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.
DisagreeAgree
64 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cary
14 years ago
Okay, here’s what I could find with a quick Google search. Do not construe my posting of these as a personal endorsement or blanket agreement (I continue to assert that I simply don’t know) , just examples of findings counter to what you have provided.
Ok, Cary, you haven’t really thought about this enough to have links bookmarked and arguments as to why they are important to understanding the problem, have you? I mean, stuff you can pull up at random and that you don’t necessarily agree with? I hope your teachers didn’t give you passing grades if you did that in school. What I gave you is stuff I’ve had for a while and am familiar enough with that I DO agree with, because I’ve listened to and thought about their arguments, as a scientist myself.
Now the problems with your links are…
1. “Findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change Science” is what the bureaucrats and “policy makers” decided to tell you, not necessarily what the scientists said. In fact many of the scientific contributors to the IPCC report do NOT agree with the way their contributions were misinterpreted.
2. “I underestimated the threat, says Stern” is an article by the Guardian, and never mind that they aren’t the most balanced news source, the fact is that they merely report what Stern says. But what Stern says is based on a worst case scenario IF THE IPCC REPORT IS TRUE, so the IPCC report is the weak link. Stern’s report is meaningless unless the IPCC is true, and there’s too much evidence that it isn’t. Even they have to keep reducing estimates of the threat they want us to believe in.
3. …a study done by Californians???!!! Come on, now, Carl, I know it’s late, but that’s just silly. “The report concludes if global warming emissions continue unchecked, temperatures might rise 8-to-10 degrees F by the end of the century, which would lead to such consequences as:” Even the IPCC isn’t crazy enough to make such a ridiculous claim. It’s utter nonsense.
4. Whew, that’s what you call “simplistic.” It gets their point across without the inconvenience of having to correspond to reality while sounding like it might. If you’re serious about it, try this… http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Also see… http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
…where you will learn that it is water, not CO2, which is the dominant greenhouse gas, and one we have no control over whatsoever.
(Envinonmental Defense Fund is an advocacy group, so before you believe them, you have to check whether they are telling you the truth, and they aren’t.)
5. NRDC has the same problem as the EDF of #4.
Listen, Cary, not all “evidence” is created equal. You can’t just say “these guys say this, and those other guys say the opposite, so opinion is split” because if some guys are telling you the truth, and others aren’t, there’s no split, just facts on one side and disinformation on the other. I.e., both sides are NOT basing their arguments on equally valid assumptions. Are you knowledgable enough to spot the phonies? From the links you give I would say you aren’t, and so you see what appears to be a legitimate difference of oppinion where there isn’t one. And that’s what the negative propagandists count on, because they don’t have to fool all of the people all the time, just enough of them to vote in a requirement that everyone has to buy the snake oil, even the ones who don’t want it because they know it won’t work.
more REAL science…
yonason
14 years ago
THINKING OUT OF THE AGW BOX
In 1954, the US detonated the world’s largest nuclear weapon at Bikini Island in the South Pacific. The bomb was equivalent to 30 billion pounds of TNT, vapourised three islands, and raised water temperatures to 55,000 degrees. Yet half a century of rising CO2 later, the corals at Bikini are thriving. Another drop in pH of 0.075 will likely have less impact on the corals than a thermonuclear blast. The corals might even survive a rise in ocean temperatures of half a degree, since they flourished at times when the earth’s temperature was 10C higher than the present.
There seems to be no shortage of theories about how rising CO2 levels will destroy the planet, yet the geological record shows that life flourished for hundreds of millions of years with much higher CO2 levels and temperatures
WAIT, WHAT HAPPENED TO JOE BIDEN’S HAIR PLUGS? DID THEY FALL OUT? INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW.
Cary
14 years ago
yonsan,
I guess I made the mistake in the first place by using the words “my findings” instead of saying “from what I’ve read” – perhaps I did make it sound like I scientifically annotated and bookmarked all that I’ve ever read, for future discussions on political blogs. Sorry, I didn’t. But, if you truly are a scientist, then I’m sure you’ll agree with my layman’s view that the findings on this subject are all theory, and nothing entirely conclusive has been settled on it. That alone suggests that scientists are not in full agreement, and negates my need dig around for actual scientific review articles for you to challenge my intellectual and reasoning abilities with. I dug those up on the fly to show that there are indeed scientists whose conclusions reach a broad spectrum. I say “I don’t know” because there is no definitive truth either way on this one, and no one else knows for sure either. You’ve been convinced to one side, but it still amounts to nothing more that opinion.
(of course, it is my opinion that your last comment is a result of late night drinking at your computer, but I don’t actually know! I just hope it’s something really good!)
Thanks Aye… for the first time I understand Al Gore. He’s only comprehensible when translated into German. I knew he was an environazi and now I have proof. Sieg Heil!
Cary: No one is attacking you for admitting you don’t have a great deal of background on this issue. It’s a very complicated topic and has been so politicized by the warmermongerers to the point where the science has become corrupted.
I’ve been following the issue since the early years of the problem when I was at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and I still get accused of not knowing what I am talking about.
However, Yonason put together a great series of links and if you spend half an hour going through them you’ll learn more than all the propaganda put out by the environmental groups who have been soaking up $7 billion a year in contributions based on the perpetuation of the big lies and big scares.
Here’s a Cliff Notes version of Yonason’s links:
Temperatures have been going up and down ever since the planet was created. CO2 levels have been going up and down as well. Note that in the chart above there is no relation between the two.
The chart above from the last 400,000 years is derived from ice core samples which provide a remarkable record of temperature and CO2 levels. It looks like they are related here and they are. But it is CO2 levels which rise after the temperature goes up as the gas is released from the oceans (the fizz in your soda, which is CO2 comes out quicker when it’s warmer too). It isn’t the CO2 increase which causes temp increase.
Again, the chart indicates that CO2 and temp both rise and fall. It’s natural.
The above video is part one of the best lecture on CO2 and temperature by Prof. Bob Carter an Australian scientist. Well worth the time to watch all four parts but at least start with this.
If you want a presentation with a bit higher production values paired with a superb cast of scientists with expertise in the field of climate change then see the above one hour fifteen minute video in full screen mode.
yonaosn
14 years ago
@Mike’s America
Nice summary, but if you’ll forgive the pun, just the tip of the iceberg.
————————————————————–
I wasn’t attacking, just exhorting you to think about what you read. Just because you’re a “layman” doesn’t mean you can’t understand the issue. You seem like a smart guy, so use your intelligence. If you don’t, you’ll be scammed. Of course it WILL take more than smarts. You’ll have to wrestle with the ideas. If that’s too hard for you, then no amount of brains will get you to the truth.
” then I’m sure you’ll agree with my layman’s view that the findings on this subject are all theory”
No, I don’t.
What I was saying was that from your “layman’s” perspective, as you have defined it, you can’t tell the difference between a snowflake and a snowjob. You have to work at it. I repeat, one group gives you good scientific facts and doesn’t overinterpret them, and the other gives you a few facts, a lot of factoids, and a whole lot of hand waving and overinterpretation/ They also appeal to the irrational side of our minds to instil fear, because that clouds our thinking and makes us susceptible to their distortions, like “what if greenland melts?” Yes, if it melts seas will rise about 20 feet. But it isn’t melting, and if it does we can’t do any more to stop it than we can stop a hurricane.
By opting to say that both sides are credible just because you don’t understand their arguments gives the scam artists the advantage, because you give them a credibility they don’t deserve. You have to ask yourself, “Is he telling me the truth” and “how do I know?”
Think like this. Al Gore’s slide show was full of errors, outright falsehoods and deliberate omissions. He’s discredited (unless out of misplaced kindness you don’t want to shun someone who would rob you blind). A Nobel committee gave him a prize for his lies, so they are discredited. Etc., etc. First ask if someone is telling you the truth (everyone makes mistakes, so you can’t hold simple errors against them). But once you catch them consciously trying to deceive you, lable them untrustworthy, as well as anyone who advocates what they do (that’s NOT “guilt by association” btw, it’s either guilt by collusion or they aren’t competent themselves, and either way it’s not good.)
The reliable climate deniers have never been caught in deception, nor have they made major errors. Many warmers have committed a lot of deception, and have made serious errors, some of which have been corrected by the “deniers” to the embarrassment of the warmers. That may not be “proof” the deniers are right, but it makes them much more believeable than those who want to panic you into acting the fool.
So, if you don’t understand the science, look at them through the lense of human nature, which everyone has some understanding of. Ask, “what do they want from me?” and if it’s an arm and a leg, you can be pretty sure they are up to no good.
Also, I wanted to analyze those articles for you to show you that they have no substance. They are just assertions built on hot air, not science. Don’t take it personally. Learn from it.
yonaosn
14 years ago
<a href=”…so far, the UK winter has been the coldest for over a decade” and “Met Office forecasters expect the cold theme to the weather to continue well into next week with the chance of further snow.””>
If you waste your time reading pro-AGW stuff, you’ll be very confused. If you read good science, you’ll gain a clarity that you didn’t know you could have.
Cary
14 years ago
Thank you both for taking the time and effort to provide all of this for li’l ol’ me. It’ll take some time to peruse, so I have no comment as of yet.
The absolute bottom line is that no one… not even Larry… knows how the climate works. Therefore, it seems unwise to embark on a radical transformation of our society and economy and spent $trillions of dollars that could answer more pressing human needs around the globe.
Okay, here’s what I could find with a quick Google search. Do not construe my posting of these as a personal endorsement or blanket agreement (I continue to assert that I simply don’t know) , just examples of findings counter to what you have provided.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/findings-of-the-ipcc-fourth-2.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/18/climatechange.carbonemissions
http://www.physorg.com/news63301086.html
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=35173&source=ggadgw35173&gclid=CNjg8PbbupgCFQpuGgodt3lLZQ
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fgwscience.asp
Ok, Cary, you haven’t really thought about this enough to have links bookmarked and arguments as to why they are important to understanding the problem, have you? I mean, stuff you can pull up at random and that you don’t necessarily agree with? I hope your teachers didn’t give you passing grades if you did that in school. What I gave you is stuff I’ve had for a while and am familiar enough with that I DO agree with, because I’ve listened to and thought about their arguments, as a scientist myself.
Now the problems with your links are…
1. “Findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change Science” is what the bureaucrats and “policy makers” decided to tell you, not necessarily what the scientists said. In fact many of the scientific contributors to the IPCC report do NOT agree with the way their contributions were misinterpreted.
2. “I underestimated the threat, says Stern” is an article by the Guardian, and never mind that they aren’t the most balanced news source, the fact is that they merely report what Stern says. But what Stern says is based on a worst case scenario IF THE IPCC REPORT IS TRUE, so the IPCC report is the weak link. Stern’s report is meaningless unless the IPCC is true, and there’s too much evidence that it isn’t. Even they have to keep reducing estimates of the threat they want us to believe in.
3. …a study done by Californians???!!! Come on, now, Carl, I know it’s late, but that’s just silly. “The report concludes if global warming emissions continue unchecked, temperatures might rise 8-to-10 degrees F by the end of the century, which would lead to such consequences as:” Even the IPCC isn’t crazy enough to make such a ridiculous claim. It’s utter nonsense.
4. Whew, that’s what you call “simplistic.” It gets their point across without the inconvenience of having to correspond to reality while sounding like it might. If you’re serious about it, try this…
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Also see…
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
…where you will learn that it is water, not CO2, which is the dominant greenhouse gas, and one we have no control over whatsoever.
(Envinonmental Defense Fund is an advocacy group, so before you believe them, you have to check whether they are telling you the truth, and they aren’t.)
5. NRDC has the same problem as the EDF of #4.
Listen, Cary, not all “evidence” is created equal. You can’t just say “these guys say this, and those other guys say the opposite, so opinion is split” because if some guys are telling you the truth, and others aren’t, there’s no split, just facts on one side and disinformation on the other. I.e., both sides are NOT basing their arguments on equally valid assumptions. Are you knowledgable enough to spot the phonies? From the links you give I would say you aren’t, and so you see what appears to be a legitimate difference of oppinion where there isn’t one. And that’s what the negative propagandists count on, because they don’t have to fool all of the people all the time, just enough of them to vote in a requirement that everyone has to buy the snake oil, even the ones who don’t want it because they know it won’t work.
more REAL science…
THINKING OUT OF THE AGW BOX
WAIT, WHAT HAPPENED TO JOE BIDEN’S HAIR PLUGS? DID THEY FALL OUT? INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW.
yonsan,
I guess I made the mistake in the first place by using the words “my findings” instead of saying “from what I’ve read” – perhaps I did make it sound like I scientifically annotated and bookmarked all that I’ve ever read, for future discussions on political blogs. Sorry, I didn’t. But, if you truly are a scientist, then I’m sure you’ll agree with my layman’s view that the findings on this subject are all theory, and nothing entirely conclusive has been settled on it. That alone suggests that scientists are not in full agreement, and negates my need dig around for actual scientific review articles for you to challenge my intellectual and reasoning abilities with. I dug those up on the fly to show that there are indeed scientists whose conclusions reach a broad spectrum. I say “I don’t know” because there is no definitive truth either way on this one, and no one else knows for sure either. You’ve been convinced to one side, but it still amounts to nothing more that opinion.
(of course, it is my opinion that your last comment is a result of late night drinking at your computer, but I don’t actually know! I just hope it’s something really good!)
Have a good night! =)
And the thread takes a sudden, disturbing turn.
Here’s Algore to put it back on track:
(It would take a load of candles to make him look better.)
Thanks Aye… for the first time I understand Al Gore. He’s only comprehensible when translated into German. I knew he was an environazi and now I have proof. Sieg Heil!
Cary: No one is attacking you for admitting you don’t have a great deal of background on this issue. It’s a very complicated topic and has been so politicized by the warmermongerers to the point where the science has become corrupted.
I’ve been following the issue since the early years of the problem when I was at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and I still get accused of not knowing what I am talking about.
However, Yonason put together a great series of links and if you spend half an hour going through them you’ll learn more than all the propaganda put out by the environmental groups who have been soaking up $7 billion a year in contributions based on the perpetuation of the big lies and big scares.
Here’s a Cliff Notes version of Yonason’s links:
Temperatures have been going up and down ever since the planet was created. CO2 levels have been going up and down as well. Note that in the chart above there is no relation between the two.
The chart above from the last 400,000 years is derived from ice core samples which provide a remarkable record of temperature and CO2 levels. It looks like they are related here and they are. But it is CO2 levels which rise after the temperature goes up as the gas is released from the oceans (the fizz in your soda, which is CO2 comes out quicker when it’s warmer too). It isn’t the CO2 increase which causes temp increase.
Again, the chart indicates that CO2 and temp both rise and fall. It’s natural.
The above video is part one of the best lecture on CO2 and temperature by Prof. Bob Carter an Australian scientist. Well worth the time to watch all four parts but at least start with this.
If you want a presentation with a bit higher production values paired with a superb cast of scientists with expertise in the field of climate change then see the above one hour fifteen minute video in full screen mode.
@Mike’s America
Nice summary, but if you’ll forgive the pun, just the tip of the iceberg.
————————————————————–
@Cary:
I wasn’t attacking, just exhorting you to think about what you read. Just because you’re a “layman” doesn’t mean you can’t understand the issue. You seem like a smart guy, so use your intelligence. If you don’t, you’ll be scammed. Of course it WILL take more than smarts. You’ll have to wrestle with the ideas. If that’s too hard for you, then no amount of brains will get you to the truth.
” then I’m sure you’ll agree with my layman’s view that the findings on this subject are all theory”
No, I don’t.
What I was saying was that from your “layman’s” perspective, as you have defined it, you can’t tell the difference between a snowflake and a snowjob. You have to work at it. I repeat, one group gives you good scientific facts and doesn’t overinterpret them, and the other gives you a few facts, a lot of factoids, and a whole lot of hand waving and overinterpretation/ They also appeal to the irrational side of our minds to instil fear, because that clouds our thinking and makes us susceptible to their distortions, like “what if greenland melts?” Yes, if it melts seas will rise about 20 feet. But it isn’t melting, and if it does we can’t do any more to stop it than we can stop a hurricane.
By opting to say that both sides are credible just because you don’t understand their arguments gives the scam artists the advantage, because you give them a credibility they don’t deserve. You have to ask yourself, “Is he telling me the truth” and “how do I know?”
Think like this. Al Gore’s slide show was full of errors, outright falsehoods and deliberate omissions. He’s discredited (unless out of misplaced kindness you don’t want to shun someone who would rob you blind). A Nobel committee gave him a prize for his lies, so they are discredited. Etc., etc. First ask if someone is telling you the truth (everyone makes mistakes, so you can’t hold simple errors against them). But once you catch them consciously trying to deceive you, lable them untrustworthy, as well as anyone who advocates what they do (that’s NOT “guilt by association” btw, it’s either guilt by collusion or they aren’t competent themselves, and either way it’s not good.)
The reliable climate deniers have never been caught in deception, nor have they made major errors. Many warmers have committed a lot of deception, and have made serious errors, some of which have been corrected by the “deniers” to the embarrassment of the warmers. That may not be “proof” the deniers are right, but it makes them much more believeable than those who want to panic you into acting the fool.
So, if you don’t understand the science, look at them through the lense of human nature, which everyone has some understanding of. Ask, “what do they want from me?” and if it’s an arm and a leg, you can be pretty sure they are up to no good.
Also, I wanted to analyze those articles for you to show you that they have no substance. They are just assertions built on hot air, not science. Don’t take it personally. Learn from it.
<a href=”…so far, the UK winter has been the coldest for over a decade” and “Met Office forecasters expect the cold theme to the weather to continue well into next week with the chance of further snow.””>
“Forecasting Guru Announces: “no scientific basis for forecasting climate””
If you waste your time reading pro-AGW stuff, you’ll be very confused. If you read good science, you’ll gain a clarity that you didn’t know you could have.
Thank you both for taking the time and effort to provide all of this for li’l ol’ me. It’ll take some time to peruse, so I have no comment as of yet.
Cary: Larry Weisenthal has been making a spirited effort to present the other side of this argument and I have added additional material here:
The absolute bottom line is that no one… not even Larry… knows how the climate works. Therefore, it seems unwise to embark on a radical transformation of our society and economy and spent $trillions of dollars that could answer more pressing human needs around the globe.