When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
I never said I agreed totally with the guy that wrote that press release, but as you can see not every Climatologist believes in AGW.
Sun Spots have more of a scientific validity than any of the IPCC models or any of the other models that I have seen. It has been proven that the times of low sun spots, the Earth cooled. They have been studying sun spots sionce Galileo’s time and they correspond with cooling and warming trends better than the junk in junk out models that have been thrown around.
I am still wondering why Mars, Venus, even Pluto were also warming as well as the Earth in the last few decades. That is kind of hard to blame on CO2 from SUVs and industrialization.
A thing on “peer review” If I am correct, “peer reviews” in scientific magazines were never for public comsumption. It was reviewed to say they did the experiment right, but that others in the field could go and validate their findings. So, they were never meant for a final say in anything.
And the people that run the magazines are now in the back pockets of the AGW advocates, so the Deniers do not get to put their studies in the magazines.
Just to be fair, I again had to dig DW out of the spam filter. You may check out his post #45. Altho, as I point out in my own post #50, there is no unbiased source, and why should the “pro AWG” biased sources be given carte blanc, and the others not?
But it is interesting how those how whine regularly about “big oil” and “big business” now complain that a business is “too small” to be viable for an opinion.
DW 5000
15 years ago
I’ll be happy to stake my years at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
This from the guy who was at the asinine end of this exchange:
DW 5000…
Lord knows I want the price of gas to come down, but there are also other things I want, and preserving some little stretches of wilderness is one of them.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Mike’s America
UGH!
June 20th, 2008 at 11:16 am
“Ugh!”? Like wetlands have cooties or something?
Or is “Ugh!” the way them sure-as-shootin’-for-real environmental experts see the environment?
And what, precisely, did you do there? I’m guessing you were–what?–a janitor? That hardly qualifies you as an expert in anything except floor wax, Mike.
Tony
15 years ago
John Coleman (founder of the Weather Channel), has done a great deal in trying to expose the AGW fraud (he says Al Gore should be sued for Fraud). Take a look at some of his work at http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner In his brief “THERE IS NO CONSENUS ON GLOBAL WARMING” he points out the following:
The working groups preparing for the IPCC meeting in December 2007 were told to not consider any new research papers after those that had been accepted by the IPCC in 2005. Therefore, a entire body of later peer-reviewed scientific work that countered the claims before the IPCC could not be considered. This prompted a long list of scientists to write a letter of protest to Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali.
His brief contains the list of scientists who signed the letter of protest.
BTW, as an “aside”… when I was a Navy wife in Zion/IL in the 70s, there was a Chicago weatherman, John Coleman, as meterologist. This guy used to make me roar with laughter! He’d actually go out on a limb and project snow flurries down to the minute.
Anyone know if this is the same guy? Because my past lives have very many fond memories of this guy. Not to mention he (personally, not to be construed as an endorsement of TWC) was really dang good at it!
Tony
15 years ago
Yes, the same guy, used to be on ABC in Chicago. His picture is on the web page link, you’ll recognize him right away. I watched the news at night only because he was on.
Thanks, Tony. I had checked out his bio which gave some Chicago roots. But then, they didn’t give the years and this had to be almost 40 years ago.
I’m so glad that a weather guy who made such an impression so many years ago still commands my respect for bucking “city hall” in opinions today.
Had not clue he founded the TWC. Too back they are “fer sheeeet” back here on the west coast. We are invisible to them. Good FL and east coast coveage tho.
An examination of 928 abstracts, published in refereed (i.e.; peer-reviewed) scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, found none that disagreed with the consensus position that anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is a reality.
The Oreskes review that you quote from 2004 is outdated.
Here is more recent information from 2007 using the same database and search terms as Oreskes:
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that — whatever the cause may be — the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.
Schulte’s survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of “90% likely” man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of “thousands of scientists” involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of “lead authors.” The introductory “Summary for Policymakers” — the only portion usually quoted in the media — is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters — the only text actually written by scientists — are edited to “ensure compliance” with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.
By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.
***
Not only is the Oreskes review outdated, it was factually flawed from the beginning.
Please provide an example of a scientific institute of comparable repute that takes a contrary position.
Here they are:
Skeptical Scientific Organizations:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, USA (31,000+ Members)
American Association of State Climatologists, USA
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Skeptical Organizations:
Abundant Wildlife Society of North America. USA
AccuWeather, USA
Advancement of Sound Science Center, USA
Air Quality Standards Coalition, USA
American Council on Science and Health, USA
American Enterprise Institute, USA
American Land Rights Association, USA
American Policy Center, USA
Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, USA
Australian APEC Study Centre, Australia
Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology (FAEC), Argentina
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology, USA
Association of British Drivers, UK
Cato Institute, USA
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, USA
Center for Science and Public Policy, USA
Citizens for the Environment and CFE Action Fund, USA
Clean Water Industry Coalition, USA
CO2 Science, USA
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, USA
Committee for Economic Development, USA
Competitive Enterprise Institute, USA
Cooler Heads Coalition, USA
DCI Group, USA
Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), USA
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, USA
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE), USA
Fraser Institute, Canada
Free Enterprise Education Institute, USA
Friends of Science, Canada
Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP), Canada
Frontiers of Freedom Institute, USA
George C. Marshall Institute, USA
Global Climate Coalition, USA
Greening Earth Society, USA
Heartland Institute, USA
Heritage Foundation, USA
High Park Group, Canada
Hoover Institution, USA
Hudson Institute, USA
Independent Institute, USA
Institute for Canadian Values, Canada
Institute for Energy Research, USA
Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development, USA
Institute of Economic Affairs, UK
Institute of Public Affairs, Australia
Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, USA
International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, USA
International Policy Network, UK
Lavoisier Group, Australia
Maine Heritage Policy Center, USA
Media Research Center, USA
National Center for Policy Analysis, USA
National Center for Public Policy Research, USA
National Motorists Association, USA
Natural Resources Stewardship Project, Canada
New Hope Environmental Services, USA
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, New Zealand
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, USA
Pacific Research Institute, USA
Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), USA
Reason Foundation, USA
Reason Public Policy Institute, USA
Science & Environmental Policy Project, USA
Science & Public Policy Institute, USA
Scientific Alliance, UK
Sustainable Development Network, UK
Thoreau Institute, USA
Tropical Meteorology Project, USA
TSAugust, USA
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy, USA
***
Dave Noble in #40
If there are so many reputable scientists who disagree with AGW, where are their peer-reviewed articles?
Anyone here feel sorry for the ill-informed robot Dave Hussein Noble?
Nah! I didn’t think so.
Good work Aye!
Fit fit
15 years ago
Not so fast Mike.
Again people always approach this with a set view point and then go out to find information backing thier point, filtering out the annoying contridictions.
A quick scan of Aye’s list of “skeptical orginizations” show several organizations that one would be skepitcal in trusting. The Thereau Institute is just that crackpot Randy O’Toole …and you expect that an association of Petroleum Geologists are really going to give us an unbiased opinion?
The bullshit from all sides piles up pretty fast whenever this people start talking about this.
Fit Fit: If you have a problem with one or two of the organizations Aye listed take it up with him.
The bottom line is that there IS a debate between CREDIBLE scientists that has NOT resulted in anything like a consensus.
And before we spend trillions of $$$ that could go to address REAL problems, we should make sure that Global Warming IS a real problem and not just a wet dream for recovering communists out to hamstring the West.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Aye Chi,
Thanks for your response.
You rightly point out the need to update the Oreskes study. You cite a “pre-publication” copy of Dr. Schulte’s study. If it passes the peer-review process at the journal Energy and Environment, I will gladly consider it.
Re: The peer review articles. They are not directly on point. Look at the (7) general topics enumerated at the top of the list. Only the first addresses the issue involved in the Oreskes study: Are human behaviors contributing to global warming? And it does not contradict the position of the IPCC or the issue involved in the Oreskes study. The issue is not whether human behaviors, or other factors, are the primary drivers of global climate change, it is whether our bonfire is making the beach even hotter. The other (6) topics address potential results of global warming.
Further, you can’t have it both ways by challenging the dates of the Oreskes articles (1993 -2003) and then offering a list with articles going back to 1956 (and 1962, 1970, 1973, 1974, and 1978). I actually scrolled through the list of articles and found only 8 out of the 500 that had dates later than the Oreskes cutoff of 2003.
Finally, in spite of Mata’s statements about censorship it looks like the peer review process is doing just fine.
Fit fit
15 years ago
Oh I think it’s more than one or two…
I agree that revamping the global economy is a very serious decision, and I don’t think we have enough infromation to pull the trigger. But if it is a real danger, nothing compares to it in importance. The debate would be furthered if people stopped pushing misleading information. I don’t believe that will happen anytime soon…
The “debate” amoung scientists will never end and arguing about the meaning of consensus is pointless.
Well F.F. as you can see, there are people like Dave Hussein Noble who will go to any links to DENY that there is a legitimate and credible disagreement among scientists who work in this field.
And they call US deniers?
Fit fit
15 years ago
will go to any links
Is that a pun?
I’m 60% on his side, but I will not defend the carbon crazies until they reign in the facts.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Aye Chi,
Re: Comments 48 and 49
I guess I should avoid slang to avert confusion. By saying my money is on the “big guys” I did not mean individuals, I meant the major scientific organizations I cited. You don’t need to print any more resumes.
Dr. Wegman sounds a great deal like a statistician who doesn’t think his discipline has been given a fair hearing in the AGW debate. That’s fine. He has an available forum in peer-reviewed journals. Has he submitted an abstract to the appropriate statistical journal citing the statistical inadequacies in the IPCC study? I would think that would be of interest to those in his own discipline as well as the larger scientific community.
Now about the peer review process. There is no process on God’s green earth that provides Olympian scrutiny. But somehow despite Mr. Higgs’ criticism of the process, we manage to muddle along and map the human genome, discover new crops, find new energy sources, investigate the origins of our universe. You and I are now talking on a mind-boggling communication tool resident on computational devices that have developed in my lifetime from monsters that filled a room to devices that sit on our desks and are carried in our pockets. Science works. The scientific process works. The peer review process works.
Finally, is Mr. Higgs just objectively commenting on the peer review process or does he have an interestingly coincidental bias?
“For instance, in the mid-1970s, an apparent scientific consensus existed that our planet was about to enter another Ice Age. Drastic proposals, such as exploding hydrogen bombs over polar icecaps to melt them. and damming the Bering Strait to prevent icy waters from entering the Pacific, were put forth by reputable scientists and seriously considered by the US government.”
What a coincidence that he chose that example.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Mata,
Re: Comment 39
I acknowledge your point that an analytical chemist might have something to bring to the table in a discussion of CO2. But I am aware of no dispute about whether increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases the absorption of heat from the sun. The evaluations of CO2 (and other atmospheric gases) in ice core samples is a basic input to climatology studies.
The proper manner for one scientist to address the work of another is via journal publications and conferences. Writing letters to someone asking them to renounce their position sounds more like a religious or political dispute
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Mata,
Re: Comment 50
I read your post more carefully and I apologize for overstating the similarities between our views.
Here is the question that your survey asked: “To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?” That overstates the position of AGW proponents. The IPCC report does not state that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes. What it states is that there is a global warming trend (“Warming of the climate is unequivocal”) and there is very high confidence (9 out 10 chance) that human activity is contributing to it. Think of it this way. If I’m at the beach in the summertime, it’s not hot because of me. But would it be prudent to build a bonfire on the beach in the middle of the day?
Your assumption that decreasing global warming will bankrupt the world economy is a conservative talking point. I heard it in precisely those words from the lips of Sean Hannity. That it’s a talking point doesn’t automatically mean it isn’t true, but it’s hyperbolic and unsupported as stated. That there will be costs, yes. That they will “bankrupt” the world (or even American) economy? I doubt it and I don’t think you can support it.
Finally, you have taken a position that I respectfully saw coming, but hoped you would avoid. No peer-reviewed articles? Of course, they were censored, threatened and harassed.
How can I disprove a conspiracy theory? Here at Flopping Aces as everywhere, that’s a trump card. It’s your final move. Maybe some conspiracy theories are true. But unlike science or even history, and like conspiracy theories, like religion, are beyond rational discussion because they cannot be proved or disproved.
I leave you with this. You’re an intelligent woman, do you really believe not a single solitary voice could get through the wall of silence erected by the totalitarian AGW movement and get their contrarian views published?
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Mata,
Why don’t we have a lively public debate about AGW? Part of the problem is that the main public spokespeople on the conservative side are too busy engaging in hyperbole and calling global warming a “hoax” We’ve all had a much more intelligent, lively debate right here on this blog. I’ve seen more intelligence, reasoning, and research effort from you guys than from O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, or Coulter. Maybe you need some new spokespeople. The ones you have do you a disservice.
Why don’t we have a lively public debate about AGW?
Working on a post to provide fodder for that as we speak, Dave (inbetween the making a living stuff and some tasks needing attention….). I hope it provides thoughtful fodder for a different style of debate. Should post either later this evening, or early AM.
Until then, a tad slammed to catch up on comments at the moment.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Mata,
A bit slammed? I feel ya girl. Been there, am there.
Just a few quick references for you, Dave Noble… INRE:
Your assumption that decreasing global warming will bankrupt the world economy is a conservative talking point. I heard it in precisely those words from the lips of Sean Hannity.
First let me state in unequivocal terms, I can’t stand Hannity, oh man of repetative mantras and litanies. Therefore I don’t base my statement on what he said. That does not preclude, however, that we have come to the same conclusions because of viable data via economic experts.
Figure 113 shows the losses in the potential economic output, as measured by potential GDP, for the three carbon reduction cases. The shapes of the three trajectories mirror the carbon price trajectories. In the 1990-3% case, potential GDP declines relative to the reference case from 2005 through 2008, reaching a maximum loss of $64 billion (in 1992 dollars) in 2012 and then leveling off at just under $60 billion a year through 2020. In the 1990+9% case, the loss in potential GDP declines to $35 billion by 2011 and reaches $39 billion in 2020. In the 1990+24% case, with steadily increasing carbon prices, potential GDP declines relative to the reference case projections throughout the period and is $26 billion lower than the reference case levels in 2020.
These are only two that I have time to pull out from archived bookmarks. But they should provide you not only ample reading, but give you enough food for thought to do a few searches of your own over the economic impacts of Kyoto mandates. This is why the AP6 stick to their own.
New Zealand is rueing the day they signed, and they can (and may yet) withdraw. Their motivating factor for signing was because of the money they projected they would make via carbon credits and dropping their forestry. However the accounting guidelines changed, and now they are in the red by beaucoup bucks. ooops…..
Yep… being earth friendly by UN standards is expensive. And that cost may be just the ticket to put us over the top, beyond just “slow” economic growth with the price increases we are experiencing today – i.e. our exports are heavily dependent on petroleum based products.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Mike,
We have been having an intelligent discussion between laypersons here. If there is a climatologist among us, I missed it. My comment re: credentials was in response to stix’s apparent attempt to debunk the entire discipline of climatology. That task calls for credentials.
To participate in the discussion we have been having requires no specific credentials other than an open mind, the ability to research, and the willingness to debate responsibly.
I have never tried to debunk Climatology. It was part of my minor in college. I was just trying to point out that there is no such thing as a Global Climate. Never was and never will be. Climatology is the study of specific areas. Studying the weather patterns, temperatures, moisture in the air of a specific area. I never said that Climotologists are a junk science. I just never heard of any that study the Earth as a whole Climate. It just does not fit in with Climotology. Unless Climotology has totally reavamped itself from when I took it, it is not the study of great wide areas.
You study the Climate of say Florida, and can compare it to the Arctic, but they have no Climatological characteristics in common.
‘cuse me Dave Hussein Noble: But following the chicken hawk crap you folks like to use, I am fully within my rights as a former official the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to demand your credentials.
It’s clear to me you have none. So your demand that others show theirs seems to be a bit foolish.
Which appears to be a pattern for you.
I have clearly laid out the fault lines of the scientific and political issues under discussion here. Yet, it has been your attempt to obfuscate those issues that is responsible for the distractions you are now complaining about.
Man up Dave!
DW 5000
15 years ago
my rights as a former official the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Again: precisely what did you do? Just saying that you worked at an agency gives you no credibility at all–what matters is what your tasks and areas of responsibility were at that job.
You seem to be reluctant to clear this up.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Mike,
I’m sorry I suggested you were a chickenhawk. I never used that word. I stand by my position that you find it too easy to advocate committing our troops indefinitely to a misbegotten war. I don’t think you think hard enough about it. I don’t think you look objectively at the origins of the war or at its current realities. Your military service is irrelevant to that opinion or any ensuing discussion.
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Mata,
As I noted previously, I acknowledge there will be costs to decrease CO2 emissions. What I dispute is that they will “bankrupt” our $13+trillion economy.
More to come after I review your cite.
BTW, you flatter Hannity when you suggest you both come to conclusions based on viable data from economic experts. You do. Hannity promotes propaganda to sell soap (or more accurately Ruth’s Chris steaks)
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Stix,
Thank you for the clarification. There are local instances of climate change and changes that are global. The increase in CO2 is global. It seems logical to assume it wil have a global effect.
But that still does not tell me what a Global Climate is? there never was one and never will be.
Yes CO2 is Global and should be studies but atmosphere chemisty, not Climatologists. And that what the problem is. We have Climatologists talking about a Global Climate, which is impossilbe to study, beacausse a climate is a small area science, not Globally.
And you are putting down atmosphere chemists which is in the realm, of CO2. CO2 is not part of a Climate. Temperature, water vapor, winds and clouds determine a Climate, not CO2.
We might want to talk about Global Mean Temperature, but that is also a fallacy. There is not way to calculate the entire Global Mean temperature.
If I find the site that has a good post about this I will post it. But mathematically it is impossible.
DW 5000
15 years ago
I am fully within my rights as a former official the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to demand your credentials.
Again, Mike, you’d be easier to take seriously if you’d only explain what you did while you were at the EPA. Did climate studies fall within your purview?
This is my third request for this information. Of course, you don’t have to supply it, but you have used your alleged EPA experience more than once to stifle anyone who disagrees with you on this issue. The longer you hold off on this disclosure, the more it looks like there’s nothing that you really want to disclose to inquiring minds.
P.S.: working in some undisclosed capacity at the EPA eighteen years ago doesn’t confer upon you any particular “rights” that the rest of us don’t have.
Since the deniers have seen fit to mount a full scale effort to take us off topic and “distract” us, let’s recap:
There is no evidence that the ice in Greenland is melting threatening a rise in sea levels.
As this was a major selling point of the Gorebastics scaremongering, we can safely say that the public was mislead.
Now that we have established that, let’s move on and examine the remaining talking scaremongering talking points.
We’re learning every day that the nearly the ENTIRE argument for action on global warming is a LIE!
DW 5000
15 years ago
Mike’s America
82
Now that we have established that, let’s move on and examine the remaining talking scaremongering talking points.
We’re learning every day that the nearly the ENTIRE argument for action on global warming is a LIE!
July 8th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Whoa! You demolished the opposition talking point by talking point! Amazing. Well “examined,” my friend–classic MikesAmerica work!
Aye Chihuahua
15 years ago
DW,
You still haven’t enlightened us with the reason behind the melting of the ice in the Arctic.
I asked you in #16 and again in #28.
Care to attempt it?
DW 5000
15 years ago
Greenhouse gas buildup.
Little Ice Age ending.
Positive AO.
Decreased solar reflection due to natural incidents of polar ice cap melting.
Decreased sunspot activity.
Left-wing conspiracy.
Despite the multitude of theories, my Spidey Sense tells me that your theory will be THE ONLY CORRECT ONE111!!11ELEVENTY!!! and that everyone who disagrees with you is a Mexislamofascisthomotreehuggerenvironazi.
Difficult though this may be to believe, your suppositions on the topic are of no interest to me. I’m currently busy waiting for Mike’s explanation of his expert credentials as an “official” of the EPA.
DW: I have been studying greenhouse emissions going back to 1992. In my position at I had the opportunity to learn from the best minds on that subject as well as many others.
I am not an expert on climate change. But I’m willing to bet I know more about the subject and have studied it longer than you have.
So, unless you want to dazzle our readers with your Nobel Prize on this subject, you would be better not to draw further attention to your own lack of any credentials.
DW 5000
15 years ago
Not answering the question, Mike–not even a clever evasion. I like the way you tried to turn it back on me, though. The best defense is a good offense.
scriptamanent
15 years ago
This DW 5000 is the same one that didn’t know that the Antarctica was freezing? Is he still asking questions?
They are garden variety, they are all around. They don’t know a figure, they haven’t seen a chart, they have just read a couple of articles on the news. Probably they haven’t read anything at all about it. Very likely they just overhead it on TV.
This DW 5000 that didn’t know about the freezing Antarctica is now asking for credentials?
scriptamanent
15 years ago
Check out this from Climate Audit.
The first red dot is June 1998. The second one is June 2008.
No global warming in the last ten years. In fact, slightly cooler. The charts don’t show any significant increase, nothing that could be considered unusual.
DW 5000
15 years ago
This DW 5000 is the same one that didn’t know that the Antarctica was freezing? Is he still asking questions?
What are you talking about? Link, please, or shut up.
DW: What do I have to do? Scan in my EPA badge, list my awards and other outstanding achievements?
Grow up.
And thanks once again for confirming that neither you, nor Dave Hussein Noble have ANY kind of credentials in this field. Period!
Dave Noble
15 years ago
Our leader Mike has spoken ex cathedra. While he sat on the sidelines and sniped with his customary soupcon of snark, grade school insults, and peevish authoritarianism, the rest of us hijacked his post for the length of 80 comments. We all owe him a huge apology for assuming this blog was here for rational debate. And that we get to decide what to talk about.
Guess you don’t get to set the “fault lines” of the debate, Mike. Not only is it not your America, it’s not even your blog.
Dave: When it comes to insults and ignorance you win first prize. And if you are unclear who owns this post, I’ll have Curt fill you in.
It’s clear that the “fault lines” of this debate have been endlessly discussed on this thread, despite your best efforts to obfuscate the issue.
What we are seeing here with your efforts and those of your fellow troll DW is an attempt to deny the reality of the scientific process in favor of a political agenda.
This is something I also saw firsthand at EPA.
DW 5000
15 years ago
DW: What do I have to do? Scan in my EPA badge, list my awards and other outstanding achievements?
Grow up.
And thanks once again for confirming that neither you, nor Dave Hussein Noble have ANY kind of credentials in this field. Period!
Thing one: I never said that I had any credentials in this field. That’s another one of those things that you kind of made up inside your head and then projected, Green Lantern-style, out into the rest of the world.
Thing two: you did assert that you have credentials. Your tenure as an “official” at the EPA is enough, you’ve written, to trump anyone else’s ideas about anything.
If you assert these credentials as conversation-stoppers, as you have several times now, you ought to, in your words, “man up” and prove that you have them.
A list of awards might be nice; a discussion of what your purview was at the EPA would be better. Otherwise, why on earth should we accept your word for anything?
scriptamanent
15 years ago
DW 5000
Check out your comment 27, and some answers on comments 30 and 31.
A. If you didn’t know that information about the Antarctica freezing, then you didn’t know some basics facts about AWG.
B. If you knew that information about the Antarctica, and yet you asked for proofs, then you just came here to distract and make noise.
If your situation is A, your comment 91 cannot be explained.
If your situation is B, your comment 27 and your comment 91 make sense.
Aye Chihuahua
15 years ago
DW wrote:
Greenhouse gas buildup.
Little Ice Age ending.
Positive AO.
Decreased solar reflection due to natural incidents of polar ice cap melting.
Decreased sunspot activity.
Left-wing conspiracy.
Great guesses one and all, but which ones do you have evidence of?
The one that I was looking for is not in that list.
Care for a mulligan?
***
By the way DW, I’ve been meaning to ask you.
Are you related to Doc Washboard who was once a frequent poster here?
His screeds are very similar to your acerbic leavings that’s why I was wondering.
DW 5000
15 years ago
some answers on comments 30 and 31.
Dear Einstein:
You’ll note that I didn’t write comments 30 and 31. You might even note that you wrote one of those comments, yet are here attributing it to me. Having noted that, you might further agree that your bringing them up here is distraction and noisemaking.
You’ll note that I didn’t write comments 30 and 31. You might even note that you wrote one of those comments, yet are here attributing it to me. Having noted that, you might further agree that your bringing them up here is distraction and noisemaking.
Oh boy.
Looks like DW is having major problems with simple reading comprehension.
DW, your post was #27. Within your post was a query.
The answers to your query were posted in #30 and #31 by scriptamanent and Mike’s America respectively.
Ummm… nowhere were you attributed authorship of either answer.
If you’re going to try and play with the grown ups at least pay attention to the game.
scriptamanent
15 years ago
Yeah, Aye.
DW 5000 is showing his best. He will probably ask you now what you are talking about.
I never said I agreed totally with the guy that wrote that press release, but as you can see not every Climatologist believes in AGW.
Sun Spots have more of a scientific validity than any of the IPCC models or any of the other models that I have seen. It has been proven that the times of low sun spots, the Earth cooled. They have been studying sun spots sionce Galileo’s time and they correspond with cooling and warming trends better than the junk in junk out models that have been thrown around.
I am still wondering why Mars, Venus, even Pluto were also warming as well as the Earth in the last few decades. That is kind of hard to blame on CO2 from SUVs and industrialization.
A thing on “peer review” If I am correct, “peer reviews” in scientific magazines were never for public comsumption. It was reviewed to say they did the experiment right, but that others in the field could go and validate their findings. So, they were never meant for a final say in anything.
And the people that run the magazines are now in the back pockets of the AGW advocates, so the Deniers do not get to put their studies in the magazines.
Just to be fair, I again had to dig DW out of the spam filter. You may check out his post #45. Altho, as I point out in my own post #50, there is no unbiased source, and why should the “pro AWG” biased sources be given carte blanc, and the others not?
But it is interesting how those how whine regularly about “big oil” and “big business” now complain that a business is “too small” to be viable for an opinion.
This from the guy who was at the asinine end of this exchange:
“Ugh!”? Like wetlands have cooties or something?
Or is “Ugh!” the way them sure-as-shootin’-for-real environmental experts see the environment?
And what, precisely, did you do there? I’m guessing you were–what?–a janitor? That hardly qualifies you as an expert in anything except floor wax, Mike.
John Coleman (founder of the Weather Channel), has done a great deal in trying to expose the AGW fraud (he says Al Gore should be sued for Fraud). Take a look at some of his work at http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner In his brief “THERE IS NO CONSENUS ON GLOBAL WARMING” he points out the following:
The working groups preparing for the IPCC meeting in December 2007 were told to not consider any new research papers after those that had been accepted by the IPCC in 2005. Therefore, a entire body of later peer-reviewed scientific work that countered the claims before the IPCC could not be considered. This prompted a long list of scientists to write a letter of protest to Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali.
His brief contains the list of scientists who signed the letter of protest.
You can find all of his Global Warming briefs at http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/13681217.html and many more good links on the AGW fraud at http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner
BTW, as an “aside”… when I was a Navy wife in Zion/IL in the 70s, there was a Chicago weatherman, John Coleman, as meterologist. This guy used to make me roar with laughter! He’d actually go out on a limb and project snow flurries down to the minute.
Anyone know if this is the same guy? Because my past lives have very many fond memories of this guy. Not to mention he (personally, not to be construed as an endorsement of TWC) was really dang good at it!
Yes, the same guy, used to be on ABC in Chicago. His picture is on the web page link, you’ll recognize him right away. I watched the news at night only because he was on.
Thanks, Tony. I had checked out his bio which gave some Chicago roots. But then, they didn’t give the years and this had to be almost 40 years ago.
I’m so glad that a weather guy who made such an impression so many years ago still commands my respect for bucking “city hall” in opinions today.
Had not clue he founded the TWC. Too back they are “fer sheeeet” back here on the west coast. We are invisible to them. Good FL and east coast coveage tho.
First-Ever Survey of IPCC Scientists Undermines Alleged ‘Consensus’ on Global Warming; Poll Exposes Disagreement and Confusion Among United Nations Scientists
***
Dave Noble in #9:
The Oreskes review that you quote from 2004 is outdated.
Here is more recent information from 2007 using the same database and search terms as Oreskes:
***
Not only is the Oreskes review outdated, it was factually flawed from the beginning.
Update: The Oreskes abstracts
***
Dave Noble in #9:
Here they are:
***
Dave Noble in #40
Here is the info.
Here is the list of peer-reviewed articles.
Anyone here feel sorry for the ill-informed robot Dave Hussein Noble?
Nah! I didn’t think so.
Good work Aye!
Not so fast Mike.
Again people always approach this with a set view point and then go out to find information backing thier point, filtering out the annoying contridictions.
A quick scan of Aye’s list of “skeptical orginizations” show several organizations that one would be skepitcal in trusting. The Thereau Institute is just that crackpot Randy O’Toole …and you expect that an association of Petroleum Geologists are really going to give us an unbiased opinion?
The bullshit from all sides piles up pretty fast whenever this people start talking about this.
Fit Fit: If you have a problem with one or two of the organizations Aye listed take it up with him.
The bottom line is that there IS a debate between CREDIBLE scientists that has NOT resulted in anything like a consensus.
And before we spend trillions of $$$ that could go to address REAL problems, we should make sure that Global Warming IS a real problem and not just a wet dream for recovering communists out to hamstring the West.
Aye Chi,
Thanks for your response.
You rightly point out the need to update the Oreskes study. You cite a “pre-publication” copy of Dr. Schulte’s study. If it passes the peer-review process at the journal Energy and Environment, I will gladly consider it.
Re: The peer review articles. They are not directly on point. Look at the (7) general topics enumerated at the top of the list. Only the first addresses the issue involved in the Oreskes study: Are human behaviors contributing to global warming? And it does not contradict the position of the IPCC or the issue involved in the Oreskes study. The issue is not whether human behaviors, or other factors, are the primary drivers of global climate change, it is whether our bonfire is making the beach even hotter. The other (6) topics address potential results of global warming.
Further, you can’t have it both ways by challenging the dates of the Oreskes articles (1993 -2003) and then offering a list with articles going back to 1956 (and 1962, 1970, 1973, 1974, and 1978). I actually scrolled through the list of articles and found only 8 out of the 500 that had dates later than the Oreskes cutoff of 2003.
Finally, in spite of Mata’s statements about censorship it looks like the peer review process is doing just fine.
Oh I think it’s more than one or two…
I agree that revamping the global economy is a very serious decision, and I don’t think we have enough infromation to pull the trigger. But if it is a real danger, nothing compares to it in importance. The debate would be furthered if people stopped pushing misleading information. I don’t believe that will happen anytime soon…
The “debate” amoung scientists will never end and arguing about the meaning of consensus is pointless.
Well F.F. as you can see, there are people like Dave Hussein Noble who will go to any links to DENY that there is a legitimate and credible disagreement among scientists who work in this field.
And they call US deniers?
Is that a pun?
I’m 60% on his side, but I will not defend the carbon crazies until they reign in the facts.
Aye Chi,
Re: Comments 48 and 49
I guess I should avoid slang to avert confusion. By saying my money is on the “big guys” I did not mean individuals, I meant the major scientific organizations I cited. You don’t need to print any more resumes.
Dr. Wegman sounds a great deal like a statistician who doesn’t think his discipline has been given a fair hearing in the AGW debate. That’s fine. He has an available forum in peer-reviewed journals. Has he submitted an abstract to the appropriate statistical journal citing the statistical inadequacies in the IPCC study? I would think that would be of interest to those in his own discipline as well as the larger scientific community.
Now about the peer review process. There is no process on God’s green earth that provides Olympian scrutiny. But somehow despite Mr. Higgs’ criticism of the process, we manage to muddle along and map the human genome, discover new crops, find new energy sources, investigate the origins of our universe. You and I are now talking on a mind-boggling communication tool resident on computational devices that have developed in my lifetime from monsters that filled a room to devices that sit on our desks and are carried in our pockets. Science works. The scientific process works. The peer review process works.
Finally, is Mr. Higgs just objectively commenting on the peer review process or does he have an interestingly coincidental bias?
“For instance, in the mid-1970s, an apparent scientific consensus existed that our planet was about to enter another Ice Age. Drastic proposals, such as exploding hydrogen bombs over polar icecaps to melt them. and damming the Bering Strait to prevent icy waters from entering the Pacific, were put forth by reputable scientists and seriously considered by the US government.”
What a coincidence that he chose that example.
Mata,
Re: Comment 39
I acknowledge your point that an analytical chemist might have something to bring to the table in a discussion of CO2. But I am aware of no dispute about whether increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases the absorption of heat from the sun. The evaluations of CO2 (and other atmospheric gases) in ice core samples is a basic input to climatology studies.
The proper manner for one scientist to address the work of another is via journal publications and conferences. Writing letters to someone asking them to renounce their position sounds more like a religious or political dispute
Mata,
Re: Comment 50
I read your post more carefully and I apologize for overstating the similarities between our views.
Here is the question that your survey asked: “To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?” That overstates the position of AGW proponents. The IPCC report does not state that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes. What it states is that there is a global warming trend (“Warming of the climate is unequivocal”) and there is very high confidence (9 out 10 chance) that human activity is contributing to it. Think of it this way. If I’m at the beach in the summertime, it’s not hot because of me. But would it be prudent to build a bonfire on the beach in the middle of the day?
Your assumption that decreasing global warming will bankrupt the world economy is a conservative talking point. I heard it in precisely those words from the lips of Sean Hannity. That it’s a talking point doesn’t automatically mean it isn’t true, but it’s hyperbolic and unsupported as stated. That there will be costs, yes. That they will “bankrupt” the world (or even American) economy? I doubt it and I don’t think you can support it.
Finally, you have taken a position that I respectfully saw coming, but hoped you would avoid. No peer-reviewed articles? Of course, they were censored, threatened and harassed.
How can I disprove a conspiracy theory? Here at Flopping Aces as everywhere, that’s a trump card. It’s your final move. Maybe some conspiracy theories are true. But unlike science or even history, and like conspiracy theories, like religion, are beyond rational discussion because they cannot be proved or disproved.
I leave you with this. You’re an intelligent woman, do you really believe not a single solitary voice could get through the wall of silence erected by the totalitarian AGW movement and get their contrarian views published?
Mata,
Why don’t we have a lively public debate about AGW? Part of the problem is that the main public spokespeople on the conservative side are too busy engaging in hyperbole and calling global warming a “hoax” We’ve all had a much more intelligent, lively debate right here on this blog. I’ve seen more intelligence, reasoning, and research effort from you guys than from O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, or Coulter. Maybe you need some new spokespeople. The ones you have do you a disservice.
Dave Hussein Noble:
I must have missed it where you posted your environmental credentials?
You were pretty demanding in this comment that others reveal theirs:
So, I am still waiting.
Otherwise, You’re just part of the noise machine designed to prevent the kind of scientific debate that is absolutely vital on this issue.
Working on a post to provide fodder for that as we speak, Dave (inbetween the making a living stuff and some tasks needing attention….). I hope it provides thoughtful fodder for a different style of debate. Should post either later this evening, or early AM.
Until then, a tad slammed to catch up on comments at the moment.
Mata,
A bit slammed? I feel ya girl. Been there, am there.
Just a few quick references for you, Dave Noble… INRE:
First let me state in unequivocal terms, I can’t stand Hannity, oh man of repetative mantras and litanies. Therefore I don’t base my statement on what he said. That does not preclude, however, that we have come to the same conclusions because of viable data via economic experts.
So a bit of support reference for you.
ACCF Testimony on The EU Emission Trading System and Kyoto
From the EIA there are projections in the economic output loss as indicated by projected GDP losses.
These are only two that I have time to pull out from archived bookmarks. But they should provide you not only ample reading, but give you enough food for thought to do a few searches of your own over the economic impacts of Kyoto mandates. This is why the AP6 stick to their own.
New Zealand is rueing the day they signed, and they can (and may yet) withdraw. Their motivating factor for signing was because of the money they projected they would make via carbon credits and dropping their forestry. However the accounting guidelines changed, and now they are in the red by beaucoup bucks. ooops…..
Yep… being earth friendly by UN standards is expensive. And that cost may be just the ticket to put us over the top, beyond just “slow” economic growth with the price increases we are experiencing today – i.e. our exports are heavily dependent on petroleum based products.
Mike,
We have been having an intelligent discussion between laypersons here. If there is a climatologist among us, I missed it. My comment re: credentials was in response to stix’s apparent attempt to debunk the entire discipline of climatology. That task calls for credentials.
To participate in the discussion we have been having requires no specific credentials other than an open mind, the ability to research, and the willingness to debate responsibly.
Come on in, the water’s fine.
I have never tried to debunk Climatology. It was part of my minor in college. I was just trying to point out that there is no such thing as a Global Climate. Never was and never will be. Climatology is the study of specific areas. Studying the weather patterns, temperatures, moisture in the air of a specific area. I never said that Climotologists are a junk science. I just never heard of any that study the Earth as a whole Climate. It just does not fit in with Climotology. Unless Climotology has totally reavamped itself from when I took it, it is not the study of great wide areas.
You study the Climate of say Florida, and can compare it to the Arctic, but they have no Climatological characteristics in common.
‘cuse me Dave Hussein Noble: But following the chicken hawk crap you folks like to use, I am fully within my rights as a former official the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to demand your credentials.
It’s clear to me you have none. So your demand that others show theirs seems to be a bit foolish.
Which appears to be a pattern for you.
I have clearly laid out the fault lines of the scientific and political issues under discussion here. Yet, it has been your attempt to obfuscate those issues that is responsible for the distractions you are now complaining about.
Man up Dave!
Again: precisely what did you do? Just saying that you worked at an agency gives you no credibility at all–what matters is what your tasks and areas of responsibility were at that job.
You seem to be reluctant to clear this up.
Mike,
I’m sorry I suggested you were a chickenhawk. I never used that word. I stand by my position that you find it too easy to advocate committing our troops indefinitely to a misbegotten war. I don’t think you think hard enough about it. I don’t think you look objectively at the origins of the war or at its current realities. Your military service is irrelevant to that opinion or any ensuing discussion.
Mata,
As I noted previously, I acknowledge there will be costs to decrease CO2 emissions. What I dispute is that they will “bankrupt” our $13+trillion economy.
More to come after I review your cite.
BTW, you flatter Hannity when you suggest you both come to conclusions based on viable data from economic experts. You do. Hannity promotes propaganda to sell soap (or more accurately Ruth’s Chris steaks)
Stix,
Thank you for the clarification. There are local instances of climate change and changes that are global. The increase in CO2 is global. It seems logical to assume it wil have a global effect.
But that still does not tell me what a Global Climate is? there never was one and never will be.
Yes CO2 is Global and should be studies but atmosphere chemisty, not Climatologists. And that what the problem is. We have Climatologists talking about a Global Climate, which is impossilbe to study, beacausse a climate is a small area science, not Globally.
And you are putting down atmosphere chemists which is in the realm, of CO2. CO2 is not part of a Climate. Temperature, water vapor, winds and clouds determine a Climate, not CO2.
We might want to talk about Global Mean Temperature, but that is also a fallacy. There is not way to calculate the entire Global Mean temperature.
If I find the site that has a good post about this I will post it. But mathematically it is impossible.
Again, Mike, you’d be easier to take seriously if you’d only explain what you did while you were at the EPA. Did climate studies fall within your purview?
This is my third request for this information. Of course, you don’t have to supply it, but you have used your alleged EPA experience more than once to stifle anyone who disagrees with you on this issue. The longer you hold off on this disclosure, the more it looks like there’s nothing that you really want to disclose to inquiring minds.
P.S.: working in some undisclosed capacity at the EPA eighteen years ago doesn’t confer upon you any particular “rights” that the rest of us don’t have.
Since the deniers have seen fit to mount a full scale effort to take us off topic and “distract” us, let’s recap:
There is no evidence that the ice in Greenland is melting threatening a rise in sea levels.
As this was a major selling point of the Gorebastics scaremongering, we can safely say that the public was mislead.
Now that we have established that, let’s move on and examine the remaining talking scaremongering talking points.
We’re learning every day that the nearly the ENTIRE argument for action on global warming is a LIE!
Whoa! You demolished the opposition talking point by talking point! Amazing. Well “examined,” my friend–classic MikesAmerica work!
DW,
You still haven’t enlightened us with the reason behind the melting of the ice in the Arctic.
I asked you in #16 and again in #28.
Care to attempt it?
Greenhouse gas buildup.
Little Ice Age ending.
Positive AO.
Decreased solar reflection due to natural incidents of polar ice cap melting.
Decreased sunspot activity.
Left-wing conspiracy.
Despite the multitude of theories, my Spidey Sense tells me that your theory will be THE ONLY CORRECT ONE111!!11ELEVENTY!!! and that everyone who disagrees with you is a Mexislamofascisthomotreehuggerenvironazi.
Difficult though this may be to believe, your suppositions on the topic are of no interest to me. I’m currently busy waiting for Mike’s explanation of his expert credentials as an “official” of the EPA.
DW: I have been studying greenhouse emissions going back to 1992. In my position at I had the opportunity to learn from the best minds on that subject as well as many others.
I am not an expert on climate change. But I’m willing to bet I know more about the subject and have studied it longer than you have.
So, unless you want to dazzle our readers with your Nobel Prize on this subject, you would be better not to draw further attention to your own lack of any credentials.
Not answering the question, Mike–not even a clever evasion. I like the way you tried to turn it back on me, though. The best defense is a good offense.
This DW 5000 is the same one that didn’t know that the Antarctica was freezing? Is he still asking questions?
They are garden variety, they are all around. They don’t know a figure, they haven’t seen a chart, they have just read a couple of articles on the news. Probably they haven’t read anything at all about it. Very likely they just overhead it on TV.
This DW 5000 that didn’t know about the freezing Antarctica is now asking for credentials?
Check out this from Climate Audit.
The first red dot is June 1998. The second one is June 2008.
No global warming in the last ten years. In fact, slightly cooler. The charts don’t show any significant increase, nothing that could be considered unusual.
What are you talking about? Link, please, or shut up.
DW: What do I have to do? Scan in my EPA badge, list my awards and other outstanding achievements?
Grow up.
And thanks once again for confirming that neither you, nor Dave Hussein Noble have ANY kind of credentials in this field. Period!
Our leader Mike has spoken ex cathedra. While he sat on the sidelines and sniped with his customary soupcon of snark, grade school insults, and peevish authoritarianism, the rest of us hijacked his post for the length of 80 comments. We all owe him a huge apology for assuming this blog was here for rational debate. And that we get to decide what to talk about.
Guess you don’t get to set the “fault lines” of the debate, Mike. Not only is it not your America, it’s not even your blog.
Dave: When it comes to insults and ignorance you win first prize. And if you are unclear who owns this post, I’ll have Curt fill you in.
It’s clear that the “fault lines” of this debate have been endlessly discussed on this thread, despite your best efforts to obfuscate the issue.
What we are seeing here with your efforts and those of your fellow troll DW is an attempt to deny the reality of the scientific process in favor of a political agenda.
This is something I also saw firsthand at EPA.
Thing one: I never said that I had any credentials in this field. That’s another one of those things that you kind of made up inside your head and then projected, Green Lantern-style, out into the rest of the world.
Thing two: you did assert that you have credentials. Your tenure as an “official” at the EPA is enough, you’ve written, to trump anyone else’s ideas about anything.
If you assert these credentials as conversation-stoppers, as you have several times now, you ought to, in your words, “man up” and prove that you have them.
A list of awards might be nice; a discussion of what your purview was at the EPA would be better. Otherwise, why on earth should we accept your word for anything?
DW 5000
Check out your comment 27, and some answers on comments 30 and 31.
A. If you didn’t know that information about the Antarctica freezing, then you didn’t know some basics facts about AWG.
B. If you knew that information about the Antarctica, and yet you asked for proofs, then you just came here to distract and make noise.
If your situation is A, your comment 91 cannot be explained.
If your situation is B, your comment 27 and your comment 91 make sense.
DW wrote:
Great guesses one and all, but which ones do you have evidence of?
The one that I was looking for is not in that list.
Care for a mulligan?
***
By the way DW, I’ve been meaning to ask you.
Are you related to Doc Washboard who was once a frequent poster here?
His screeds are very similar to your acerbic leavings that’s why I was wondering.
Dear Einstein:
You’ll note that I didn’t write comments 30 and 31. You might even note that you wrote one of those comments, yet are here attributing it to me. Having noted that, you might further agree that your bringing them up here is distraction and noisemaking.
Oh boy.
Looks like DW is having major problems with simple reading comprehension.
DW, your post was #27. Within your post was a query.
The answers to your query were posted in #30 and #31 by scriptamanent and Mike’s America respectively.
Ummm… nowhere were you attributed authorship of either answer.
If you’re going to try and play with the grown ups at least pay attention to the game.
Yeah, Aye.
DW 5000 is showing his best. He will probably ask you now what you are talking about.