Comments on: Debunking the climate-change denialists' talking-points http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html Brain candy for Happy Mutants Tue, 21 May 2013 13:21:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: yish http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-213761 yish Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-213761 Interesting, bold move by worldchanging apropos: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008132.html The bottom line is: we've had enough of your nonsense, thank you very much. You can regurgitate your hallucinary circular arguments on your own blog. This is our place, and grievous denial of reality is not acceptable behaviour here. Amen to that. Will they block evolution deniers next? Interesting, bold move by worldchanging apropos: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008132.html

The bottom line is: we’ve had enough of your nonsense, thank you very much. You can regurgitate your hallucinary circular arguments on your own blog. This is our place, and grievous denial of reality is not acceptable behaviour here.

Amen to that. Will they block evolution deniers next?

]]> By: danegeld http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-213773 danegeld Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-213773 While I don't deny that computer simulations show that given some reasonable assumptions, releasing CO2 has the potential to cause global warming, I think that our exhausting of fossil fuels promises to be the most pressing problem. Today we rely on the fact that fossil fuels are available to burn cheaply in order to put ship food around the world and put it on the table. Once that assumption stops being valid, our economies are going to fall apart and some of us are going to die of starvation and lack of clean water much faster than we'll die of the direct consequences of global warming. But damn it, we'll still be able to watch DVDs and digital books, unencumbered with that pesky DRM that we dedicated so much time to trying to liberate ourselves from in the first quarter of the century. While I don’t deny that computer simulations show that given some reasonable assumptions, releasing CO2 has the potential to cause global warming, I think that our exhausting of fossil fuels promises to be the most pressing problem.

Today we rely on the fact that fossil fuels are available to burn cheaply in order to put ship food around the world and put it on the table.

Once that assumption stops being valid, our economies are going to fall apart and some of us are going to die of starvation and lack of clean water much faster than we’ll die of the direct consequences of global warming.

But damn it, we’ll still be able to watch DVDs and digital books, unencumbered with that pesky DRM that we dedicated so much time to trying to liberate ourselves from in the first quarter of the century.

]]> By: prodigous http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-213775 prodigous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-213775 Jesse yes that is the definition of denialist. I am not saying its not used for other things as well. The word itself has taken on extremely negative connotations. I just cant help thinking it reflects poorly on the author when used in this context. Its like calling someone a dirty name after deconstructing his argument. Its a cheap shot. Jesse yes that is the definition of denialist. I am not saying its not used for other things as well. The word itself has taken on extremely negative connotations. I just cant help thinking it reflects poorly on the author when used in this context.
Its like calling someone a dirty name after deconstructing his argument. Its a cheap shot.

]]> By: allennoble http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-213777 allennoble Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-213777 The really disturbing thing is that the "debate" on global warming has become a religious one. When a debate descends to cries and counter-cries of heresy, it stops being a debate. The really disturbing thing is that the “debate” on global warming has become a religious one. When a debate descends to cries and counter-cries of heresy, it stops being a debate.

]]> By: Haldor http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-214289 Haldor Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-214289 @ADavies Thanks for the article. @ADavies

Thanks for the article.

]]> By: Xopher http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-214290 Xopher Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-214290 I prefer the term 'Climate Disruption' to either 'Global Warming' or 'Climate Change'. It makes the chaotic nature of the systems affected, as well as the increased chaos created by the changes, clear. I prefer the term ‘Climate Disruption’ to either ‘Global Warming’ or ‘Climate Change’. It makes the chaotic nature of the systems affected, as well as the increased chaos created by the changes, clear.

]]> By: dougrogers http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-214292 dougrogers Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-214292 JNORING: You don't read very carefully; saying of Bardfinn that he says: "you are building your case upon the supposition that there is "complete scientific consensus". He said: <blockquote>it remains a fact that the broad scientific consensus is that Global Warming is an actual phenomenon, that the mechanisms are many and varied and are in debate, and that the ultimate cause is widespread industrialisation by the hand of Man.</blockquote> JNORING: You don’t read very carefully; saying of Bardfinn that he says: “you are building your case upon the supposition that there is “complete scientific consensus”. He said:

it remains a fact that the broad scientific consensus is that Global Warming is an actual phenomenon, that the mechanisms are many and varied and are in debate, and that the ultimate cause is widespread industrialisation by the hand of Man.

]]> By: NikFromNYC http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-216344 NikFromNYC Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-216344 The snide certainty of tree huggers about "settled science" (based on computer models only the gases of the most complex gas/water/solid/life system known) isn't what bothers me so much, but that their solutions avoids the utterly obvious use of nuclear, and avoids ever taking blame for shutting down safer and safer reactors for 30 years in the USA, while France is already pushing 80% nuclear. The history of Global Warming as science is a disgrace, beginning with Thatcher's politically motivated over-funding of climate science during a coal miner's strike, followed by Manns' fraudulently created "Hockey Stick" graph that the IPCC reproduced even after independent researchers reverse engineered Manns' statistical program (which he refused to publicly release as any normal scientist would happily do), only to find out that even random data led to the same 1990s sudden upswing. The South Pole, Central Alaska, Central Australia, Central America have all been linearly COOLING for a century and a this decade's small army of robotic subs show the ocean as well to be COOLING. Central Park, however, is warming. I live three blocks from it. But a mere few miles away, the rocky, park-like area of West Point military college is COOLING. That's about it. Toss out theory, since debate on either side can be skewed, but actual surface station data, located far from cities all tell the same story: the ground (which in dirt-simple fashion I like to call the Earth) has been cooling for a century. My favorites are The South Pole, North Pole, and West Point/Central Park: http://www.john-daly.com/stations/amundsen.gif http://www.john-daly.com/stations/franz-js.gif http://www.john-daly.com/stations/WestPoint-NY.gif The author died in 2004 and NASAs nerdy site is harder to navigate, but the LONGEST graph I know of, based on simple reading of surface thermometers (instead of humidity-skewed tree ring proxy type of data), goes back to the early 1700s, is of Central England: http://www.john-daly.com/stations/england.gif Throw out Central Park, where since it's 6PM, massive bumpter-to-bumper taxi and crosstown bus traffic has just been disallowed to allow cyclist yuppies to get their evening exercise, where a recent study showed the cab-produced CO2 makes the trees grow twice as fast as the ones in Jersey. Greenhouses (used to increase warmth) along with PUMPED in CO2 and H20 mist are used to grow house plants faster. That CO2 is plant and microscopic algae FERTILIZER/FOOD, suggests, just maybe, that rising CO2 may be acting to stimulate the entire biosphere, instead of destroy it. Burning limited oil for energy is a bad idea though, biosphere be damned, especially since it ended up creating MASSIVE harems in Islamic countries (who had never had an Enlightenment that stuck, so they still kill girls for BEING raped etc.) which left the area with millions of sexually frustrated young men whose governments used hatred of Western culture to dodge being criticized. It also created cancer-causing soot in many cities (but not our island in the ocean). Thus my pretend presidential campaign calls for massive investment in nuclear energy to keep us very cleanly powered up for 50 years, providing the sort of boost to the economy that will allow massive funding of both fusion and solar power, the only two truly harmless known knowns in our future. Neither cause starvation like growing food crops for fuel either. To Cory and anybody who currently has an open mind, I highly suggest reading Lomborg's first book 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' which contains the story of how the big Environmentalist spokesmen reacted with HORROR to the news of the discovery of Cold Fusion (emission-free energy). I promise no "right wing" back patting but just story after story of good news and hypocrisy exposed. Reading quotes of activists is what converted me from a Ph.D. chemist who took for granted the seemingly conclusive results of Earth Scientists to became a skeptic indeed. Anger towards false claims of Falling Skies enveloped me, so "activist"/skeptic indeed describes me. What I want, more than anything, is a graph to "deny". Even the urban heat station dominated "global average" graph hasn't had statistically significant "warming" for a decade. Thus intuition alone suggests Earth has been mildly cooling for a few hundred years, but that temperature stations got hotter and hotter as faded paint, parking lots and car culture along with air conditioning within FEET of most "academic center" thermometers caused a massive artifact of postwar warming, and real pollution in the form of particulates (real "pollution") caused a surface temperature downswing in the postwar economic boom, which was rightly cleaned up, so the heat island effect could then continue to skew graphs upwards. But none of the "global average" data mess, even when graphed nicely, correlates well with CO2 levels. That's why I say: toss out, during armchair type of debates like this, and focus on specific, agreeably unbiased (like Central England or the South Pole) measured graphs, and ask yourself then: *who* are the "deniers"? Anyone who looks at the graph Central England, going not up or down, and claims the globe is "warming" is, literally, with no name-calling, or implication of moral equivalency to tobacco harm or Holocaust "denial": a DENIER. Namely, you are denying that most (in fact almost all I can find) NON-urban surface stations that use thermometer (non-proxy) data, are either flatlined (perhaps near the ocean as a buffer?) or are linearly cooling. Cory, you live in London. Where is a non-urban area around you besides Central England? How about the Faeroe Islands, between Scotland and Greenland, going back to 1867?: http://www.john-daly.com/stations/thorshav.gif DOWN. My point is, the heck with CO2. First of all, show me a non-volcanic region (such as the Peninsula of Antarctica) that is actually WARMING at all, not to even mention in step with the steep postwar increase in CO2 output by Western countries. Worst of all is being called a "free shrill" for Creationism, Flat Earths, Filtered Cigarettes, or National Socialist (NAZI) atrocities. The oddly curious fact remains though, that the "organic loving" (go look it up) Germans had a curiously similar overall goal to that of CO2 obsessed Environmentalists: World Government in which the highest IQ people (ironically the Ashkenazi jews of IQ 116 or Asians of 106 vs. the German average by definition of 100) were all killed and the masses were ruled by a propoganda-informed mob, democracy, unchecked by a Constitution that limited mob rule. That the end state of the Global Warming pagans EXACTLY matches that of all anti-capitalistic movements in history gives me pause, makes me suspicious of real motivation, and makes me wonder why, all of a sudden, a rich person like Corey (NYT best seller in old age vs. an old print zine called Boing Boing I used to subscribe to via snail mail) suddenly gets a big head and starts comparing one side of a scientific debate to insane people, which oddly enough itself is looked down on. Heya, mun, step kallin us intellefactually disfriended "specieal poples" nomes like leotards, shrillors or denors. So science fiction success is snarky scientific street cred, since AUTHORSHIP equals authority in girly named people like Doctor Row? Hint: parents who name a boy Julie (or Cory) are abusive. That's a good thing, since a miserable childhood leads to adult distinction. But that is no license for calling one side of an authentic scientific debate bad names. As a real scientist, I have come to the tentative but undeniable conclusion that Global Warming is fiction, not science. I did so by reading about it several hours a day for almost a decade, and in that time I sadly swallowed a bitter pill with a never ending aftertaste that both says that common men are evil and that the scribble paintings of any child, politically supported by well-connected art critics, are worth not only millions but billions. Now the auction houses have a new non-object to sell: carbon credits. Laughing to the bank go the sellers of new religious salvation INDULGENCES. The snide certainty of tree huggers about “settled science” (based on computer models only the gases of the most complex gas/water/solid/life system known) isn’t what bothers me so much, but that their solutions avoids the utterly obvious use of nuclear, and avoids ever taking blame for shutting down safer and safer reactors for 30 years in the USA, while France is already pushing 80% nuclear.

The history of Global Warming as science is a disgrace, beginning with Thatcher’s politically motivated over-funding of climate science during a coal miner’s strike, followed by Manns’ fraudulently created “Hockey Stick” graph that the IPCC reproduced even after independent researchers reverse engineered Manns’ statistical program (which he refused to publicly release as any normal scientist would happily do), only to find out that even random data led to the same 1990s sudden upswing.

The South Pole, Central Alaska, Central Australia, Central America have all been linearly COOLING for a century and a this decade’s small army of robotic subs show the ocean as well to be COOLING. Central Park, however, is warming. I live three blocks from it. But a mere few miles away, the rocky, park-like area of West Point military college is COOLING.

That’s about it. Toss out theory, since debate on either side can be skewed, but actual surface station data, located far from cities all tell the same story: the ground (which in dirt-simple fashion I like to call the Earth) has been cooling for a century.

My favorites are The South Pole, North Pole, and West Point/Central Park:

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/amundsen.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/franz-js.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/WestPoint-NY.gif

The author died in 2004 and NASAs nerdy site is harder to navigate, but the LONGEST graph I know of, based on simple reading of surface thermometers (instead of humidity-skewed tree ring proxy type of data), goes back to the early 1700s, is of Central England:

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/england.gif

Throw out Central Park, where since it’s 6PM, massive bumpter-to-bumper taxi and crosstown bus traffic has just been disallowed to allow cyclist yuppies to get their evening exercise, where a recent study showed the cab-produced CO2 makes the trees grow twice as fast as the ones in Jersey.

Greenhouses (used to increase warmth) along with PUMPED in CO2 and H20 mist are used to grow house plants faster. That CO2 is plant and microscopic algae FERTILIZER/FOOD, suggests, just maybe, that rising CO2 may be acting to stimulate the entire biosphere, instead of destroy it.

Burning limited oil for energy is a bad idea though, biosphere be damned, especially since it ended up creating MASSIVE harems in Islamic countries (who had never had an Enlightenment that stuck, so they still kill girls for BEING raped etc.) which left the area with millions of sexually frustrated young men whose governments used hatred of Western culture to dodge being criticized. It also created cancer-causing soot in many cities (but not our island in the ocean).

Thus my pretend presidential campaign calls for massive investment in nuclear energy to keep us very cleanly powered up for 50 years, providing the sort of boost to the economy that will allow massive funding of both fusion and solar power, the only two truly harmless known knowns in our future. Neither cause starvation like growing food crops for fuel either.

To Cory and anybody who currently has an open mind, I highly suggest reading Lomborg’s first book ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ which contains the story of how the big Environmentalist spokesmen reacted with HORROR to the news of the discovery of Cold Fusion (emission-free energy). I promise no “right wing” back patting but just story after story of good news and hypocrisy exposed. Reading quotes of activists is what converted me from a Ph.D. chemist who took for granted the seemingly conclusive results of Earth Scientists to became a skeptic indeed. Anger towards false claims of Falling Skies enveloped me, so “activist”/skeptic indeed describes me.

What I want, more than anything, is a graph to “deny”. Even the urban heat station dominated “global average” graph hasn’t had statistically significant “warming” for a decade. Thus intuition alone suggests Earth has been mildly cooling for a few hundred years, but that temperature stations got hotter and hotter as faded paint, parking lots and car culture along with air conditioning within FEET of most “academic center” thermometers caused a massive artifact of postwar warming, and real pollution in the form of particulates (real “pollution”) caused a surface temperature downswing in the postwar economic boom, which was rightly cleaned up, so the heat island effect could then continue to skew graphs upwards. But none of the “global average” data mess, even when graphed nicely, correlates well with CO2 levels.

That’s why I say: toss out, during armchair type of debates like this, and focus on specific, agreeably unbiased (like Central England or the South Pole) measured graphs, and ask yourself then: *who* are the “deniers”?

Anyone who looks at the graph Central England, going not up or down, and claims the globe is “warming” is, literally, with no name-calling, or implication of moral equivalency to tobacco harm or Holocaust “denial”: a DENIER. Namely, you are denying that most (in fact almost all I can find) NON-urban surface stations that use thermometer (non-proxy) data, are either flatlined (perhaps near the ocean as a buffer?) or are linearly cooling.

Cory, you live in London. Where is a non-urban area around you besides Central England? How about the Faeroe Islands, between Scotland and Greenland, going back to 1867?:

http://www.john-daly.com/stations/thorshav.gif

DOWN.

My point is, the heck with CO2. First of all, show me a non-volcanic region (such as the Peninsula of Antarctica) that is actually WARMING at all, not to even mention in step with the steep postwar increase in CO2 output by Western countries.

Worst of all is being called a “free shrill” for Creationism, Flat Earths, Filtered Cigarettes, or National Socialist (NAZI) atrocities. The oddly curious fact remains though, that the “organic loving” (go look it up) Germans had a curiously similar overall goal to that of CO2 obsessed Environmentalists: World Government in which the highest IQ people (ironically the Ashkenazi jews of IQ 116 or Asians of 106 vs. the German average by definition of 100) were all killed and the masses were ruled by a propoganda-informed mob, democracy, unchecked by a Constitution that limited mob rule. That the end state of the Global Warming pagans EXACTLY matches that of all anti-capitalistic movements in history gives me pause, makes me suspicious of real motivation, and makes me wonder why, all of a sudden, a rich person like Corey (NYT best seller in old age vs. an old print zine called Boing Boing I used to subscribe to via snail mail) suddenly gets a big head and starts comparing one side of a scientific debate to insane people, which oddly enough itself is looked down on.

Heya, mun, step kallin us intellefactually disfriended “specieal poples” nomes like leotards, shrillors or denors.

So science fiction success is snarky scientific street cred, since AUTHORSHIP equals authority in girly named people like Doctor Row? Hint: parents who name a boy Julie (or Cory) are abusive. That’s a good thing, since a miserable childhood leads to adult distinction. But that is no license for calling one side of an authentic scientific debate bad names. As a real scientist, I have come to the tentative but undeniable conclusion that Global Warming is fiction, not science. I did so by reading about it several hours a day for almost a decade, and in that time I sadly swallowed a bitter pill with a never ending aftertaste that both says that common men are evil and that the scribble paintings of any child, politically supported by well-connected art critics, are worth not only millions but billions.

Now the auction houses have a new non-object to sell: carbon credits. Laughing to the bank go the sellers of new religious salvation INDULGENCES.

]]> By: kmgraba http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-213785 kmgraba Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-213785 Prodigous: So you accept that the term is perfectly accurate, but object because of the negative associations? You should understand that the reason 'denialist' has negative connotations is because of the actions and tactics of the denialists themselves! You cannot object to this term any more than creationists can complain that because 'creationist' has become a pejorative term, we're obligated to call them 'evolution skeptics'. Prodigous: So you accept that the term is perfectly accurate, but object because of the negative associations? You should understand that the reason ‘denialist’ has negative connotations is because of the actions and tactics of the denialists themselves! You cannot object to this term any more than creationists can complain that because ‘creationist’ has become a pejorative term, we’re obligated to call them ‘evolution skeptics’.

]]> By: danegeld http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-213788 danegeld Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-213788 We live at a time when emotions and feelings count more than truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science. James Lovelock We live at a time when emotions and feelings count more than truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science.

James Lovelock

]]> By: unsafe at any speed http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-213789 unsafe at any speed Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-213789 ^^ Global warming or "Climate change" is a religion and whoever denies it is a heretic according to the faithful. Why do they call it "Climate change" now instead of Global Warming? This is so that no matter what weather changes happen, the global warming crowd can claim they were right. C.Y.A ^^ Global warming or “Climate change” is a religion and whoever denies it is a heretic according to the faithful.

Why do they call it “Climate change” now instead of Global Warming? This is so that no matter what weather changes happen, the global warming crowd can claim they were right.
C.Y.A

]]> By: danegeld http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-213791 danegeld Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-213791 suppose tomorrow, a team of scientists come up with an irrefutable proof that climate change is entirely due to the Sun all along, and it's going to go ahead irrespective of whatever we do with CO2? should we celebrate? No. we're still heading for disaster once our ability to pump oil dips below our demand for oil! suppose tomorrow, a team of scientists come up with an irrefutable proof that climate change is entirely due to the Sun all along, and it’s going to go ahead irrespective of whatever we do with CO2?

should we celebrate?

No. we’re still heading for disaster once our ability to pump oil dips below our demand for oil!

]]> By: Antinous http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-214303 Antinous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-214303 jnoring has never commented on BB before. jnoring has taken over this thread. jnoring has created enough unintentional irony to be considered a conceptual artist. Maybe if we just ignore it, it will go away. jnoring has never commented on BB before.

jnoring has taken over this thread.

jnoring has created enough unintentional irony to be considered a conceptual artist.

Maybe if we just ignore it, it will go away.

]]> By: Asgard http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-214559 Asgard Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-214559 ---------------------- When Physics Trumps Hysteria in Global Warming By Michael R. Fox Ph.D., 7/1/2007 11:10:25 AM Studiously hidden from public view are some extraordinary findings in physics which are providing new understanding of our planetary history, as well as providing a much more plausible scientific understanding of Global Warming. Regrettably, the current hysteria about global warming is based much more on fear, political agendas, and computer models that don’t agree with each other or the climate, rather than hard-nosed evidence and science. The climate forces which have led to the estimated 0.6C degree temperature increase over the past 100 years or more (according to the International Panel on Climate Change) have been assumed to be man-made CO2 emissions from advanced nations including the US. We know this can’t be true for several reasons. The first is that water vapor provides 95% of the total of the greenhouse gases, not CO2. The total of the CO2 represents less than 3% of the total. The second is that of the total atmospheric CO2 inventory, the manmade fraction is less than 3% of the CO2 total and therefore far less than 1% of the total greenhouse gas inventories. Third, studies of the recent climate variations are finding, for example, (See article by J. Oestermans, Science, p. 375, April 29, 2005) that glaciers have been receding since 1750 or so, well before any significant man-made CO2 emissions occurred. http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?e9e9ac7e-64b1-4fc5-a8ae-fe52f699adac ———————-

When Physics Trumps Hysteria in Global Warming
By Michael R. Fox Ph.D., 7/1/2007 11:10:25 AM

Studiously hidden from public view are some extraordinary findings in physics which are providing new understanding of our planetary history, as well as providing a much more plausible scientific understanding of Global Warming. Regrettably, the current hysteria about global warming is based much more on fear, political agendas, and computer models that don’t agree with each other or the climate, rather than hard-nosed evidence and science.

The climate forces which have led to the estimated 0.6C degree temperature increase over the past 100 years or more (according to the International Panel on Climate Change) have been assumed to be man-made CO2 emissions from advanced nations including the US. We know this can’t be true for several reasons.

The first is that water vapor provides 95% of the total of the greenhouse gases, not CO2. The total of the CO2 represents less than 3% of the total. The second is that of the total atmospheric CO2 inventory, the manmade fraction is less than 3% of the CO2 total and therefore far less than 1% of the total greenhouse gas inventories. Third, studies of the recent climate variations are finding, for example, (See article by J. Oestermans, Science, p. 375, April 29, 2005) that glaciers have been receding since 1750 or so, well before any significant man-made CO2 emissions occurred.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?e9e9ac7e-64b1-4fc5-a8ae-fe52f699adac

]]> By: jnoring http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-214562 jnoring Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-214562 Noen, I used to live in Minneapolis and spent a lot of time arounnd both Lake Harriet and Lake Calhoun. Great area! Anyway, with regards to the "scientific consensus" claim, <a href="http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=18598" rel="nofollow">this article over at Dvorak</a> (with links elsewhere) certainly adds some data points. Noen, I used to live in Minneapolis and spent a lot of time arounnd both Lake Harriet and Lake Calhoun. Great area!

Anyway, with regards to the “scientific consensus” claim, this article over at Dvorak (with links elsewhere) certainly adds some data points.

]]> By: The Unusual Suspect http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-214052 The Unusual Suspect Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-214052 Bardfinn @ #51: "Their tactic: Get there first, be the loudest, tell a consistent story, explain away inconsistencies, reward the audience for loyalty or for not thinking critically, scapegoat the opposition." Were not the Global Warming proponents "there first"? Didn't the issue begin with them? Are Global Warming proponents not "the loudest"? It seems to me that the media stories favouring Global Warming advocacy far outnumber those questioning it. And what about the speaking tours by Al Gore, Richard Branson and the like? Are Global Warming proponents not "telling a consistent story"? It seems that every talking point (except for the obviously lunatic ones) echoes back to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change in 2007. Do Global Warming proponents not "reward the audience for loyalty or for not thinking critically"? Any thing you do for GW is something done for a Good Cause, right? Care to buy some carbon credits to assuage your guilt? Do Global Warming proponents not "scapegoat the opposition"? By calling them "global warming denialists", perhaps? Bardfinn @ #51:

“Their tactic: Get there first, be the loudest, tell a consistent story, explain away inconsistencies, reward the audience for loyalty or for not thinking critically, scapegoat the opposition.”

Were not the Global Warming proponents “there first”? Didn’t the issue begin with them?

Are Global Warming proponents not “the loudest”? It seems to me that the media stories favouring Global Warming advocacy far outnumber those questioning it. And what about the speaking tours by Al Gore, Richard Branson and the like?

Are Global Warming proponents not “telling a consistent story”? It seems that every talking point (except for the obviously lunatic ones) echoes back to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change in 2007.

Do Global Warming proponents not “reward the audience for loyalty or for not thinking critically”? Any thing you do for GW is something done for a Good Cause, right? Care to buy some carbon credits to assuage your guilt?

Do Global Warming proponents not “scapegoat the opposition”? By calling them “global warming denialists”, perhaps?

]]> By: Takuan http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-214564 Takuan Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-214564 Mike R Fox... lessee.. "As a fan of Fox News network I was hoping the reporters would care enough about their credibility to present some of this information to be "fair and balanced". Instead the program promoted some of the same old green silliness we got during the Carter era 30 years ago. " Mike R Fox… lessee..
“As a fan of Fox News network I was hoping the reporters would care enough about their credibility to present some of this information to be “fair and balanced”. Instead the program promoted some of the same old green silliness we got during the Carter era 30 years ago. “

]]> By: waugsqueke http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-213797 waugsqueke Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-213797 Now if someone on the other side of the debate would put together something like this for comparison, that would be useful. The author loses me on the consensus vs. proof issue. I just don't believe it. Yes, there can be proof of things in science and it's silly to suggest otherwise. I do not accept consensus arguments. I think to put that forward as the backbone of your case is disingenuous. They have been wrong many times before, even about environmental and climate issues. Now if someone on the other side of the debate would put together something like this for comparison, that would be useful.

The author loses me on the consensus vs. proof issue. I just don’t believe it. Yes, there can be proof of things in science and it’s silly to suggest otherwise. I do not accept consensus arguments. I think to put that forward as the backbone of your case is disingenuous.

They have been wrong many times before, even about environmental and climate issues.

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-214565 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-214565 I'm sceptical about scepticism for scepticism's sake. I'm also amused by the conflation of scientific method and policy development by the self-declared sceptics here, if we were to wait until every last doubt was quashed for every issue we had to deal with, nothing would ever get done, ergo policy is developed taking into account what we know now. I'm also amazed at the outstandingly positivist idealism shown towards 'science' by some of the sceptics. Finally I'm disappointed no one has mentioned the talking point about wagga wagga yet (its an inland town in eastern australia fyi), were the weather is often quite erratic due to its geographic location I’m sceptical about scepticism for scepticism’s sake.

I’m also amused by the conflation of scientific method and policy development by the self-declared sceptics here, if we were to wait until every last doubt was quashed for every issue we had to deal with, nothing would ever get done, ergo policy is developed taking into account what we know now.

I’m also amazed at the outstandingly positivist idealism shown towards ‘science’ by some of the sceptics.

Finally I’m disappointed no one has mentioned the talking point about wagga wagga yet (its an inland town in eastern australia fyi), were the weather is often quite erratic due to its geographic location

]]> By: Takuan http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-214566 Takuan Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-214566 Mike Fox: whack job, oil industry flack Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is a retired nuclear scientist and university chemistry professor. He is the science and energy writer/reporter for the HawaiiReport.com. A resident of Kaneohe, Hawaii, he has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. His interests and activities in the communications of science, energy, and the environment has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. Dr. Fox is listed by the Heartland Institute as a global warming/climate change expert. He is also the Senior Fellow for Science at the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached via email at mfox@grassrootinstitute.org. Publications by Michael R. Fox, Ph.D.: Time to Drill for American Oil, 5/7/08 Media, Global Warming, and Junk Science, 11/28/07 Twisted Science Bullies of the Beltway, 10/31/07 Combatting America's Dependence on Foreign Oil, 10/17/07 Book Review: The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, 9/26/07 Book Review: Going to Pieces: The Dismantling of the United States of America, 8/15/07 Book Review: Unstoppable Global Warming -- Every 1,500 Years, 6/20/07 Earth Day 2007: Time for a Review (Grass in Review), 4/25/07 Al Gore's Hearing Missed Opportunities, 4/3/07 The "Hockeystick": The Global Warming Scandal of the Decade, 2/25/07 Global Warming and Pseudo-Science, 2/11/07 Flawed Thinking About Hawaii's Energy Future, 1/17/07 Return of the Thugs, 12/20/06 Book Review: Inside the Asylum, 12/12/06 Book Review: Going to Pieces, 12/7/06 Energy Choices for Hawaii, 11/16/06 Message from a 'Hack Scientist', 11/11/06 Consensus is Nonsense, 11/9/06 Brazilian Ethanol Fantasies, 11/5/06 Man-made Global Warming Continues to Unravel, 11/4/06 The Economy: Aren’t the Good Times Good Anymore?, 10/25/06 The Politics of Environmentalism, 10/14/06 Global Warming Unmasked, 10/13/06 A Challenge for a University of Hawaii Professor, 10/9/06 Energy Choices for Hawaii, 10/1/06 Deadly Environmental Program Ends, 9/26/06 Still Blowing in the Wind, 9/21/06 Taxpayers Should be Alarmed by Proposals at Hawaii Biofuels Summit, 8/22/06 Poor Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth: It Isn't Science Mike Fox: whack job, oil industry flack

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is a retired nuclear scientist and university chemistry professor. He is the science and energy writer/reporter for the HawaiiReport.com. A resident of Kaneohe, Hawaii, he has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. His interests and activities in the communications of science, energy, and the environment has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. Dr. Fox is listed by the Heartland Institute as a global warming/climate
change expert. He is also the Senior Fellow for Science at the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached via email at mfox@grassrootinstitute.org.

Publications by Michael R. Fox, Ph.D.:

Time to Drill for American Oil, 5/7/08
Media, Global Warming, and Junk Science, 11/28/07
Twisted Science Bullies of the Beltway, 10/31/07
Combatting America’s Dependence on Foreign Oil, 10/17/07
Book Review: The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, 9/26/07
Book Review: Going to Pieces: The Dismantling of the United States of America, 8/15/07
Book Review: Unstoppable Global Warming — Every 1,500 Years, 6/20/07
Earth Day 2007: Time for a Review (Grass in Review), 4/25/07
Al Gore’s Hearing Missed Opportunities, 4/3/07
The “Hockeystick”: The Global Warming Scandal of the Decade, 2/25/07
Global Warming and Pseudo-Science, 2/11/07
Flawed Thinking About Hawaii’s Energy Future, 1/17/07
Return of the Thugs, 12/20/06
Book Review: Inside the Asylum, 12/12/06
Book Review: Going to Pieces, 12/7/06
Energy Choices for Hawaii, 11/16/06
Message from a ‘Hack Scientist’, 11/11/06
Consensus is Nonsense, 11/9/06
Brazilian Ethanol Fantasies, 11/5/06
Man-made Global Warming Continues to Unravel, 11/4/06
The Economy: Aren’t the Good Times Good Anymore?, 10/25/06
The Politics of Environmentalism, 10/14/06
Global Warming Unmasked, 10/13/06
A Challenge for a University of Hawaii Professor, 10/9/06
Energy Choices for Hawaii, 10/1/06
Deadly Environmental Program Ends, 9/26/06
Still Blowing in the Wind, 9/21/06
Taxpayers Should be Alarmed by Proposals at Hawaii Biofuels Summit, 8/22/06
Poor Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth: It Isn’t Science

]]> By: jnoring http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-214311 jnoring Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-214311 "Climate disruption" is certainly one possible term to use. It does imply that there is a climate "norm", though, which is sort of ambiguous (depending upon the time frame which we define "normal". In geologic time scales climate variation is actually the norm.) “Climate disruption” is certainly one possible term to use. It does imply that there is a climate “norm”, though, which is sort of ambiguous (depending upon the time frame which we define “normal”. In geologic time scales climate variation is actually the norm.)

]]> By: Takuan http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-214568 Takuan Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-214568 asgard... reminds me of Fimbulwinter Ragnarök, the twilight of the gods. Much of it sounds like the Apocalypse, by which Snorri, a Christian, can hardly fail to have been influenced. It will begin with three winters of snow, with no summers in between. Wars will follow, then earthquakes and tidal waves. The sky will split open and out will ride the sons of Muspell intent on universal destruction. They will try to enter heaven but Bifröst will break (Section 55). Heimdall will blow his mighty horn Gjöll and the Æsir and Einherjar will ride out to battle. Most of the Æsir will die and Asgard be destroyed. Snorri quotes his own source saying: "The sun will go black, earth sink in the sea, heaven be stripped of its bright stars;...." (Section 56). asgard… reminds me of Fimbulwinter

Ragnarök, the twilight of the gods. Much of it sounds like the Apocalypse, by which Snorri, a Christian, can hardly fail to have been influenced. It will begin with three winters of snow, with no summers in between. Wars will follow, then earthquakes and tidal waves. The sky will split open and out will ride the sons of Muspell intent on universal destruction. They will try to enter heaven but Bifröst will break (Section 55). Heimdall will blow his mighty horn Gjöll and the Æsir and Einherjar will ride out to battle. Most of the Æsir will die and Asgard be destroyed. Snorri quotes his own source saying: “The sun will go black, earth sink in the sea, heaven be stripped of its bright stars;….” (Section 56).

]]> By: Village Idiot http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-216360 Village Idiot Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-216360 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/24/eaarctic124.xml http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/24/eaarctic124.xml

]]> By: Antinous http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-214570 Antinous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-214570 Asgard, Nice link to an article by a whack job who only gets attention by being blow-job buddies with the reactionary Heartland Institute, and who also supports oil drilling in National Parks. Is that the best that you can do? Surely you can find some members of the Flat Earth Society who think that human-made climate disruption is really a sign of the Rapture. Asgard,

Nice link to an article by a whack job who only gets attention by being blow-job buddies with the reactionary Heartland Institute, and who also supports oil drilling in National Parks. Is that the best that you can do? Surely you can find some members of the Flat Earth Society who think that human-made climate disruption is really a sign of the Rapture.

]]> By: Takuan http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-214059 Takuan Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-214059 so if we listen to the "everything is just fine" party and all end up dead, what then? so if we listen to the “everything is just fine” party and all end up dead, what then?

]]> By: Antinous http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-214572 Antinous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-214572 I heard that! No, Takuan and I are not sock puppets. I heard that! No, Takuan and I are not sock puppets.

]]> By: jnoring http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-214317 jnoring Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-214317 About Antinous comment: [laugh] About Antinous comment: [laugh]

]]> By: Anonymous http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-213808 Anonymous Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-213808 The problem is, you could make up a similar list of things said by people who deny the existence of ghosts, the truth of creationism, or the safety provided by the TSA. If a theory is wrong, it's idiotic to defend it by pointing out that people always refute it by pointing to the same facts. The problem is, you could make up a similar list of things said by people who deny the existence of ghosts, the truth of creationism, or the safety provided by the TSA. If a theory is wrong, it’s idiotic to defend it by pointing out that people always refute it by pointing to the same facts.

]]> By: dougrogers http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-214064 dougrogers Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-214064 <blockquote>Do Global Warming proponents not "scapegoat the opposition"? By calling them "global warming denialists", perhaps?</blockquote> Oh, boo hoo. The argumements boils down to "World Government!" and "Gee, that hurts my feelings."

Do Global Warming proponents not “scapegoat the opposition”? By calling them “global warming denialists”, perhaps?

Oh, boo hoo. The argumements boils down to “World Government!” and “Gee, that hurts my feelings.”

]]> By: seanfitz http://boingboing.net/2008/06/17/debunking-the-climat.html#comment-213809 seanfitz Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-213809 This is a great resource, but will it make a difference? Look at the comments on the articles at Grist, and some of the comments here... no matter how well your arguments and no matter how many facts you throw at climate change skeptics they won't be budged. They've made up their minds and nothing will change their mind. This is a great resource, but will it make a difference?

Look at the comments on the articles at Grist, and some of the comments here… no matter how well your arguments and no matter how many facts you throw at climate change skeptics they won’t be budged. They’ve made up their minds and nothing will change their mind.

]]>