Comments by chbg21808

51. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

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

52. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

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!

53. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

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

54. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

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 :(

55. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43469 by chbg21808 on May 21, 2007 at 2:44 pm

I agree USA_Limey

Those who do not believe science can be corrupted through politics... look at the DDT ban, started not based on good science, but based on a science fiction story by Rachel Carson 'Silent Spring'. Malaria was nearly completely irradiated thanks to DDT... The banning led to millions of deaths.

The Lies of Rachel Carson
by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html

QUOTE... 196. Comment #43458 by Buddha on May 21, 2007 at 2:07 pm... Regardless of the root cause of present day global warming, increased levels of CO2 will amplify the warming effect. This is well established science and has been for over 100 years. ...CLOSE QUOTE

"Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Meterorology: "It's absurd. Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air."

Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Meterorology

56. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43450 by chbg21808 on May 21, 2007 at 1:43 pm

QUOTE... "Yes ... that is true. Of course all previous periods of warming and cooling occurred without the assistance of 6.5 Billion humans, or about 3.3 billion flatulent, domesticated herd animals."...CLOSE QUOTE

...Your logic here completely escapes me. You said "Yes ... that is true. Of course all previous periods of warming and cooling occurred without the assistance of 6.5 Billion humans" ...Well, you have answered exactly the point I was making in my previous post. That is the point. If it happened without their assistants, then logically there is no reason to suppose, anything other than it still can.

QUOTE... The idea that we (and they) are having little or no effect is the real religion, such touching faith in the planets capacity to cope, and in the teeth of the relevant scientific community! Jerry Falwell would be proud. ...CLOSE QUOTE

...Well, I'm not quite sure how to respond to this statement, because I don't know what to make of it. Not sure what you are getting at with the Jerry Falwell remark either... Unless you are saying that anyone who is skeptical of the AGW model is a fundamentalist?

And your remark on my position being something to do with faith. Have I even once, given any reason for you to suppose, I hold the view I do from a position of faith? ...Well I can assure you, I most certainly do not.

I'm sorry, but your whole approach seems to be based on attacking my position, not based on what I think, but based on what you presuppose I think.

On virtually every response to my posts, you have not responded to my comments, but rather, you have put words in my mouth, apparantley based on your own assumptions of what you think, I think and then responded to those assumptions... RE: "such touching faith in the planets capacity to cope, and in the teeth of the relevant scientific community!" ...You are responding to a belief I never even put forward.

Your "relevant scientific community!" comment, is also very telling. It suggests that unless it is a consensus opinion, then it has no validity. We are back to science by public vote again. Basically what you seem to be saying is, that any scientist that disagrees has no relevance... Is that what you are saying?

What kind of subjectively minded World would we live in, if the consensus of the majority was held up as the truth, at the expense of evidence. Both sides must be heard. We are not talking about wacko fundies here... We are talking about trained scientists who remain skeptical, not based on faith... But because they consider the evidence demands them to be.

57. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43226 by chbg21808 on May 21, 2007 at 12:27 am

QUOTE... 191. Comment #43188 by Raksha on May 20, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I hate to interrupt what I'm sure will continue to be a heated debate with what is probably blatently obvious but...
Nobody appears to be foolish enough to attempt to argue that the climate is not changing rapidly...CLOSE QOUTE

Of course the climate changes... Nobody has denied that it does. The planets temperature has never been static, the argument has never been, is global warming happening? (remember the global cooling scare stories in the 70's) - the argument is... is it man-made and is it harmful? - On both counts I am skeptical. Global warming and cooling are perfectly normal.

QUOTE... "1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.

1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The tabloids inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the "New Glaciation". The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.

1977 to present: Warming period. The summer of 2003 is said to be the warmest one since the Middle Ages. The tabloids notify us of widespread catastrophes due to "global warming". The causes of warming are discovered - humanity and its carbon-dioxide-generating fossil-fuel use and deforestation." ...CLOSE QUOTE

(Note if you read the full article from the link below, you will note that the author was being facetious, in the last sentence above).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350746/posts

What is never explained either, is that both warming and cooling have occurred during the industrial revolution.

On top of that, the Middle Ages had temperatures closely comparable to today and neither now or the Middle Ages were the Warmest Periods in our long planets history. The atmosphere's composition during the dinosaur era was vastly different as well. Carbon dioxide levels were up to 12 times higher than today's levels.

58. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42855 by chbg21808 on May 20, 2007 at 2:33 am

Global Warming Issue: Computer models forecast rapidly rising global temperatures, while data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show only slight warning. But since climate undergoes natural fluctuations, both warming and cooling on various timescales, it is important to determine how much of the observed warming is anthropogenic {human-caused}.
http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/keyissue.html

The IPCC Controversy an Overview
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/ipcccont.html

The global warming scam
By Derek Kelly, PhD
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350746/posts

Media Promote Global Warming Fraud
By Cliff Kincaid | February 5, 2007
http://www.aim.org/aim_column/5219_0_3_0_C/

'An Inconvenient Truth': climate change is indeed a moral issue, By Bob Carter | October 11, 2006
http://www.aim.org/guest_column/4927_0_6_0_C/

Marlo Lewis responds to assertions made by Al Gore on the Oprah Winfrey show
YouTube Video

59. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42735 by chbg21808 on May 19, 2007 at 9:21 am

QUOTE... 186. Comment #42706 by windweaver on May 19, 2007 at 5:50 am
Brian,
you've clearly won the debate with chgb21808. I'm suspicious of anyone who's an Ayn Rand acolyte. They're just rampant free-market capitalists with no compassion for their fellow man... CLOSE QUOTE

I'm sorry but that is a ridiculous statement... I am not an Ayn Rand acolyte. I have integrated much of Ayn Rand's work, in much the same way as Michael Shermer has. You seem to imply that the article is a total damning of her philosophy... Michael Shermer does indeed have criticism's of Rand and so do I. But I don't dismiss and throw out the entire philosophy because I don't agree with all of it. I keep what I agree with and throw out the rest... I don't agree with her comments on selfishness for example.

If you knew anything about Michael Shermer, you would know that he is a fan of much of her philosophy... But he does criticize part of it.

I take on board some of her philosophy and dispense with the rest, in exactly the same spirit as the comments of Michael Shermer below, which is from the very same link you produced:

"The critic of part of a philosophy does not necessarily repudiate the whole philosophy. This is a personal caveat to Objectivists and readers of Skeptic alike. Rand critics come from all political positions--left, right, and middle. Professional novelists generally disdain her style. Professional philosophers generally refuse to take her work seriously (both because she wrote for popular audiences and because her work is not considered a complete philosophy). There are more Rand critics than followers. I am not one of them. Ayn Rand has probably influenced my thinking more than any other author. I have read all of her works, including her newsletters, early works, and the two major biographies. I have even read the Brobdingnagian Atlas Shrugged no less than three times, plus once on audio tape for good measure. Thus I am not a blind critic. (Some of Rand's critics have attacked Atlas without ever reading it, and Objectivism, without ever knowing anything about it. I have encountered many of these myself. Even the pompously intellectual William Buckley spoke of the "desiccated philosophy" of Atlas, "the essential aridity of Miss Rand's philosophy," and the tone of Atlas as "over-riding arrogance," yet later confessed: "I never read the book. When I read the review of it and saw the length of the book, I never picked it up." Nothing could be more irrational.) I accept most of Rand's philosophy, but not all of it. And despite my life-long commitment to many of Rand's most important beliefs, Objectivists would no doubt reject me from their group for not accepting all of her precepts. This is ultimately what makes Objectivism a cult." ..Michael Shermer

(They would reject me for exactly the same reason.)

Oh and by the way, Michael Shermer is a libertarian and libertarians are pro-capitalism. So, are you saying he has no compassion for his fellow man either? ... Because as you have stated above, you clearly think I don't.

http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml/

60. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42692 by chbg21808 on May 19, 2007 at 4:09 am

Well, there I would agree, if you are talking about the current wave of terrorism from Islamic extremists. Terrorism is certainly a problem. Although I am rather like Sam Harris on this. I don't think we should be using the word terrorism, which suggests that terrorism is the symptom.

Terrorism is just one method that Islamic fundamentalists use. It is the religious ideology that we need to fight and not just terrorism, terrorism is just a symptom of a much wider problem.

Though I'm glad to see that your not fundamentally against nuclear energy.

61. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

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

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

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.

62. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42679 by chbg21808 on May 19, 2007 at 3:28 am

"For decades, solar proponents have predicted that we would soon get 20% to 100% of our energy from solar sources — biomass, hydro, wind, solar-thermal, photovoltaics and others.

The dreamy-eyed predictions all failed because they were based on emotional urges and political agendas rather than honest assessments. The gurus were numerous, but solar energy is a topic of science, where votes don't count, even when they come from high-profile lawyers, political appointees, and leaders of environmental organizations."

The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won't Run the World, 2nd Edition
http://www.valeslake.com/bookmart.htm

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.

Gore's Policies Keep Africa in the Dark
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/interviews/2007/3414paul_driessen.html

63. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42677 by chbg21808 on May 19, 2007 at 3:23 am

Read Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, By Ayn Rand

64. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

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.

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

Without free market competition, you wouldn't even have a computer, or shoes on your feet, or medicine for your your yourself and your family, or any other technology most of us are so happy to use.

Read Christopher Hitchens books on Paine and Jefferson, you might learn something.

65. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

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.

Many of the environmentalists are not pro-environment, they are anti-technology. They will not be happy until we are dragged back to the Dark Ages and are living in mud huts.

There are genuine environmental problems. But time and again throughout mans history, environmental problems have been solved through technological progress.

I have already said more about this in comment:
23. Comment #41350 by chbg21808 on May 16, 2007 at 1:23 am

66. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42664 by chbg21808 on May 19, 2007 at 2:36 am

Even I have admitted that as a skeptic, I am willing to be convinced by evidence. If someone can show an explicit causal link, between man-made global warming that is backed by good evidence, then I will say I was wrong.

Where are the peer reviewed papers that show such a causal link... There aren't any and until or if there are, I have a right to remain skeptical.

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... The fact is that it is not a scientific claim, it is a belief.

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.

67. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

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. It's a politicians statement.

Even I have admitted that as a skeptic, I am willing to be convinced by evidence. If someone can show an explicit causal link between man-made global warming that is backed by good evidence, then I will say I was wrong.

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.

68. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42656 by chbg21808 on May 19, 2007 at 1:20 am

Here is an excellent Blog - Real Climate Science from real scientists. What is excellent about this site is that there is no bias. There are both AGW sceptics and those for:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10

Also,

May 18, 2007

Scientifically Incorrect Statements in IPCC WGI

Prof. Roger Pileke Sr, Climate Science weblog, May 18 2007

http://www.globalwarming.org/

More Scientifically incorrect statements:

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/05/18/wg1-ipcc-chapter-1-more-scientifically-erroneous-statements/

"With the legal decision in the United States to define CO2 as a pollutant (see), the important question on how to include this climate forcing in the assessment of emssion controls with respect to the traditional primarily health related pollutants need to be considered. For example, should the climate forcing of CO2, which is claimed will result in major changes in the environment, be a more important consideration than the health effects of pollutants such as produced by fuels that are intended to reduce the emission of CO2."

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/category/climate-change-regulations/

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

Kevin Trenberth, who is listed as a contributing author of the 2007 IPCC climate summary, surprised me, given his belief in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), when he said "climate models are markedly deficient by not adequately representing tropical cyclones." Sea surface temperatures get too warm in the models due to improper handling of "surface energy exchanges from hurricanes in the global energetics of the climate system". I've posted about several of the problems with the models before but this was confirmation from a major researcher."

NOTICE THE WORD BELIEF ABOVE: NOT A SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT.

http://blogs.woodtv.com/?p=1919

"There has been over-claiming or exaggeration, or at the very least casual use of language by scientists, some of whom are quite prominent,"
Professor Hulme told BBC News.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6655449.stm

Note at the end of the report it says... "All three men hold the view that human activity lies behind the recent rise in Earth's global average temperature."

I just want Brian to understand, that I am not trying to hide anything and I'm sure you'd agree BELIEVE is not a scientific statement. And they are far more sanguine about Global Warming than most AGW fundies.

A Litmus Test For Global Warming - A Much Overdue Requirement

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/04/04/a-litmus-test-for-global-warming-a-much-overdue-requirement/

69. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

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.

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.

70. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42509 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 10:02 am

We all have heard that "correlation does not imply causation." However, with such a high correlation, it's likely safe to assume that one variable likely modulates the other, whether through direct causation or not. On long-term time scales, it does not seem likely that carbon dioxide could modulate temperature in such a dominant manner. Thus, it is likely that temperature would modulate carbon dioxide over time, which makes sense: global temperature, which changes primarily due to solar cycles (see below), modulates biological activity and ocean storage of CO2 (a warmer ocean retains less carbon dioxide, so as temperatures rise (fall), the oceans "exhale" ("inhale") carbon dioxide). However, while carbon dioxide changes as temperature changes, CO2 has a positive feedback (it induces some warming, which causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which further increases the greenhouse effect) that allows the climate system to undergo dramatic temperature swings as the solar cycles and other forcings change the Earth's temperature.

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

71. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

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

Yes, please go ahead.

72. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42496 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 9:47 am

CO2 is not a poison anymore than oxygen is... You have fallen into the trap. Also, the amount of carbon dioxide produced by humans compared to the carbondyoxide produced from the sea, vegetation, volcanoes etc, etc... is miniscule.

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 and solar flares.

73. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42488 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 9:32 am

Like I said Brian you are totally irrational... There you go again appealing to authority.

Is sourcewatch your God or something???

I've heard all the crap before about the petition being doctored and all the crap that goes with it. Trouble is no one can produce any scientific evidence to rebut it... Strange that. Well no, not really strange. Like I have already said... No scientist has ever shown a direct correlation between man and global warming.

Well, well... Isn't that a suprise... The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change is in Source Watch too.

74. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42469 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 9:07 am

During the past several years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.

Explanation of the petition

75. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

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.

The global warming hypothesis has failed every relevant experimental test. It lives on only in the dreams of anti-technologists and population reduction advocates. The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

Global Warming Petition Project

Be sure to read the peer reviewed scientific paper on which this petition is based.
Click here.

And by the way, despite you claiming the contrary... You don't need a PhD to understand the science in this paper.

76. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

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

Oh, I see... It's now your ten to my one, I see. Well that's nice of you.

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.

77. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42404 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 6:58 am

Did I say Steve Malloy was perfect... no. All I said was read his book you may learn something. Indeed, there is much in his book I don't agree with and some of it is even nonsense. But was Malloy's book worth reading... absolutely.

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.

It's good that you criticize Malloy... It's a shame you are not willing to turn the same criticism on the IPCC.

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.

78. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

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.

79. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42386 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 6:25 am

124. Comment #42377 by scot on May 18, 2007 at 6:12 am chbg21808, Just wanted to say that I've enjoyed this thread and it's good to see more skeptics on this site.

Yes, high Scot... Welcome. Indeed, religion is exactly the right word.

80. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

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

You might want to read Steve Malloy's book... 'Junk Science Judo' Brian. You might learn something. But I guess you just prefer ad hominems... I wondered how long it would last, before you were at it again.

I think you are just about, the most irrational person I have ever met. It is impossible to even mention someone's name without you shouting out some silly diatribe about them, have you not ever considered reading something and then thinking for yourself... Instead of believing someone's second hand comments of another individuals character?

81. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42371 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 5:51 am

I have already given you the reason why I dismiss it... 104. Comment #42240 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 1:07 am and... 5. Comment #40553 by chbg21808 on May 14, 2007 at 1:11 pm

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.

That's the economic reason.

The social reason is simply what a waste of time, money and resources that could of gone to something genuinely beneficial... AIDS research for example, promotion of condom use in third World Africa, Stem Cell Research. As it is it is just time money and resources being pissed away on bullshit.

Essentially, it is costing trillions of dollars for no benefit... It is insane.

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.

82. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42367 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 5:46 am

83. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42354 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 5:30 am

"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."

What do you think I've been doing for the last ten years Brian? It is certainly true and I agree. It is hard for a member of the general public to weigh up all the science.

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.

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.

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.

84. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42296 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 3:25 am

Actually you might not talk to me this evening... My Richard Dawkins DVD, "Growing Up in the Universe" has just this minute, arrived in the post... I am going to lock myself in the room with a "Do not Disturb" sign.

One think that is disappointing about this DVD... Why have a quote from a Bishop on it as a testimonial? ...A minor quibble, but hey ho.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

QUOTE... "what would it take for you to "beleive"? Clearly a majority of the relevant experts isn't enough. Would 100% suffice?" ...CLOSE QUOTE

One word would convince me... Evidence.

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 said:

"As I am sure you are aware, one cannot prove a negative. Which by asking me to produce evidence against man-made global warming is impossible to do. It is you who are making a positive claim that global warming is man-made, therefore the burden of proof is yours." ...end quote

And you said:

"Well yes that's fair I suppose, but I think the case is made because all these scientists keep saying it is. I'm just trying to understand why this leaves you cold." ...end quote

So, you agree that all the work is on your side. And your very comment "Well yes that's fair I suppose" is essentially an admittance on your part, that their is no evidence for me to refute... or if it's not, explain to me why it's not?

And your comment "I think the case is made because all these scientists keep saying it is".

Can you produce one shred of evidence that ALL these scientists keep saying it is?

What are you implying; that all THESE scientists are right? and all THOSE scientists are wrong?

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.

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.

Even your comment is flawed... You say "I think" not "I know because of the evidence". Well "I think" is not an absolute statement of fact. It is a subjective claim of your own personal view.

My skeptism on the other hand is admittedly, not based on an absolute... It is exactly that, skepticism. As a skeptic I am open to evidence.

It is the same kind of vague language as used in the IPCC that I mentioned earlier... "Balance of evidence", "suggests" and "discernible" etc.

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.

If you do manage it, you will become famous and make front page news on every newspaper on the planet... I wish you luck, and If you do succeed, I will be the first to shake your hand and say, well done! ...Am I being facetious, well maybe a litte.

85. The Colbert Report: The Intolerant

Comment #42289 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 3:14 am

That was genius... I love it. I love the bit about atheists buildings, "you might want to throw in some marble and colored windows"

86. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42271 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 2:25 am

I've noticed Dr. Michael Shermer's Skeptics Society is a 'K' too... Maybe I'll revert to that spelling from now on.

You bloomin' yanks... ruining the English language (joke).

87. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42264 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 2:13 am

I have beem spellig Skeptic as Sceptic... I have just looked in the dictionary and there do seem to be two spellings of the word, though skeptic seems to be the more commen spelling.

I think one is a US spelling and one is UK... Because on my UK spell checker it shows Sceptic as correct and on a US dictionary (answers.com) if you go to sceptic it says "see skeptic".

88. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42240 by chbg21808 on May 18, 2007 at 1:07 am

QUOTE... 103. Comment #42197 by briancoughlanworldcitizen - chbg21808, Let me know how you want to proceed....CLOSE QUOTE

Well firstly I have constantly been called a denier of AGW in this debate... I have already explained why I am a sceptic and not a denier in 36. Comment #41779 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 12:34 am.

Secondly, after my tired rant last night, a few cogent points against the IPCC:

The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created by the United Nations to act as a source of scientific advice on global warming. Its assessment, predicting a global temperature increase of between 0.9 C and 3.5 C by the year 2100, with a "best estimate" of 2.0 C.

Climate Change 1995 is the source of perhaps the most often quoted sentence in the global warming debate: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on the global climate."Upon this slender reed is hung the claim of a "scientific consensus" on the need to "stop global warming." Yet, how meaningful is this sentence?

"Balance of evidence" is a phrase used by scientists when evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship is unavailable. It is an admission that genuine proof is not possible. The word "suggests" indicates that different people looking at the same data can disagree on their meaning. And "discernible" means detectible but by no means large or significant. It certainly does not mean "major," "troubling," or even "bad."

There is no direct evidence of a causal link between man and Global Warming. One can show evidence of warming and cooling, no problem. But one absolutely cannot combine that with mans activity. All scientists (politicians and the media) have been able to do, is offer...Ifs, buts and maybes.

It is not up to me to disprove AGW... Those who claim a link, still have all their work to do, to produce evidence of such a link.

And your comment: "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."

This is just an ad hominem rant. Strength in debate comes from attacking the argument, not the man who made the argument. That is just a sign of intellectual weakness and impresses nobody.

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.

It seems to me, that anyone who disagrees with your opinion, is beyond knowing. They must be wrong because their opinion does not fit into your world-view.

It would be fair enough, if you simply disagreed and came back with a cogent argument. But your responses are all arbitrary verbal ejaculations of the type... What was it you said? ..."dodgy characters".

89. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42075 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 3:11 pm

Yes I agree. I think the scientists are mostly innocent pawns, that are just trying to do good science and earn their paychecks. Scientists have to put food on the table like everyone else... and they will go where the grant money is.

Even if it were true that AGW was having an effect on the climate, there is no good evidence that an increase in temperature would be harmful. Indeed, quite the opposite. Of course, I am not now referring to the doomsday science fiction scenarios of Al Gore, et al.

90. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42064 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 2:50 pm

Hi Limey and thanks.

You tell me?

I guess if you hear something for long enough, especially through constant bombardments from the media and politicians, who often act as the mouthpiece of the scientists (which in itself is bound to lead to destortions), then eventually it imbeds so deep in the brain cells, that it is virtually unshakable... Rather like religion. Indeed, the IPCC report has become the new bible and is not to be questioned.

91. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42050 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 2:24 pm

"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."

A none entity... what the hell does that mean???? ...Oh yes, he hasn't got a PhD after his name... I guess his comments are worthless. For christ sake Brian, listen to yourself... I'm afraid pewkatchoo was right, your behaving like a fundy.

I really do give in. It is impossible to have a serious conversation with you, you put a spin on every comment.

92. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42041 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 2:05 pm

The Fourteen Frauds of the Kyoto Protocol.

1. The Consensus Fraud: - It claims that we have certainty when there is none and claims scientific consensus when there is none. Furthermore there is absolutely no consensus on the economic inputs to the models.

2. The Averaging Fraud: - It translates global averages into local events.

3. The "Warming is Bad for Us" Fraud: - The benign period of the middle ages was warmer than today and civilizations flourished.

4. The "Climate Change is Unnatural" Fraud: - the Kyoto protocol assumes that climate change is unnatural, is caused by human action and hence will response to human intervention, and used the Hockey Stick to support this argument. In reality climate change is normal and natural, and the Hockey Stick is a fraud.

5. The Economic Inputs Fraud: - The IPCC models are driven by economic inputs as well as climate change theory. The economic inputs are so wildly improbable, and theoretically unsound, as to be fraudulent.

6. The Intergenerational Equity Fraud: - Future generations will be wealthy beyond our dreams and will be able to adapt to climate change; poor people today should not suffer today to improve the lot of the wealthy populations of tomorrow.

7. The Population Fraud: - The population implosion is well underway and will achieve Kyoto type reductions in emissions at no direct cost.

8. The Energy Fraud: - The IPCC models assume fossil fuel use rates which deny historical records and reject all known trends. Carbon dioxide emissions are falling - not rising, as the IPCC fraudulently claims.

9. The End of Technology Fraud: - Technological changes and impacts, now under way, will allow us to live wherever we choose and with greatly reduced environmental impacts, and greatly reduce our use of fossil fuels.

10. The Gross Emissions Fraud: - The Kyoto protocol focuses on gross emissions rather than net emissions. This makes the US look like "the great polluter" rather than a net carbon sink - which it probably is.

11. The Roots not Shoots Fraud: - The Kyoto protocol focuses on carbon credits in the trees rather than the carbon absorbed into soil organisms.

12. The Great Flatulence Fraud: - Our New Zealand farmers are the most efficient ruminant farmers and should be telling others how to match our own performance rather than being cast as the villains of the methane world.

13. The Inter- Generational Equity Fraud: - There are no grounds for requiring people today to suffer on behalf of future wealthier generations. Wealth facilitates adaptation and humans are uniquely adaptable.

14. The Hockey Stick Fraud: - Finally, the IPCC's "Hockey Stick" is based on fraudulent manipulation of the data. The graph attached as Appendix I below shows that the medieval benign period and the mini-ice-age and the subsequent warming all actually happened. The "Hockey Stick" is the greatest fraud of all.

Extract from
CLICK HERE

93. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42038 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Well OK Brian

Here's somethink more up to date for you:

Errors in IPCC climate science

94. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

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

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made headlines with its claim that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." Now there is evidence suggesting that this assessment was driven by politics, and not science.
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

95. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42020 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 1:09 pm

I've read the IPPC reports and I already have the link.

96. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42016 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 1:02 pm

As I am sure you are aware, one cannot prove a negative. Which by asking me to produce evidence against man-made global warming is impossible to do. It is you who are making a positive claim that global warming is man-made, therefore the burden of proof is yours.

No scientist as of yet, has conclusively been able to prove a causal link between Global Warming and man.

97. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #42011 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 12:47 pm

"Interesting article, but it's hardly a smoking gun is it? One guy, one small study, no follow up as yet?"

Well that's a pretty meaningless statement. I'm not even sure what you mean about "smoking gun". ... I never claimed it was the article to stop all further debate, if that's what you mean. I already said why I put the link up.

Sometimes your comments are incredibly vague and subjective... If I was a little more cynical, I would suspect, the reason for the smoking gun remark, was simply a smokescreen to dodge any serious rebuttal.

I could of course tit-for-tat post one link to your link and so on, back and forth. But whatever I post, you'll think I'm part of a conspiracy anyway. Lets just agree to disagree.

98. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41993 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Well Brian... I'm glad you bought up the NewScientist link.

Here is an article by the former editor of New Scientist Nigel Calder
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

99. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41979 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 11:53 am

"Well the giggling is mutual. Which is it now, so simple a few chaps on a blog can see the "flaws" in the science, or so complex that no program can ever model it?"

Well actually it is both Brian and no that is not a contradiction. Even the scientists of the "consensus" have stood up to admit computer modelling is flawed, simply because of the complexity in weather patterns.

While the complexity in weather patterns is complex, it is still possible to make correlations in real World scientific experiments that do not rely on computer models. When this is done. There is a contradiction between the data of weather balloon temperatures for example and the temperatures that are modelled in the computer. This is obviously because something is missing in the computer data that we don't yet know about.

That is just one example. There are many variables that don't correlate between the computer models and real life experiments. From this one can conclude that the computer models are not picking up all the variables.

The politics that has corrupted the science is the ignorance of these variables.

100. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41971 by chbg21808 on May 17, 2007 at 11:39 am

"Climatology is not. It's hard, detailed and complex stuff, which people spend their lives becoming proficient in. I'm sorry if the implication of this offends."

No Brian you don't offend me... you are just making me giggle a lot.

Well, yes I agree and so do the scientists. Far to complex to be modelled through computer science. It is the fact that it is so complex that is at the root of the problem.

No computer can predict all the variables in weather patterns. Yet much of the AGW science has come out of this modelling.

Oh... and I'm from England by the way... So I am not subject to the US propaganda of which you speak.