1. Comment #40408 by Laurence Winch-Furness on May 14, 2007 at 8:51 am

What has Richard Dawkins got to say about global warming? I've only heard him mention environmentalism breifly.

Other Comments by Laurence Winch-Furness

2. Comment #40423 by doctor_regtools on May 14, 2007 at 9:20 am

I used to be convinced, but not any more - since I watched "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on Channel 4:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=global+warming+swindle

now I just don't know! One thing is clear, there's such a bandwagon that it's difficult to have a reasoned discussion on the matter.

Other Comments by doctor_regtools

3. Comment #40436 by Mikado on May 14, 2007 at 9:43 am

Ever since the Greek philosopher Meton studied sunspots 2400 years ago and compared them to his notes on the weather, science has known the connection between the two. Why we all suddenly should follow a deranged baptist from Tennessee and start believing in his absurd religion escapes me. The sun climate connection is in the IPCC "The Physical Science Basis". The reason it was downplayed in the Summary was political. We need to use our resources to help those who will be negatively affected. The last time Europe had a warm period we built cathedrals, let's not be equally stupid this time.

Other Comments by Mikado

4. Comment #40457 by beeline on May 14, 2007 at 10:07 am

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" has an excellent debunking of its own, by Ben Goldacre:

http://www.badscience.net/?p=383

Other Comments by beeline

5. Comment #40553 by chbg21808 on May 14, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Since February 16 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost US$ 294,651,440,203 and counting, while potentially saving an undetectable 0.003487612 °C by the year 2050. You can see the counting clock at: http://www.junkscience.com/

I've been saying Anthropogenic Global Warming is wrong for ten years. Man-made Global Warming has become the new religion.

To criticise Global Warming is the sin of all sins. I've been called every name under the sun for criticising the science.

What is tragic, is that this obsession with Man-made Global Warming is literally killing thousands of people every year. People in the Third World are denied electricity because of the Anthropogenic Global Warming model.

It has also led to a corruption of science. The science has become politicized and few scientists dare speak out, without fear of being ridiculed. Or indeed, if scientists dare to put forward potential research, that goes against the current Anthropogenic Global Warming mantra (Sun spots for example), then they are likely to be denied a research grant... That's not science, it's dogma.

And as for environmental groups; look behind the veneer. They are not pro-environment, they are anti-technology. Many of them want to revert to living in wooden huts in the forest.

You only have to hear one of these environmental leaders with their megaphones, shouting out diatribe on their soap box. You'll be surprised how often their language is framed in the negative... "Down with business and technology" ...Now an again they will slip in the occasional "we must save the planet" statement. But it is mostly a hate-filled attack on technology.

Simply ask yourself the question... How many members of the environmental movement are actually doing anything genuinely positive to improve the environment? ...They spend most of their time protesting and here I'm being kind; the more extreme members can be vicious, I know from personal experience.

The fact is, that it is not primarily the science that has driven to a certainty of the facts of Man-made Global Warming.... It is fundamentally driven by politics, the environmental movement and the media. Indeed, the science instead of taking the lead, has become a passenger.

It becomes very disturbing indeed, when Al Gore gains godlike status in the scientific community, a politician with no scientific training. And a film, which is almost pure science fiction is taken as literal truth by millions.

Glenn Beck's Global Warming Special 'Exposed: The Climate of Fear' Now at YouTube:
http://newsbusters.org/node/12677


One thing I find astonishing, is that I have read several comments by scientists on Al Gore and they talk about him with the kind of reverence that a disciple would give to the Messiah... I'm left thinking, where has the science gone.

It also shows that scientists can be just as gullible as the rest of us.

Finally I want to elaborate on Brian Coughlan's claim that seems to suggest that a scientific theory, by definition of being a theory is true. This is simply false... Scientific theories are always classed as tentative and some are supported by more facts than others.

To view a scientific theory from Brian Coughlan's definition one would have to assume that all theories are equal. But some scientific theories carry more weight of evidence than others. For example, the theory of evolution has an overwhelming body of none contradictory facts, literally millions of facts to support it. For all intents and purposes Evolution by Natural Selection is as good as fact, because of this overwhelming evidence, although strictly speaking, in scientific terms it is still classed as tentative. Anthropogenic Global Warming on the other hand, is a very weak theory... Indeed, no scientist has ever been able to prove an absolute correlation between Global Warming and mankind... I think "Comment #40801 by Newton30" has made a similar point.

I would actually go farther as to say something even more radical: To call Anthropogenic Global Warming a scientific theory, is "stretching the bar" ...At best I would call it a hypothesis. Before one can move from hypothesis to theory, one has to produce a series of non-contradictory facts. I have not once seen one single fact that proves a correlation between Global Warming and mankind.

Read: The Rhetoric of the Environmental Movement
By Ronald Hamowy (Ludwig Von Mises Institute)...
http://www.mises.org/story/2119



Eight Reasons Why 'Global Warming' Is a Scam
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548

Climate change 'is the norm' (BBC News)
Viewpoint ...By Dr Martin Keeley Geologist, and a Visiting Professor at University College London.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4066189.stm



Al Gore's Personal Energy Use Is His Own "Inconvenient Truth" Gore's home uses more than 20 times the national average.
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367



The Real 'Inconvenient Truth' Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Read the excellent book: Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media
By Patrick J. Michaels

Other Comments by chbg21808

6. Comment #40698 by Mr. Grape on May 14, 2007 at 5:48 pm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070419114538.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070427095127.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070511100918.htm

As for the Sun Spots research not being granted , because of political reasons chbg... maybe it's because it has already been debunked??? The research is coming out all the time, these are just recent articles.

I know the climate change theory has nothing to do with Atheism(unless you believe that god is punishing the homosexual with the weather), but this is another example of how the sound-bite "it's just a theory" hurts legitimate science.

If ever the quote "Follow the money trail, you will find the truth." has been true, it's in this situation. Who benefits from these untrue buzzwords and deception... it couldn't possibly be corporations with billions in investment...

Just like the cigarette companies before them, they know the truth, they are just buying time to make another dime.

Other Comments by Mr. Grape

7. Comment #40703 by Username on May 14, 2007 at 6:13 pm

Wikipedia provides a pretty good rebuttal of "The Swindle" all by itself. Almost all of it pure nonsense and manipulation.

Other Comments by Username

8. Comment #40741 by MrEmpirical on May 14, 2007 at 9:18 pm

@ chbg21808

I've been saying Anthropogenic Global Warming is wrong for ten years. Man-made Global Warming has become the new religion.

This comment exposes your irrationality. Religion is not based on evidence. In contrast, the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is supported by a vast array of peer-reviewed scientific studies. To compare AGW with religion is absurd.

I'm not going to call you "every name under the Sun" because the evidence for AGW speaks for itself. Having said that, I'm not surprised that you have been called names (though I don't condone it). It can be tempting to insult people who ignore the large quantity of mutually corroborative evidence derived from numerous independent researchers working in numerous different fields (e.g. climatology, geology, biology, paleontology) that points to the reality of AGW.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

9. Comment #40744 by Mikado on May 14, 2007 at 9:58 pm

And the proof of AGW is? When you ask for proof all you get is "the Earth has warmed". This is just like Christians claiming their religion is true because all the life on Earth have been created.

As for "Follow the money trail, you will find the truth.". Are you nor aware of the wast amounts of money there is to be made out of carbon-trading. I think you need to get yourself another investment adviser.

Other Comments by Mikado

10. Comment #40749 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 14, 2007 at 10:30 pm

It has also led to a corruption of science. The science has become politicized and few scientists dare speak out, without fear of being ridiculed. Or indeed, if scientists dare to put forward potential research, that goes against the current Anthropogenic Global Warming mantra (Sun spots for example), then they are likely to be denied a research grant... That's not science, it's dogma.

Frankly, I think this is largely nonsense, with a major dollop of projection. The republican party have done the damage, and you have the gall to criticise the Democrats for doing what any self respecting political party would do.

Picking up the club their opponent has kindly handed them, and beating the shit out of them with it. This is not "politicizing the issue", it's just politics. The republicans have dropped this ball, hypnotised it seems by their own rethoric, and personally, I hope they pay big time. It's been quite a while since such a disingenous tide of scum has washed up on the shores of global discourse.

As regards funding, if you have the evidence, or at least a compelling case, you will get the funding. Also the lie to this position is given by the funding of skeptics which largely(although not exclusivley) comes through big Oil/Coal/Gas channels.

The money is there, they just don't have a case.

Rational atheists do not have a choice in this matter, not because of dogma, but because of the evidence. If you accept an empirical world view, but are a republican with an agenda, you are in serious trouble. Have the honesty to own up.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

11. Comment #40755 by Mr. Grape on May 14, 2007 at 10:44 pm

Mikado - "And the proof of AGW is?"

This is a pretty good site to start at http://www.ipcc.ch/

People love their graphs
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.16.jpg

Thanks for making these videos Brian. Somebody needs to squash faulty logic somehow and what better way than getting the message out through youtube :)

Other Comments by Mr. Grape

12. Comment #40760 by Corylus on May 14, 2007 at 11:07 pm

Good video Brian, but I fear that knife-wielding kitten will haunt my dreams! :)

Other Comments by Corylus

13. Comment #40771 by Mikado on May 14, 2007 at 11:44 pm

11. Comment #40755 by Mr. Grape

And the proof that we have caused this is?

If we have caused this we must also have caused the medieval warming and the warming of the bronze age 1500 years before that.

Your links is already in my favourites. IPCC is a political body. You will find their Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis" here:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

This is also a useful link:
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/index.html

As you have studied climate change, you will undoubtedly know why Kristen Byrnes have called her site "Ponder the Maunder"

Even the great Lord Kelvin tried to debunk the Sun-climate connection, he failed.

Other Comments by Mikado

14. Comment #40801 by Newton30 on May 15, 2007 at 2:47 am

I must take strong exception to one of Brian's comments in his video:

Having a scientific theory of 'Something' does not mean 'Something' equals fact. The 'Something' in question could be anything.

Evolution is a fact only because it turned out to be that way.
It very well could have been wrong. After Darwin first proposed the theory, we could well have found rabbits in the Proterozoic (not sure that's accurate), which would have undermined the whole theory and forced radical re-thinking of it. As it turns out, the incredible amount of evidence collected so far corroborates the theory. For all intents and purposes, we can say today that Evolution is a fact.

This cannot be said of Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, which, although it is a scientific theory, does not appear to be well supported by all the facts, as the 'Swindle' documentary shows.

I'd be interested in seeing a real rebuttal to the documentary. The three links you posted Mr. Grape are not really rebuttals, but just some appeals to authority and/or deal with phenomenon not necessarily mentioned in the Swindle documentary. I want to see actual scientific rebuttals explaining why the graphs used in the documentary are wrong, why there was no real 'little ice age' and no 'medieval warming period', no warm period in the bronze age, no correlation between solar activity and temperature in the 20th century. I want to know why historically, the CO2 concentration appears to be driven by climate and not the other way around. Most importantly, why is there no correlation between warming and CO2 concentration in the 20th century. The last 3 decades are not statistically significant.

Other Comments by Newton30

15. Comment #40819 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 15, 2007 at 3:48 am

Evolution is a fact only because it turned out to be that way.

Evolution is a more coherent theory than AGW, we can agree on that. However, AGW is now very strongly supported, and my representation of a scientific theory as functionally factual is intellectually honest, and what we consistently say to creationists about evolution.

At what point do a cluster of hypothesis become a theory? I'm not sure, but that point is well past for AGW, other than a band of conspiracy theorists like yourself, and a tiny, fraction of the relevant experts, broad agreement is in place. As with all theories, new data is constantly arriving, and so far, the theory has done a good job of integrating them. Certainly there are robust disagreements about scope and pace, but this is par for the course. Creationists constantly allude to such discussion within evolution, and we all know that it's a cheap trick.

There are many websites that rebut all the issues you've raised. None of them are new, and at some point I've read up on them myself. I'd recommend you address your question to the relevant experts, see if you and others can get a majority onboard.

In the meantime, I have to insist that I will stick with the majority view of the relevant experts, in any given field where I am a mere dabbler. Frankly, it is dishonest and inconsistent of those who claim to respect the empirical process, not to do the same.

I don't know how you do it, but it is very similar to the process of compartmentalisation and projection that is part and parcel of the religious experience. However it is ideological rather than religious, see my Dogma video for further info:P

Summarising the majority view of the experts is how I, and I suspect you, and all rational humans form our opinions with regard to complex subjects from the electrical wiring in my house to evolution.

Short of knowing everything about everything, how on earth could we otherwise form an opinion about anything??!!

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

16. Comment #40837 by isharp on May 15, 2007 at 4:38 am

I used to be convinced, but not any more - since I watched "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on Channel 4:

TGGWS is the biggest pile of pants I've ever seen! C4 should be made to apologise for it"s transmission. I complained to C4 and OfCom. I've debunked it here:

http://www.astro-sharp.com/tggws.asp

Regards
Ian

Other Comments by isharp

17. Comment #41072 by Buddha on May 15, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Brian: The one thing that you missed off your list that would have the quickest and easiest impact on reducing climate change would be for every family to not have more than 2 kids. The average family has 2.2 children. By not having that extra .2 of a child the global population would eventually decrease as well as its corresponding carbon footprint.

I think that all your other suggestions for preventing climate change will be just pissing in the wind if the projected population increase isn't addressed.

Other Comments by Buddha

18. Comment #41107 by chbg21808 on May 15, 2007 at 1:52 pm

The Great Global Warming Swindle producer Martin Durkin appears on Glenn Beck to discuss global warming hysteria and defend charges that his documentary contains major misrepresentations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efe7LzQ36Pk

Watching this video, I'm thinking: Is this the sorry state science has come to, when scientists express an opposition to the current "consensus" they get pilloried. It's one thing for a scientist to condemn creationists for promoting none science in the guise of intelligent design. But when scientists are not even allowed to express a scientific disagreement, that goes against the consensus, without fear of losing their job, then something is seriously wrong. Science is supposed to be open.

I am convinced that in ten years from now (hopefully less), we will look back at this period in Global Warming science as a period of unreason.

And the claim that those who disagree with the current climate models are few and far between is also false. Many scientists disagree.

Quote: "The really big lie about man-made global warming is that almost all scientists accept it. More than 4,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal (1992), calling for a rational scientific approach to environmental problems. Many senior scientists have also supported The Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (1992), The Leipzig Declaration (1997) and finally the Oregon Petition (1998) which received the signatures of over 19,000 scientists."

From:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/ten_facts_about_global_warming.htm

CBC (Canada) has also produced a documentry... You can watch it on YouTube, it's in five parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA



Other Comments by chbg21808

19. Comment #41197 by Buddha on May 15, 2007 at 3:50 pm

chbg21808: How many of those signatories on those declarations were real climate scientists? A study in Scientific American (2005) on the most recent declaration, the Oregon Petition:

"Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community"

Other Comments by Buddha

20. Comment #41208 by chbg21808 on May 15, 2007 at 4:10 pm

It's not perfect Buddha, I agree. Although I don't think it is as bad as is often claimed. But then again the IPPC report is far from perfect. One thing you can say about the Oregan petition that you cannot say about the IPPC report, it did not become corrupted through politics, at the expence of science. I guess it would be possible to pick holes in most petitions that have ever been produced. But that does not neccessarily mean that they have no merit because they aren't perfect.

Other Comments by chbg21808

21. Comment #41254 by Newton30 on May 15, 2007 at 5:28 pm

isharp:

The debunking you give is quite good, and I see some claims made by the documentary are utterly false (volcanoes in particular).

But there are still some very damaging revelations that you seem to agree to. Most notably, historically, the CO2 follows the temperature, not the other way around. This is the basic point of Dr. Wunsch's description and that's how I understood it from watching the doc. None of the rebuttals address this. Al Gore tricked me. The fact the film does not mention ice ages explicitly is irrelevant. It mentions historic cooling and warming which is good enough.

The documentary also has another glaring error, which I didn't see called out elsewhere. It says the greenhouse effect goes on in the troposphere, which is in the first 10 km of atmosphere, which is true, but it is not concentrated in the highest part. CO2 is a long-lived gas that is spread out evenly, proportionally to static pressure, just like all the other atmospheric gases. The static pressure is greatest near the surface. There should be nothing special going on at higher altitudes as a result of greenhouse gasses. The temperature increase would not be greater at 10km than at 2km, but the documentary claims it should.

However, if surface warming were a result of the greenhouse effect, the atmosphere as a whole would increase in temperature much more than the surface. From what I understand, the surface is warming at the same rate as the atmosphere. This casts doubt on the AGW theory, even if the documentary turns out to be a crock of crap.

In my opinion, the practice of combining data from different temperature reconstructions is disturbing. Data from different sources may have time lags relative to each other. If you have a perfect sinewave y1=sin(t) and average it with a sinewave that has a time lag y2=sin(t+pi), it will give a straight line. This could create 'flattening' of data which could explain the 'hockey stick' phenomenon that basically ignores the little ice age and the medieval warming period that are well documented. And what about the Holocene maximum?

I still think AGW theory is in doubt. I, like all of you, am an atheist because I'm a skeptic and I believe in the scientific method. We need to get to the bottom of this with proper science and proper peer review. We're not there yet.

The environmental movement is guilty of non-scientific, prophetic, apocalyptic doomsaying, and of harassing, intimidating and threatening anyone who would try to engage in proper skeptical discourse, which is just wrong, even if the environmentalists turn out to be 100% right about global warming in the end.

Other Comments by Newton30

22. Comment #41323 by Jimill on May 15, 2007 at 10:43 pm

From an ethical standpoint, it is in our best interest to do something about our consumption habbits and the wreckless wasting of our natural resources. This Global Warming Crisis is, in a way, a call to our common sense, and to that mammallian part of our brains that contols our caring nature. I wouldn't say we should change our ways out of apocalyptic fears, but out of concern for our fragile planet. This is a call to the nearsighted, to broaden their view and to envolve themselves, conciously, in nessesary change. We know how toxic many of our everyday commercial and household products, we depend on, are to our environment. Just take a good look at your local dump or landfill and think about how much waste we just dump into a bag in our kitchens and sent off once a week to be burried with everyone elses. A large portion of these products are petrolium based, such as plastics and styrofoams, and do not biodegrate for thousands of years.

Prior to the industiral revolution, there has never been so much polution carelessly spewed into our thin atmosphere, and the numbers are increasing. More cars are being built, new drivers are getting their licenses to drive them, more oil is drilled, refined and finally filled into the tanks of these cars only to be burned and upchucked into our atmosphere. Just look at how many cars you pass on the road everyday. The number of houses and buildings you pass that house the people who drive those cars. Just think about the numbers of people going about their day, oblivious to what affect they are having as a whole. A combined, wasteful, entitiy.

As the global population grows our demand for these dependancies grow with them. As a whole, we are not making many of the nessesary changes, nor are we taking much responsibility for our actions. And if we are, it's because we are being made to change by the scientific community, who have proven our ways to have detrimental effects on our environment.

If we don't change our habbits now, they just may be our undoing, and, if that is the case, they will die with us.

I'm sorry. All this bickering about whether global warming is a hoax or not, is only taking our attention away from the actual issues. It's almost as though these videos were funded by the people who have sometihng to lose from them. It is quite plausable. They do have the resources. Look how much we are paying for gas at the pumps nowadays. Conveniently, when we find out for a fact that the carbon we are emitting from our combustable engines is one of the many direct causes to the Rapidly-Unatural warming of our planet. It's almost as though they know their faults and are scrambling to get every last penny out of us before a viable alternative to our dependancy on them is made available. If you were them, why not make a series of rebuttals, refuting what your opponents say, only to stir controversy and have all the intelligent people debating eachother. Making us lose focus. While all the dumb people blindly pick the side of the debate that best suits their personal needs, their religious and political stand points and have them fight it out too. Way to keep us distracted and delay any sort of constructive consortium.

Other Comments by Jimill

23. Comment #41350 by chbg21808 on May 16, 2007 at 1:23 am

QUOTE.... Comment #41323 by Jimill on May 15, 2007 at 10:43 pm
From an ethical standpoint, it is in our best interest to do something about our consumption habbits and the wreckless wasting of our natural resources. This Global Warming Crisis is, in a way, a call to our common sense, and to that mammallian part of our brains that contols our caring nature.... END QUOTE.

In a free market, technological progress naturally drives society towards more efficient fuels and more efficient fuels produce less waste. Waste reduction is a net benefit to business, because it is the flip side of efficiency, the less waste one produces, the more efficient the output... that increase in efficiency, also leads to reduced prices. It is free market competition, that drives business toward efficiency and advances in technology.

Ironically, the recycling regulations forced on businesses, have the opposite effects to that which is proclaimed. Businesses, that are forced to spend much of their time focused on recycling, become less efficient and that reduction in efficiency produces more waste... Thus, recycling ends up being counter-productive.

The burden on that advance in technological progress today, comes from over regulation by big government, which has created a recycling boondoggle, that is eating into economic growth and making it very difficult for business start ups, to drive from red to black... and much of those rules and regulations, comes from arbitrary, bureaucratic government dictates, that cannot be objectively defined.

The insanity of the environmental movement, has driven us to a recycling frenzy, which has grown to insane proportions.

The cure for genuine environmental problems, will not come from government, it will come from and grow naturally out of science and technology, driven forward by business and consumer demand.

QUOTE... "First, we are told that recycling will help preserve scarce landfill space. We are not, however, even remotely close to running out of space for our garbage. Despite the "garbage trucks could ring the Milky Way galaxy" rhetoric, all of the trash America will produce over the next 1,000 years could fit into a landfill 15 square miles in size." ...The Cato Institute... END QUOTE

Recycling is Not the Answer - By Jerry Taylor


Other Comments by chbg21808

24. Comment #41360 by Buddha on May 16, 2007 at 2:10 am

Newton30: I agree with you to an extent that sections of the environmental movement are hysterical and prone to un-scientific propaganda, but this is also true of the PR machines belonging to the abject deniers.

I'm currently studying for a degree in Earth Sciences, which I hope has exposed me to the more balanced and sober thinking on the AGW issue. What I have come to appreciate is that the climate is a very complex beast with hundreds of tightly interacting feedback mechanisms, which are still very poorly understood. However, mankinds rapid short-circuiting of the one of the carbon-cycle's long-term sinks by digging up oil, coal and gas is unprecedented in the history of the Earth.

Other Comments by Buddha

25. Comment #41372 by Aussie on May 16, 2007 at 2:59 am

Have you noticed the extremely strong correlation between fundamentalist Christianity, anti-Darwinism and global warming denialism.

Coincidence?

Other Comments by Aussie

26. Comment #41375 by chbg21808 on May 16, 2007 at 3:25 am

QUOTE... 25. Comment #41372 by Aussie on May 16, 2007 at 2:59 am
Have you noticed the extremely strong correlation between fundamentalist Christianity, anti-Darwinism and global warming denialism... END QUOTE

Actually, the correlation is a poor one. It is a poor one because on the whole, the anti-Darwinians are not coming out from a scientific standpoint. It is a purely religious move.

There is no Global Warming denialism. Everyone can agree that the globe warms and cools and has historically always done so.

The counter argument to anthropogenic global warming, is coming out of the scientific community. These are not religious nuts, they are trained scientists, who do not agree with the scientific models. For example, Dr David Legates, Center for Climate Research at the University of Delaware and Dr Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist at Harvard University.... Who is considered to be one of the most prominent astrophysicists in America.

I believe that rather like the snowball effect of atheists coming out in America. In the same way, I think more and more scientists will begin to stand up against the current consensus and science will get back to how it should be, open and honest... and we will get away from this obscene idea of scientific truth by "consensus". Which has become a political weapon against reasonable counter argument and a favorite weapon of Al Gore and other politicos, who basically say: "the consensus of scientific opinion is in, investigate no further".

Since when did the concensus of the majority in science, become the measure of the truth. The measure of truth in science is evidence and if you are only going hear the voices of the scientists you want to hear and ignore the rest, then it is no longer science, it becomes dogma.

QUOTE... "Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians." ...Czech President Vaclav Klaus ...END QUOTE


Warming Up to the Truth: The Real Story About Climate Change
by Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D.

Also, check out these excellent podcasts:
Global Warming Podcast News

Other Comments by chbg21808

27. Comment #41376 by Mikado on May 16, 2007 at 3:29 am

25. Comment #41372 by Aussie on May 16, 2007 at 2:59 am

Have you noticed the extremely strong correlation between fundamentalist Christianity, anti-Darwinism and global warming denialism.

Coincidence?

The next thing they will deny is of course that there ever was a land bridge across the Bering Strait. The notion that there could be a natural change of climate is of course just silly. As the earth was created 23. october 4004 BC the icecore evidence is like the fossils just placed there by god to test our faith.

Other Comments by Mikado

28. Comment #41383 by Aussie on May 16, 2007 at 3:55 am

For a hilarious afternoon's entertainment we would suggest a visit to one of the well-known junkist websites. There are in fact several to choose from. We can assure you that it will be the cultural experience of a lifetime as the residents delight you with their quaint beliefs and endearing customs.

The standards of hygiene, however, leave something to be desired as they are not quite up to what we have come to expect in the first world. For this reason care should be taken when negotiating these sites to avoid the piles of trash that litter the area. Particular care should also be taken to avoid the dangerous groups of junkist-website junkies loitering in the shadows of the Forum and Coliseum - desperate for a comfort fix.

A phrase book is not really necessary as they do speak a form of English but you need to be aware that some words and technical terms do not have quite the same meaning that they do in the developed world. This takes a little time to get used to but it will not be long before you are conversing with the best of them.

Whatever you do it is important to avoid questioning the beliefs of the residents as you will more than likely become the target for vicious ad hominem attacks and ridicule. You may even be regarded as the incarnation of one of their many evil spirits.

With luck you could be fortunate enough to recognise the friendly face of one of the McExperts from our very own forum, there to collect their weekly global warming supplies at knockdown prices. Some questions have been raised from time to time about the quality of this merchandise but our McExperts nevertheless appear satisfied with their acquisitions. However, we would strongly suggest that you source your own supplies from a reputable dealer in the West as we believe that the superior quality is well worth the extra cost.

As with any travel, health risks are a danger on these sites. Paranoia and logic impairment - to name just two - are endemic in this area and for this reason we strongly recommend a full course of IPCC shots several weeks before your intended visit to fully protect you against any infection that you might otherwise contract.

However, provided a few sensible and timely precautions are taken beforehand, a rollicking good time should be had by all.

Other Comments by Aussie

29. Comment #41570 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 16, 2007 at 10:13 am

Guys all of this stuff has been comprehensivley refuted, and the sources you quote are known to be tainted.

Can I suggest you do your homework first with source watch, here is a primer for you, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sallie_L._Baliunas.

Before cluttering the board with conspiracy theory nonsense. Thanks. The issue is real, sticking your head in the sand is doing none of us any favours, and it's embarrasing, not to mention unseemly to see fellow rationalists debase themselves in this way:-(

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

30. Comment #41593 by chbg21808 on May 16, 2007 at 11:25 am

QUOTE... "Before cluttering the board with conspiracy theory nonsense." ...END QUOTE

The link you presented brings back a blank page too.

You can find her however, by going to the home page at http://www.sourcewatch.org and doing a search.

I have tried to put the link here, but it creates a blank page. I have read the article directly form the page.

Nothing in this article, as far as I can see is damning of Baliunas reputation, it just gives a list of references of her achievments and who she is and what she does.

I don't think anyone has mentioned it being a conspiracy theory?

And to simply say that the sources you quote "are known to be tainted" is not an argument... anyone can do that.

The article even presents her original article with Willie Soon, Lessons & Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual? by Willie Soon & Sallie Baliunas
Lessons & Limits of Climate History



Other Comments by chbg21808

31. Comment #41610 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 16, 2007 at 11:48 am

Nothing in this article, as far as I can see is damning of Baliunas reputation, it just gives a list of references of her achievments and who she is and what she does.

Your still not doing your own research, and I'm buggered if I'm doing it for you:-( Your Oregon group comes up in Source Watch too.

I don't think anyone has mentioned it being a conspiracy theory?

Your assumption is that thousands of scientists in hundreds of countries, over several decades are colluding (other than some heroic outliers) in a massive scam. A conspiracy theory is the kindest thing one can say about this position.

The occasional alternative, to assert that a majority of relevant experts do not agree on the broad thrust of AGW is simply false. It has been reaffirmed in report after report, the most recent IPCC being only one example, with hundreds of headline scientists involved,running thousands of others involved in gathering data and conducting experiments.

Even the Bush administration has finally begun to concede this argument. The whole approach of the AGW denial camp is identical to the creationist one.

Claim the "true" scientists are being suppressed.
Appeal to the public.
Get some vested interest funding.
Use it to appeal to the public some more.
Promote the "true" scientists as victims of the elite and entrenched "establishment".

You'd have to be willfully blind not to see this stuff. I'm not an expert, but I know enough to see that the denial camp is heavily seeded with oil industry funded non entities. That every significant international report that comes out says basically the same thing, and has done so for 15 years. Until you, and people like you, convince at least a sizeable miniority of the relevant experts, I'd be mad to pay any attention. Just as I'd be mad to waste my time listening to Behe and Co.

If you want to have an argument about the detail, find an AGW site and hope on the buzz saw, they'll sort you out quick enough. But don't come with creationist class tripe about the "debate", anyone with a modicum of sense can see that day is past.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

32. Comment #41613 by chbg21808 on May 16, 2007 at 11:53 am

I'm sorry briancoughlanworldcitizen, I am not going to respond to flaming.

I will say one thing, you are putting words in my mouth. I have never once "made the assumption that thousands of scientists in hundreds of countries, over several decades are colluding (other than some heroic outliers) in a massive scam." ...As you put it.

What I have said, is that the science has become politicized. It is the politicization of the science that has led scientists to tow the "concesus". It has nothing to do with a conspiracy.

This message board is democratic. If you don't like what I have to say, then fine don't read it.

Other Comments by chbg21808

33. Comment #41621 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 16, 2007 at 12:02 pm

I'm sorry briancoughlanworldcitizen, I am not going to respond to flaming.

Fine by me.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

34. Comment #41769 by Mikado on May 16, 2007 at 11:22 pm

Nullius in Verba

Other Comments by Mikado

35. Comment #41771 by Mr. Grape on May 16, 2007 at 11:37 pm

If you've ever seen "Jesus Camp" (Which is what fueled me to become more outspoken about atheism) the correlation between evolution denial and climate change denial is valid one to bring up. http://www.nypress.com/19/37/film/jennifermerin2.cfm
3/4ths of children homeschooled in america are evangelicals. In the documentary you can see parents teaching their children that AGW "isn't really a big deal" and then sending their kids to a camp where they speak in tounges, fall down to the ground crying and literally pray to a cardboard cut-out of george w bush.

Other Comments by Mr. Grape

36. Comment #41779 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 12:34 am

QUOTE... 35. Comment #41771 by Mr. Grape on May 16, 2007 at 11:37 pm
If you've ever seen "Jesus Camp" (Which is what fueled me to become more outspoken about atheism) the correlation between evolution denial and Oneclimate change denial is valid one to bring up. ...CLOSE QUOTE

This is a complete non sequitur. It is rather like the cogent argument Richard Dawkins makes against theists, who blame atheism for Stalin. He simply says, one might just as well blame communism on moustaches.

It suggests that individual scientists who don't agree with the current AGW model, are in denial because of some kind of hidden agenda (like the silly claim, that they are all receiving funding from oil companies), or religious programming, or that they are coming out of some kind of - denial against AGW training camps.

Most of these scientists, who are standing up against AGW, don't even know each other and have come to their conclusions independently. Their stance against AGW is purely scientific.

The fact that a few Jesus Camp religious nuts, are in denial of AGW, would not be used as evidence against AGW in a science lab. The fact that these evangelists are in denial, is purely coincidental and that is why I said, it is a non sequitur.

One think to your credit, you did not push the envelope as far, as to suggest ...that AGW sceptics (scientists), have the morals of holocaust deniers. But some individuals do, do that.

I have used the word denial in this response, only where I think it is appropriate and because it was the word you used... and in a religious context of simply denying something, based on faith, then it is the right word to use.

However, denial, as in AGW denier, in the context of what scientists are saying, is the wrong word. I don't think scientists would use the word either. Denial is often used in a derogatory manner, to verbally attack someone's position, it has negative connotations. I would use the word sceptical. One is sceptical because the evidence they have arrived at draws them to be. Denial on the other hand, is simply a negative statement and does not draw on evidence, but is often based on false assumptions... Such as, Holocaust and Evolution deniers.

The big difference between an Evolution denier and a AGW sceptic (scientist) is exactly that. One is in denial based on faith or just plain ignorance, the other is sceptical based on the evidence. There is the major difference.

The anti-evolutionists are not producing science that contradicts the Evolution by Natural Selection theory. The AGW sceptic scientists are producing science that contradics AGW models.

Other Comments by chbg21808

37. Comment #41826 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 6:30 am

Most of these scientists, who are standing up against AGW, don't even know each other and have come to their conclusions independently. Their stance against AGW is purely scientific

I'm not disputing that. Some of these guys are the real deal, but the faction they represent is a minority. A minority top heavy with known industry shills.

As I've noted several times, I take my lead from the majority of relevant experts and this is indisputably behind AGW. Scale and scope is up for debate, no argument. This is not the same thing as "It's got nothing to do with humans".

I'm a modestly intelligent person, and you don't seem to be vastly more intelligent than me. How do you justify taking a position, supported by only a fraction of the relevant experts, on an incredibly complex subject?

It doesn't make any sense, which means something is short circuiting your judgement. Reflect on that for a bit. Regardless of how compelling some, or even several, isolated pieces of evidence appear, you are missing something the experts are not.

I reacte so energetically to this subject, because delay is dangerous in the long term, and there are a zillion simple low cost things we could do if people would get going. Every post like yours is negative drag on that process, and in my view, an exponentially unjustifiable view for an empiricist to take.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

38. Comment #41851 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 7:46 am

QUOTE... 37. Comment #41826 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 6:30 am I'm a modestly intelligent person, and you don't seem to be vastly more intelligent than me. How do you justify taking a position, supported by only a fraction of the relevant experts, on an incredibly complex subject? ...CLOSE QUOTE

Well, I actually don't think it is a fraction of the scientific community. More and more scientists are starting to stand up against the consensus and don't be surprised to see more and more over the next few years. I have followed Global Warming science with interest for over ten years... Even ten years ago, the numbers that disagreed with the consensus were not small.

I think what first convinced me, was a cassette tape series I purchased about ten years ago, called - "The Case Against Environmentalism: Moral, Economic and Scientific" by Peter Schwartz, Richard Salsman and Richard Sanford. Since then, I have read more and more and only become more and more convinced that AGW is wrong.

You say "how do I justify taking a position, supported by only a fraction of the relevant experts" ? ...Now in that statement, you have said a very telling thing. Are you saying that the minority scientific opinion cannot be justified?

In science there will always be a majority vs. minority opinion. But unlike politics, the minority do not get voted out. But, politics has crept into climate science and the minority are not being fully heard.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity was a minority opinion, even after it was known. Does that mean it should not of been justified?

What about the minority opinion of Charles Darwin, should his opinion of not been heard?

Or what about Copernicus and Galileo, should they have been muzzled? ...Such attempts were made.

The minority in science can often be right, as history has shown. Science is not a game of numbers, it is not politics, where the vote of the majority wins the day. It is evidence that counts, whether from the majority or minority. Indeed, the minority opinion in science, when it is found to be right, is given the highest prize.

As for your comment that delay could be dangerous. The obscene regulations of the Kyoto Agreement would devastate World economies and lead to deaths by the millions.

Even if it were found to be true that AGW was happening. I would still be against Kyoto. The Kyoto protocol is a political boondoggle and has nothing to do with science. The reason that the Kyoto agreement has been constantly re-worked, is because it is totally impractical.

Also your statement that; "A minority top heavy with known industry shills." ...This is one of those none-thinking statements, that gets passed from person to person, It must be true because everyone says so. It's a case of, if you say something enough times, people will believe it. There is no evidence whatsoever, of a connection between industry and those scientists who disagree with AGW.

Other Comments by chbg21808

39. Comment #41884 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 9:04 am

You say "how do I justify taking a position, supported by only a fraction of the relevant experts" ? ...Now in that statement, you have said a very telling thing. Are you saying that the minority scientific opinion cannot be justified?

The minority will go at it within the relevant community and convince them of their case, if they have a case.

You and I though as non experts, should have our views formed by the majority position in the relevant community, not some hysterical outlier supported by the Bush Administration and fundamentalists. Especially where that majority is overwhelming.

An excellent question, or it would have been if I hadn't explicitly made this point in the vid.

The meme you are falling prey to is the creationist meme, that any opinion is equal to any other, it is empatically not.

Your attitude is also a US problem, occuring generally among republican Americans. I attribute this to the corrosive influence that religion has had on that party, and cognition generally. There is simply nothing remotely similar here in Europe, the argument is almost utterly devoid of the hysteria and rancour, because people accept the science. Whats left to discuss?

If a majority opinion emerges, I'll be onboard with that, but it is deeply irresponsible to sit irresolute, doing nothing in the meantime, and worse still spreading this minority position among other non experts. It's empiricist treason:-)

If you want a real debate to sink your teeth into, try ethanol. There is a genuine "the jury is still out" discussion. Not AGW.

For further reading try this : http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

40. Comment #41891 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 9:14 am

"The minority will go at it within the relevant community and convince them of their case, if they have a case."

Indeed, and I think that is thankfully finally what is happening, the minority are finally standing up to be counted.

"You and I though as non experts, should have our views formed by the majority position in the relevant community, not some hysterical outlier supported by the Bush Administration and fundamentalists. Especially where that majority is overwhelming."

Not quite sure what you mean by that.... I try not have my views formed by anyone. I try to weigh up the evidence from both sides (or however many sides there happen to be) and then I think for myself based on that evidence... And I am certainly not influenced by Bush fundies.

"The meme you are falling prey to is the creationist meme, that any opinion is equal to any other, it is empatically not."

Well, finally something we agree on... You are correct all opinion is not equal... try re-reading what I wrote, you are putting words in my mouth again. Of course all opinions are not equal, someone has to be right... I happen to think I am.

Other Comments by chbg21808

41. Comment #41903 by pewkatchoo on May 17, 2007 at 9:32 am

Sorry but I am still skeptical about AGW. I am not convinced that the hypotheses have morphed into a theory yet. The problem in the UK in particular is the shrillness of the media and the politicians 'the debate is over' tells me that they are using it as yet another scare story to keep us under control. Get us focussed on anything other than the fact that the elites are fucking us over yet again. The pro-agwers are doing the government's work for them by shouting down anyone who says 'now hang on a wee bit, can we have a look at all the evidence please'. I agree that we need to cut down on energy use (but who is going to tell China and India?) but there are other areas of the environment that may be even more urgent (sea pollution for example) that we can actually do something practical for. Mind you, it is clear that it is science that is going to find the answers, not a bunch of fundies praying to their invisible friends. Just look at the inovation of the Light Tower (in Spain or Portugal). That really is a fantastic achievement.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

42. Comment #41906 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 9:36 am

Not quite sure what you mean by that.... I try not have my views formed by anyone. I try to weigh up the evidence from both sides (or however many sides there happen to be) and then I think for myself based on that evidence... And I am certainly not influenced by Bush fundies.

Fundamentalists Christians hate the idea of doing anything about global warming, ostensibly because they don't "believe it", but also because maybe it's real and part of the coming "end times" tribulation. I am not making this shit up.

Although, I should note that, even in this benightened community there have been some recent noises in the right direction.

Yes we have to weigh the evidence, or summaries provided by experts. Summarising the majority view of the experts is how I, and I suspect you, and all rational humans form our opinions with regard to complex subjects from the electrical wiring in my house to evolution.

Short of knowing everything about everything, how on earth could we otherwise form an opinion about anything??!!

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

43. Comment #41910 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 9:39 am

"Fundamentalists Christians hate the idea of doing anything about global warming, ostensibly because they don't "believe it", but also because maybe it's real and part of the coming "end times" tribulation. I am not making this shit up."

That may well be true... But like I said, I am not in the Bush camp and I'm most definitely not a christian fundy. I have been an atheist all my life. Well at least from the age that I understood what it meant. Even as a young child, I never bought into religion and saw through it as a man-made hoax. Perhaps, because my parents were atheists... But they never forced their view on me.

Other Comments by chbg21808

44. Comment #41914 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 9:44 am

Just look at the inovation of the Light Tower (in Spain or Portugal). That really is a fantastic achievement.

Indeed. Last year we got a super efficient wood stove in, knocked 7000 kwh off our annual electricty bill, and will pay for itself in another 3 years or so. Then it's just gravy on top, and I'm growing the wood out back myself:-)

There are many things that can be done without restructuring the global economy, prevaricate now and that is exactly what we might find ourselves doing in 30 years. Pennywise, pound foolish. Here in Sweden a department that advises municipalities on energy conservation has clocked up consumption reductions of 70% in some council offices. Simple and ingenous.

If you want to make noises about bad ideas look into ethanol ... that one has me worried, and I used to be a fan.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

45. Comment #41918 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 9:49 am

Even as a young child, I never bought into religion and saw through it as a man-made hoax. Perhaps, because my parents were atheists... But they never forced their view on me.

Well, you've got that on me:-) I clocked up about 40 years before realising .... WTF? Still I'm making up for lost time now:-) Especially now that I realise how precious time is.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

46. Comment #41921 by pewkatchoo on May 17, 2007 at 9:53 am

Brian, you are starting to sound like the fundemental christians and muslims. Are you aware of that? Nobody is denying the point of global warming or that it takes place, what is being questioned is that we have to accept the so-called evidence for AGW and its 'likely' consequences without question or further debate.

It is people like you that actually puts people like me off the whole subject. Your arguments are not substantial, they are subjective.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

47. Comment #41924 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 10:00 am

"Well, you've got that on me:-) I clocked up about 40 years before realising .... WTF? Still I'm making up for lost time now:-) Especially now that I realise how precious time is."

Well, as Morpheus said in the Matrix... "Welcome to the Real World"

Other Comments by chbg21808

48. Comment #41931 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 10:10 am

It is people like you that actually puts people like me off the whole subject. Your arguments are not substantial, they are subjective.

Well I think thats an inherently irrational position to take. A personal dislike of my "style", poor reasoning or whatever, is neither here nor there.

Let me try and pithly summarise my position.

I don't think it's productive or helpful for non-experts to debate the detail of these issues. Or evolution, quantum physics, or any seriously complex subject. For fun, sure. But lets not pretend that what you or I think about a particular piece of evidence is remotley relevant.

This is a diseased mindset flowing from the creation versus evolution debate, and it is primarly american. It pisses my off, I have to say. There is nothing fundamentalist about insisting people align themselves with the summaries of complex issues that experts provide. Where does this inexpert 2nd guessing stop?

If there is an issue with significant play in the argument, like ethanol, that is an interesting one to bat around.

Fuck I always seem to be typing an essay.

Look, 9 out of 10 scientists might be wrong, but in the meantime I'm sticking with their advice, until it becomes 7.5, or 6 and then I'll be happy to re-evaluate. I don't see that someone who respects the scientific method has an alternative rational choice, but you are of course free to do whatever you like.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

49. Comment #41941 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 10:46 am

48. Comment #41931 by briancoughlanworldcitizen ..."I don't think it's productive or helpful for non-experts to debate the detail of these issues. Or evolution, quantum physics, or any seriously complex subject. For fun, sure. But lets not pretend that what you or I think about a particular piece of evidence is remotley relevant."

So, what do we do then Brian... pray at the alter of the gods of science and wait for them to pass down their commands.

I'm sorry, but your comments are about as silly as anything I have ever read. Nobody but "experts" (whatever that means) are capable of understanding the facts. Your definition of science isn't science, it's religion.

It may be true, that Quantum Physics is hard for the average person to grasp... But is that a reason to not even try?

As for evolution, that is in the grasp of understanding of the average person and so is much of climatology.

You don't need a PhD, to think scientifically, look at Douglas Adams or what about Michael Faraday, who was largely self-taught.

Other Comments by chbg21808

50. Comment #41955 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 11:04 am

I'm sorry, but your comments are about as silly as anything I have ever heard. Nobody but "experts" (whatever that means) are capable of understanding the facts. Your definition of science isn't science, it's religion.

No I'm pretty certain you are wrong about this:-( In a religion dissent is suppressed. This does not happen (well not for long) in science, because of the relentless pressure to be first on the evidence train. Thats what we like about it. It works to unfuck the world.

Inexpert sniping from the sideline is what I object to, what creationism amounts to, and exactly what I think you are doing here.

Look, we can all discuss the existence of God with some facility because theology is 95% fluff. Climatology is not. It's hard, detailed and complex stuff, which people spend their lives becoming proficient in. I'm sorry if the implication of this offends.

Neither you nor I are experts on this subject. What I do when I haven't the first clue about an issue is see what the prevailing opinion and advice is and consult some summaries of the primary streamings. From time to time I reaquaint myself with these.

In the case of AGW I see a significant majority are advising us to cut back on energy usage, so as a dutiful and rational global citizen that is what I do, and what you should do too.

If they were advising me to sacrifice my first born, well I'd have to give that some extra thought.

It is maddening for me to see rationalists reaching for all the tools of the irrational to justify their position on this issue, and engaging in the identitical projection of creationists.

The true scientists are being demonised.
AGW is a religion.
It's a conspiracy amongst the government and science.
The UN or EU is out to get American industry.

I'm sorry, but this is complete cock.

However, if you can get the next IPCC report to include some serious doubts, then I'll look at it again.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen