you don’t back that up either.

I told you in my response what examples or additional information I wanted. It’s not a situation where you provided information but it wasn’t good enough. You made claims with any evidence to back them up. I’ll give you a short order list of the info I’ve requested and why:

1. You said that I was “cherry-picking” in my responses to your citations, but failed to provide any evidence. I simply read the papers or their summaries and found that the overwhelming majority of them were not opposed to the idea that the planet is warming. If you want to say that I’m cherry-picking, you should back that claim up by showing me how the papers I said were not dissenting actually were.

2. Also, after showing you that most of your citations were not skeptic arguments, I asked for different peer-reviewed papers. Monckton is not even a scientist, and the Singer-Avery book is not a peer-reviewed paper. I find it interesting that you use the word science in quotations when referring to my use of it, as if the IPCC’s research is some kind of pseudo-science, but then you fail to provide any scientific research to back up your skeptical arguments and you worship the work of a journalist.

3. In the same line as #2, I looked at the Hoyt and Schatter work, and I failed to see how it is a skeptic argument. Please provide some quotes or something to help me see it. It’s yet another reference on solar irradiance that even the IPCC reports cite in helping to explain some of the lesser effects on the warming of the planet, but I fail to see how it counts as a skeptical argument.

4. You made the claim that the UN panel admits that “the causes and effects of whatever warming or cooling which is, or is not, occurring is not well understood.” And yet again, there is no quote from the new report summary. If you make a claim, you have to back it up. Otherwise, I must assume that you’ve just made it up. I tried to do your work for you, but I couldn’t find it in there.

5. You said that some scientists say we shouldn’t fund additional research into solar variability anymore. I hadn’t heard this, so I was interested in finding out who said it. Do you have any names or quotes?

6. You claimed that it would take $500 trillion to reduce our emissions. I’m interested in finding out what remediation plan that number is based on and who came up with it. Or did you just throw a really big number out there without any basis for it?

7. I explained that Horner’s data is misleading because the EU has reduce their emissions by almost one percent from 1990, while the US has increased by 16%. He makes it seem as though their emissions are sky-rocketing compared to ours, which is patently false. Then in your reply you make a snide remark about how I’m “clever by half”. Do you have a response or a rebuttal, or are you just reduced to taking jabs at me without actually making any valid points?

8. Next, I explained that Monckton’s Hockey stick graph comparison is flawed due to variations in scale and area. Do you have a rebuttal, or do you agree?

9. You said that the UN trimmed “its initial batch of alarmist predictions”. I wanted to see what predictions it trimmed. I’m starting to see a trend, where you seem to regurgitate a skeptic argument, but provide no actual evidence for the claims. Do you know what specific predictions were trimmed? I know that sea level rise was lowered, but is there anything else?

So, to wrap up, I want:

1. Evidence that I was cherry-picking.

2. Peer-reviewed research that supports skeptical arguments.

3. Same as #2.

4. A quote from the UN panel that the causes of climate change are not understood.

5. Names and/or quotes from scientists who say that we shouldn’t fund research on solar variance.

6. Where did you get the $500 trillion number from?

7. A rebuttal to my claims about Horner’s data.

8. A rebuttal to my observations about the hockey-stick graphs.

9. A list of the predictions that the UN “trimmed”.

You wanted to know what examples I wanted? This is it. I’ve clearly spelled it out for you.

Like or Dislike: 0  0