651. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42691 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 19, 2007 at 4:08 am

Rwanda is a long way off industrialisation, poverty problems need to be solved. Part of that solution is economic growth. Until the "you can't have" policy is removed, that will never happen.

Why never? Energy is the problem, sure. However, within 30 years we (the developed world generally) could wean ourselves off fossil fuels. Through a combination of renewables, efficiency, bio fuels (I'm nervy about this one though), nuclear and by then hopefully coming on stream fusion.

In the meantime, the fossil fuels we are no longer sucking up fall in price, and the developing world gets a shot at climbing up the ladder.

As economies become more sophisticated the dependence on fossil fuels falls, birth rates drop and we are into a virtous circle.

652. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42688 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 19, 2007 at 4:01 am

180. Comment #42687 by chbg21808 on May 19, 2007 at 3:56 am

No, I am not seriously suggesting that we build power stations in Rawanda... lol. I am simply saying we should drop the "you can't have" policy.

OK, that still means then that they can build them in Rawanda. I'm genuinely convinced of the safety of modern plants, I have done some reading on the subject. Particularly pebble bed plants developed in South Africa.

That said terrorism, the danger of nuclear material escaping into "the wild" increases exponentially with each new player. That is not a show stopper, but it carries at a minimum some spiralling cost implications.

653. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42683 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 19, 2007 at 3:51 am

Forcing solar energy on the third world nations is obscene in the extreme. They are entitled to the same technology as the rest of the World. Not technologies that are extortionately over priced that they can ill afford.

We should be pushing for more clean and efficient nuclear energy, not bloody windmills.

I had so hoped we were moving closer:-) Let me try and inch a little further towards you.

I'm not against nuclear power, especially modern or small scale pebble bed plants. However, while genuine safety concerns are largely dealt with, terrorism is a major wild card that should give us pause.

As regards wind and solar. These plants are getting better, and wind in the EU is already mainstream. Solar is not far behind, and nanosolar (for example) seem to have economies of scale that stack up favourably.

It's a great solution, and yes this stuff is expensive ... but so are nuclear power plants, are you really suggesting we build those in say ... Rawanda?

If the developing world can skip the construction of massive plants, and expensive transmission infrastructure, as they have done with telephony, it allows them to leapfrog a whole series of problems. Really, think about it.

Distributed wind and solar can do that. Don't be such a gloomy sour puss, I'm the "The End is Nigh" guy in this discussion, remember?

654. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42678 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 19, 2007 at 3:27 am

Indeed, viva capitalism and I am not ashamed to say it.

Why should you be? Everything you say about it is true. It has lifted billions of us to standard of living that royalty could only dream of even 200 years ago.

However, getting 6.5+ billion of us to the same living standard will be very challenging. Although ironically getting people up to a certain standard of living is critical, because thats when they start having fewer kids.

It's a balancing act, and energy conservation and hyper efficient appliances, homes and transport are a critical and unavoidable component. Oh and fucking nuclear fusion would someone please get their finger out!!

655. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42674 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 19, 2007 at 3:20 am

174. Comment #42673 by chbg21808 on May 19, 2007 at 3:13 am

Many third-world nations use wood, straw, dung, leaves or other materials for heating... This leads to very early deaths from lung cancer. There is nothing good about going back to nature.


Totally agreed that is a disaster. Burning that kind of stuff releases carcogenic stuff etc. you know the drill. Distributed power local power using solar and wind will become pervasive in the developing world, it's already happening in India.

Who will have the patents, be manufacturing this stuff and running the plants. Us thats who. You have got to escape from this gloomy dystopian view of a drab black and white middle ages you think is looming.

It sounds to me like you are at least worried that global warming is happening, but that any cure will be worse than the disease. I think that human history mitigates against that.

You should read a book called Collapse by Jared Diamond. Good stuff with solutions.

656. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42672 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 19, 2007 at 3:01 am

172. Comment #42671 by chbg21808 on May 19, 2007 at 2:55 am

Well, this is where we differ Brian. I detest the environmentalist "wooden stove" mentality.

I am pro-technology. It is technological progress that leads to cleaner air and more efficient fuel consumption. The big lie is that government regulations that curtail business growth is the key to environmental salvation.

Give me business and technology every time.

Oh you have me soooooo wrong. Don't go anywhere.

This is the stove. It is super efficient modern wood stove which ensures 80% of the generated heat goes into the house.

http://www.contura.se/modeller/c650.asp?c650=intro&meny=c650

I use about 3 kgs of wood on cold day to heat the entire house, and about 6 kgs when it's below zero. My electricity consumption has dropped by 6-8 thousand Kwh per year. The wood is grown locally, and delivered once a year, I'm also growing my own to be harvested in 5 to 10 years. It's a renewable resource that acts as a carbon sink while it's growing.

I love technology, we have 3 computers in the house and I work from home. When this company start mass producing I'll be the first in the queue. http://www.nanosolar.com/

Technology is the answer, but technology means a zillion different things, and it is the opportunity for the developed and developing world to manage this problem in partnership. They have the labour, and we have the brains, that is not going to change any time soon, and is a jaw dropping opportunity.

Vive la globalisation, vive la capitalism, vive la american way (of Jefferson, Franklin and Paine).

657. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42669 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 19, 2007 at 2:51 am

But what about you, are you prepared to be wrong and are you prepared to admit that the evidence for AGW has not yet been produced.

Why would you say this? Even Real Climate which you approve of is full to overflowing with evidence on just this exact thing. You've said this a few times, and it puzzles me each time.

Perhaps you have a different definition of evidence or something?

Even you your self have said you believe it, because you are following majority scientific opinion. But even that majority opinion has to hold it as a belief. They cannot produce one scrap of evidence that makes a causal link.

Again isn't this a mere assertion on your part? Why would 85% of any scientific community accept anything on faith. It is just a ludicrous comment. If this was true, your assertion that it was a religion would be completely correct, but this would require vast numbers of scientists, potentially tens of thousands to all be deluding themselves and others, and over decades.

That is conspiracy nonsense, on par with "all our politicians have been replaced by alien robot clones". It falls at the first hurdle of common sense.

658. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42667 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 19, 2007 at 2:48 am

Even you your self have said you believe it because you are following majority scientific opinion. But even that majority opinion has to hold it as a belief. They cannot produce one scrap of evidence that makes a causal link.

No it's not right to characterize me as some obedient moron. I've looked at the rolled up versions of the evidence, and even some of the detail, and I find it compelling.

I don't understand every single paper ever written on the subject, but neither do you, heck neither do the climatologists!!!

659. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42665 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 19, 2007 at 2:43 am

But what about you, are you prepared to be wrong and are you prepared to admit that the evidence for AGW has not yet been produced. And if you are prepared to, then why do you hold your position as a scientific claim.

Yes. Absolutely. However ...... where I'm confused about these issues, and I am because it's complicated. Not that I'm stupid, I can follow the basic arguments back and forth, but the underlying details is a blizzard.

Where I am confused, I'm going to back up and see what the majority of these egg heads think, what they are suggesting we should do and when to do it by.

I'm not going to slavishly do anything crazy, but I have installed a wood stove (which will medium term save money), I unplug all appliances at night and and we have one small car that gets 50 miles to the gallon.

I'm on the lookout for breakthrough solar power, since giving up on home windpower due to cost and reliability. I think given the evidence (that I can get my head around), and the clear cut position taken by the experts I'd be crazy not to be doing at least what I'm doing.

660. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42663 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 19, 2007 at 2:31 am

165. Comment #42661 by chbg21808 on May 19, 2007 at 2:28 am

Brian, your statement: "I think your guy is probably wrong, because the majority disagree with him."

Don't you even realise how irrational and unscientific that statement is.

I absolutely dispute this. It is an entirely reasonable position for a non expert to take.

If I said "I think he is wrong because african goat herders disagree with him" then you'd have a case.

I think he is wrong because the vast majority of his peers disagree with him. I'm not a climatologist, they are.

661. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42662 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 19, 2007 at 2:29 am

"Top IPCC scientist admits "marked deficiency" in global warming models.

This kind of "headline" is overstating the case for change of mind. Below are some comments made by Trenberth prior to or on the 1st of March. It's part of a larger discussion on the known deficiencies of climate modelling.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/hurricane-heat/#more-413

This is perhaps an interesting example of how we template our own position onto any given statement. I'm encouraged that someone convinced of AGW, is nonetheless engaged in open and frank dialouge about the many issues that must be mastered, monitored and resolved to improve the science.

You see a forced "admission of guilt", or at the very least grounds for dismissal of the entire study, concept or approach.

Which of us is right? Well I think I am because frank exchanges are what make science work. Here is a guy who knows his stuff, including all the problems, and yet is firmly convinced by the evidence that AGW is happening. How do you explain that?

Well he could be wrong, confused, malicious or simply have lost his objectivity. Which of course are the same conclusions I must draw for "your" guys. Yet you must use this crude instrument, for 85% of the relevant experts, and I need only reach for it occasionally.

I do think my response, although I know you dislike "appeals to authority", is very hard to counter.

The smaller the minority, the less likely they are be right. Although this does not hold true in every case, and each breakthrough starts with a miniority, for every one of those there are a million guys where were just wrong. Or so badly off that they "were not even wrong".

662. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42660 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 19, 2007 at 2:15 am

Hey! You've been doing your homework. The comments on the IPCC report are interesting, the butterfly thing might even be right. Two points about this.
1) We've already agreed it's not perfect, and any document created by humans is certain to have flaws. Any substantive body of work, if forensically screened with a view to finding errors, will throw up a few. This guy claims he found 2, but I think he really only found one. More on that later.

2) The real climate site has a nice summary of the level of effort that goes into screening the report : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/ipcc-draft-no-comment/

The 2nd error is a claim I've heard before, and occasionaly seen debunked. Detail here : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/chaos-and-climate/

I have often browsed real climate, but as noted, my last real workout on the subject was about a year ago. So I've only been superficially following whats been going on, until now:-)

Why would "your" guy make the claim he does? I've no idea. Why would "my" guy debunk it? Who the fuck knows. This is where numbers among the experts supporting or decrying a given position becomes pretty important, and is my trump card. So I'm playing it here.

I think your guy is probably wrong, because the majority disagree with him. I'll flip flop on this (and any issue I'm not an expert in) when the tables turn, but thats up to "your" guy to make happen. Good luck to him.

663. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42650 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 10:52 pm

I finally lost it last night ..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJsBYGDeKvE

664. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42552 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 11:42 am

There is no conspiracy - it's all right out there in the open. Limit the west; let the emerging nations go nuts

Thats not exactly the position, but even if it is, why would we do it if it resulted in genuine damage? No one can actually compel us to do anything. All the cards are in our hand.

We come at this thing from a position of extreme strength, and I think it legitimate to make cautious short term concessions for the big win of getting India and China onboard in the medium term.

It is absolutely reasonable to subject the science to the rigour you suggest, I guess my position is that appears to have been done.

Also my comment about the secrecy was not to suggest that you were putting your company at risk or anything, just to highlight an example of how porous organizations are these days.

What kind of industry are you in?

665. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42543 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 11:12 am

I know I'll be ripped apart for this and that's ok but it is NOT just about climatologists in their labs or on Artic ice flows doing science my friends. I am utterly convinced there is a much bigger picture.

No I just don't buy conspiracy. Think about what you've just told us. This is, I suppose relative secret information, which should be kept within your company. Yet here you are!!!

This is not a criticism, merely an observation that in any sufficiently large organisation, secrets of this magnitude cannot be kept.

I'd love to believe Bush masterminded 9/11, I hate that fucker, but common sense simply precludes it.

As regards the CO2 legislation, it sounds great. We in the west get to suck it up for a bit, that seems fair, we have after all been producing the bulk of the CO2 emissions but eventually China and India will get on board, they live in the same world we do. In 5 years the political pressure to do so will be overwhelming.

666. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42522 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 10:26 am

154. Comment #42519 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 10:24 am

I will get back on this tomorrow... I'm of to the fish and chip shop.

Enjoy:-)

667. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42520 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 10:25 am

But you still have a problem. Even if you are correct and it is CO2 pushing up temperatures... You are still at a loss to prove human causation and there is your problem.

I do not see how that follows. If you accept that CO2 is pushing up temps, and we are releasing tons of it into the atmosphere you're agreeing with me now ... surely? Right ..?

668. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42516 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 10:21 am

152. Comment #42513 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 10:16 am

Indeed, it is making that claim... you see how honest I am. I'm not hiding anything from you... did you also read the bit about solar cycles.

Phew, I'd thought you'd gone mad for a moment. OK, but the same article goes on to explain how it all hangs together. Besides you don't need some student site for that, the new scientist article covers it in even greater detail.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

I am aquainted with the ice core thing, and with it's rebuttal. Where does it leave us? The same place ... with me championing the 85% of the lads who think it's a serious long term problem which needs action.

669. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42512 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 10:14 am

http://gwfact.rso.wisc.edu/history.html

OK. These guys are new, and I can't see anyone complaining about them. Thats the plus side.

On the down side, they are a student organisation. On the other down side, the article you cite is in fact making the case for CO2 being a massive concern. Yeah. You need to read these suckers, before you post.

These guys are pure AGW "believers". Take a closer look, I have.
http://gwfact.rso.wisc.edu/misinform.html

670. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42506 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 9:59 am

148. Comment #42502 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 9:54 am

Yes, please go ahead.

The apollo 1 astronauts were killed in a capsule fire because the atmosphere in the spacecraft was pure oxygen. I cite this factoid, in lieu of actual knowledge of the relevant chemistry:-) Thus oxygen is not a poison under any circumstances (except extreme pressures maybe?).

Try surviving in a pure CO2 environment. Past a given amount (and again, I've no idea what that is), CO2 is lethal.

671. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42500 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 9:54 am

Also, Al Gore was wrong. temperature increase does not follow CO2... It is the other way round. C02 follows temperature. Thus, CO2 cannot be causing temperature increases. Something else is going on. That something else appears to be sunpots.

Debunked here : http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

Runaway prevention
The ice ages show that temperature can determine CO2 as well as CO2 driving temperature. Some sceptics – not scientists – have seized upon this idea and are claiming that the relation is one way, that temperature determines CO2 levels but CO2 levels do not affect temperature.

To repeat, the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.

672. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42498 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 9:50 am

CO2 is not a poison anymore than oxygen is...

That statement, certainly is demonstrably false. Of that I'm certain. Would you like to know why?

673. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42494 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 9:39 am

Is sourcewatch your God or something???

No. Its simply an information source I've found reliable in the past. Wikipedia to a lesser degree, but both provide links to all the articles the cite.

You seem to want me to simply accept the assertion (for example) of these guys in Oregon at face value. I won't do that. I will always conduct due diligence on the personalities behind any claim.

I'm sorry. I'm evidenced based now, all the way down. If that makes me a fundamentalist empiricist wacko, then guilty as charged I guess:-(

I'm finding the exchange depressing, because I really think I'm landing hammer blows. Yet you seem utterly unmoved by them. Maybe I am crazy.

674. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #42482 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 9:26 am

Excuse me butting in, but I need an independent third party to ajudicate on something.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1073,Global-Warming-includes-commentary-about-creationism,Brian-Coughlan,page3#comments

On the thread above, am I being objective in this exchange? Say in the last 15 posts or so. I absolutely think I am being super objective, but I have doubts about my objectivity on that score. I need a third party, or several third parties.

Consider it an experiment in neurology.

675. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42475 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 9:16 am

Hey someone else ... anyone else!!! Am I being a complete prick about this? I feel like I'm winning this argument ... am I?

Have I died and gone to cyber hell?

676. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42470 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 9:10 am

I genuinely hate to say this, but I am already familiar with these chaps. I just had no idea how debauched they were. So in that sense it was productive.

They get pummelled on source watch, and a regular ass ripping on wikipedia. The signatories section especially, is simply a jaw dropping exercise in deception. Note that, citations to published articles are supplied for all the assertions and claims madein SW and Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OISM_Petition
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OISM_Petition#Signatories

677. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42462 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 8:55 am

136. Comment #42459 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 8:46 am

This is the website that completely knocks the wind out of the enviro's sails. See over 17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever

this is more like it. Catch you in a few.

678. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42461 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 8:54 am

135. Comment #42455 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 8:27 am

Well I have already produced one in a previous link... But I guess you'll discredit her to...
Warming Up to the Truth: The Real Story About Climate Change by Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D.

She comes out on source watch ok, but wikipedia (generally somewhat more partisan) is not as kind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sallie_L._Baliunas

In particular much of the work she cites in the article, had support withdrawn by many of the people whose work she referenced as foundational to her conclusions. She's also an astrophyicist, nothing wrong with that ... but ... you know, she's not a climatologist. Although I grant you, she has focused on that in the last decade or so.

Anyway, It's all in wikipedia, I mean it could all be lies. But then we are back to conspiracies, and I'm a real tough sell for those.

So nope, I wouldn't consider her a contender, borderline maybe. Also she was an "ozone hole denier" in her time, which suggests a bit of a pathology. Lindzen may be a contrarion, and at loggerheads with most of his peers, but he is at least an established personality in the right field.

679. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42441 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 7:52 am

C'mon I gave you freedom to express your level of trust in Milloy, not perfection. You won't, because to even conceed he is balanced looks ludicrous given the reputation he has.


The difference between you and me Brian is I don't dismiss someone else out of hand as a quack, just at someone else's say so.

The guy is a hack and a huckster, this is not ad-hominem, but fact. Well fact in the loose and free flowing sense I use the word. Multiple, mutually reinforcing sources, citing the original articles and publications. I know!!! It's an insanely vague and religious approach to the thing, but you know me:-)

Well Brian, I have no problem in saying that much of the Global Warming information on the Junkscience website is pretty much on the ball. I guess you disqualify me as a quack too now, right? ...Expecting Brian's link that trashes the junkscience, science, any minute now.

I do not think you are a "quack", just misinformed. You've bought into a particular view, and are reluctant to disengage because you are emotionally invested.

This happens to us all, the trick is to know when it's happening to you. A big fat warning bell is when you dismiss vast numbers of scientists as wrong, cowed, confused or downright malicious. Of course, I am doing the same thing, and I'm acutely concious of that. However, I'm dismissing 10 - 15% of the relevant parties, not 85 - 90%. So I conclude on balance, my position is sound.

As regards dismissing Junk Science (how aptly named!!!), I rather thought that I'd already done that, what with Milloy being behind it. No I have not delved into the detail, but I don't need to. I've saved myself all that hassle by establishing that the prime mover behind that particular information source is a known huckster.

I know this seems terrifically unfair to you, but it's how I operate. What you need are untainted people, since you are struggling, I'll kindly supply you with one.

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/20/2/2/1
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

This guy is mostly the real deal. If you can find 10 climatologists of his calibre, and broadly of his views, I'll leave you alone.

680. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42403 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 6:55 am

I want to hear you say the following. I think Steve Milloy and Junk Science provided an important and truthful balance to the debate. There information is balanced and non partisan, and the science is sound.

Or something like that, you edit as you think fit, but it should reflect the level of trust you have in Milloy.

Go.

681. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42399 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 6:50 am

130. Comment #42394 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 6:45 am

"Let me save you the trouble, by rebutting it before you post. Thats service for you."

Well that's Irish (my apologies to any Irish people). How can you rebut, if you don't know what your rebutting... You haven't seen what I've posted yet.

I'm guessing that article has it covered, you've not come up with anything substantive yet it hasn't. But hey surprise me:-)

As it happens, I am Irish.

Just had a look at the wikipedia article on Milloy. It's not pretty. Source watch is a paragon of rigid neutrality in comparison.

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

[edit] Biographical claims
Milloy's biography on his junkscience.com website claims that he was a member of the judging panel for the 2004 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Journalism Awards.[2] However, the AAAS website does not list him among the 2004 judges.[26] Journalist Paul D. Thacker reported that the AAAS initially invited Milloy as a judge at random, as he is listed in a media directory of journalists as a "science editor". However, Milloy was disqualified as an AAAS judge after the conflict of interest inherent in his position with the partisan Cato Institute was revealed.[27]

There is lots more where that comes from. Junk Science is run by a charlatan and hack, every bit as deplorably manipulative as Jerry Falwell. You've been had.

682. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42388 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 6:30 am

And by the way, what I can do... Is produce evidence that shows, warming of the planet will actually be beneficial to mankind. I will put that in here tomorrow too. I do have the papers on that, but I need to sort through them.

Let me save you the trouble, by rebutting it before you post. Thats service for you.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11657

This new scientist article is a Gaia send isn't it?

683. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42383 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 6:21 am

125. Comment #42382 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 6:18 am

You might want to read Steve Milloys book... 'Junk Science Judo Brian'. You might learn something.

You are kidding me. How can you seriously believe a word that guy would utter, or print after checking his background? I mean honestly.

It goes to the heart of a given individuals credibility as to what level of trust we should place in their comments, or don't you apply this principle?

You dismiss the work of thousands of scientists, about whom you know literally nothing, yet you soak up this guys blather, even knowing what a huckster he is? Source watch is a brilliant resource, for just these kinds of eventualities, and very well regarded. I'm not the irrational one here, sorry man:-)

684. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42375 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 6:12 am

I have also given the reason that even if AGW were true... I'd be against Kyoto for social and economic reasons:

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.

OK so maybe we are getting to the root of your resistance. Planet loves you, why will not embrace planet? Damn ... was that outloud!!

The cost (and I think you got those numbers from a website called "Junk Science") simply confuses the discussion, we need to focus on if we can agree it is happening first, then what to do about it.

That said, let my digress to give this particular observation a good kicking. Junk Science, is run by a guy called Steven Milloy, and he comes in for a spectacular savaging in source watch.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_Milloy

The article tries to be neutral, but golly, that resume is a horror show. Now tell me, had you any idea of the resume this guy had? Are you now appalled, or do you shrug it off?

685. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42368 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 5:46 am

However, what is not so difficult is to identify fraudulent errors, that have led to a politicization of the science. From that a rational person is likely to question the science. You seem to have an obsession with the IPCC report as if it is a perfect embodiment of science.

No it's not perfect, however do you have any idea how hard it is for stuff to get in there? How many scientists review it, and parse every line? No it's not perfect, but it is a solid piece of work, and a resonsible person cannot simply dismiss it as you appear to be keen to do.

686. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42365 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 5:43 am

If you wish I can bring up a list of 100's of these scientists... But I suspect you will just bring up the same old - "working for oil companies" nonsense.

I promise, I will not, if I cannot find relevant evidence. If they are tagged in source watch, then yes, I will.

687. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42364 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 5:42 am

By the way, I do not agree with you that the vast majority of scientists agree with the report. I think you will find a very large number do not. And these are not way out fringe scientists, they are highly qualified PhD's working in major universities.

Man I just blew this piece of conspiracy out the airlock. The newscientist article, the one from this week? Deals with this explicitly. Lets have the discussion in good faith. Why does their detailed deconstruction of this point not impress you?

688. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42361 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 5:39 am

That newscientist article for example, savages almost every single point posted on the "fraud" website.

You have got to KNOW this is creationist behaviour. To mindlessly insist (not you, them) on an alternate reality, when the science has long since moved on.

689. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42358 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 5:36 am

What do you think I've been doing for the last ten years Brian?

Well .... I just don't see how you can come to the conclusions you do, to remain deeply sceptical, after going through this process.

690. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42353 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 5:28 am

Well Brian... I wish you luck in your claim that you can produce direct evidence of a causal link for AGW. Something no scientist has yet achieved.

I'm confused by this comment. It certainly seems to be completely contradicted by the following study. Albeit 3 years old, it's an improvement on your elderly 1995 stuff:-) Don't be a baby about comments like this, it's part of the fun. Read it if you can prise your mind open for long enough:-)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/5702/1686

691. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42349 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 5:23 am

And again, your comment "I think the case is made because all these scientists keep saying it is" - is particularly revealing... It is not a scientific statement, but an argument from authority.

Jesus!! Did you just work this out:-)? Are you reading anything I'm posting? Yes it is an argument from authority, I'm not an expert, and neither are you.

So what do rational people do in that situation? They find out what the experts think. The really clever ones find out what the majority of experts think. They weigh sources, motives and interests. Then they come to a provisional conclusion.

Mine is that AGW is real, and I should take some personal action. This is normal behaviour.

692. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42347 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 5:17 am

I'm trying not to put words in your mouth, but please explain what you mean by ALL? ...I presume you mean, all the scientists that agree with the IPCC report, as apposed to scientists who are skeptical... Please clarify.

Yes this is exactly what I mean. This may shock you, but I consider an IPCC report vastly more compelling than some random website, utterly absent quality control, peer review or independent oversight.

So I'm a crazy fundamentalist for that:-)? C'mon even you can see you are off the rails here?

693. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42346 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 5:16 am

Well Brian what evidence would you like me to produce, to refute AGW... In a previous post you actually agreed with me that this is impossible to do....

I was agreeing that it was impossible to prove anything beyond all doubt. Taking your contention to its logical conclusion nothing that anyone asserts "the sun is a ball of hydrogen", can be proven to your satisfaction.

Yes it is up to me to provide reasons for my contention that AGW is real, and I do. Reading the summaries by the relevant experts, considering the broad support for these contentions in the relevant community, should leave an objective person with the distinct impression we have a problem which needs to be addressed. Thats what I come away with.

You don't because you find the views of a small minority more compelling. Why would that impress you? Michael Behe is better known in evolutionary circles than the work of anyone you've presented here is in GW circles. Why do you, and I dismiss him so readily? Because there are a thousand scientists on the other side.

Your attitude is one of conspiracy, and although you deny this, how you act and weigh up the evidence is indistinguishable from someone who thinks for example that 9/11 was "an inside job".

With that in mind, this part of the newscientist article addresses much of your complaints. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11653

694. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42292 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 18, 2007 at 3:17 am

This is the kind of dirty trick I would expect from a creationist. It is context dropping. Call someone names, without providing context of why you called them those names.

I shall come back to you on your comments this evening, I have to work today. To stretch your religion analogy, I am a moderate not an extremist. The vid makes that plain.

I have repeatedly said that you are welcome to your views, what you are not welcome to is a free ride to promulgate them when your they are clearly informed by wierd little obscure websites, as opposed to main stream science.

You want to argue the science? Fine, I'll do that for a week or two, and I will kick your ass, because I'll be referencing mainstream science, and you ... well .. you won't be.

In the meantime, I have a clear idea of what would convince me that GW is not manmade, what would it take for you to "beleive"? Clearly a majority of the relevant experts isn't enough. Would 100% suffice?

Talk to you this evening:-)

695. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42197 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 10:11 pm

Wow. I seem to have inflamed some passions.

Pewkathcoo. You clearly have not watched the video that started this. Or simply forgotten it's content.

My suggestions for action are modest, and not at all hysterical, in fact since getting into my stride, I'm doing rather a good job of staying calm. I'm just insisting people act like rationalists on this subject too. When a sizeable chunk of the scientific community oppose your position, I submit that you are the obsessive fundamentalist, I'm just trying to point that out, and I absolutely think thats fair.

I guess having your own blind spots pointed out is no fun, but for people who dish it out (to the religious I take it) you sure seem terribly sensitive.

chbg21808 : Your last post to me has you flinging all the toys out of the pram ... again. The guy whose site you reference is a non-entity, like I am (or you perhaps are) a non-entity, at best a low level flunky. Maybe his opinion is sincerely held, but he is associated with some dodgy characters. I always check people out in source watch. I'd recommend you do the same before spending to much time on their stuff. It's all part of the "how to form an opinion without doing every piece of research again" process. Even if he were the most prestigious climatologist on the planet, he is still only one scientist among many thousands. It would of course be more compelling than this chap.

I don't obsess about this subject everytime some hysterical conspiracy theoristchallenges me of course, that would be wierd. Yet, If you want to press on, I'm up for that, I've the bit between my teeth, and I'm confident I can spank you in a week or two. I could be wrong though:-)

So far you presented:

An interesting paper about cosmic rays, which a publication from 16th May 2007 rebuts.

A spat between scientists authoring chapter 8 of the IPCC report in 1995. The author of the change causing the controversy insists it was correct, legitimate and nothing to do with the IPCC. In fact thats comprehensive light shed on that issue, no need to thank me.

A site by some foot soldier in a new zealand AGW denial organisation, peppered with debunked stuff. I reacte with the same exasperation in this context, that you do when a creationist refers you to "Answers in Genesis".

696. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42047 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 2:19 pm

OK, that was more up to date. The author of the blog is fairly obscure, not well known enough to warrant a full entry in http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_Zealand_Climate_Science_Coalition

However his name did lead me to the link supplied. Wow these guys are real skeptics, but it still strikes me as "Jesus is on his way" kind of talk when the claim that a vast "apostasy" is around the corner. Also this website, and the original had plenty of long debunked stuff, most recently in the May 16th New Scientist article. Like complaints about the hockey stick.

The only guy in the group to get a mention in source watch is this fellow: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter and source watch is pretty scathing.

So am I convinced by this? Not really. The original guy, is a non-entity, and the only person of any substance related to him is a controversial figure. Outright scoundrel? Probably not, but I conceeded early on that dissenters exist. Their job is to convince their peers, not tell tales to the media, and these fellows seem to be doing an awful lot of that.

Unfair? Maybe. Tired now. Late. I will pick your last post tomorrow. It's 23:20 here.

697. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42036 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Hmmmm ... interesting. Here's a quick summary. This appears to be a spat between some of the guys involved in drafting chapter 8 of the 1995 report.

This modest conflagration was touched off by the Global Climate Coalition. Here's an excerpt from the response of the accused party :

The Global Climate Coalition - a less than disinterested party - has made serious allegations regarding the scientific integrity of the Lead Authors of Chapter 8, and of the IPCC process itself. We are troubled that Mr. Wamsted did not consult with the Lead Authors of Chapter 8 or with members of the IPCC Working Group I Technical Support Unit before writing his article. Had he done so, he would have gained a better understanding of how and why changes were made to Chapter 8.

Here is the entire exchange between the relevant parties. http://web.archive.org/web/19981202173029/http://www.sepp.org/ipcccont/Item08.htm

That was new, well to me at least, so kudos. However, because of the GCC involvement, the age of the article and the he said/she said tone of the exchange I'd have to say it doesn't shake my "faith" to the core or anything:-)

Perhaps reinforces my view that scientists are human. Nothing significant appears to have come of this issue for anyone, firing or demotion. Also the author of the change disputes strongly that it was anything to do with the IPCC. What about the most recent report, anything on that? I would certainly find that more compelling.

698. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42032 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 1:39 pm

81. Comment #42028 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Nasty. But the article is 11 years old, and I'm going to go off to research it in so more detail.

In the meantime do you consider it legitimate to question the relevance of an 11 year old article about the actions of an unnamed person, in the production of a 12 year old report? Thats my gut reaction, to this. It seems to be reaching. More anon.

699. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42029 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 1:30 pm

If you say, "Well it's better to do something - just in case" then let me remind you of RD's complete dismantling of Pascal's Wager in TGD. While inaction may rub some the wrong way, pretending that we know for certain that AGW is afact. Only those publishing in the field - on both sides - can declare anything with any authority on the matter. Let the scientists do the science. Isn't that what we keep telling the fundies when it comes to evolution?

Isn't this exactly what I've been saying .... nay ... YELLING? The scientists are doing the science, and they are far enough along to make concrete recommendations, which they have.

I'm just insisting it's reasonable to act on those, while keeping a wary eye on how things develop. Inaction is the anti-science position in this issue, not the pro-science position.

700. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42027 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 17, 2007 at 1:25 pm

2) Whether it is real or not, like the existence of God, is for most people, (or countries) irrelevent. So I am afraid I am not very hopeful Brian. Not at all.

So your rather fatalist position is that the objective reality of AGW is irrelevant? Because no one will ever do anything about it?