White House says leaked email story "silly" - the science is clear

Mon, 2009-12-07 21:29Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

White House says leaked email story "silly" - the science is clear

According to an AFP story out today, the Obama White House has dismissed as “silly” the idea that climate science is in jeopardy over the Climate Research Unit leaked emails.

“I think everybody is clear on the science,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters.

“I think scientists are clear on the science. I think many on Capitol Hill are clear on the science. I think that this notion that there is some debate … on the science is kind of silly.”

Of course it is, but it hasn’t stopped Republicans, their friends in the free-market think tanks and Fox News from trying to make this minor controversy into some kind of worldwide conspiracy.

I wonder if 100 years from now, the textbooks will talk about how the 21st century equivalent of the flat-earth society that tried and failed to keep the human-race stuck on fossil fuels?

If so, here’s a great photo of the Head Director of the Flat Earth Society that they could include on the cover:

Comments

“I wonder if 100 years from now, the textbooks will talk about how the 21st century equivalent of the flat-earth society that tried and failed to keep the human-race stuck on fossil fuels?”

they won’t need text books. thinkright version 9.2 (which will include all of Obama’s glorious historical speeches) will be downloaded directly to all brains and we will finally be done with the scourge of free thinking.

The scourge of free-thinking is the mindless parroting of inaccurate talking points, scientific, social and political illiteracy and inaccurately equating skepticism with close-mindlessness, which is why such behaviour is more correctly labeled ‘denialism.’

The warmists are in complete denial about being part of the biggest scientific fraud in recorded history.

What a silly thing to say.

You make an excellent point about equating skepticism with close-mindlessness (perhaps you meant to write “closed-mindedness?”)

“Skeptics” – including some trained scientist – claim to be examining the issues with an open mind, but the have a habit of never opening up the scientific journal pages and pointing out specifically where the scientific research has gone wrong and writing their own papers to correct. In short, they can’t be bothered to do the real work of scientists.

Those few who do work and write soemthing up properly find that their arguments don’t hold up under scrutiny. That scrutiny in turn gets turned into nonsense like the out-of-context email kerfuffle.

the temperature these days is the same as my comment ratings

What, in December? The ice age must be upon us. (eyes rolling)

Yes it is quite conspicuous that ‘world leaders’ have disamissed this whole hooha as a bagatelle.Of course, being professional politicians they see the swindle in manufactured scandals earlier than most.

The denialist crowd will still try to get as much mileage as possible out of these emails but their assurances that this was the scam of the century and a definite turning point in the global warming debate look more and more hysterical now the knowledge about the deliberate misinterpretations becomes more widespread.

The White House or prominent physicists?

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/08/taking_liberties/entry5933353.shtml

Princeton University’s Robert Austin:
I view it as science fraud, pure and simple, and that we should completely distance ourselves from such unethical behavior by CRU, and that data files be opened to the public and examined in the full light of day. We as taxpayers pay for that work – we are owed examination of the analysis.

Princeton University’s William Happer:
The APS has not responded to our petition. We submitted the petition several weeks ago… Prof. Callan, the president elect of the APS, who works in the same building in Princeton University as Professor Austin and I, has been unable to find time to discuss the petition with us.

We have independently contacted as many members of the APS as we can to ask for their support of the petition. We are getting about as many supportive as negative responses, so I would judge that about half the membership of the APS agrees with us. Those who oppose us usually have little or nothing to say about the science and plenty of things to say about what evil people we are. Those who agree with us are troubled by the lack of scientific support for the current APS statement and the highly political nature of it.

Hal Lewis of the University of California, Santa Barbara:
I think it behooves us to be careful about how we state the science. I know of nobody who denies that the Earth has been warming for thousands of years without our help (and specifically since the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago), and is most likely to continue to do so in its own sweet time. The important question is how much warming does the future hold, is it good or bad, and if bad is it too much for normal adaptation to handle. The real answer to the first is that no one knows, the real answer to the second is more likely good than bad (people and plants die from cold, not warmth), and the answer to the third is almost certainly not. And nobody doubts that CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for the better part of a century, but the disobedient temperature seems not to care very much. And nobody denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, along with other gases like water vapor, but despite the claims of those who are profiting by this craze, no one knows whether the temperature affects the CO2 or vice versa. The weight of the evidence is the former.

So the tragedy is that the serious questions are quantitative, and it’s easy to fool people with slogans. If you say that the Earth is warming you are telling the truth, but not the whole truth, and if you say it is due to the burning of fossil fuels you are on thin ice. If you say that the Earth is warming and therefore catastrophe lies ahead, you are pulling an ordinary bait and switch scam. If you are a demagogue, of course, these distinctions don’t bother you – you have little interest in that quaint concept called truth.

So it isn’t simple, and the catastrophe mongers are playing a very lucrative game.

Strong statements by Lewis.

It’s a case of an educated person talking in what seems to be a very common sense way. AGW proponents need to address these things in a way that appeals to ordinary people otherwise they will get nowhere.

This is the message that just doesn’t feel right to ordinary people.

1 unprecedented tragedy lies directly ahead according to our measurements of ancient trees, ice and other things we find in caves and the bottom of the sea.

2 we can avert tragedy by changing the energy and tax system

3 it will be easy and painless and we will find ourselves in a utopia where we control the climate by keeping CO2 at 350. BUT if you fail to act now Billions will soon die from starvation and extreme storms and it will be your fault.

To the ordinary man - it sounds like a scam.

Try melting ice in the Arctic, the pine bark beetle in Alberta, long-lasting drought in Australia, fire deaths in California and Greece, heat wave deaths in France, massive flooding in Britain. People understand such things very well.

“Try melting ice in the Arctic”

Nothing beyond normal variation.

“the pine bark beetle in Alberta”
http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m10d22-Pine-beetles-as-a-harbinger-of-manmade-climate-change-destruction

“The state’s forest service is reluctant to connect manmade climate change with the outbreak and studies have shown that while the outbreak is large, it is not entirely unprecedented. Sky Stephens, Forest Entomologist for the Colorado State Forest Service, says that while climate change is a hot topic, there “hasn’t been a well structured argument” connecting the two.”

“long-lasting drought in Australia”
Pitman, A.J., Narisma, G.T., Pielke Sr., R.A. and Holbrook, N.J. 2004. Impact of land cover change on the climate of southwest Western Australia. Journal of Geophysical Research 109: 10.1029/2003JD004347.

“find a pattern of warming in two of the three models, suggesting that attributing the warming in this region to the enhanced greenhouse effect is premature.”

See also:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/drought/
http://www.warwickhughes.com/2002/

“fire deaths in California and Greece,” post evidence this is because of CO2.

Beaty, R.M. and Taylor, A.H. 2009. A 14,000-year sedimentary charcoal record of fire from the northern Sierra Nevada, Lake Tahoe Basin, California, USA. The Holocene 19: 347-358.

“current fire episode frequency on the west shore of Lake Tahoe is at one of its lowest points in at least the last 14,000 years.”

I was just wondering: why do you describe the low levels of Artic ice recorded in the past few years to be “Nothing beyond normal variation?” By what scale of time measurement do you define as “normal?”

The “within normal variation” argument is a red herring, as the primary issue is the rate of change, and the inability of the biosphere to properly adjust within that time frame. Our continued pumping of CO2 into the air will accelerate the process, so we are facing down an increasing unknown. Not very smart. In that context “within normal variation” is not very comforting.

It is also “within normal variation” for the Earth to get largely covered in glaciers from time to time. If we were doing something to the environment to cause that quickly and prematurely, I wouldn’t find the “within normal variation” argument very comforting.

Understanding the effects of global warming on any local environment is complex given that land use issues also cause problems independent of climatic change.

No, it’s ESSENTIAL to understand the time frame of any position.

“Our continued pumping of CO2 into the air will accelerate the process, so we are facing down an increasing unknown. ”

Says who? What evidence do you have for that speculation? It is speculation.

And that’s the question isn’t it. Say it in reverse:

By what scale of time measurement do you define as “abnormal?”

Go ahead, ask the AGW people that question. Ask them what their time frame is for the basis of their premise.

Your Australian reference is five years old; I’m not going to spend time searching for an update, but here is a recent blog post about record heat waves in Australia.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/14/three-record-heatwaves-seaust/

As for the pine beetle; note that Colorado is quite a bit south of Alberta and therefore less likely to have colder weather, so that pine beetles would be more likely to survive winter there than in Alberta under normal conditions.

Anyway, the other stuff I mentioned may not be definite proof of AGW, but they appear to support the predictions of AGW effects; and none of them could be construed as proof against AGW.

That’s all that JR Wakefield can do.

In the “Revisionist History..” discussion below, I explained to him in detail what was wrong with the Soon/Baliunas 2003 paper, using language that any high-school graduate should be able to understand. Wakefield replied with the on-line equivalent of a dumb look. Pretty much par for the course for your typical global-warming “skeptic” these days…

Oh here we have the tribune of the people, the (self appointed) representative of the ‘ordinary man’ talking again.

I think you’re doing “ordinary man” a disservice, surely he couldn’t be that much of an idiot.

Thank goodness ordinary women are smarter than that.

Petitions – have we not seen enough of these pointless PR exercises? – are not peer-review. Science is not determined by populism.

(Among others) How ridiculous:

“(people and plants die from cold, not warmth)”

Yes, those deserts are just teaming with people and plants.

“no one knows whether the temperature affects the CO2 or vice versa.”

That’s simply unintelligible on it’s own. However, being aware of denialist propaganda, I know that he’s trying to suggest that the CO2 appears from somewhere else due to warming. This is already proven false. I’m surprised that a member of the APS doesn’t seem to know that the increase in CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels and cement creation, because, after all, it has a different neutron count than CO2 from plants, and is increasing in proportion in our atmosphere.

I’ll even provide a reference. See page 138:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

Peer review material from reputable sources, only, please.

And you know more than half the physicists in the US, right. Maybe they know something you do not.

BTW, Copenhagen in disarray with leaked document.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

It’s all over.

More like politics as usual. It ain’t over til it’s over.

“more than half the physicists in the US?” Try “a few.”

You still havnt answered the question. Are you smarter than the smartest people on the planet who reject AGW? Seems to me they understand something you do not.

…Look at his completely clueless non-responses to my explanation of the problems with the Soon/Baliunas 2003 paper in the “Revisionist History and the CRU East Anglia stolen emails - the Baliunas example” discussion.

He’s just a copy/paste parrot and nothing more.

Actually I was going to reply, been a busy day. I decided to look more, and visiting Von Storch’s site to get the scoop:

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/

“The CR Problem

After a conflict with the publisher Otto Kinne of Inter-Research I stepped down on 28. July 2003 as Editor-in-Chief of Climate Research; the reason was that I as newly appointed Editor-in-Chief wanted to make public that the publication of the Soon & Baliunas article was an error, and that the review process at Climate Research would be changed in order to avoid similar failures. The review process had utterly failed; important questions have not been asked, as was documented by a comment in EOS by Mann and several coauthors. (The problem is not whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century, or if Mann’s hockey stick is realistic; the problem is that the methodological basis for such a conclusion was simply not given.) It was not the first time that the process had failed, but it was the most severe case. However, my authority as Editor-in-Chief did obviously not cover the publication of an editorial spelling out the problem. The publisher declined the publication, and I cancelled my task as Editor-in-Chief immediately on 28 July 2003.

I withdrew also als editor because I learned during the conflict that CR editors used different scales for judging the validity of an article. Some editors considered the problem of the Soon & Baliunas paper as merely a problem of “opinion”, while it was really a problem of severe methodological flaws. Thus, I decided that I had to disconnect from that journal, which I had served proudly for about 10 years.

Today I am not longer related to the journal Climate Research in any way. Only the review process of those manuscripts, for which I initiated the review process, will be completed by me. After that I will be completely detached.

Three more editors withdrew namely Clare Goodess, Mitsuru Ando and Shardul Argawala. In mid September 2003 Andrew Comrie resigned as well.

The whole story was covered in part by the press; the article by Antonio Regalado in Wall Street Journal on July 31, 2003 was a good description of the context and some of the major facts. It seems that poor “Climate Research” is a very minor detail in a political struggle in North America, see Andrew Revkin’s article in New York Times on 5 August 2003. A more detailed acount was offered by Rich Monastersky in the Chronicle of Higher Education on 4 September 203.

Later the story was taken up by Süddeutsche Zeitung, which earned me a furious accusation of being a “junk scientist”. ”

So yes, it appears the Soon/Baliunas 2003 paper had flaws, as explained here.

had not seen before

How to talk to copy paste idiots like JR Wakefield, is don’t!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/09/25/notes092509.DTL

calling people idiots always works. It builds bridges and solves problems. It should be used more in blog comments.

For building bridges, for establishing a dialogue, you need a degree of reciprocity. So Rick, do the denialists on here ever concede a point, do they ever look for common ground? Or do they use any and all arguments, ideas and talking points, no matter how illogical or self-contradictory to attack the concept of AGW?

And if you do nothing but deny a concept, with anything you can lay your hands on, with no regard for consistency or even a position of your own to advocate, then how can you be anything except a denialist? Attacking the concept is the raison d’etre for the denialists, not a search for truth or scientific facts.

You’ve frequented this site long enough to be familiar with Wakefield’s arguments. Can you tell me what theory he advocates? Not what he denies but what he proposes?

Wakefield claims to understand how science works and accuses practising scientists of not understanding the procedure. It is his petard, so hoist him on it. What position does he advocate, and where is his inviolate, incontrovertible proof?

I concede points and look for common ground at times, but JR Wakefield stays on message more. He obviously knows more of the detail stuff than me. He knows his point of view and is pretty convinced that the science is a house of cards.

The difference with me is the science (from a pure man on the street perspective) does indeed look like a house of cards, so I’m interested in a better common sense explanation.

I snipe at the science a bit but thats just so you can come to it’s defense and explain whatever problem I have at the moment.

No one has to care about whatever problem I have except that I represent man on the street public opinion - and thats what counts in the end.

“Believe the scientists” isn’t going to work with this because politics is involved. “Read the Scientific Papers” isn’t going to work because we don’t speak that language.

We (the common man in the street) are the deciders and You (the AGW proponents) must explain in our lay language why we should put faith in this astonishingly new scientific ability to tell us the future of climate. It’s too much like magic and deep down, we don’t believe in magic.

You can send me to Real Climate but they don’t speak well to the common man. If that’s their mission, they’ve failed.

and work from there. Where do you want to start from?

As for Wakefield knowing his stuff. Really? Did you read Marco’s response to Wakefields list of papers in the Crock of the Week thread?

Regarding the man in the street deciding. You can usually find a poll that will support any view you want to advance. But governments are listening to the scientists, otherwise they would just shrug and walk away, e.g. the Drug Advisory Council in Britain.

What gives you the right to present yourself as a sort of tribune of the people ?

The world is a bit bigger than Canada and there are places where people have no trouble in believing in AGW because they see the consequences right around them.

And as to your pretense that you can’t understand the science the basic principles are clear enough. Wikipedia might help you there.

Perhaps you should spend a bit more time on reading up on that stuff and a bit less on blogging.

To me it looks like a case of wilful ignorance.

Yeah, like what? Specific example please.

Here is a very recent example of ‘ordinary people’ having no trouble at all in believing in climate change.

“Glacier threat to Bolivia capital

By David Shukman
Environment correspondent, BBC News, La Paz, Bolivia

Advertisement
David Shukman gives a guided tour of what could be the world’s first capital city to run out of water

Fears are growing for the future of water supplies in one of Latin America’s fastest-growing urban areas - Bolivia’s sprawling city of La Paz and its neighbour El Alto.

Scientists monitoring the glaciers high in the Andes mountains - a key source of water - say the ice is showing signs of shrinking faster than previously forecast.

Faced with a booming population and a combination of glacial retreat and reduced rainfall, the governor of the La Paz region is even contemplating moving people to other parts of Bolivia.

Water is already in short supply among the poorest communities and has become a cause of tension.

It’s a problem that begins now but will become more serious as other, much larger glaciers melt as well

Dr Edson Ramirez

In pictures: Bolivia glaciers
In El Alto’s District 8, I watched 13-year-old Christian Muraga fill a bucket from a communal tap shared with 80 families.

I asked if the tap always produces water.

“No, there isn’t water every day from this tap, sometimes nothing.”

The nearest alternative is nearly one kilometre away. Campaign groups say as many as one quarter of the city’s population do not have ready access to water.

Sergio Criales of Oxfam told me: “The problem is getting worse because of climate change and because they don’t have enough water to cover all their demands.”

Water battle

The tap was established illegally and draws water from the scarce mains supply running in a neighbouring district.

Christian’s father Macario said that there are often disputes over access to water and that fights occasionally break out.

Water has become so precious that we even found a group of women cleaning plastic bags in a heavily contaminated stream that stank of raw sewage.

When I asked why they were doing this, one replied ETC

For more than 2,000 years the Yup’ik Eskimos have carved out a subsistence living on the frozen wastes of southwest Alaska. But now the ice is melting the village is having to move to a new site, and the world’s first climate-change refugees face an uncertain future

Ed Pilkington The Observer, Sunday 28 September 2008

Peter John has known for years that the change was coming.

Peter is 72 now,… Though he has lost the sight in one eye, he is no less observant than his father and grandfather before him. He has watched the change they foretold come true. In the old days the snow would be piled so high it would reach the top of the schoolhouse in Newtok, his village on the Alaskan coast. Children would use it as a snow ladder to climb on to the roof. Not any more. Most years the snow would lie thick on the ground well into June. Now it can be gone by April, bringing in flocks of geese from the south months before they are due.

In the old days he would take the dog teams out in January or February across the pack ice to catch sticklebacks, digging holes through a layer of ice 6ft thick or more. Now it is less than 4ft thick. Then the cold was biting, but there was little wind and the sour dog plant would be covered in frosty icicles. Now the wind blows so fierce the plant is bare. And, most noticeable of all, the land itself is being swallowed up. Years ago, all he could see from his window was land stretching far into the distance. Now the water is at the village edge, moving closer and closer to Peter’s house, eating away at the earth. Soon it will be Newtok’s turn to disappear.

.

They are Yup’ik Eskimos (not to be confused with the more northern Inuit, who are not Eskimos) and they form the largest group of native Alaskans.

To add to the incongruity, Newtok’s 60 houses and communal buildings are sinking and tilting at odd angles. Many are tipping downwards on their southern flank, as though they are kneeling and paying obeisance to the muddy earth. A rickety gap-toothed boardwalk connects the homes, and it too is sinking and bending in great undulations.

Peter John’s house is about 15 buildings in from the edge of the village. Walk on a further 150ft or so and you come to the Ninglick River, a wide waterway that flows out to the Bering Sea. It is here, at the edge of the water, that the vague sense of things being out of kilter forms itself into a vision of imminent disaster. In front of us a slab of land, not much smaller than Peter John’s house, has collapsed and keeled over into the sea, leaving a crevice several feet wide and about 10ft deep between it and the mainland.

I jump down into the hole and start scratching around in the mud for an explanation. About 6ft below the surface level of the tumbled earth is a layer of ice, hard to the touch, glistening faintly in the daylight. It looks unassuming, but it tells a story of monumental significance. It is permafrost, and it has been there beneath thousands of miles of Alaska, Canada, Russia and beyond for thousands of years, acting as a solid wall that holds the sea at bay and maintaining the integrity of the land. It also acts as foundations for the roads and buildings that sit upon it, Peter John’s house included.

But that glistening is ominous. The permafrost is melting. The layer of ice in the crevice in which I stand is weeping, shedding large teardrops that are quickly soaked up by the soggy earth lower down. I can see too what is left behind when the ice melts - nothing but friable soil, as soft and spongy as rum baba.

It is this layer of melting ice that has turned Newtok into what one observer described as the Ground Zero of global warming. According to Nasa, temperatures in Alaska have risen more than any other place on the planet in the past 50 years - by some 4F on average, and up to 10F in winter. The Arctic in general has experienced a rate of warming that is double the earth’s average, in part as a result of what is known as positive feedback. The brilliant white surface of ice and snow normally reflects most radiation from the sun back into space. But once the ice starts to melt through warming temperatures, the exposed land absorbs the radiation, thus causing further warming and melting. The vicious cycle set in train melts the frozen segment of tundra that forms the permafrost. Reports suggest it is thinning by more than an inch a year, turning a once rock-solid fortress into floppy gunge.

It doesn’t take much imagination to conceive of the impact on the 90,000 Alaskans who live on top of the permafrost, most of them Eskimos or Inuit. The few roads that exist are now cracking and caving in, like Newtok’s undulating boardwalk. Of the state’s 213 Alaska Native villages, 184 are severely affected by erosion and flooding. Six have been classed in need of immediate help, and of those Newtok is top of the list.

The village has felt the impact in so many ways. The piles on which houses like Peter John’s are built used to be driven 8ft down; now they have to go 12ft - and even that isn’t enough. As the permafrost melts, so the buildings sink, hence the odd angles. Every year villagers prop up their houses using hydraulic jacks in a futile attempt to level them. The reason the houses are all bowing down to the south now becomes clear: the warmth of the southern sunlight causes a disproportionate melting of the permafrost.

The greatest threat comes from the water. The land on which Newtok is built is being swallowed up at an astonishing pace. With no permafrost as buttress, the tundra is as defenceless against the pounding waves as a sandcastle is to the rising tide. In Newtok’s case, the waves do most damage in late summer, when they are whipped up in fierce storms that each year seem to grow more angry - a further symptom of global warming caused by changing weather patterns further north. The water undercuts the topsoil until it topples over in enormous clumps like the one I am standing beside. As a result, the sea is marching in the direction of the village at a rate of up to 90ft a year. It has already swallowed up a barge landing where the villagers used to moor their boats. Within two years, the first houses on the outskirts of the community are likely to be consumed, and Peter John’s and all the rest will follow suit within a year or two of that.

Stanley Tom, the village administrator, the modern equivalent of tribal leader, is spearheading the effort to relocate the entire community to a new home across the water. On the second morning of our visit he takes us out in his aluminium fishing boat to the new site - an island about nine miles to the south.

It is here on Nelson Island that America’s first global-warming refugee camp is being built. Three houses, neatly arranged on stilts in the style of Peter John’s home back in Newtok, are already nearing completion. The villagers built them themselves, with the help of government grants, on land that is high enough up the hillside to be safe from the dangers of climate change - rising sea levels, flash flooding, erosion - for decades, if not centuries, to come. The first three homes have been assigned to village elders, including Stanley’s father, Nick Tom. As Stanley shows us around the new houses, with their wood-burning stoves and mail-order catalogue kitchens, he talks of his huge relief that the move has begun. ‘The elders are our advisers; they are our resources. We owe it to them to provide them with a life without trouble and worry. I can sleep at night now, knowing my father will be safe.’

Back in Newtok, his excitement at the natural riches of the new village slumps into frustration as he relates the difficulties of organising the evacuation. The relocation of even such a small community has proved a massive undertaking, involving liaison with countless different government bodies and agencies. Tom has clearly had his fill of dealing with bureaucrats. ‘There’s a lot of pressure on me. The federal agencies are so slow, and I get stressed out. We’re stuck in the middle: the old village is crumbling, because no one wants to spend money on a place that is about to move, but the new village isn’t ready either.’ …

That isn’t evidence. One should never trust an article from the Guardian. That article is simply green agit-prop.

Why is it that “climate refugees” (like the bogus Tuvalu “refugees”) are always people who live at sea level where their homes are always subject to erosion and flooding?

Prove these are not unnatural.

This is just normal cycles of melt and growth of glaciers. We are coming out of the little ice age.

Prove this is because of our CO2.

I suppose those poor people in bolivia have no blame on themselves for draining their underwater aquifiers for years and poor government water infrastructure can’t be blamed either. Yep must be global warming. Typical alarmist evidence, no real indepth anaysis of the problem just jump to a quick conclusion if it supports our premise. Another example of unbiased climate science in action.

Permafrost, do you think the permafrost line is at the exact same point every year? It has always fluctuated. Certainly this does not pose a problem and is a huge benefit to mankind if this is the result of the earth heating up a bit. Now we have thousands of additional acres of farmland to feed the world. Looks like a win win scenario for All.

Perhaps it would be better if all the western economies shut down, we go back to harvesting fields with a hoe and scithe and the heck with all the starving people. The ends certainly justifies the means if Al gore can make a few bucks, right?

Another example of how global warming is not an issue at all.

So what you’re saying is that since neither you and your friend ‘the common man’ know anything about the issue, then its not possible for anyone to. You and your pal ‘the common man’ are men of rare logic.

Here’s a simple guide for a common man: http://royalsociety.org/Climate-change-controversies-a-simple-guide/

okay I bookmarked it - maybe I’ll learn something - now was that so hard?

And you need a degree of civility. I’m always willing to find common ground, provided the evidence calls for it. Yet any time we present anything you people immediately insult and find any excuse to ignore it. Bridge building is something you people have no intention of ever trying – ever. You are all right no matter what, period.

“You’ve frequented this site long enough to be familiar with Wakefield’s arguments. Can you tell me what theory he advocates? Not what he denies but what he proposes?”

As a skeptic, I don’t need to present any position at all. It’s my right in a free democracy to challenge pseudoscience any time I want. Don’t like it too bad.

What I see is none of you willing to answer two basic questions.

What is happening in the climate today that is beyond normal variation of 1000, 10,000 or 100,000 year cycles?

And what would it take to falsify AGW?

Why is it so hard for you people to simply answer these two questions? Or am I not allowed to ask.

I’m sorry, wait a minute. You actually believe this to be reasonable? You have no position?

No wonder people ridicule you. You have modeled yourself around an approach utterly lacking in integrity.

This is what makes you a denialist, not a skeptic.

ANyway, to humour you:

“What is happening in the climate today that is beyond normal variation of 1000, 10,000 or 100,000 year cycles?”

Is is very commonly debunked, and I’ve already told you this somewhere today. Once again this is irrelevant. By way of analogy, if we were doing something to our planet that was starting to cause an ice age, would it matter that the ice age would be no different than any previous? That’s hardly the point. The point is that it’s bad, and we are the cause, and can do something about it.

Back to AGW

Yes, there’s been times in the earth’s past where it’s been globally hot. The problem is, rapid climate change – just a few degrees difference in a century is enough – makes radical changes to the biosphere which make adaptation difficult.

“And what would it take to falsify AGW?”

Look, Bush falsified reasons to go to war, and he couldn’t keep that under wraps. You simply can’t get away with it. You can fool some of the people some of the time.

Now one’s found anything other than stuff they have to wildly spin to get anywhere in the emails, so no conspiracy.

Really, not according to the 141 scientists that signed that open letter. That is the very question they demand get answered.

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

“By way of analogy, if we were doing something to our planet that was starting to cause an ice age, would it matter that the ice age would be no different than any previous? That’s hardly the point. The point is that it’s bad, and we are the cause, and can do something about it.”

Speculation and false logic. If the current climate is no different than other times in the geological past, then by what measurement and scientific process can parse out a natural event from a man made one? If all of what is happening now is totally natural, by what criteria do you employ that shows it can’t be? Computer models? Right, they are not evidence, nothing more than “what if” computer games that can’t predict anything.

I demand again you show us a specific climate event today that is definitively caused by human emissions of CO2. No dodging the question, answer it. And if you can’t ask yourself why you would believe in something you cannot even support with evidence.

“And what would it take to falsify AGW?”

Look, Bush falsified reasons to go to war, and he couldn’t keep that under wraps. You simply can’t get away with it. You can fool some of the people some of the time.”

Another dodge because you can’t answer the question. For if you could answer the question you would have directly done so instead of sidestepping the issue with something completely irrelevant to the question. Since you cannot answer the question, you have to ask yourself: why are you accepting AGW, is it because of science that you cannot point to or because of some deep political ideological conviction?

Sounds like the latter to me.

That is correct, and no trying to put words in my mouth will change that. I have NO POSITION!

It’s simple. I do not believe anything, nothing, zippo. Having a belief is very dangerous because should the evidence change what you thought you believed in, well, the effects can be catastrophic, which we are witnessing now with you people. Unquestioning faith boxes you into a corner and causes people to do nasty things when that faith is challenged or shown false. Wars have been started because of that. Persecutions have occurred because of faith.

I will have none of it.

Evidence is the only thing that guides me. That way should the evidence change, I can freely and unemotionally change with it. That is exactly what happened with me on AGW. I had “faith” these scientists knew what they were doing. I expected these people to have been honest. Then it was proclaimed that the science was settled and no more dating needed. That was the end of my “faith” in AGW. When scientists claims there is no need for debate they have something to hide – a hidden agenda. And boy are we seeing that agenda now – world domination by a communistic UN.

And now because of the evidence, which you people ignore because it does not keep the faith alive, I fully reject AGW as science, as it has now become political and religeous dogma.

As a skeptic I have every right to have no position and demand evidence.

So get off your butt and go look for it. But you wonb’t find good evidence on the denialists’ blogs.

I guess since you simply cannot fathom someone to be informed and skeptical of AGW can exist, you have to resport to some myth about me?

I’m well informed, inspite of your denial I am.

Pages