201. Comment #43472 by scooternyc on May 21, 2007 at 2:57 pm

How do we decide by what criteria we are disallowing evidence on either side?

How do we decide which scientists will not be heard from or considered?

This article points out something I've been saying for months, finally:

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus" - Christopher Hitchens

Other Comments by scooternyc

202. Comment #43475 by chbg21808 on May 21, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Excellent article scooternyc, adding to my favourites... and Hitchens is fantastic too. Two weeks and I'm still waiting for his book in the post :(

Other Comments by chbg21808

203. Comment #43621 by chbg21808 on May 22, 2007 at 6:11 am

"Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why."
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Other Comments by chbg21808

204. Comment #43625 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2007 at 6:23 am

Hello all. I've been eavesdropping on the debate from a safe distance, in case Brian exploded (I saw the Youtube vid).

Apologies as this doesn't really relate to what's specifically being discussed, but have any of you (Brian in particular) read Michael Crichton's book State of Fear? I think that references hundreds of scientific papers, and calls into doubt a lot of assumptions I used to make about global warming and the environment.

Just curious.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

205. Comment #43626 by Buddha on May 22, 2007 at 6:25 am

"However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively."

Well from those figures and my rough calculations that gives us a man-made contribution of 0.052 of a degree to average global temps, therefore AGW has been proven conclusively (and from a skeptic scientists own figures)!!!!!

Where do I need to queue for my Nobel Award? :-P

Other Comments by Buddha

206. Comment #43630 by Buddha on May 22, 2007 at 6:36 am

Quetzalcoatl: I'm afraid I stopped taking Michael Crichton seriously when he started putting Cretaceous species in the Jurassic.

Other Comments by Buddha

207. Comment #43633 by USA_Limey on May 22, 2007 at 6:44 am

Reference comment 203 by chbg21808:

Dr. Tim Ball is an honest and honorable man who has been vilified, harassed, threatened, (at times physically), and abused for committing the 'crime' of questioning the growing canon of AGW dogma. And he is but one of many who have been so abused.

Should not the history of science (and history in general) give us at least a moment's pause? How many times have we seen this pattern repeated again and again in antiquity? Galileo anyone? Thank goodness Dr. Bell does not live in a time or a country where he can be made to suffer physically for his 'heresy'; but you do wonder at the more subtle apparatus of the state / media machine which can be effectively employed to try and shut people up.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

208. Comment #43635 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 22, 2007 at 6:52 am

204. Comment #43625 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2007 at 6:23 am

Apologies as this doesn't really relate to what's specifically being discussed, but have any of you (Brian in particular) read Michael Crichton's book State of Fear?

No, I must confess to having not read it. I have however read a number of articles fairly critical of it.

At the risk of flogging a dead horse into bloody strips, when a significant majority of the relevant scientific community are convinced by his work (or indeed anyone elses), then it might be worth while having a look. In the meantime, I have about a zillion other things I'd prefer to be doing then constantly reviewing debunked minority positions within the scientific community.

Nothing I have reviewed in this iteration of the argument has been compelling. I'm afraid I must remain .. ah ... skeptical of your minority claims.

And guys ... please Tim Ball!!

What I am increasingly hearing is that you guys are clear that global warming is happening and that it may possibly be caused by humans.

However, you have terrified yourselves with horror stories about economic meltdown if any attempt is made to do anything about it. This seems to be the mainspring of your resistance, a kind of economic "yellow peril" fear.

You guys need to take a step back, take a deep breath and get out of denial. Then objectivley inform yourselves about the options available to rebalance economic activity away from current inefficient energy usage.

A couple of you also need a smidgen of empathy, or failing that a little enlightened self interest. The people most affected by any impact, will be the poor in the developing world. Christ knows these people have enough reasons (both real and imagined) to hate the developed world, lets not provide a global "Irish Famine" class catastrophe for them to whine about as well.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

209. Comment #43688 by chbg21808 on May 22, 2007 at 9:47 am

QUOTE... 208. Comment #43635 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 22, 2007 at 6:52 am... "What I am increasingly hearing is that you guys are clear that global warming is happening and that it may possibly be caused by humans." ...CLOSE QUOTE

I cannot speak for anyone else, but that is not my position... I have already stated what my position is and it can be summed up in one short sentence: GLOBAL WARMING AND COOLING ARE PERFECLY NORMAL. Instead of repeating myself... My opinion on global warming has already been summand up in: 192. Comment #43226 by chbg21808 on May 21, 2007 at 12:27 am.

QUOTE... "A couple of you also need a smidgen of empathy, or failing that a little enlightened self interest. The people most affected by any impact, will be the poor in the developing world. Christ knows these people have enough reasons (both real and imagined) to hate the developed world, lets not provide a global "Irish Famine" class catastrophe for them to whine about as well." ...CLOSE QUOTE

I most certainly do have empathy, but for the right reasons (Kyoto type protocols, based on bad science are not the right reasons).


There Is No Man-Made Global Warming
by Tom DeWeese
17 December 2004

"Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding international treaty through which industrial nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels. That means that all of the energy growth since 1990 would be rolled back, plus 7 percent more. Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, will devastate this nation.

To meet such drastically-reduced energy standards will -- in the short run -- cost the United States over one million jobs. Some estimate it will cost over seven million jobs in 14 years. If the treaty sends the economy into a tailspin, as many predict, it will cost even more jobs.

It will cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 dollars per year in increased energy costs. The cost of food will skyrocket. It has been estimated that in order for the United States to meet such a goal, our gross domestic product will be reduced by $200 billion -- annually."
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4033.html

It is because I have empathy for my fellow man, that I am 100% against Kyoto.

QUOTE... And guys ... please Tim Ball!! ...CLOSE QUOTE

What can I say, other than pathetic!



Other Comments by chbg21808

210. Comment #43699 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 22, 2007 at 10:17 am

209. Comment #43688 by chbg21808 on May 22, 2007 at 9:47 am

Oh come now that last post was almost pure hysteria, and apocalyptic visions of doom.

So logic, repeated rebuttal (oh you'll deny it no doubt) of the many (frequently rather dusty) points you raised is not enough?

The presentation of mutually reinforcing sources that show clear denial pathologies (or worse!) in most of the "experts" used to support your minority position, very few of whom are climatologists, just won't cut it?

You leave me no choice, but to reach for the Dickens.

"Surely there never was such fragile china-ware as that of which the millers of Coketown were made. Handle them never so lightly, and they fell to pieces with such ease that you might suspect them of having been flawed before. They were ruined, when they were required to send labouring children to school; they were ruined when inspectors were appointed to look into their works; they were ruined, when such inspectors considered it doubtful whether they were quite justified in chopping people up with their machinery; they were utterly undone, when it was hinted that perhaps they need not always make quite so much smoke."

Charles Dickens, Hard Times.

Same shit, different century.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

211. Comment #43716 by thirdchimpanzee on May 22, 2007 at 10:54 am

chbg21808 must be misquoting Kyoto:

Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding international treaty through which industrial nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels.

The point of the treaty is to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions - it patently is NOT asking any economy to reduce "energy" emissions, whatever those might be (infrared radiation???). It it this sleight of hand that makes so many of us wary of the arguments put forward by Global Warming skeptics.

I accept that trying to arrive at a common sense understanding of what is going on is hard in a system as full of complex feedbacks and buffers as our climate and oceans. One place to start is to intuitively factor in whatever is clearly an added burden to the environment caused by our activity - hence my earlier recounting of a rough exercise to compare the extent of oil consumption with burning forests. However much people may want to try and discount anthropogenic sources, the uncomfortable reality appears to be that we have a massive system in equilibrium that we have been prodding at for 200 years, and now its shifting. The latest information that the Southern Oceans may be at their limit as a CO2 sink, and be poised with further warming to start disgorging large quantities of CO2 instead, should give everyone pause.

I think the pattern seems clear that almost every climatologist accepts AGW, and is probably increasingly panicked by the prospect of such positive feedback loops starting to kick in.

In the same way that we're confronting religious obscurantism, patience is running out with those who should know better, but continue to try and throw obstacles in the way of urgently needed action on Global Warming. The Science is complex, but as far as I can see, unequivocal - and the global climate is not a machine we should be tipping over to see what happens.

Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee

212. Comment #43718 by chbg21808 on May 22, 2007 at 10:57 am

QUOTE... 210. Comment #43699 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 22, 2007 at 10:17 am"You leave me no choice, but to reach for the Dickens." ...CLOSE QUOTE

You say that as a man with the conviction of quoting Dickens, as a good argument... Perhaps I'll rebut with some poetry (then again, perhaps not).

I'm more of a Victor Hugo fan myself.

You also said: "The presentation of mutually reinforcing sources, that show clear denial pathologies in most of the "experts" used to support your minority position, very few of whom are climatologists, just won't cut it?"

That last sentence was a linguistic tongue twister... So please tell me if I've misunderstood:

So, now what are you saying... anyone who disagrees with AGW has pathological problems?

Oh, and by the way. I never claimed the last person was a scientist... I didn't show the last link as a primarily scientific rebuttal. I showed it, to demonstrate the economic and political devastation of Kyoto. Next, maybe you'll say, the man cannot have an opinion because he's not an economist?

So to help in the matter, I thought I'd bring up a link from an economist website:

"Several studies have attempted to estimate the impact Kyoto would have on the U.S. economy. Since meeting the terms of the protocol would require a massive reduction in energy use and, therefore, significant energy price hikes, these studies overwhelmingly foresee large declines in gross domestic product. The administration's own Department of Energy projects economic losses of $397 billion (in 1992 dollars) by 2010.

And what would Kyoto provide in return? If implemented with 100 percent participation and compliance, it would reduce global temperatures .07 degrees Celsius (.13 F) by 2050 -- an amount so small that it could not be reliably measured with ground-based thermometers."
http://mises.org/story/242

Other Comments by chbg21808

213. Comment #43723 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 22, 2007 at 11:07 am

So, now what are you saying... anyone who disagrees with AGW has pathological problems?

No ....

pathology
One entry found for pathology.


Main Entry: pa·thol·o·gy
Pronunciation: -jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: New Latin pathologia & Middle French pathologie, from Greek pathologia study of the emotions, from path- + -logia -logy
1 : the study of the essential nature of diseases and especially of the structural and functional changes produced by them
2 : something abnormal: a : the structural and functional deviations from the normal that constitute disease or characterize a particular disease b : deviation from propriety or from an assumed normal state of something nonliving or nonmaterial c : deviation giving rise to social ills

I use it in the sense of the 2nd option. Denial, in the very clear case of Steve Milloy for example, as a pathology of behaviour observable over decades on a range of different issues. CFC's, Asbestos and most recently global warming.

Come now, Tim Ball is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel. He is a completely discredited and tainted individual, a serial (is that easier to understand?) denier (CFC's and global warming) I happen to believe what I've read about him, because there are mutually reinforcing sources itemising his history, plus an ongoing court case as regards his academic claims.

It would the equivalent of using someone employed by Fox News as a representative for .... Oh wait, you've actually got that covered with Milloy. My bad.

I mean COME ON. These are the leading lights on AGW denial. Statement, not a question. Chaucerian frauds as Hitch would say:-)

I rarely reference blogs (something of a staple with you), but this was such a juicy attack I felt compelled.

http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die

Look I understand. You're emotionally invested in this minority position, and it will take a lot to change your faith. I have trouble respecting a faith position, but thats me. Freaky science guy, looking to the scientists for my lead.

I will remain skeptical of your position along with the majority of the relevant science community.

And yes, I am just being an annoying asshole now, but then so are you. You're just not as good at it:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

214. Comment #43727 by chbg21808 on May 22, 2007 at 11:12 am

There go those ad hominems again.

And by the way, someone made the very same point, I have been making... in a post on the link you just put up:

"If he is such a lunatic, why not attack the science rather than the man?"

Ad hominems are the weakest form of argument, because they take no effort.

Other Comments by chbg21808

215. Comment #43731 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 22, 2007 at 11:32 am

214. Comment #43727 by chbg21808 on May 22, 2007 at 11:12 am

There go those ad hominems again.

Come now. "You are a fat person" is an ad hominem because it has no bearing on knowledge of climate change.

"You are a fraud" when repeated instances of such have been documented may technically qualify as an ad hominem, but it is certainly relevant fact.

Fling around all the desperate accusations you like, but try and make them coherent at least:-)

Please don't bother responding. I've had enough, your faith in retired geographers, astrophysicists, Fox News hacks and (quite good) novelists is clearly unshakeable.

Yes I'm being a prick, but you're making it so easy, and frankly I've settled this discussion to my own satisfaction, now I'm just bored with it.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

216. Comment #43734 by kaiserkriss on May 22, 2007 at 11:41 am

My, my we are getting vicious children...

Regardless of which side of the debate one sits on, it boils down to how SIGNIFICANT potential AGW is. Every molecule on this planet has an effect on its surroundings to a greater or lesser extent.

What everybody seems to agree upon is the fact that changes ARE occurring, be they due to long term still not fully understood natural cycle effects or more recent contributing effects caused by human activity.

Give the statistical insignificant amount of hard data at our disposal, given the age of the planet, we must make significant assumptions when trying to understand the complex processes involved that make up global climate.

Are we as a species deserving to potentially change these systems to suit ourselves and our survival,remains open? We do live in a dynamic world.

It is unlikely our humanoid ancestors could have survived because of a lack of oxygen in the atmosphere during the Devonian period. Maybe it is the planet's destiny to return to a similar state, and all our attempts to stem CO2 pollution from human activity will be for nought. No one REALLY knows, and if they claim to, they are lying, or delusional given the current state of our understanding of the science involved.

Regardless, whatever the future holds in true Darwinian fashion, it will be a case of survival of the fittest.

Also as individuals and good citizens of the planet we should strive and keep our "footprintS" to a minimum. jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

217. Comment #43735 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 22, 2007 at 11:43 am

217. Comment #43734 by kaiserkriss on May 22, 2007 at 11:41 am

My, my we are getting vicious children...

Well he started it. Oh wait ....

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

218. Comment #43741 by chbg21808 on May 22, 2007 at 12:04 pm

By the way Brian... I have just found the root of the Tim Ball rumour that has spread across the internet, here is an extract, (from... http://newsbusters.org/node/6940):

"With all due respect, isn't it just a bit misleading to report that "[Dr. Tim] Ball is promoted by the National Center for Public Policy Research, which has received funding from ExxonMobil"? This makes it appear as though Dr. Ball received cash from us, and by extension ExxonMobil, when in fact all we did was reprint a small amount of his writing on one of our websites.

By that standard, every newspaper that publishes an op-ed by an outside pundit is a "promoter" of the pundit, and the pundit becomes associated with the beliefs and practices of the newspaper's advertisers.

Google also reveals that Dr. Ball has had his writing published in a number of newspapers. Are they "promoters" as well? I wouldn't be surprised if some of those papers have from time-to-time run ads for the fossil fuel industry, or, perhaps, from automakers. Horrors.

As it happens, Dr. Ball has never received a penny from us, and our support from ExxonMobil amounts to less than one percent of our budget. This leaves Dr. Ball with zero percent of less than one percent. Not much! Yet, apparently, worthy of note in the press.

Even though I've never met, talked to, or otherwise communicated with Dr. Ball, I know he has extensive scientific expertise. Possibly his ideas should be evaluated on their merits, instead of on the basis of his supposed association with us?

Just a thought.

Cordially,

Amy Ridenour
President, The National Center for Public Policy Research


Other Comments by chbg21808

219. Comment #43749 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 22, 2007 at 12:25 pm

By the way Brian... I have just found the root of the Tim Ball rumour that has spread across the internet, here is an extract, (from... http://newsbusters.org/node/6940):

I don't believe I ever mentioned links to exxon, not in this entire thread. I did however claim Ball was a fraud. The post below, in response to the blog article I referenced, covers it.

The guy says he's a professor in climatology. He's not. He's a professor of geography. The guy says he's been a professor for 28 years. He hasn't been. He's been a professor of geography for 8 years and is already retired.

The guy misleads and says he got a PhD in London. He neglects to say it's a PhD in philosophy and instead calls it a PhD in Science. The guy has never published a paper in scholarly peer reviewed journals on what is essentially global warming.

The guy's whole argument centers upon him being an expert in the field. He's not. He was never really in the field. That's not an ad hominem attack. It's the substance of his argument. He says look at me, I'm a world leading expert on climatology. Therefore listen to me when I say global warming is political and not scientific. He's the one not giving substance. Therefore the argument goes to whether or not he's suited to make such claims. He is not. Pointing out someone is lying is not an ad hominem attack.

Each time you insist these guys are innocent, you force me to look deeper and it just gets worse for you. Why not pack it in eh? Retire gracefully, have some self respect.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

220. Comment #43753 by chbg21808 on May 22, 2007 at 12:44 pm

"I don't believe I ever mentioned links to exxon"

I never said you did... I said:

"By the way Brian... I have just found the root of the Tim Ball rumour that has spread across the internet."

This is a good example of how ad hominems spread. (As we're on the Dawkins site, I'll say rather like a meme).

You seem to be more interested in character than content. It seems to me that this is just a lazy way to avoid looking at the argument. By constantly attacking the man, you avoid having to tackle the argument.

But since you think Tim Ball has a tarnished character... I will present a link from another scientist who makes exactly the same argument as Ball:

(Richard Siegmund Lindzen, Ph.D., (born February 8, 1940) is an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his research in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves).

"If, as the news media regularly report, global warming is the increase in temperature caused by man's emissions of CO2 that will give rise to rising sea levels, floods, droughts, weather extremes of all sorts, plagues, species elimination, and so on, then it is safe to say that global warming consists in so many aspects, that widespread agreement on all of them would be suspect ab initio. If it truly existed, it would be evidence of a thoroughly debased field. In truth, neither the full text of the IPCC documents nor even the summaries claim any such agreement. Those who insist that the science is settled should be required to state exactly what science they feel is settled."
www.john-daly.com

'Senses Brian scrambling to (his bible) SourceWatch'

Besides the above, I believe it is more open minded to evaluate on merit, in the spirit of the quote I gave in the previous post... Re: "Possibly his ideas should be evaluated on their merits, instead of on the basis of his supposed association with us?"

I openly admit that he was not a genuine professor in climatology... But my argument does not stand or fall on the "character" of one man.

If the truth of the argument stood on the merits of who had the best character... Then what about the deliberate corruption of the science, that led to the politicization of the IPCC report:

"While ostensibly an impartial collector and reporter of climate science, the IPCC has consistently promoted global warming fears in its Summary for Policymakers (SPM). In May 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the IPCC report touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community. The draft of December 1995 was approved by national delegations. When the printed report appeared in May 1996, however, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the body of the report to make it "conform to the Policymakers Summary." The clandestine changes put a spin on the report's conclusions that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." Lead authors of the crucial--and doctored--Chapter 8, dealing with the detection and attribution of climate change, have since backed off from this conclusion and now admit that it may take 10 years or more before any human influence on climate can be detected. In its third report, issued in 2001, the IPCC vigorously promoted a scientific result, termed the Hockeystick. Based on an analysis of proxy data, it was used to claim that the twentieth century was the warmest in the past 1000 years. This claim was meant to suggest that the warming of the twentieth century was due to human causes, specifically the growth in atmospheric greenhouse gases. Few noticed that such a result, even if real, had no bearing on AGW. In fact, it has since been demonstrated that the hockeystick result was based on the faulty application of statistical analysis and the consequence of an incorrect procedure. Furthermore, additional proxy data that had not been considered by the hockeystick team, or by the IPCC, suggest that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than the twentieth century-- a conclusion in good accord with historic data such as settlement of Greenland."
http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/keyissue.html


It just seems rather strange to me, that someone who claims to have so much respect for the scientific method, spends most of their time in character assassination and not rebutting the arguments put forward.

I am not just talking about Tim Ball here. You seem to be obsessed with running to SourceWatch to find a bit of dirt, every time someone is put forward who is not in agreement with the consensus.




Other Comments by chbg21808

221. Comment #43855 by chbg21808 on May 23, 2007 at 1:16 am

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah

"Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research."
Global warming has finally been explained

"Those looking for the culprit responsible for global warming have missed the obvious choice - the sun. While it may come as a newsflash to some, scientific evidence conclusively shows that the sun plays a far more important role in causing global warming and global cooling than any other factor, natural or man-made. In fact, what may very well be the ultimate ironic twist in the global warming controversy is that the same solar forces that caused 150 years of warming are on the verge of producing a prolonged period of cooling."
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html

Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
www.space.com

"Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets."
news.nationalgeographic.com

Climate change hits Mars

Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.
www.timesonline.co.uk

Cosmic rays blamed for global warming
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
www.telegraph.co.uk







Other Comments by chbg21808

222. Comment #43867 by Slartibartfast on May 23, 2007 at 2:53 am

Hey guys,

just listening in to your debate. Brian, I know exactly how you feel. I had a similar online discussion with an American several years ago and it was similarly fruitless.

The position and arguments of the „AGW deniers" made me think up the following scenario: imagine a lifeboat out on the sea with two people in it. At one point, they notice that their boat appears to be very slowly filling up with water, for no immediately discernible reason. One of them says: „er, hey, I'm not 100 % certain but this boat would appear to be very slowly filling up with water for no immediately discernible reason, hadn't we better do something about it?"

To which the second one replies: „Well, first of all, you said yourself you're not really sure if it's filling up, didn't you? And even if it were filling up, how do you know that it will continue to do so? Water goes up, water goes down. Plus, even if we could be 100 % sure that our boat will, in fact, continue to fill up, we don't have the faintest idea about the cause. Might have been you accidentally cutting a hole into the bottom with your banana knife, might have been a shark nibbling away, the point is, we simply don't know. And finally, think of the waste of effort and energy if we started looking for holes or scooping out water and then it turned out there'd never really been any danger of us sinking after all... Hey, where the hell has that boat gone? And why am I underwater all of a sudden and being eaten by a shark?"

Cheers
Slartibartfast

Other Comments by Slartibartfast

223. Comment #43947 by chbg21808 on May 23, 2007 at 4:40 am

QUOTE... 222. Comment #43867 by Slartibartfast The position and arguments of the „AGW deniers" ...CLOSE QUOTE

I have already commented on why denial is a false representation of the scientifically skeptical position in post:

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

So, I will not repeat myself here.

And the "boat appears to be very slowly filling up with water, for no immediately discernible reason." ...analogy that you use... implying that because one cannot determine the reason for the boat sinking and then if one ignores the fact that it is, despite the objectively identifiable fact that it is and then drawing a conclusion, that this is "analogous to AGW denial"

What a very weak analogy. To combine this with "denial" of AGW as you call it, instead of honestly recognising that their are scientists who are skeptical, because they have concluded that the AGW evidence does not stack up... Now, that would be a fair argument and seems to be the position you are ignoring when you drew this analogy.

I will say it again... and I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, till it sinks in. I am not an AGW denier... I am Skeptical, the reason I am skeptical is because no scientist has been able to produce a definite causal link between man and global warming.

And by the way, in terms of Global Warming... I do not think "the boat is sinking" ...There is evidence to suggest that Global Warming would be better on the whole, for mankind, than Global Cooling.

Why Global Warming Would be Good for You
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

All you have done, is come up with an analogy, that sounds very clever on paper... but is very weak in practice. It is the kind of lawyer type language used by Phillip E. Johnson to dispute evolution, that sounds very clever on paper, but when you cut to the heart of it, it is meaningless.

Other Comments by chbg21808

224. Comment #43958 by Slartibartfast on May 23, 2007 at 4:57 am

QUOTE... 222. Comment #43867 by Slartibartfast The position and arguments of the „AGW deniers" ...CLOSE QUOTE

I have already commented on why denial is a false representation of the scientifically skeptical position in post:

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

So, I will not repeat myself here.

You don't need to, either; I did use quotation marks, remember?

Best regards
S.

Other Comments by Slartibartfast

225. Comment #43961 by chbg21808 on May 23, 2007 at 5:08 am

Either way...quotes or no quotes, your analogy is a bad one. For the reasons I have given.

Other Comments by chbg21808

226. Comment #43966 by Slartibartfast on May 23, 2007 at 5:16 am

Brian, see what I mean? Much as I do admire your persistence, you're obviously wasting your time. Try again in 20 years or so...

Other Comments by Slartibartfast

227. Comment #43973 by chbg21808 on May 23, 2007 at 5:34 am

In 20 years time, Brian won't have to "try again". By then, the politically driven science behind AGW, will of collapsed under the weight of its own stupidity.

Other Comments by chbg21808

228. Comment #43976 by Slartibartfast on May 23, 2007 at 5:41 am

In 20 years time, Brian won't have to "try again". By then, the politically driven science behind AGW, will of collapsed under the weight of its own stupidity.

You forgot to add "denial" after "AGW". Just kidding...

Other Comments by Slartibartfast

229. Comment #44003 by Slartibartfast on May 23, 2007 at 7:07 am

Oh, I forgot...

It is the kind of lawyer type language used by Phillip E. Johnson to dispute evolution, that sounds very clever on paper, but when you cut to the heart of it, it is meaningless.

Well, your honour, it obviously depends on what you mean by "meaningless"... Anyway, your equating my analogy with the language of "evolution deniers" (as it were) is a rather amusing reflection on the type of language used by "AGW skeptics" (there, I've said it).

Funnily enough, by the way, I really am a lawyer. :-)

Regards
S.

Other Comments by Slartibartfast

230. Comment #44026 by Fedler on May 23, 2007 at 7:41 am

All,

Let's not forget we're on the same side here. GW is an issue. There is agreement there.

I think chbg21808 has done well in showing that humans are not the ONLY cause (especially the bit about the sun burning brighter. That's a no-brainer.). Brian, I also think you have done well in reminding us of the view of the scientific community.

The question is...what are we going to do about it?

Adjusting human behavior is the most immediate proactive solution, irregardless of the cause. It's something we can do NOW that we know will have benefits. I think there would be agreement there, also.

As the myriad of other causes become well-established, we can address those, too, if possible. (Obviously we can't do anything about the sun burning brighter, but you get the point.)

To use Slartibartfast's analogy, instead of actually draining the rising water right away, the first immediate priority would seem to be to stop and/or plug the leak (i.e. change human behavior). Then we can work out solutions for the larger picture. Just a thought...

Other Comments by Fedler

231. Comment #44034 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 23, 2007 at 7:59 am

I think chbg21808 has done well in showing that humans are not the ONLY cause (especially the bit about the sun burning brighter. That's a no-brainer.). Brian, I also think you have done well in reminding us of the view of the scientific community.

No. This is just another dusty, poorly supported debunked point. It sounds like a no brainer, and I suppose it is but not the way you mean. Given my recent reading this was immediatley obvious to me, and I have the peer reviewed science to hand.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

So why do the guys keep tiresomely bringing up the same debunked points? There really is little difference between this asocial behaviour and for example a creationist claiming "there are no transitional fossils". Both points roundly debunked, but they bobble endlessly to the top of the discussion like a turd in a swimming pool.

Slartibartfast appreciate your comments.

Fedler, we should at a minimum all be taking modest sensible action, which I detail at the end of video. It is asocial and irresponsible to simply ignore an entire science community.

I really am done with this, but for a final "low heat" flame.

There is something hilariously unselfconscious about one atheist tagging another atheist as "religious" because they are skeptical about a position very poorly supported by the relevant scientific community.

I'm the fucking skeptic.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

232. Comment #44045 by scot on May 23, 2007 at 8:15 am

Brian - apparently if it agrees with you it will do. Majority rules right! I'm done with this as well.

New Scientist is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

In September 2006, New Scientist drew criticism from the writer Greg Egan, who distributed a public letter stating that "a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers" was making the magazine's coverage sufficiently unreliable "to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science". In particular, Egan found himself "gobsmacked by the level of scientific illiteracy" in the magazine's coverage of Roger Shawyer's "electromagnetic drive", where New Scientist allowed the publication of "meaningless double-talk" designed to bypass a fatal objection to Shawyer's proposed space drive, namely that it violates the conservation of momentum. Egan urged those reading his letter to write to New Scientist and pressure the magazine to raise its standards, instead of "squandering the opportunity that the magazine's circulation and prestige provides" for genuine science education. The letter was endorsed by mathematical physicist John C. Baez and posted on his blog[2].

The New Scientist editor replied defending the article, saying New Scientist is "an ideas magazine - that means writing about hypotheses as well as theories"[3].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newscientist

Other Comments by scot

233. Comment #44046 by pewkatchoo on May 23, 2007 at 8:15 am

Brian, you are also the numpty who will continue debating just to make sure that no solution is put in place unless it is in accordance with your precise viewpoint. I have to be right first before we can mover forward. You really are a religite, you have just swapped one type of dogma for another. Shame, you seemed like such a nice boy.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

234. Comment #44048 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 23, 2007 at 8:21 am

Majority rules right!

As regards the majority view in a specific scientific discipline, yes, for bizarre and completely unaccountable reasons, this is what people tend to put their "faith" in. Crazy I know!

New Scientist is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Oh dear. The papers are linked from the article.

*sighs*

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

235. Comment #44054 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 23, 2007 at 8:25 am

Brian, you are also the numpty who will continue debating just to make sure that no solution is put in place unless it is in accordance with your precise viewpoint.

I think the video speaks for itself on this point. To clarify, I'll take what I can get, but "it's not happening", "it's happening but we can't do anything about it" or "lets hope for the best" are positions that I justifiably hold in contempt, yes.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

236. Comment #44056 by pewkatchoo on May 23, 2007 at 8:32 am

Numpty of the day award goes to Slartyfartbreath! That is the daftest analogy I have ever seen. And he admits to being a lawyer. Didn't Douglas Adams have a particular fate in mind for lawyers and estate agents, etc.? Set the controls for the heart of the sun!

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

237. Comment #44057 by chbg21808 on May 23, 2007 at 8:34 am

QUOTE... The sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently — in the last 100 to 150 years," Mr. Solanski said.

Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be responsible for new extremes in weather patterns.

Globally, 1997, 1998 and 2002 were the hottest years since worldwide weather records were first collated in 1860.

Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Mr. Solanki's research. "It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor," he said. ...CLOSE QUOTE
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040718-115714-6334r.htm

And by the way, I used to buy NewScientist magazine... NewScientist went down hill after Nigel Calder left... The best editor, they ever had.


Other Comments by chbg21808

238. Comment #44061 by ghostbuster on May 23, 2007 at 8:38 am

Brian; you may as well give up. The science is clear, the deniers are unclear about science. It is becoming something of a conspiracy theory among these folks and you can't shake comspiracy theories away from those that cling to them. What works for religion also works for conspiracy theorists--keep arguing bad pseudoscience with actual science, wasting time anotherwords. Let us at least keep in mind the precautionary principle.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

239. Comment #44064 by pewkatchoo on May 23, 2007 at 8:44 am

My theory is that most AGWers are under the age of 35. Stand up anyone who believes uncategorically in AGW and is over the age of 35.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

240. Comment #44079 by Fedler on May 23, 2007 at 9:29 am

No. This is just another dusty, poorly supported debunked point. It sounds like a no brainer, and I suppose it is but not the way you mean. Given my recent reading this was immediatley obvious to me, and I have the peer reviewed science to hand.

Brian, thanks for the link. I'm constantly amazed at how much I don't know. My main point was only to stress that all of us here are on the same side. GW is like an iridescent surface. One's perspective may be different from anothers, but the surface itself remains the same.

Fedler, we should at a minimum all be taking modest sensible action, which I detail at the end of video. It is asocial and irresponsible to simply ignore an entire science community.

Again, I totally agree. BTW, I do love your YouTube videos. Keep 'em coming!

Both points roundly debunked, but they bobble endlessly to the top of the discussion like a turd in a swimming pool.

Very descriptive! Sounds very much like something I would say :).

Other Comments by Fedler

241. Comment #44082 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 23, 2007 at 9:36 am

240. Comment #44079 by Fedler on May 23, 2007 at 9:29 am

Thanks Fedler. I appreciate the vote of confidence:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

242. Comment #44085 by chbg21808 on May 23, 2007 at 9:48 am

240. Comment #44079 by Fedler on May 23, 2007 at 9:29 am... "Brian, thanks for the link. I'm constantly amazed at how much I don't know. My main point was only to stress that all of us here are on the same side. GW is like an iridescent surface. One's perspective may be different from another's, but the surface itself remains the same."

I'm sorry Fedler, you are not speaking for me. Reality is objectively definable... As Aristotle said "A is A". If one position is correct, by definition the other one must be false. How can we all be on the same side... That presupposes everything is relative and there are not contradictions. When you say - "all of us here are on the same side". I most emphatically say, I am not.

As Francis Bacon said: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."

How could we obey nature, if we considered that every opinion was relative and there were no absolutes?

Other Comments by chbg21808

243. Comment #44092 by Fedler on May 23, 2007 at 10:00 am

chbg21808-

You do not deny AGW. Neither does Brian. In that way, you're the same.

You disagree to what extent AGW effects the overall climate change issue. In that way, you're different.

That's all. Or have I totally misunderstood this whole thread?

(BTW, I have very much appreciated your comments and links, too, that you have presented. I've learned all sorts of stuff that I didn't otherwise know and I thank you [and Brian] for that.)

Other Comments by Fedler

244. Comment #44093 by chbg21808 on May 23, 2007 at 10:04 am

I do "deny" AGW... Haven't you read any of my posts? ...I am a skeptic and I will remain a skeptic, until someone produces evidence to convince me otherwise.

And thank you for your comments

Other Comments by chbg21808

245. Comment #44098 by Fedler on May 23, 2007 at 10:13 am

From your post 223. Comment #43947 by chbg21808:

"I will say it again... and I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, till it sinks in. I am not an AGW denier... I am Skeptical, the reason I am skeptical is because no scientist has been able to produce a definite causal link between man and global warming." [emphasis added]

Yes, I've been reading your posts. Apparently I've misunderstood.

Other Comments by Fedler

246. Comment #44105 by chbg21808 on May 23, 2007 at 10:19 am

Yes, you have misunderstood. Believe me... me and Brian are poles apart.

So I am not misunderstood... There is absolutely no evidence... whatsoever, that proves a causal link between man and Global Warming. I cannot put it more clearly than that.

And for those that claim there is evidence, well, the burden of proof is theirs.

Other Comments by chbg21808

247. Comment #44119 by pewkatchoo on May 23, 2007 at 10:46 am

I too am an AGW skeptic. Not a denier! I believe that there is evidence for Global Warming. But we need to examine more closely if it is due purely, or even mainly, to solar activity or if it is anthropogenic. In actual fact AGW would be a better bet for mankind as there is at least an outside chance that we could do something about it. One thing I do know and that is when to recognise patterns in human behaviour. There is a huge industry now behind AGW, scientific, business and political, that is now geared towards keeping the public convinced of the merits of AGW. It keeps the prolls under control don't you know! It has happened before and it is happening again.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

248. Comment #44132 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 23, 2007 at 11:19 am

There is a huge industry now behind AGW, scientific, business and political, that is now geared towards keeping the public convinced of the merits of AGW.

Yeah the money these climatologists earn is incredible. Thats why they do it. Say AGW it's true. Tens of thousands of scientists in hundreds of nations. For the money.

That just makes an amazing amount of sense, all the science is just a front.

Though (other than the money) it does make you wonder, why these scientists even bother, I mean, when some guy on a blog can just "debunk" them? Seems to me they've got the short end of the stick.

You do all the work, you put in the hours and the peer review process is working for you. Then along comes some guy, functionally a know nothing in your complex discipline, and "debunks" you. Thats got to suck.

But hey keep up the good work there!! Religions everywhere thank you for the invaluable contribution you are making to undermine public trust in mainstream science in particular, and the scientific method in general.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

249. Comment #44151 by chbg21808 on May 23, 2007 at 1:10 pm

QUOTE... Wall Street Turns Bearish on Global Warming Stocks as Hysterical Bubble Peaks

Despite Hollywood and the media's love affair with Al Gore, it seems that the smart money on Wall Street has turned cold to the concept of global warming.

As has been noted by many skeptical scientists, this current period of temperature rise that began in the '70s may actually have peaked in 1998. Yet, the real hysteria surrounding this issue reached a zenith with the cataclysm of Hurricane Katrina, and the arrival of the equally disturbing schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth." ...CLOSE QUOTE
http://newsbusters.org/node/11068

Other Comments by chbg21808

250. Comment #44160 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 23, 2007 at 1:45 pm

And here's me thinking, this guy can't possibly find sources dumber and more biased than the shite he's already trotted out.

Well consider me corrected.

A more dystopian, dank and deluded corner of the internet could hardly exist. This place takes the cake for Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney worship.

I invite everyone to have a look, pick an article at random and let the vibrating lunacy wash over you.

You've outdone yourself this time chbg21808. Your rebuttals are invaluable as evidence of the wierd ideological holes you must dig in to find supporting "evidence" for your ... ah ... "position".

Keep up the good work, I hardly need do anything except invite people to read the links you've posted.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen