There’s obviously a desire to debate and discuss religious leanings. It’s not science. But if it helps some people grow their climatic world view or it reaches a new audience it has a use — perhaps just as a form of mental-tennis. Though even the most illogical recalcitrant commentors sometimes bring out brilliant replies (and there are a few, especially far down). Like minded comments from other threads will be moved here as it is off-topic on every other post on this site. This whole topic breaks basic rules of logic and reason. But in the interests of free speech and to declutter other important threads, this is home to those comments that do not belong elsewhere.
Take a step back….before you think it’s all just ClimateGate.
Scientists unfortunately have also become politicized and hence radioactive on certain issues like bioethics and global warming.
Ingrained in the heart of the conservative prone, Pensioners, Retirees and the idealism of National Sovereignty is a distrust of scientists who could be left wingers and tree hungers and who tend to have a political rather than scientific agenda.
I don’t blame them, I have also attended research universities on atmospheric science and I have noted professors who couldn’t help but bring their political ideology into the science road shows and public announcements. This mix is toxic and leads to stale debates on a relatively clear issue like global warming. Yes I want each and everyone to know I have been digging and digging for the truthfulness of Global Warming.
As a neo-evangelical who has a larger then average potential audience within the church community it is my responsibility to be informed at the highest level possible on Global Warming issues presented in science.
I suspect a political bias was even more prevalent in the 1960’s and 70’s and is now ingrained in peoples minds when listening to scientists talk about certain issues. Baby boomers can be a real mixture politically. As folks well know, I certainly don’t agree with global warming deniers. I also live in hope that some of you would take your own political bite and bias out of your lecturing Global Warming supporters about the science.
I’ve actually successfully swayed a number of conservative newspaper columnists and journalists by first informing them that I vote a certain way in elections and telling them to put down the political and conspiracy shields when listening to my explanation behind anthropogenic global warming.
The same method has opened the minds of conservative family members, friends and church associates at the peer level in talks, preaching and relationally shaped a healthier dialogue on this subject that deserves our highest attention as it involves changing our habits in our day to day living.
After World War II there was no discernable political correctness among scientists I suspect, but that all changed thanks to the ‘peace love and harmony’ and hippy era. Trained university folk are more likely to vote Labor instead of Liberal.
That number is also most probably lower among scientists but still too high to remove an ideological charge and attachments of imputed wrong doing in scientific issues in my opinion. I wish I knew how these two sides could reconcile, however, I suspect the death of the baby boomers will be a big help. There will come a progressive shift but it will come as we expect as the political left and right distinctiveness of post 2000 will give way to new expressions of political parties freed from old fashioned rhetoric and stale argument of communist plots and authoritarian take over through environmental causes that are accused in being too humanistic, atheistic, anti-god, anti-democratic with all the pontifications of all imputed evils of this world that are ingrained in politics of the 20th century.
I recall in times past human nature has a tendency to demonize a segment of society to expunge their own demons, fears and failings within themselves. They project there innate base instinctive fears on others and externalize them. They themselves become the modern day witch hunters and demon busters and become enslaved to inbuilt fears that something is up and they can never put their finger on it. The slightest indicator that there projected externalized fears could be real just requires the slightest accusation and alarmism of a conspiracy to set on flame the forest of gossip by the power of the internet tongue.
For me AGW is real. I live in the reality of that everyday and do not buck pass or excuse myself from the confronting truths of it as an ever present danger. The fact is my wants of no taxes and my idealism of a non-control and centralist government may be the very thing causing my own inaction. It seems the older we get the more we want it all just go away forever. We then comfort ourselves with the false words of succor that we leave this planet a better place with a better tomorrow then when we first were born into it. The next few generations away from us could well be stomping on our graves with ridicule and hatred that we did nothing and even played the devil’s advocate so much with the denial games and stopped our politicians from any reasonable action because it affected our own selfish lives.
As one ancient prophet warned wisely: The prophets did not speak right and have no real discernment and their gifts are not from me. They speak peace when there is no peace. They speak no calamity when there will be calamity. They fail to give the correct warning from the towers that see into the distance. For without a progressive vision of planning the people perish. Falsehoods build crumbling foundations that civilizations collapse upon.
Ross_Brisbane
20
Ross #89
Seen as you’ve informed yourself about AGW, the rest of us can just go home now. Why didn’t we think of informing ourselves? Silly us.
You just keep “digging and digging” m8
20
Ross, what are you using the internet for? The network eats huge quantities of electricity, why don’t you practice what you seem (self) ordained to preach?
If yer not trained in the natural sciences I doubt I could convince you of a dog danged thing about why AGW has less empirical basis than phantoms of the dead who live amongst us; there’s nothing i can do about that except to say that I fight with equal zeal against the irrationality you proselytize as you evidently do to preach it.
With ordinary folk, it’s an easy job for me, however – AGW is one tough sell to the ordinary anybody who “don’t see nuthin’ happen’ to their little world because folks happen to use coal and oil”
And it’s not going to happen either, Ross.
I promise.
20
Baa Humbug:
December 26th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Ross #89
Seen as you’ve informed yourself about AGW, the rest of us can just go home now. Why didn’t we think of informing ourselves? Silly us.
You just keep “digging and digging” m8
Yes Baa Humbug,
I kept digging and updated after doing forensic data digging on the old relic anti-AGW crowd on the internet that has been recycled and recycled since post 2002. I have the smoking guns that you think do not exist in any scientific paper heavily and fiercely independent of any IPCC finding since their official report in 2007.
Be careful now – your energies would be better spent in being a solution rather then bringing attention to the problem as well as updating the facts of its reality.
Ross Brisbane
20
Brian G Valentine:
December 26th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Ross, what are you using the internet for? The network eats huge quantities of electricity, why don’t you practice what you seem (self) ordained to preach?
If yer not trained in the natural sciences I doubt I could convince you of a dog danged thing about why AGW has less empirical basis than phantoms of the dead who live amongst us; there’s nothing i can do about that except to say that I fight with equal zeal against the irrationality you proselytize as you evidently do to preach it.
With ordinary folk, it’s an easy job for me, however – AGW is one tough sell to the ordinary anybody who “don’t see nuthin’ happen’ to their little world because folks happen to use coal and oil”
And it’s not going to happen either, Ross.
I promise.
Mr Valentine,
I seek your balance not your unbalance. Just like a zealot evangelist presents a case for hell, you present a devil’s advocate case based on a rather narrow repeated and often exaggerated blog grapevine that has virtually no substance when analysed beyond the depth of a puddle.
Look beyond the childish cartoon propaganda on this site and the repeated word for word cut and paste repeats.
Climate science does not rest and depend on two web sites the like of Watts Up, Climate Audit and amateur blogs that are in turn a repeated cut and paste of the gossip setting the forest the fires by the internet tongue.
BTW: The Alternative meet feast at Copenhagen by S. Fielding was attended by record crowds – all over 60 and numbering no more then 65. As for media bias, 15 of those were attended by Fox and other well known old anti-campaigner hands that are dirtied biased journalists.
They lost their ability in objectivity a long time ago. And you guessed it, the funding of that event traces straight back to a very active lobby in the United States in turn supported by foundations in turn backed by energy companies.
I want the truth and you want the truth but I aren’t no Pilate asking what is truth when sentencing someone to death.
Ross Brisbane
10
Ross, you describe yourself as a “… neo-evangelical who has a larger then average potential audience within the church community…”. Are you the pastor of a church, by any chance?
I am a church member, and I’d be very interested in your reply.
20
Anne-Kit Littler:
December 26th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Ross, you describe yourself as a “… neo-evangelical who has a larger then average potential audience within the church community…”. Are you the pastor of a church, by any chance?
I am a church member, and I’d be very interested in your reply.
May I call you Anne for short, I hope that’s okay.
I am a retired Pastor that carries no connection to my age. I may be returning to pastor-ship perhaps in 2011. My retirement was my own choosing. Before you question any personalised faith statement – I would pass any stock standard evangelical test of orthodoxy.
I believe once again that AGW is science based reality of our time and turbulent times are ahead for mankind as a consequence. I do not concede to a fatalistic eschatology and irresponsibility that we can do nothing.
Ross Brisbane
10
Ross, you are a new variety of alarmist to these pages, at least new to me, mixing a failed teleology with a newly found sacerdotal ambition; the West Coast of these United States is well known for off beat sects and cults, many of these recently founded upon “environmentalism” in some manner; I can’t shake the feeling that your exegesis would seem foreign even to them
10
Ross #92,93,95
I am not in the least bit surprised that you believe in AGW fervently. You can’t help it, you have to believe in it. It’s in your nature which reveals itself in the few posts you’ve made here.
“turbulent times are ahead for mankind”
“The next few generations away from us could well be stomping on our graves”
I’ll quote Michael Crichton, who explains you best.
“environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday—these are deeply held mythic structures.
And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them”.
You keep preaching your doom Ross. Unless you provide some facts, evidence, you won’t be converting any intelligent reasonable people, only your “flock” who have an innate need to be “saved”.
But who will save them from you?
10
Thank you Ross (and I prefer Anne-Kit). I know that there are evangelicals who embrace man-made global warming as fact. Ps. Rick Warren who wrote “Purpose Driven Life” is one of them. I don’t agree with them. I think they have been blinded by the popular appeal and “care for the poor” seemingly inherent in environmentalism. They have been deceived and I do not think they have looked into the science deeply enough.
One of the first organisations I came across 2 1/2 years ago when I started to investigate man-made global warming (and Baa Humbug, it was through reading Crichton’s “State of Fear” that I realised there was more to this than met the eye!) was “The Cornwall Alliance for Stewardship of Creation”. Would you be willing to listen initially to this interview with Dr E Calvin Beisner, their spokesman? I hope you will do so without an open heart and mind. It is just over 1 hour long and very worthwhile. It goes into the very basic science as well as economics and social issues:
Global Warming: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
You will benefit also from visiting their website:
Corwall Alliance
10
Oh dear, Freudian slip, perhaps: It should of course be “with an open heart and mind” 😉
10
According to Freud, there (would be) no such thing as the “Freudian slip” of the tongue; all statements are willed, but the mind does not necessarily have time to process all statements before they become public
10
OK, Brian, but you know what I meant. Happy New Year to you and your wife, btw!
10
I think Brian is having a lend of you ann lol I know what you meant and it was a nice post.
I’m listening to GW Good B U now.
10
Ross. The whole Alarmist Cult can be recognised in Paul’s First letter to Timothy, Chapter 4 Verse one, which says that some will choose to listen to deceitful spirits and doctrines that come from demons. The lies that accompany the Alarmist camp are prime examples of this. The attempted elimination of the Mediaeval Warm Period and the little ice age are more examples. The emails from the CRUs reveals the manipulation of the data. The infiltration of the Church has been going on by Alarmists for the three decades also. Cardinal Archbishop George Pell recognises the Alarmists as an attempted return to animism. It would appear that you have been had or more appropriately deceived.
Al Gore’s Film (filum for QLD) An Inconvenient Truth contains 35 lies.
10
I guess that Ross went away to find more willing flock, I could have told him that the denizens herein would be a bit more of a challenge than he could manage.
I regret to say that I don’t think Ross will find such groups as Deltoid, Think Progress, Real Climate etc. to be any more receptive; I don’t think I’m going to check to find out either
10
Len:
December 26th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
To which I could post an appropriate theological response that bites at the heels and lies within the anti-AGW camp. It is true – they lie and distort data far worse then any illegal email leaks.
I refuse to post here so as to mitigate an argument solidly based on an evangelical based point by point dissection and utter destruction of an appalling theological argument against AGW.
Neither will I allow you castigate me on what you term to be a correct interpretation of scripture and what you term to be an orthodox faith.
And I will say this – I can challenge Cardinal Archbishop George Pell any day to public debate and I know who would lose the theological ground on that one.
I am wasting my time debating in such hostile territory anyway and I am thinking in creating an equivalent counter to this JONOVA biased anti-AGW web site.
I assure you it is not clear cut lies. The science is not settled at all to favor an absolute outcome of denial on your side.
Facts undisputed:
Warming continues unabated. Extreme snow falls in the Northern hemisphere are harbingers of increased water vapor. Extremes of climate in solaces are going to get far worse then this and were predicted by climate models. The minimum temperature globally if you care to check has shown distinctive tendency to climb ever upward since 1991. This suggests equilibrium at work as C02 creates the catalyst of increased capture of the suns energy in the form of certain radiation spectrum’s that fail to re-released into space at night fall.
If my blog site appears you will know about it as much as the evangelical community will also.
I will be contactable for lectures and debates most likely in the later part of 2010.
Ross Brisbane
10
Excellent news Ross, thankyou for that.
Will you please kindly let me know when and where you will hold these lectures. (So as I can make sure I am nowhere near the vicinity) 🙂
10
Ross you said
“To which I could post an appropriate theological response that bites at the heels and lies within the anti-AGW camp. It is true – they lie and distort data far worse then any illegal email leaks”.
Go ahead post. I dare you. I double dare you with sugar on top. G’head……. make our day 🙂
10
That reminds me, (and another thankyou to Ross) I forgot the theologiens in my above post that described the cartoon graphic.
Lets put them among the carpetbaggers and rent seekers but make them more animated, more loud. Waving the Bible or Koran instead of legistlation or reports, still, dollar bills hanging out of their pockets. They surely don’t JUST want our money, they also want our souls, our reason and logic and independent thought. This makes them the worst kind of carpetbagger.
10
Ross has mistakenly identified Phil Jones, Mike Mann, Jim Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, and Gavin Schmidt as being “anti AGW.”
No, Ross, although you have correctly labeled what it is they promote, you have incorrectly identified their ideology. They are decidedly in favor of AGW as an illusion everyone should endorse
10
I can tell the way my mention of any Christian involvement within the Climate Debate is deemed troubling by some. Unfortunately in typical style I am placed in the nutty fringe groups of belief without rationalism.
But yet again the deniers and skeptics peddle this notion of self delusion that they have got everything under raps and ultimately under control so they rest easy on their pillows at night bowing to the gods of status and of things to be kept the same in their illusionary society of non global warming.
I will therefore post limited commentary and stay the course hopefully to a more rationalist and intelligent debate. And they do say if you develop skill in things like theological training and understanding it can expand the minds IQ beyond that of a rabbit hopefully – even likened to one who learns other speaking languages.
FACT: Most evangelicals’ are skeptical over things like “global warming” and evolutionary fundamentalism?
Maybe it’s that we’re reacquiring that long-lost/lamented Christian mind:
“A peculiar quality of the Christian mind is that, knowing the weakness of human nature, it…assumes that the powers of evil will exploit every possible occasion for drawing men into the mental confusion of blurred concepts and twisted values. There is about the Christian mind a peculiar hardness–a refusal to be surprised at evil and depravity; an inability to be overcome by shock; an expectation that evil will be at large where God is not. Hence its cultivated suspiciousness of that which currently passes muster, in any powerful worldly circle, as the right thing…it knows how evil grows.” Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind, p. 102. That is how the fundamentalist mind thinks and behaves.
Maybe, just maybe atheists and agnostics here have something in common at last..an inability to plan for the future with their DISTRUST of everything inclusive of science due to a corrupted SELF-IMAGE.
For some fundamentalist Christians, they abase themselves under a fictional judgmental god who tells them he controls the world and there aren’t nothing you do about it.
(Directive fatalistic evolution for agnostic and atheist is a destiny determinant.)
For some agnostics and atheists, they abase themselves by holding onto a fatalistic version of evolution that determines their destiny.
Ultimately all pulled down like a anchor chained around their waist sinking them into the stinking quicksand of indifference.
Ross Brisbane
10
………Said Ross as he waved his fist toward the sky, holding the bible in the other hand.
Now get off the pulpit and show us your proof that man is causing the globe to warm and that IT IS BAD FOR US.
10
Baa Humbug,
I suspect Ross would have nothing to say if he had to stop thumping his bible.
Ross,
I am an atheist and I take the bible as being nothing but the multiply transliterated reported ravings of psychotic bronze/stone age shepherds. It is not science or even a guide to life on earth. It is nothing but a huge pile of distorted myths. It contains nothing relevant for discussion outside of a cultural anthropology class. It certainly has nothing relevant to say about science and contains no evidence for the nature of reality.
Now that I have insulted you and your faith as thoroughly as you have insulted my knowledge of science and the real world, how about showing us actual physical (ie objective) proof of at least one your assertions.
10
Ross, your raving isn’t a cover for some Elmer Gantry type of peccadilloes that you’re rather ashamed of, is it?
10
Hi Lionell. Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer from Ross.
Brian, that’s cheeky (but clever and funny)
10
Hi Ross,
Oh, never mind.
I just rang my big brother in Canada to wish them all a Merry Xmas and we got discussing AGW. He thinks it is happening. I say the evidence says that it is not.
I just emailed him some stuff on the Arctic and Antarctic ice.
10
Baa Humbug,
Don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath. I was just performing a demonstration that “Ross would have nothing to say if he had to stop thumping his bible.” If he is able to do so, he will be the first evangelical I have ever experienced to have been able to stop.
For evangelicals, proof is thumping. Actually, they are not alive unless they are thumping. When they come onto my property expecting to thump me with their bible, I send them packing. As near as I can tell, they, want to win brownie points with their so called god and they get a point with every thump. Fortunately, I have not yet had to use force to expel them. The words “God doesn’t exist and religion is noise” and “You have one minute to get off my property before I charge you with abusive trespass” appears to be a sufficient repellent.
Ross said: “Unfortunately in typical style I am placed in the nutty fringe groups of belief without rationalism.
No Ross, I don’t put you in the camp that is without rationalism (has the form of reason without the reality based content), that is all you have. It’s your rationality (the capacity to use reason to connect to reality) that is missing. Considering the degree to which your evangelical religion is detached from reality, it is on the far side of borderline psychotic.
10
Ross, what is “extremes of climate in solaces” (#110)? I have trouble understanding some of your statements.
Did you listen to the interview with Cal Beisner (# 98)? If yes, do you have any comments on what he says? If no, why not? Are you here to debate us or just to make obscure statements?
Finally, I just have to say this: You claim to be able to run circles around Cardinal Pell in a theological argument. I realise you are Evangelical and he’s a Catholic, but even allowing for doctrinal differences and feelings of superiority based thereon, that’s a pretty arrogant statement.
10
Ross,
We’ve seen the consequences of mixing science and politics, which results from a stronger belief in the political preconceptions than in the actual science. Injecting additional preconceptions from yet another faith based belief system into the climate science debate is not useful by any stretch of the imagination.
If climategate has taught us anything, it’s that the science is definitely not settled.
Your entire repertoire of ‘facts’ are nothing but evidence that the climate changes, some of which is known to be suspect. Of course, no scientist skeptical of AGW will deny that the climate changes, so you might want to elaborate on the point you’re trying to make. The piece of the puzzle that the CRU, GISS, NOAA or anyone else has been unable to establish is the link between any activity of man and any substantial measured or imagined climate changes. Such a link is universally assumed and even as an AGW skeptic, I will concede that this effect is not zero. However, I’m equally sure that the sensitivity is not the 3C +- 2C claimed without basis by the IPCC and more like the 0.8C +/- 0.2C demonstrated by weather satellite data, EROS satellite date and the physics.
This is the difference between big enough with enough scary uncertainty to invoke the uncertainty principle and small enough that it can be safely ignored. Given economic limitations, even if the effect is as big as claimed, there are many other far more important things to spend money on.
George
10
Ross, if your intent is to proselytize, your common sense ought to tell you that your efforts are wasted.
If your intent is to criticize, nothing but the demonstrable refutation of fact would be meaningful
If your intent is to philosophize, your response will be nothing more than stricture
Whatever else your intentions might be, I cannot imagine any for which your efforts might lead to a favourable outcome for you
10
.
Possibly the most inane sentence I’ve ever read on this blog. “Under raps”!? – what’s the late Eminem got to do with it? A full stop, comma or semicolon wouldn’t have gone astray either.
Neverthess, let’s have the
that you ask for. Is it correct for a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to use a proxy reconstruction data matrix centered using the means of a “warm” training subset rather than the overall means? Does this de-centering of the mean imply that principal components then calculated are no longer eigenvectors of the original covariance matrix? Does this have any implications for IPCC reports?
Interested in your views as you seem to have a slightly different slant on the subject.
10
Okay now the ad homenian have become somewhat fierce on my character lets look at the science.
This is not “blogscience”, Watts Up rubbish, Climate Audit or the other “lord” who thinks he has a biblical mandate to re-interpret the science.
Two scientific papers are now placed on this table of discontent:
1. An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950
D. M. Murphy
Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA
S. Solomon
Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA
R. W. Portmann
Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA
K. H. Rosenlof
Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA
P. M. Forster
School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
T. Wong
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, USA
This paper sets out the following evidence:
We examine the Earth’s energy balance since 1950, identifying results that can be obtained without using global climate models. Important terms that can be constrained using only measurements and radiative transfer models are ocean heat content, radiative forcing by long-lived trace gases, and radiative forcing from volcanic eruptions. We explicitly consider the emission of energy by a warming Earth by using correlations between surface temperature and satellite radiant flux data and show that this term is already quite significant. About 20% of the integrated positive forcing by greenhouse gases and solar radiation since 1950 has been radiated to space.
Received 20 March 2009; accepted 18 June 2009; published 9 September 2009.
2. Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003–2008
K. von Schuckmann
LPO, UMR 6523, UBO, Ifremer, IRD, CNRS, Plouzané, France
F. Gaillard
LPO, UMR 6523, UBO, Ifremer, IRD, CNRS, Plouzané, France
P.-Y. Le Traon
LOS, Ifremer, Plouzané, France
Monthly gridded global temperature and salinity fields from the near-surface layer down to 2000 m depth based on Argo measurements are used to analyze large-scale variability patterns on annual to interannual time scales during the years 2003–2008.
The above presentation of data in this paper shows the oceans are warming at an alarming rate. Recent ocean heat measurements show the planet has been in positive energy imbalance to the end of 2008 (Schuckmann 2009).
You can rubbish my character, but please atheists, agnostics and truth bearing non-hypocritical Christians look at the empirical evidence.
Be true to your promise and do not rubbish real science. That is your challenge – not mine.
Ross Brisbane
10
Ross_Brisbane:
December 27th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Reconstruction pattern of the Medievil Warm Period:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Pattern_LIA.gif
Reconstruction of the modern warming last decade
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temp_Pattern_1999_2008_NOAA.jpg
Ross Brisbane
10
No doubt interesting papers from NOAA and CNRS. Those are the abstracts of course, presumably you have read the full papers. Speaking of which it would have been great if you’d got around to informing us what journal they were published in as any practicing scientist would do. I presume you are not a scientist. A scientologist perhaps?
Glanced the stuff from sceptical science and that’s generally about what anything from that site needs. Totally uninformative. No labels , nothing. I presume they are temperature anomolies. What are they compared to? Are both baselines the same?
I know Profs Mann and Jones consider warming in the middle ages to be evil and they have tried heroically over 10 years to get rid of it (see Climategate emails). But even they haven’t referred to it as the “Medievil Warm Period”. On the same subject are you going to address my question about PCA?
10
I only looked for a second at your link for the “Reconstruction pattern of the Medievil Warm Period”. On further examination, the temperature anomolies look a little on the coolish side, wouldn’t you say? Imagine what it must have been like for the people who had to live through the Little Ice Age that followed this medieval warming period.
10
I mistakenly posted a reference to the Medievil Warm Period remapping and plots of temperature indicators and cparing it the correctly posted last decadal temperature mappings globally measured.
It should have been this link:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif
The one I posted was of the Little Ice Age which is interesting in itself.
Ross Brisbane
10
All fine Ross. Now show us WHERE it PROVES it’s human emitted CO2 that’s causing any perceived warming.
Do you know how much of the CO2 in our atmosphere is emitted by humans?
Do you know how long this CO2 stays in the atmosphere?
Are you happy to come to a conclusion about the earths 3.5 Billion year climate based on a study spanning 5 to 50 years?
(Can you tell me what a 60,000 piece picture puzzle looks like by sighting just one sky blue piece)?
Are you satisfied that a temperature reconstruction can be made accurately from a 2000 year old tree stump dug out of a bog?
Are you certain the above tree didn’t suffer growth problems because of a sudden frosty season or a bug plague that may have stripped most of it’s leaves?
Can you define for me what is an “alarming” rate?
Can you be certain this rate has never occured during the past 3.5 Billion years?
Are the above enough or would you like some more?
10
Oh just one more question Ross. And feel free to refer to any peer reviewed paper by any scientist you choose.
Q- What is the “ideal” temperature of this planet that your flock are living in? In degrees celsius to one decimal point will suffice.
10
Ross_Brisbane
Incomprehensible drivel. Unless you can rewrite this in to something meaningful it is pointless continuing any discussion with you.
10
Ross:
Do you have any concrete examples of this? A URL would be excellent.
Are you referring to the same lies here or different ones? I kind of lost track. Please try just talking about one thing at a time, and keep the sentence structure nice and simple, so I can follow your gist.
10
Ross: You can rubbish my character, but please atheists, agnostics and truth bearing non-hypocritical Christians look at the empirical evidence.
You had to thump your bible, didn’t you? Thank you for proving my point.
I understand that simply finding a statement somewhere that agrees with what you hold to be true is, for you, proof. It’s a continuation of the method of proof by referring to a bible verse. The bible even says its the true word of *GOD* so it has to be what it says it is (blink…blink…blink). Such circular reasoning might work for your evangelical crowd in their alternate universe but it doesn’t work here in the real world. What you say must be tied to reality in full context, in a verifiable way, and without contradiction with all other reliable knowledge. Unsubstantiated assertion, reports of assertions, and reports of reports of assertions do not do that.
What you have pointed to is not empirical evidence. They are reports of analysis of unspecified and unavialible presumed evidence. They may or may not have actual empirical evidence behind them. The process by which the analysis was derived may or may not be correct. We don’t know AND we don’t take it on faith simply because names of your significant others were attached to the reports.
The empirical evidence consists of the measurements and the circumstances under which the measurements were taken. A computer model output is NOT empirical evidence about the real world. They are only outputs from models. Reports of analysis without having access to the raw data, how the data were taken, all the manipulations applied to the data, and the detailed logic of that analysis is proof of nothing. They are only stories. Stories are not empirical evidence, they are only stories.
Again, can you present actual physical (objective) proof of what you say and do it without thumping your bible?
10
Obviously you did not read the science based paper correctly. You lay a false misleading charge at me.
It was not computer modeling.
There are a few reasoning as to why I believe in AGW:
1. I am a rationalist
2. I believe in emphatic data
3. I believe in empirical evidence
4. I believe in observable confirmation of a hypothesis
5. Climate Change [current usage not old meaning] is not believed by fundamentalist Christianity with a certain theology that distrusts science: therefore DO NOT impute to me a religious connotation anymore, otherwise I will rightfully claim a willful prejudice on your part toward my character.
If you persist I am certainly up to the debate here. It is a neutral issue in being an agnostic, atheist or otherwise and that is no real determinant whether one believes in AGW or not.
______________________________________________
I am no green horn in presenting a strong case for AGW. Do not under estimate my understanding of it.
Fellow deniers and skeptics, I do not have the time to answer each and every question and I apologise for that in advance.
The papers I posted were transcripts of tow recently peer reviewed papers. Just taking a transcript and applying a defined logic is unfair. Bloggers can misrepresent the science this way. You would need to read the entirety of the whole to be a critic of it.
I will be careful with specific links and references in future as I was experimenting with image posting within the thread in my haste to do things.
I am creating my own blog sphere.
Ross Brisbane
10
actually what happened is they cut the thing 1000 times and still don’t understand why it don’t fit. It’s still too short! arggg
10
Ross
You don’t have time to answer all our questions?
Thats disapointing. You came on this blog and made statements, surely it’s beholdin on you to make the time to answer our queries. You have time to post your opinions, now is the time to clarify these opinions with answers. Further opinions should be held off until these current ones are clarified. Don’t you want us to understand you? Help us understand you, answer the questions.
I’m waiting to be converted, give it your best shot.
10
If you really are as rationalist as you claim, Ross, then you ought to come down on the side of climate scepticism.
Every single bit of consequence of AGW “theory,” as observable in all parts of the atmosphere, has been demonstrated to be the reverse of what has been measured (cooling of Stratosphere, shifting of rain in the Tropics, heating of the upper troposphere in Tropical Latitudes, etc).
The papers from people such as Susan Solomon have (habitually) demonstrated post hoc ergo propter hoc of all phenomena analysed; looking for explanations no deeper than AGW and for which there are myriad more plausible.
The reconstruction of the Earth’s history over one thousand years has been done to meet a pre-conceived notion; surely you ought to recognise that: in a similar manner, reconstruction of events surrounding the early Christian period could have (have been) made to meet the ulterior objectives of some religious sects
10
Ross: 1. I am a rationalist
Then stop thumping your bible and wearing your religion on your sleeve.
Ross: 5. Climate Change [current usage not old meaning] is not believed by fundamentalist Christianity with a certain theology that distrusts science: therefore DO NOT impute to me a religious connotation anymore, otherwise I will rightfully claim a willful prejudice on your part toward my character.
a. I am not imputing it, you are exposing your religious convictions at every turn. I am simply explicitly identifying it. God does not exist and all religions are noise. Hence, any claim to religiosity is to be taken as proof of a core irrationality. This is in direct and explicit contradiction to your claim of being a rationalist. This is not willful prejudice, it is a simple logical deduction based upon the evidence of your own words. Had you not given ample evidence of that fact, I would not have known you were a religious nut. I simply would have considered you ignorant and mistaken – possibly innocently so. As it is, I find you willfully ignorant and maliciously mistaken.
b. Please compare and contrast the current usage and old meaning of the term “Climate Change”. Give proof that current usage is correct and the old meaning is not.
10
Ross,
Do you believe that observational evidence can show that a hypothesis is wrong?
Do you believe that just one failed test of a hypothesis is sufficient to show it to be wrong?
Do you believe that models are at best approximations and that without experimental confirmation, the model is probably wrong?
Do you believe that objective science can overcome agenda driven preconceptions?
Do you believe in Conservation of Energy?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, then there may be hope to extract the AGW virus from your brain and enlighten you to the power of science. You can start here,
http://www.palisad.com/co2/eb/eb.html
George
10
Ross,
To give you a simple example of an acceptable empirical evidence report, I offer the following:
Objective:
To perform an experiment to test the capacity of the current climate simulation computer programs to inform public policy.
What was done:
I measured sky and ground temperature with an inexpensive ($19.99) Cen-Tech Non-Contact (Infrared) Thermometer available from Harbor Freight Tools.
What was found:
1. Several nights ago, with a clear sky, the measured sky temperature was a little over 11 degrees F.
2. Last night, with the sky overcast and rain pending, the measured sky temperature was almost 44 degrees F.
Both nights the measured ground temperature was between 50 and 55 degrees F.
Discussion:
It is to be understood that the effects of CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses are conflated in this experiment. However, this simple experiment strongly suggests that the the atmosphere alone, in all its complexity, is a warming wimp when compared to the atmosphere when the water droplets in clouds are added to the mix. Even then, The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires that the direction of heat transfer is from the ground to the sky rather than the reverse.
Current climate simulations are not capable of including the detailed behavior of clouds. This incapacity has been reported at least since 1995.
October 1995: http://www.dvgu.ru/meteo/library/60120641.pdf
November 2003: http://kiwi.atmos.colostate.edu/pubs/Super_BAMS.pdf
July 2009: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8165223.stm
November 2009:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48940/title/Aerosols_cloud_the_climate_picture
Conclusion:
The results of this experiment suggests that any computer simulation that is incapable of including the effect of clouds in detail will fail to produce reliable predictions of future climate no matter how accurately it maps the effects of the so called greenhouse gasses.
Since current simulations do not include the detailed behavior of clouds any prediction/projection/forecast produced by the current climate simulation projects has nothing to do with the future state of the global climate. They are simply outputs from computer programs and nothing more. As such, they cannot properly inform public policy.
10
Guys/Gals,
Please don’t feed the troll.
10
Ross_Brisbane,
I read your post right up until the following:
Then I stopped reading.
I will now counter with the following rhetorical question. I will not answer as you obviously like the sound of your own voice:
Explain this you ignorant troll:
Don’t feed the troll people.
10
Brian G Valentine:
December 27th, 2009 at 11:27 am Post 114
Ross has mistakenly identified Phil Jones, Mike Mann, Jim Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, and Gavin Schmidt as being “anti AGW.”
What possible “contribution” could Ross make,
given his level of knowledge / understanding ?
Don’t feed the troll people.
10
He could make a contribution by boosting his own level of knowledge, and possibly pass that on to other people.
10
Ross_Brisbane:
December 27th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Okay now the ad homenian have become somewhat fierce on my character lets look at the science.
This is not “blogscience”, Watts Up rubbish, Climate Audit or the other “lord” who thinks he has a biblical mandate to re-interpret the science.
Wow! Where to begin? You wrote “Okay now the ad homenian have become somewhat fierce on my character”. For someone who seems to take great umbrage at being called names you then make the statement “This is not “blogscience”, Watts Up rubbish, Climate Audit or the other “lord” who thinks he has a biblical mandate to re-interpret the science.” Now, that is hypocrisy at its best. Lets get past the sloppy citations or, should I say, lack of any. I can care less about your religious views as they have nothing to do with science. You need to check the shelf life on your “science”, it has long ago expired. You “cited” some “papers” regarding “An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950” in response 126. The ERBE (Earth Radiation Budget Experiment), as Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT Explains “”The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. …
It turns out that there is a much more fundamental and unambiguous check of the role of feedbacks in enhancing greenhouse warming that also shows that all models are greatly exaggerating climate sensitivity. Here, it must be noted that the greenhouse effect operates by inhibiting the cooling of the climate by reducing net outgoing radiation. However, the contribution of increasing CO2 alone does not, in fact, lead to much warming (approximately 1oC for each doubling of CO2). The larger predictions from climate models are due to the fact that, within these models, the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever CO2 does. This is referred to as a positive feedback. It means that increases in surface temperature are accompanied by reductions in the net outgoing radiation – thus enhancing the greenhouse warming. All climate models show such changes when forced by observed surface temperatures. Satellite observations of the earth’s radiation budget allow us to determine whether such a reduction does, in fact, accompany increases in surface temperature in nature. As it turns out, the satellite data from the ERBE instrument (Barkstrom, 1984, Wong et al, 2006) shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative — strongly reducing the direct effect of CO2 (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) in profound contrast to the model behavior. This analysis makes clear that even when all models agree, they can all be wrong, and that this is the situation for the all important question of climate sensitivity.”
Although the majority of scientists believe in God they are wise enough not to mix religion and science. Perhaps you should pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance? Maybe God will tell you that science is based on fact and religion is based on faith? I could spend my valuable time listing all the many falsifications of the AGW theory but I won’t. The AGW camp claims that mans burning of fossil fuels is seriously effecting the climate therefore the burden of proof is upon those who espouse the theory, not the skeptics. I will not commit myself to the fool’s errand of trying to prove a negative. If you can cite one shred of empirical proof that man is having a significant effect on the climate by burning fossil fuels I would welcome it as I seek the truth. Regarding a fool’s errand, good luck!
Oh, please, no broken hockey sticks, appeals to authority, appeals to ignorance or “proof” that the climate is changing (the climate is always changing.)
10
@Ross_Brisbane
You wrote “I am wasting my time debating in such hostile territory anyway and I am thinking in creating an equivalent counter to this JONOVA biased anti-AGW web site. I assure you it is not clear cut lies. The science is not settled at all to favor an absolute outcome of denial on your side.” Hostile territory? The reason it is called a debate is because there is disagreement. Good luck with your counter to “JONOVA”. Jo works selflessly to promote the search for the truth, will you? You may want to take a course on logic and deductive thinking as well as a refresher course on english grammar so that you can make your case in a coherent manner. I am still waiting for that proof of manmade global warming. My conscience bothers me (very little) as what I have asked you to do in providing me with empirical proof is analogous to placing someone who is mentally challenged in a round room and asking them to sit in a corner! I suppose I do have my faults.
10
Gosh. Ross didn’t seem to take to the company he found here.
Let me go get my violin
and my handerchief
Outside of the Chinese causing the immolation of COP15 this is the saddest thing I have heard all week
10
Would someone please tell me how to replace the little cartoon next to my name with a picture? I noticed Brian G Valentine, Tel and Lionel griffith have a picture instead of a cartoon. I was dragged kicking and screaming into the computer age! Thanks.
10
The site uses pictures that people have selected on gravatar.com
So do other Word Press weblogs and other sites
You can sign up on gravatar.com
10
Thanks Brian G Valentine!
10
mmmmmm I feel a little embarrassed. Ross coming onto this blog was rather like a little kitten accidently wondering into a cage full of pitbulls. He got savaged somewhat before scampering out thru a little hole in the corner.
10
There is SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE who NEEDS Ross to save them, I just know it.
Someone who is lost, and would find salvation in or through Ross …
Perhaps lying on a bench in a travel bus depot
Or in a sanatorium … Maybe Ross could find them there (assuming they don’t lock the door behind Ross after he enters)
10
Eddy Aruda
Disagreement is one thing but blatant propaganda is another thing. This blog site is appalling in one sided debate. You are a fringe group think. Thank God there are more sensible and intelligent folk then yourself.
I work selflessly too and that higher moral argument in no way satisfies me that there is fairness on her part here.
My dear alpha male you are throwing your ego around like an elephant in a china shop. FYI, I have mild dyslexia. I am more then a consummate communicator in verbal and multi-media presentation and would debate alpha brained males like youself any day of the week in a public forum.
Go find your proof – there is plenty out there readily accessible on the internet, in public university forums and science roadshows.
I however will endeavor to post very new science papers when time is available.
Do not think I feel threatened by your intimidation colourants within your posted internet language. You most likely sound like a lion on the internet but are a kitten in reality.
Up for a public debate – I sure am.
Ross Brisbane
10
@ Ross_Brisbane
Your Response at 168 is non sequitur. I am a man who believes in peace. I am glad you are not intimidated but you are “gramatically challenged.” Beyond posting ad hominem attacks you are unable to do much besides embarrass yourself. You believe in anthropogenic global warming therefore the burden of proof is yours. It is illogical to try and prove a negative so I won’t bother. You say you are up for a public debate so please provide the empirical evidence that man has significantly effected the weather through the emission of CO2. I already know that you can’t. I find your deportment and attitude to be very unchristian. A real christian would not defile his beliefs by calling someone a kitten for seeking the truth. As the bible says, “If you know the truth, the truth shall set you free (John Ch 8, Vs 32) It must be tiring running around the circular logic of the anthropogenic rubber room of fallacy and trying to find a corner of logic to sit in? If you cannot make a logical argument and provide empirical proof of Man’s “sin” then go do some research and come back with your results. Otherwise, I will ignore you as my time is valuable and I am out of cheeks to turn.
10
Well, it is 12:18 PM in California and I have a busy day tomorrow. Goodnight everybody and you are all in my prayers, especially Ross_Brisbane.
10
Ross, you accuse Joanne of not providing “fairness” on her blog – yet you do not play “fair” yourself in that you constantly evade our requests for empirical evidence of your adopted theory.
In # 168 you yet again refuse to do the work yourself: “Go find your proof – there is plenty out there readily accessible on the internet, in public university forums and science roadshows”. That’s not debating, that’s plain lazy. Name just one paper that provides empirical evidence for AGW. The burden of proof is you your side, Ross.
You still haven’t answered my questions above (#98 & 122), in fact you’ve completely ignored them. Did you or did you not listen to Cal Beisner’s interview?
You claim to be up for a public debate. This is a public domain – debate us.
10
Has it been 4 cheeks already Eddy lol
Ross, here is a case study in burden of proof.
A policeman pulled me over once, said I hadn’t indicated to change lanes. I said I did, he was 200 metres behind me so prolly didn’t see.
He insisted he would book me. I warned him that he would embarrass himself in court, to which he got upset and said see you there.
I went to court alone, no lawyer. When my turn came to speak, I said…”Your worship, this officer is arguing that he didn’t see something. Why are we here wasting the courts valuable time your worship?”
To which the magistrate said, “case dissmissed, get out of here.”
10
Eddy Aruda
I am also a man who believes in peace.
You have attempted to embarrass me but this will fail my dear friend.
Thanks – I do try but you can still read my sentences – that’s the important part.
I find you authoritarian stand over tactics rather unchristian.
Yes I often quote the same scripture.
I am surprised you are so hardened and so self assured. Your response is certainly strong but it is misplaced and misdirected. I believe it does not hold up to an objective theological premise and ethic – we can nothing and the earth balances itself as it is the Lord’s.
You believe we can do nothing to offset the damage or alter the climate by aerosol mitigation of concentrations of C02 from fossil fuels.
Ross Brisbane
10
Baa Humbug:
I am aware I have not posted links and much logical argument. This is coming. Please do allow me time to post updated interesting scientific papers.
Coincidentally I argued a case on behalf of myself and settled out of court to my own personal satisfaction. This was before three barristers. I hold to AGW for very sound reasonings as you soon shall see and so shall others here also.
Ross Brisbane
10
Anne-Kit Littler:
I listened to the MP3. I simply find his premises very weak, based on old data and not in keeping with the latest evidence.
I also find the theology of Cornwall Alliance to be insufficient as proper guardianship of human well being for future generations. I think their theology is fatalistic and holds to a judgmental god image with poor self worth for human beings under common grace and His redemptive nature.
The Web Site:
http://vanguardchurch.blogspot.com/2009/12/cornwall-alliances-denial-of-power-of.html
I commend the sites approach and it is surprising their developed theology of response to Climate Change is similar to my responses.
Ross Brisbane
10
I can’t wait. I’m so excited 🙂
10
OK, thanks for responding to my questions, Ross. Now please answer this: Which of Beisner’s premises and data specifically do you find weak, old and not in keeping with the latest evidence? Please specify also the exact evidence you have in mind.
I am at a loss to find evidence for your interpretation of the Cornwall Alliance’s theology as “judgmental” and “fostering of a poor self image for humans”. Your paraphrasing of their stance on environmental issues is grossly misleading, as is that of Vanguardchurch.com. Perhaps you simply adopted Vanguard’s interpretation as your own?
Here is what Cornwall Alliance actually declare (from http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/ ):
“An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming
As governments consider policies to fight alleged man-made global warming, evangelical leaders have a responsibility to be well informed, and then to speak out. A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Examination of the Theology, Science, and Economics of Global Warming demonstrates that many of these proposed policies would destroy jobs and impose trillions of dollars in costs to achieve no net benefits. They could be implemented only by enormous and dangerous expansion of government control over private life. Worst of all, by raising energy prices and hindering economic development, they would slow or stop the rise of the world’s poor out of poverty and so condemn millions to premature death.
WHAT WE BELIEVE
1. We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
2. We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it. With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable.
3. We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
4. We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.
WHAT WE DENY
1. We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
2. We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.
3. We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.
4. We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.”
And an excerpt from the Executive Summary of “A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor”:
“Environmentalism sees Earth and its systems as the product of chance and therefore fragile, subject to easy and catastrophic disruption. The Biblical worldview sees Earth and its systems as robust, self-regulating, and self-correcting, not immune to harm but durable.”
(emphasis mine)
10
Ross, I am familiar with the Evangelical Climate Initiative which you link to. As you can see, they rely heavily on Argument from Authority and consensus. This is their reason for backing action on human induced climate change:
(Excerpt from your link:)
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s most authoritative body of scientists and policy experts on the issue of global warming, has been studying this issue since the late 1980s. (From 1988—2002 the IPCC’s assessment of the climate science was Chaired by Sir John Houghton, a devout evangelical Christian.) It has documented the steady rise in global temperatures over the last fifty years, projects that the average global temperature will continue to rise in the coming decades, and attributes “most of the warming” to human activities.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, as well as all other G8 country scientific Academies (Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Italy, and Russia), has concurred with these judgments.” (emphasis mine)
Re Cornwall Alliance’s “very right wing conservative biased political outlook on economics” What a clumsy attempt to divert from the issue of their theological stance on environmentalism – oh, and is this what you mean?:
(quote from my post above):
“We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.”
And this: “The old arguments are there on the speech” ???? Oh no you don’t get away with that here, Ross. If you stopped wasting time on avoiding the issues you’d have more time to cough up some hard evidence. The “arguments” in the interview are scientific ones, Ross – did you really listen to the end?
10
Not that I have any problem whatsoever with a conservative biased political outlook on economics, mind you. When the left get a hold of our economy they have a deplorable history of monumental stuff-ups!
10
Another question for Ross: how does “The Evangelical Climate Initiative” stand on the Anabaptist heresy?
Just to clarify my question, is it valid for someone to take on a belief (and no doubt follow this with action) when the belief was placed upon them by factors outside their own control (with the canonical example being the baptism of a baby) ?
Putting this a different way, should we say that belief and resulting action are only valid when the person in question has free choice to accept or reject the belief ?
10
It seems Ross is heavily invested (emotionally/spiritually) in the AGW pseudo-science. I too am Christian however believe that God gave man nous for use of better judgment and to not jump to conclusions so easily – that throwing caution to the wind is asking for trouble. Indeed critical thinking and a leap of faith are not one and the same.
There are several gospels in the Bible that can be cross referenced (peer reviewed), yes it’s not scientific analysis by any means but early Christian fathers had the nous (there’s that word again) and wisdom to release several accounts of the life of Christ. Not all were released of course, but those who inquire can still pursue, access and debate such information.
What the CRU and other pro-AGW organizations and groups have committed is nothing short of fraud and deceit. It could be science, a classical composition, a parable, a cooking recipe – hiding, manipulating, distorting, obstructing proper accounting, inquiry and pursuit of knowledge is nothing short of very poor form. It’s chicanery of the worst kind. If this alone is too difficult to comprehend, then one’s credibility in understanding the complexities of atmospheres and climate in scientific terms and principles is clearly limited.
I’d like to thank the authors of this time-line and for publicly making available the magnitude of deceit that underscores the whole AGW movement. It deserves as much exposure as possible.
10
Ross,
You say that you’re ready to debate the science of AGW and are experienced at making a good case for it, yet I haven’t seen anything related to the science of climate change in any of your posts. I see a lot of posturing, evangelizing, links to irrelevant papers, rehashing AGW talking points, etc.
You claim this site is biased. To that I can answer that yes indeed, this is site is biased – towards the scientific truth. You want a forum to debate, it’s here, stop rehashing talking points and start debating. It’s certainly not a site like RC, where G Schmidt actively suppresses debate. BTW, I wouldn’t count on Wikipedia for facts either, as W. Conolley is another member of the cabal who actively suppresses debate and biases the Wiki away from the science and towards the AGW talking points.
You also seem to think that it’s up to AGW skeptics to prove that AGW isn’t a problem. That’s not how science works. The burden of proof is on those proposing a hypothesis, especially when that hypothesis violates known physics. For example, one physical Law that’s violated by many aspects of the ‘catastrophic AGW hypothesis’ is Conservation of Energy. I qualified this with ‘catastrophic’ because normal physics based CO2 absorption does not violate COE. It’s the idea of an enhanced greenhouse effect caused by runaway positive feedback from water vapor which violates CO2, moreover, Lindzen and Choi showed that the net climate system feedback is negative based on ERBE data and I have been able to show the same thing using the GISS weather satellite data (http://www.palisad.com/co2/eb/eb.html).
From Stefan-Boltzmann, the energy associated with a surface temperature of 288K (the measured global average) is 390.1 W/m^2. According to the IPCC AR, the radiative forcing power density from doubling CO2 is 3.7 W/m^2. From the satellite data, we can measure the ratio between the change in surface temperature caused by a specific change in the post albedo incident surface power. This ratio is about 1.6. If 3.7 W/m^2 is treated the same as 3.7 W/m^2 of additional surface incident solar power, the post feedback surface power increase will be 5.92 W/m^2 (3.7 * 1.6). Going back to Stefan-Boltzmann, 5.92 W/m^2 of additional surface energy (396 W/m^2 total) results in a surface temperature of 289K, for a total, post feedback, increase of 1C. To achieve the hypothetical 3C surface temperature rise, the surface energy must be increased by over 16 W/m^2. The extra 10 W/m^2 are simply fabricated out of nothingness in order to make the ‘catastrophic’ AGW case. It you think you can move the debate in favor of catastrophic AGW, tell me where all of the extra extra energy comes from.
According to the latest HITRAN data, the 3.7 W/m^2 actually represents the incremental atmospheric absorption, which the AR incorrectly casts as increased radiative forcing. In practice, the actual surface temperature increase from 3.7 W/m^2 of additional atmospheric absorption is even lower, because half of this extra absorbed energy is re-radiated back into space and only half reaches the surface. Despite the significance of this point, the catastrophic AGW hypothesis still has no legitimate basis.
George
10
@ Ross_Brisbane:
You stated in response 175 “I am aware I have not posted links and much logical argument.” Actually, you haven’t posted one logical argument. You have posted some links but nothing showing a link between man and climate change, we are still waiting. Nobody cares about your religious beliefs as they are irrelevant to to the topic of discussion, global warming. So, Ross, no more temper tantrums. You are consistent in that you will do anything but provide the empirical proof we are asking for. We will not allow you to segue or get away with Red Herrings. Put up or shut up. Or, I suppose you could continue to run around the circular logic of the anthropogenic rubber room of fallacy and continue trying to find a corner of logic to sit in if you feel that you need the exercise. Thank you for the entertainment as I find your antics to be hilarious. If you don’t start that website you mentioned in a previous response you can always get a job as a carney at the local midway.
10
@ Ross Brisbane Response 92 “I have the smoking guns that you think do not exist in any scientific paper heavily and fiercely independent of any IPCC finding since their official report in 2007.”
Smoking Guns or smoking crack? We are still waiting for you to share this special knowledge, this gnosis that you claim. Are you a prophet? Did the Lord whisper the truth in your ear? Did God tell you to keep it a secret? Perhaps you should reveal these “smoking guns” that even the IPCC are unaware of.
I pity you as you are obviously very lonely. Maybe you should buy a dog or join a support group. Therapy may help? You are a self described debater (master debater?) who says he has the proof but cannot reveal it. You poor thing you! You want to “save” the world but you cannot share with us your “proofs” and “smoking guns.” Maybe if you pray real hard God will allow you to reveal these truths so we can all be saved”?
Save us Ross before it is too late and the almighty tells you to smite us! Still waiting on that proof and probably will be until hell freezes over!
10
Ross complains, yet seems unaware how lucky he is to have his say on this web site.
Most of the “climate” sites (read: IPCC is the only credible thing anyone has to say about the subject) censor the content the blog managers don’t like
in the case I pointed out above, Dr Joesph Romm, blog authority, allowed about half of what I had to say to appear on his web page; he usually allows none.
Real Climate has never allowed anything I had to say to appear in the page’s contents.
So, Ross, you’re left on your own to defend what you say – readers of this web site generally conclude your defence has been poor
10
Okay I have relented and I will give you my theological response.
I shall then move away from the theology altogether which is of interest to a handful here. I will be posting science based submissions for that is where I am sure all are screaming at me to post.
Sorry for now its back to a bit of Political History and Theology
Mankind was given dominion. With that order of implied hierarchical governance, God gave man a superior creative brain with emotional responses beyond just logic and reasoning and the instinct for simple survival needs. However in times where mankind could have gotten beyond his capacity to cope with his discoveries, God reset humanities technologies with divine judgments such as the Tower of Babel story and of the Genesis account of a flood that catastrophically wiped out an advanced core of humanity. The hypothesis is that God had to intervene and save mankind from his own folly.
Mankind is now facing a new epoch in his development. We are faced with a polluted planet. We have wiped out whole species of life right across this earth through our own brutality and often cruelty. We are have been driven by prosperity by our own nation at the expense of other nations. We have enslaved races from other nations to further commerce and trade profitability. We have vandalised our environment and destroyed the livelihood of communities on land and dependent on the sea.
We have cut giant storage houses of carbon down. We have dug, drilled and ripped it up out of the ground in vast quantities – Hydrocarbons being the catalyst for our energy needs. We are facing a crisis. Third world countries are struggling. Meanwhile the evidence is mounting of a new threat – our reckless industrializations have taken a toll on the earth.
Theology developed by fundamentalists has always wanted hands off approach to catastrophe. God’s brings the judgments not us and we have no right to stop Him. We were indifferent when we discovered we were not centre of the universe. We were indifferent when the age of the earth grew beyond our capacity to understand a creator beyond 10,000 years of implied biblical interpretation. We were indifferent to the plight of children in Victorian England used in coal mining – (conservative Christians of that time wanted CHEAP labor and declared it would the undoing of human progress and industry.) We were indifferent when slavery was abandoned in Southern America supported by Southern theology that still remains entrenched in Southern United States even today that sent America to war with each other. The Obama hate phenomena in America is just one spin off.
We think we are to save only the soul but our responsibility can never be the earth. This is a GNOSTIC thinking that stems from mysticism developed within the evangelistic community since post WW II. Save the soul but the earth is the Lord’s and His material and substance which needs destroying by Him alone so it be renewed. Gnosticism leads one down the path that spiritual reality is more important to God then the natural order of His creation as it is evil and unredeemable. In other words Gnostic belief makes God’s purpose with the creation a destructive action rather then a creative one. The Bible tells the Christian we are co-workers TOGETHER with Christ and that Kingdom is both His creation of the earth and all life within it.
Modern fundamentalist theology has developed fatalism in their eschatology. During the cold war era Christian movements saw the apocalypse as atomic war. To them it was fulfillment of divine prophesy. In 2000, the crazies were at it again with the supposed bug in computers where the world would suffer meltdown in functioning. The Rapturists of Dispensationalist teachings (Scofield) were getting impatient with fulfillments of divine prophesy. After 2000 went and said bye without any major glitch, 9/11 came along and changed the world.
By the early 1990s there was total control of the US by the fundamentalist right within the ranks of the GOP and they infiltrated the US Senate with a triumphistic morality based gospel that essentially was anti-science (Re: Scopes trial). All kinds of conspiracy theories sprang forth from one Senate enquiry – one after another. Even G. W Bush could see the problems with their arguments – all being driven by fundamentalist right wing machinery and religious and Revelation based conspiracies of One World Governance threats over the nation’s sovereignty Meanwhile, this global warming hypothesis began its continual background noise in the community and in the evidences being stumbled upon by Climate Scientist worldwide.
The attitude of theology in a majority of fundamentalist churches remains the same – God is doing this as signs in Revelations are fulfilled and shortly the anti-Christ will arise. A survey was done in America’s south and I’d estimate that nearly 40% of deep south American Christians believe that Obama is either the anti-Christ or FORE-runner. It is no wonder the remarkable animosity and hatred most conservative theological seminaries also have toward to the environmentalist movement. A collision course was the eventual outcome with Conservative Christians siding with the likes of Plimer – Heaven and Earth, a classic global warming denier that once attacked a literal fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis as a 7 day account of creation of the earth. This is one example of the uneasy alliance of odd fellows which now forms the alliance of skeptical movement globally.
We need to check this theology and its development. Since the loss of the Bush administration and the loss of control by the fundamentalist religious right in both government and the senate, a war raged about the birth certificate. A new opinion poll finds America awash with multiple illogical conspiracy theories and the other driver is the fear of a centralist government controlling their lives. This had caught on in conservative thinking and of older generations worldwide who have in turn caught the political “virus” and fallout from the Obama win. Climate Change denial of the science spread over the internet like a virus – and it origins believe it or not lie at the feet of right wing political bigots doing and saying anything to a get a power base back. It is therefore my strong sentiment that fundamentalist Christian’s could easily be used like pawns in this quest for an ideological return to right wing governance. It is noted that powerful men exist within this ideological spectrum who belong to super powerful corporations within the energy sectors.
Immediately appearing in Fundamentalist web sites was an attack on Obama, Climate Change and a socialist conspiracy agenda to convert America to a police state. This hysteria was driven by the Hollywood machine, media and the religious right. The rapture is overdue. The best selling books remain rapture books, end times and conspiracy books.
This captured the imagination of the political machinery who are the driving this rather foolish theological belief system by fear media feeds. It is very easy to scare these Christians who feel under siege by the liberal administration due to their loss of control of the Senate by the religious right.
The theology is flawed for a few reasons:
1. It is fatalistic
2. God is seen a judge over the earth and not a redeemer of mankind
3. It creates fear for tomorrow with Christians storing guns, food and developing strategies to destroy government institutions by creating rebel “tea parties” and rebelling against new tax levies. This is contrary to Romans about our response to governments.
4. The apocalyptic vision MUST be fulfilled as the bible says and therefore there is nothing human beings can do about it. This argument could be supported when Jesus said- “you will always have the poor” – when theology is taken out of context it becomes a very foolish argument to the broader meanings of the bible.
5. Family First’s basis for theology is based upon a loose framework of Southern Baptist interpretations of the bible. Steve Fielding virtually fell into the slot with Climate Change and its debate. He also did have not maturity to see through such front shops as Heartland Institute and fringe science.
The theology that fell from “grace”.
Paul Tillich: theologian of nature, culture and politics
For those who want to better discern the primitive origins of right wing theology the following online book would aid one greatly in better understanding how religion and internal beliefs can greatly affect one’s outlook in politics, a whole nation and resultant mistakes of the past history. This should be not be repeated within the Climate Change debate.
In case Christians are unaware – America is awash with extreme right ideologies within their own Christian theology that have distinct parallels and profound effect on the climate change debate of today.
The book is not fluff and is not for everyone who is used to $20 lolly coloured paperbacks.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=V6-9-zdPRBcC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=right+wing+theology
This work on a theological approach to Global Warming is still under development and is incomplete. Some of the statements within are Australian centric.
Copyright Ross Brisbane 2009
10
Ross, Re 207,
Do you have a point here or are you just trying to sell a book? Frankly, I don’t see any connection between climate change and theology, except to the extent that AGW has become a religion. Interjecting theology into the climate science debate sounds more like an admission of defeat, as you’re resorting to what amounts to magic in order to make your case.
Can you try and answer the question in my last post about where all this unaccounted for energy is coming from? You want a debate and I’m happy to oblige, but I’m going to have to insist that you stay on topic.
George
10
@ myself @ response 97 @ Ross Brisbane Response 92 “I have the smoking guns that you think do not exist in any scientific paper heavily and fiercely independent of any IPCC finding since their official report in 2007.”
[I replied] Smoking Guns or smoking crack?…
Yep, after reading Ross_Brisbane 207, it was the crack pipe! It is either that or drugs or perhaps a problem best left to the purview of mental health professionals. The entire post was non sequitur! Your ramblings and ravings are pathetic, get some help before its too late!
10
@ Baa Humbug 205
Nice response! I recognized many of the laws but several were new to me, do you have a link to a list of these laws or any other related sites you could direct me to?
Thanks! And a Happy New Year to you and all you hold dear!
10
Hi Eddy,
I posted a theology out of courtesy to fulfill a few requests that I should post my own submission.
I am presently doing a my first Climate Change submission draft here which no doubt will be picked over like vultures descending. The trends in all graphs and data sources ending 2009 are undeniable – we are warming globally.
Please try to refrain from Ad Hominem* attacks:
This “argument” has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A’s claim is false.
Simply attacking my character or person does not prove your argument.
Ross Brisbane
10
re his holiness Ross and all `men of god` I`m unable to take anyone seriously who subscribes to the ridiculous notion of an omnipresent supreme being. do you really think that “the creator” would allow himself to be represented on earth by such a hotch potch band of dills who in “his name” declare war, issue fatwahs and edicts that have caused misery and strife through out known history? the scamsters of agw have learnt well from the religionistas how to pray on the weak and vulnerable. genuine humanistic endeavour will make no headway until we are rid of these fatuous laughable notions. Stone me.
10
Hi Ross
I gave you a thumbs up for your post #211
I also would like you to refrain from making comments like the following…
“Mankind is now facing a new epoch in his development. We are faced with a polluted planet. We have wiped out whole species of life right across this earth through our own brutality and often cruelty”.
Polluted planet? Well over 95% of this planet is still pristine. The areas occupied by the developed world have improved since the 70’s. Where would you prefer to swim, a river in Brisbane or a river in India or China?
Wiped out whole species? C’mon now, 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct, WE DIDN’T KILL THEM ALL.
Your creator created the world like that, species come and species go. Maybe us humans should just refrain from interfering i.e. pushing whales back into water or gathering the last few frogs to try and re-breed etc
Since day one, this planet has been all about survival of the fittest. We happen to be the fittest species AT THE MOMENT.
So Ross, please, when you make a profound statement, back it up with some references, else you are wasting our time and yours.
10
Hi Mark
I will respond to your post.
Many do – that’s the point of article – denial of science belongs to a religious movement and fringe science – nothing to do with Climate Change of course – hmm.
Yes that’s another point – any man-made religion kills does it not? It also tends to remain ignorant?
No – the scamsters come from man made religious movements and fringe unpalatable right wing politics seeking power over you by distorting the truth of the real science – its the other way around.
Like AGW denial.
No you would be surprised in the end as we all will be.
I will be posting common logic based sense and science supported posts for you to read soon and for the others as well from now on – that’s my promise to you.
Ross Brisbane
10
Baa Humbug
Read these compelling “extinctions” and weep!
http://www.whole-systems.org/extinctions.html
Ross Brisbane
10
creative enough to fill the void of knowledge with ritual hocus pocus ..
by whom?
pity you don`t apply the same principles to the voodoo you subscribe to…
10
Read “Who are we – about Whole Systems” and weep! They’re a recycling company in Oregon, run by the Smith family … Not surprisingly, they are into “sustainability” and have bought into all the other rubbish (pun intended) surrounding that particular concept. Hail Malthus! Hail Erlich!
Always check your sources, Ross.
10
Oh Ross PULLEASSEEE
“Graph is based on a mathematical model”.
It’s another “hockeystick” graph produced by a MODEL
Do you really believe the extinction rate of only 10 species per year prior to industrialization?
Nobody knows Ross, some GUESS it’s 25 PER DAY. Have a guess yourself, you’d just as likely be accurate as anyone elses guess.
10
Mark, I would be grateful if you try not to lump all Christians together with the likes of Ross. I am a Christian – as are quite a few other skeptical commentators here I believe – and I can assure you that Christianity and science are not incompatible.
Ross’s particular brand of religion is not immediately recognisable to me as Christian faith. I think he is confused and deceived on many points. He most certainly does not represent all religious people. I promise not to have a go at you for your atheism if you promise to stop demonising all Christians.
Thank you.
10
@ Baa humbug..
don`t know about eddy, but I`ve already got a reversed block qwerty imprint on my forehead! bring on the apotheosis, it`ll be less painfull.
10
Anne-Kit Littler:
December 29th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
And I would appreciate you not making assumptions about my faith as being non-Christian due to my holding to a AGW understand of the science.
Your accusation is false, misleading and is full of unfounded judgment.
If you identify the God of the bible with only an endorsement of right wing politics and denial of climate science that supports AGW then quite clearly you are making value judgments about someones faith that is clearly incorrect, wrong and highly narrow minded in thinking.
I would have thought better of you after your repeated requests to post my thoughts.
As for your anti-environmentalist sentiments – they are noted as with all Christian bigots who think that thinking is from the pit of hell.
Ross Brisbane
10
Not once have I criticised you Lionell Griffith.
My responses are only directed to those who would attack a persons character – and I can see you have joined in.
Perhaps you would like to hand others more stones.
Ross Brisbane
10
Ross: Not once have I criticised you Lionell Griffith.
Well, I have repeatedly criticized your both obvious and feeble attempts to fog this blog. Your repeated religious thumping is unacceptable in this context. Your petulant claims of being insulted by Ad Hominem when we have simply attacked your words and the ideas they represent are irrelevant and as absurd as the content of your posts.
It is as I thought, you can’t even comprehend something as simple as “Stop it!”. Your endless religious thumping and unsupported claims to be science based are absurd BY EVIDENCE OF YOUR OWN WORDS. Your fog contributes nothing to the discussion. I predicted that you can’t stop it and switch to a rational discussion of the central issues of this blog. So far you have proven me right.
Start presenting actual evidence. Reference to a bunch of intellectual trash collectors who have accumulated nearly every bit of ecological intellectual trash that has been published within the past 100 years takes your absurdity over the top. We have absolutely no interest in what you believe, feel, or assume. We have even less interest in what your significant others believe, feel, or assume. Tell us what you KNOW and how you know it. For the rest of your verbal fog: STOP IT!
10
I am not a religious person but I deeply believe that we humans are the most evolved form of life that we know, that evolution created.
This comes with responsibility:
– We must take care of this planet
– We must take care of each other
– We must strive to better our self for the benefit of all
– We must have the least impact on our environment as possible
This can only be accomplish through:
– Policies based on science
– Energy sources of higher density as possible, not those low density wind mills
– Low interest rate credits for infrastructure development and not the high rate controlled by central private bankers
– Always use the most efficient system with the least energy loss possible when it make sense
The goal is to:
– Feed and give descent living standard to 7+ billions people
– Transform the planet in a beautiful garden
– Prepare the human race for our next big step, explore other worlds. Not in the “Avatar way”
Simon
10
Oh joy, a few days away from the blog and there’s another troll clogging up the threads with all kinds of voluminous inanities.
Never argue with an idiot, they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you every time with their extensive experience.
10
Gary: Never argue with an idiot
One cannot argue with an idiot. There is nothing to argue. To argue, implies there is a bases for discussion and that both parties are using logic applied to experience and experiment though one or both might be mistaken. This blog has had a few trolls where this might apply. In the case of Ross, it is the archetypal opposite. In that case, one must either deny exposure from the start or addresses the irrational communications to expose them as such. Jo has determined that she will all them to be exposed. She is far more tolerant than I but it is her blog so I am constrained to participating in exposing their irrational core.
10
Ross, where is your proof? Still no evidence to demonstrate man’s culpability in the changes occurring in the climate? You droll on with your religious drivel and threats to vanquish us with all this knowledge you claim to possess and yet you are incapable of providing one shred of empirical evidence that man is making anything but a trivial contribution to the worlds climate. Put up or shut up you pedantic psued!
10
Ross doesn’t believe the bible. You need a good old fashiioned bible study.
When spies were sent to check out the land, they brought evidence and all 12 saw the same facts. 2 were optimists and said they could take over the land. The negativists never saw “the promised land”
all saw the same facts and they held opposing conclusions.
Point number 2:
Fear is all the warmists have to peddle. Fear is sin. You seem to disagree with the bible regarding fear. Lying to peddle and promote fear is bearing false witness. The bible you seem to deny also has strong words about bearing false witness and false prophesy.
Point 3:
Read the scripture before the tower of Babel and it portrays the false religions and establishment of superstition. They worshipped the sun gods after Nimrod. False religions according to history have always made claims that man had the power to appeal to gods and obtain good or bad weather. This is called idolatry. It is exposed. We read on Wattsuopwiththat the newspapers told us snow in the winter was over for England. It was because man controlled combustion of carbon and was heating the planet.
The truth is the sun heats the planet and where I live, 25 degrees of that heat was lost overnight. We can double CO2 and it will cool off at night. The biele you seem to take issues with mentions “seasons”
Genesis 1:14
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Before you burst a gasket, man has known of climate change for a long time. Nothing new under the sun.
Now for another shocker. In America we have CPA firms that do financial audits of business. The record keepiing record altering and number manipulation of the CRY, MET abd NASA GISS would get an accountant tossed in jail if he did the same with financial reports.
King AHab had 450 false prophets and Elijah was the winner. Perfect example of “appeal to popularity” as being a wasted of time.
So if you “believe in an observable confirmation of a hypothesis”, what is your excuse now?
Hide the decline. If there was no decline, why would they want to hide it? A “rational” person would not endeavor to hide something that was non existent!!
Oh the drama. News flash. We are a carbon based life system. Dust is filled with carbon. It is the cycle of life. Volcanoes, plate tectonics and earth quakes release all kinds of toxic minerals and “greenhouse gases”
You seem to have problems with what my business insurance policies call “acts of God”
We have not exactly taken a toll on this earth. “Third world countries” have always been struggling. The best the bible says we can do for the poor is not to be one of them. You have a problem with that apparently. That doesn’t negate feeding them.
I started an environmental department in my company in 1982. With real engineers. It is strange what I read from the recent jump on the band wagon greenie weenies.
The superficial and internal contradictory zeal and teachings in the greenie movement really don’t find compatibility with atheism or Judeo/christian teachings.
The bottom line is the greenie extremists have major hangups with photosynthesis and metabolism.
No more preeching from me at this time.
10
FEAR:
Fear is a powerful emotion, given that people don’t know they are being manipulated. Fear becomes a powerful tool for governing and control
Fear is the basis of the “green” movement. Fear is the tool of powerful people. When you see the use of FEAR, ask yourself why?
Fear is the path to the dark side… fear leads to anger… anger leads to hate.. hate leads to suffering. – Yoda
10
Simon,
Look a bit more deeply than the words put into the mouth of a fictional character in a science fiction story based upon an ancient myth. The point of the fear is to generate a sense of crisis. Then to insist that immediate action must be taken to avert the anticipated crisis. There is no time to think, no time to perform objective judgment, nor time to evaluate the basis of the crisis. The action must be taken immediately. The action to solve the crisis is always aggrandizement of government power, further restrictions on individual liberties, and ever higher confiscation of the wealth of the producers.
The fact that brute power has never accomplished, won’t accomplish, and will never accomplish anything but death and destruction indicates THAT is their purpose. The trappings of power and stolen wealth is nothing but a smoke screen to hide the hideous reality of their true goal from themselves. They are the holders of fear. They fear we will discover the truth about them and worse, they fear they will discover the truth about themselves.
They are at war with reality. That is a war that cannot be won. Our challenge is to avoid becoming collateral damage.
10
I travel and work all over the world, with Christians of many faiths, Muslims of many faiths, within democracies, theocracies, autocracies, and more. I have learned 3 no no’s in life. They are sex, politics and religion. These topics are highly personal, and not open to rational debate. In addition, we are brain-washed if you like, by the society we are brought up in, and it is extremely difficult for this reason for say an Englishman to understand the culture of China, let alone Chinese thought processes. It is a foolish man who brings these highly personal subjects into a debate such as this. Any such debate will of its nature be highly emotive, and any rationality will be left far behind. Sadly this is what has happened with the Climate Debate, in that the scientists involved have left behind all thoughts of pure science, and become entangled in politics, and in some cases religion. Science to me is FACT, that is all. It is not a court of law, and “beyond reasonable doubt” does not apply, it must be certainty. Pro or Anti GW, The facts either way have yet to be proven with certainty, and the political bias and machinations of the AGW side have not done their cause any favours.
I lean toward the sceptic side, and Climategate (horrible name) has hardened that leaning. I visit this site and many others for informed and intelligent discussion on that topic, not for a discourse on someone’s religion or politics. I am sad that Ross has hijacked this discussion, I fear he has other agendas. I will say no more as he is entitled to his views, but please refrain from posting them here. I have my own bigoted views on these subjects, but I am intelligent enough to keep them private.
Jo, thanks again for a great site, and for Mohib’s work, I live not far from Hadrian’s wall, so will do some research for him into the climate there in Roman times. I wish everyone a very happy and rational New Year
10
Henry chance
I want to also address Eddy Aruda who seems to be on a vendetta to make me into some pseudo type that cannot be real of truthful.
Eddy, I want address to personally and say tell you that you must become a little more tolerant of a Christian’s viewpoint that disagrees with you.
With that out of the way, I am addressing you both:
You utterly misunderstood my post and assume so much about me – what I do know and do not know about the bible, climate change and other matters that tend to feed into this debate.
I made a promise and I’m going to keep it.
No more will I expose my biblical based theology and my Christian personal beliefs to public ridicule here. The hostility of this environment is very challenging to say the least and has delayed myself posting evidence of AGW in logical fashion without all these personalised attacks on my character, truthfulness and integrity.
That aside you do not know me, have never heard me preach, have never heard me exalt truth above error in public meetings or a personalised debate setting or in a face to face situation. You are sadly mistaken in your knowing of me and convinces me that the internet may not be a healthy place when such polarised expressions of belief or non-belief in climate change is evident. It looks like these forms of debates are ultimately counter productive. You have a cryptic understanding of my personal beliefs,life and professionalism through the internet.
Such posts like yours ultimately prove just how ones intentions can be misinterpreted and how crediblity in a short time span cannot be conveyed across this medium.
A submission as promised by me will be posted today – I have deadlines also for my business and interests. I have attempted to compile the latest 2009 science based papers that support AGW in a word document and will be put out today.
I will endeavor to refute Lizden’s latest science paper (2009) with work done by an alternative author and commentary by myself if I have time. My time is precious as is everyone elses.
I have solid refutations of Spencer, Plimer and Monckton as well. The most technical is Monckton’s unscientific calculations of C02 forcings.
The facts are: There exists refutations for the fringe science out there and the support for AGW is alive and well within the scientific community.
The above were done by alternative authors within the science community, IT calculus professionals and others. I myself have been involved in IT as a profession for over 15 years.
I wish you both well my friends and God’s Blessings into 2010,
Ross Brisbane
10
Dear Ross,
If you have such strong evidence that you can disprove:
– Dr. Richard Lindzen (atmospheric physicist)
– Dr. Roy Spencer (Atmospheric Sciences)
– Ian Plimer (Geologist)
– Christopher Monckton (Business consultant, inventor, journalist)
I urge you to publish papers in the peer-reviewed literature. You will be famous worldwide if you can disprove those people.
Good luck to you and keep us posted.
Best regards.
10
Ross said….
“That aside you do not know me, have never heard me preach, have never heard me exalt truth above error in public meetings or a personalised debate setting or in a face to face situation”.
So much arrogance, so little respect for others.
Who the HELL do you think you are Ross claiming to be the bearer of truth over others?
You see Ross, we didn’t have to assume anything about you. YOU REVEALED YOURSELF plainly and clearly.
As has been said previously on this thread, only those who think they need some sort of “saving” or “salvation” will listen to you. To my knowledge, none of those people exist here.
So move on Ross, either in the sense of debate, (move on from your “saviour” mentality) or physically, (find a blog full of helpless sinners needing guidance)
Either way you choose….MOVE ON
10
Ross Brisbane:
I am sure that many of the recent science based papershave not been validated yet.
Many of us has seen that “alternative author” remarks against Dr. Lindzen’s published peer reviewed paper and again it is not a …. he he he,a validated peer review paper.
Yawn,
read similar comments from AGW believers before and always fails to deliver,boring!
When will we ever get a rational counterpoint from a AGW believer that does not use climate projected models and virtual data?
Zzz…..
I take it that you consider anything not passed by the IPCC school of meta analysis cherry picking as “fringe science”.
You are going to bore us…I have seen it all in over 20 years of this stuff written by people like you who fail to learn what a scientific method is and how to execute it in the fullest that promotes continual future research.
I am sure many of your alternative authors are already well known and their claims well examined.
Do you realize that some people here in this thread have seen just about every AGW claim thrown against them by now?
I have doubts that you (if you ever do) post anything new,we skeptics have not seen or heard about.So why not cut out the condescending tone of yours and consider the possibility that we are not that stupid and that many of us are well informed on the topic.
The main reason why such blogs that you smarmily attack exist is because science research has been corrupted and the claims made by AGW have been shown to be stupid and also invalidated by simple expose and now with the climategate winding it’s way through,exposes the shallowness of the people behind those stupid papers.Thus we have to provide a counterweight against scientific irrationality and unethical behavior of those who has some control over the process.
bwahahahahahahahahahaha!
It is obvious that you have not been around long in this blog,since some of the presentations are original and based on (gasp!) real data too.
Look Ross you are going to waste your energy trying to promote a propaganda that even the masses are now beginning to see is full of crap.I am tired of the lies and the distortions that have been presented and the easy to see refutations by laymen,because the claims put fourth by AGW believers are simply stupid.
10
Ross,
At least for one post you were able to avoid your incessant thumping. Hopefully you can continue to avoid doing it.
Now back to the topic:
That the Earth has warmed over the past century or that the climate has changed for far far longer is not at issue. It is pointless to present links to papers that are simply going over that ground. They add nothing of significant interest to the discussion.
What the factors are that cause the warming and climate change and how they do it is very much at issue. Both AGW hypothesis and the current package deal usage of Climate Change has as the bases the assumption that man’s use of fossil fuels is the cause and that this usage must be drastically curtailed soon or there will be catastrophic consequences in the distant future.
We have yet to see any objective empirical proof of these claims nor objective proof of their associated mechanisms. This is surprising for a field of science that is asserted to be so settled and that has such a reported massive scientific consensus. Yet no proof appears to exist for its central claims. As least there is none that is openly displayed.
If you can provide the requested proofs, do so. Otherwise, in the words of Bob Newhart, “Stop it!”
10
1. Opens John Cook’s Skeptical Science page
2. Highlights all bar heading and first paragraph
3. Ctrl-C
4. Opens this thread
5. Write nonsense opening paragraph about MY first submission
6. Ctrl-V
7. Voila! A post is made
Impressive computer skills but hardly original work. Now show me anywhere in those three papers where any temperature fluctuation, either atmospheric or oceanic is ascribed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Or as you so eloquently put it, “global warming is caused by humans using hydrocarbon fuels since the industrial age set upon humanity”. In particular, if the relationship exists, what is it; something simple like linear, exponential or logarithmic? Please don’t hit me with THE CALCULUS, that’s beyond me.
10
Where are the data that show global warming is largely attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s upper atmosphere caused by human burning of fossil fuels?
The statement is described and justified by quite a number of scientific studies and detailed in several places. The most thorough and extensive studies have been by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international group of scientists associated with the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations.
Here is science study and elements of the science that has gone into report that support the AGW hypothesis:
http://www.offnews.info/downloads/SPM2feb07.pdf
You will find is repeated over the internet but often distorted as to its true content from the skeptical camp.
Material was provided from many source. This is one of them:
http://www.climatescience.gov/default.php
Environmental Literacy IN AMERICA is poor according to this study:
http://www.neefusa.org/pdf/ELR2005.pdf
I think the same goes for we Australian’s. The amount of bad science posted on many blogs and web sites is overwhelming for the novice.
I would like to also say that I have worked through these documents myself. I would also like to say that I once was a skeptic even border line denier of climate change. To some extent my background moved from a anti-science persuasion due to religious church hierarchies determining what I thought about the environmental movement.
I still remain distinctly but mildly conservative in political thought.
The physics of C02 forcing as to the cause of global warming is complex. The refutation documents I can produce and provide the theory evidence and recent studies and results of empirical science research (not modeled) data provide the proofs. The links to papers can be posted but they are transcripts (2008/2009).
I hope one and all are finding these posts informative. There is so much good material out there.
Ross Brisbane
10
Ross Brisbane:
I write to refute your assertions notably those at #168.
Firstly, I am not prejudiced by your having a religious faith because I do, too.
I am an Accredited Methodist Preacher who has earned all my income as a practicing scientist.
I conducted Expert Peer Review of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) at the request of the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). And the IPCC Chairman asked me to conduct Expert Peer Review of the subsequent IPCC Synthesis Report. Also, I am a contributor to the Non- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) Report, too.
So, I have both religious faith and knowledge of AGW. And I tell you that there is no empirical evidence of discernible AGW as an effect of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions; none, not any, zilch.
The person who first finds any such evidence will be certain to obtain a Nobel Prize.
But you assert that there is “proof” of such AGW when you say:
Please cite one piece of such evidence of the existence of discernible AGW as an effect of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. I shall then nominate you for the Nobel that your discovery of such evidence would richly deserve.
Until then, please refrain from comments which demean both science and religion.
Richard
10
Amen, Rev. Courtney !
Real science is quite compatible with spirituality but incompatible with blind dogma.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
10
Dr Courtney has brought a lot of enlightened thought to both the scientific and Christian communities.
I can understand why the Unitarians have gone berserk about AGW because they are pathologically liberal styled from a post modern Romanticism; I cannot fathom why the Church of England hasn’t said anything rational in this matter, however
10
Ross
Where do you get your data sets?
How do you make corrections for this:
Do you just make assumptions that all the variables other than human caused combustion are constqant?
\
Cloud cover limits warming and also reduces radiation of heat. I am sure you have accurate records of the effects remaining constant for the years before industrialization by humans.
Do use a mystic to tell you how much CO2 comes from the oceans? Is it always constant?
10
…continued about Plimer
Fact 4# http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
Fact 5# No science in Plimer’s primer
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/story-e6frg8no-1225710387147
FACT 6# Plimer’s book: a good lesson for climate change sceptics http://www.australiancoralreefsociety.org/pdf/Plimer.pdf
FACT 7# http://sciencekontent.blogspot.com/2009/06/reviewing-pilmer-geology-giant-gone-off.html
Getting cooler? – try the following OBSERVATIONALS – not GRAPHS and NOT models:
Combined land and ocean temperatures across the globe were 1.03 degrees F warmer than the 20th century average of 57.1 degrees F, according to a study released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Source Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/x-20134-Milwaukee-Weather-Examiner~y2009m11d20-Octobers-global-temperature-was-sixthwarmest-on-record
Land temperatures were 1.48 degrees F above the 20th century average, making it the sixth-warmest October on record. Ocean temperatures were 0.9 degrees F above the norm, making it the fifth-warmest ocean temperature year on record.
And the following image highlights the centricity of the US to the rest of globe. Go to hell is there response with the Obama administration hands tied by dinosaur conservatives with the fine Republican Party with their hatred for the environmentalist like some vermin movement that requires exterminating.
http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID20134/images/global_temp_anomalies.gif
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/16/nasa-noaa-hottest-june-to-october-on-record/
Ocean land data – RAW Text form temperature readings. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Comment by Web site:
NASA just quietly updates its data set (here). So you have to do a little math to see that for the June through October period, 2009 now tops both 1998 (easily) and 2005 (just barely, hence the asterisk).
There you have a snippet of truthful data. That is what denial is all about.
Plimer for me has gone strangely into denial of more robust and updated science based on observational and data collection. He has become a victim of a fixated scientific process of outdated data collection.
Reading his book is like a trip down memory on Climate Skepticism. And it would appear the same old arguments again and again re-raise themselves like the mythical city of Atlantis that folk are still looking for.
Ross Brisbane
10
You are under delusions. Too much koolaid. You are making stuff up and playing the victim card. James Hansen tried that for years. Dr Hansen claimed they wouldn’t let him speak.
Now Hansen claims he is getting incredibly many requests for information under the freedom of information act. After the Global warming climategate flock fleecing incident, they won’t be able to hide info.
Do you know why you make stuff up???
You are not a scientist and your google scholaring really doesn’t refute Plimer except in your imagination.
10
I will try again – one more time.
Empirical Evidence CO2 is causing warming.
In earlier posts, we noted that tallying up the planet’s heat content shows that our climate is accumulating heat, proof of global warming. But is there any evidence that links the two? Is there empirical data proving that increased CO2 contributes to the energy imbalance that causes global warming?
The greenhouse gas qualities of CO2 have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying CO2 as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of CO2 have been more precisely measured and quantified by laboratory results and radiative physics theory (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc).
Satellite measurements of the change in outgoing longwave radiation
So according to lab results and radiative physics, we expect that increasing atmospheric CO2 should absorb more longwave radiation as it escapes back out to space. Has this effect been observed? The paper Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 (Harries 2001) attempts to find out. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Harries 2001 compared both sets of data to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period. The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows:
This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using the latest satellite data. Griggs 2004 compares the 1970 and 1997 spectra with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003. Chen 2007 extends this analysis to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004. Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matched the expected changes based on rising CO2 levels.
Thus we conclude:
Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is preventing longwave radiation from escaping out to space.
Measurements of downward longwave radiation
What happens to longwave radiation that gets absorbed by greenhouse gases? The energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave radiation. This re-radiated energy goes in all directions. Some of it makes its way back to the surface of the earth. Hence we expect to find increasing downward longwave radiation as CO2 levels increase.
Philipona 2004 finds that this is indeed the case – that downward longwave radiation is increasing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Evans 2006 takes this analysis further. By analysing high resolution spectral data, the increase in downward radiation can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. The results lead the authors to conclude that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
So we have multiple lines of empirical evidence for CO2 warming. Lab tests show CO2 absorbing longwave radiation. Satellite measurements confirm that less longwave radiation is escaping to space. Surface measurements detect increased longwave radiation returning back to Earth at wavelengths matching increased CO2 warming. And of course the result of this energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years.
Well known scientific papers summarised.
Ross Brisbane
10
You are posting dishonest claims based on cooked data. It looks like people don’t believe you. Your agenda seems to whine and cry when people are rational and ask legitimate questions.
Some of are educated and difficult to decieve.
10
Ross, if your posts are not appearing, then either you have more than 5 links, or the auto-spam filter has decided there is too much repetition. I found two and set them free.
As it happens, you’ve generously been allowed to post 27 comments without backing up your statements about evidence. If you are placed on the moderated list you will be informed.
I note you are at least trying to back up some claims in your latest emails which is a step in the right direction.
10
Ross feels partly censored and says he will no longer post on this list. He is correctly deciding to create his own blog. He is unfortunately discourteous by making the charge of censorship.
I would remind Ross or anyone else who intends to make the charge of censorship that only governments can censor. I am using the proper legal and philosophical meaning of the term and not the modern corrupted usage. Censorship MEANS the government using is coercive power to prohibit the expression of ideas and to require that they conform to the government’s dictates. An individual can rightly restrict a non owner’s use if his property. That is what ownership means. Prohibiting certain kinds of speech on one’s own property is NOT censorship. It is simply setting the terms by which a non-owner can use his property.
This is Jo’s blog (ie her property) and she has the full right and power to do with it as she pleases for whatever reason she chooses. We are her guests and are obliged to follow her rules as long as we post here. It is her right to expect and demand that we do so. Our privilege to speak/write on this blog is totally and completely by her leave just as it would be if this were her physical living room. If we don’t like her rules we are free to leave.
10
SO2, CH4, CO2 NO cfc’s and water vapor.
Your singling out CO2 and ignoring the others proves to me you do not know what you are talking about.
Your line “CO2 causes warming” is a lie. I am unusually blunt with you because of your stubborness and lack of education. At most some scientists claim CO2 inhibits some natural radiation of heat. It doesn’t warm a thing. CO2 doesn’t cause energy in the form of heat. Joining of Carbon with oxygen gives off heat.
CO2 doesn’t cause a thing. Warming comes from oxidation and heat from the sun. CO2 among many other things is believed to radiate less heat than other gases. The concentration is so tiny, it doesn’t do much .
If you covered a sheet of plywood (4×8 feet) with tinfoil to reflect light and placed a small black coin on it to absorb light, that is wat 380 parts per million looks like. That coin would not be large enough to warm up and heat the board.
You make far too many assumptions. Go take some science classes and cath up.
10
I appreciate this Joanne and I thank for your courteous replies.
I now understand how the logic engine works and you have full right to ban spamming this way. This is your Blog site and I respect that.
Thank you,
Ross Brisbane
10
Yep!
You also are commenting indirectly to another issue brought up recently. Why women are less active in pushing global warming dogma and debate. Women avoid bullys. Males are more prone to confront bullys especially when they don’t have facts behind their claims. Reading the e-mails in climategate reminds us all how they used peer review to bully folks with good question. They bullied certain scientists that cast doubt on some reports.
10
This is a detailed analysis of Plimer’s Climate Science.
This is was posted on a few web sites by me after he appeared on Lateline ABC’s and false allegations bias of ABC against him have arisen on this forum and other blogs.
As an AGW supporter and yet to be convinced DAGW supporter (that is until evidence of a tipping or special event in climate in a 1,000 year happening and unique event (Example: Near ICELESS ARCTIC*) so as the effects cascade as sensitivity to global climate from that time forward. This event must also show that warming of the climate is the root cause.
• Already there are indications that the Northern Atmospheric circulations are radically altering.
Plimer, he attempted to answer all questions in a very convoluted way.
The other thing he did was obfuscate. This means he used obfuscation as to the concealment of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and more difficult to interpret. Obfuscation is often used with Red Herrings throw the argument to other inductive factual and nonfactual argumentations.
Earlier Plimer had a court action directed at Young Earth Creationists which he tried to shut down and ban from schools, media and public influence. On this point I think the religious right of America are wrong with their 7 Day literalism fundamentalism of the Genesis account of the earth and state even today the earth is only 10,000 years. This is anti-science. I also think Plimer is an excellent and highly qualified geologist and carries my respect of his profession in his own area of expertise.
What follows are 7 knockout blows on Plimer’s climate science.
I would draw all those who want to participate – this is first and foremost about CORRECT and CORRECTIVE science – not about falsified information, blog science or any other. This is not attack on ones character.
Fact 1# Ian Plimer ‘can not recall’ where his graph came from
Adam Morton asked Ian Plimer where his dodgy Figure 3 came from (my emphasis):
Some of his critics say they are surprised that a former head of the University of Melbourne geology department, with more than 120 published papers to his name, would include unsourced graphs in his book. Asked where he found one graph showing temperatures across the 20th century differing markedly to the data used by the IPCC or the world’s leading climate centres, Plimer says he can not recall.
Gee, imagine what Plimer would have said if some climate scientist had been caught out unable to provide a source for an important graph. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_can_not_recall_wher.php
Fact 2# A students personal evaluation of Pilmer’s qualifications:
I had the (genuine) pleasure of Plimer’s lecturing for first year geology, and when it comes to coal and sedimentary geology he certainly speaks with authority. However, since my undergraduate science degree decades ago I have completed an additional three postgraduate degrees and a diploma, and I have learned a thing or two about scientific research, analysis, and interpretation.
Plimer’s AGW denialism has nothing to do with his “obvious experience”, and it certainly is not validated by whatever capacity for “debating a topic and defending hypotheses as is [sic] “science”” that he might demonstrate. Experience in a non-related area of science is not an automatic qualification for apparently authoritative commentary in other fields, and neither is an ability (or otherwise) in public speaking. As to “visual aids”, his dodgy portrayal of global temperature trajectory in his ‘figure 3’ is hardly a glowing endorsement of his credibility…
And with respect to “pompous conjecture”, I rather think that Tim Lambert’s and Barry Brook’s deconstructions, amongst many others, show that the critiques of H&E are rather more solidly based in reality than in speculation.
If I practiced my own science half as badly as Plimer demonstrates himself to be doing in H&E, not only would I be mortally embarrassed and ashamed of myself, but I’d be out of a job before I knew what hit me. I can only conclude that Plimer has either gone prematurely ‘emeritus’, and has thus wandered into the dreaded realm of scientific “stupidity”, or that he has forgone his ethics and dived for the publicity and the cash.
If the latter is the case then I might concede that Plimer is “not that stupid” – ethically and scientifically bankrupt, perhaps, but not commercially so. Of course, if he has any regard for his descendants’ welfare, or that of the rest of the human and non-human species on the planet, then commercial savviness would also not stack up against plain old everyday stupidity.
Whatever the case might be, H&E should be on the same shelves as anything to do with crop circles, alien abductions, homeopathy, flat/hollow earth theories, HIV/AIDS denialand other misguided notions.
Is is not a book firmly founded in science. Posted by: Bernard J. | May 3, 2009 10:14 AM
Fact 3# Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven + Earth’
Checking the Claims Ian G. Enting Version 2.0 – ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems The University of Melbourne PDF readable online format – a 46 page expose.
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf
Fact 4# http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
Fact 5# No science in Plimer’s primer
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/story-e6frg8no-1225710387147
FACT 6# Plimer’s book: a good lesson for climate change sceptics http://www.australiancoralreefsociety.org/pdf/Plimer.pdf
FACT 7# http://sciencekontent.blogspot.com/2009/06/reviewing-pilmer-geology-giant-gone-off.html
Getting cooler? – try the following OBSERVATIONALS – not GRAPHS and NOT models:
Combined land and ocean temperatures across the globe were 1.03 degrees F warmer than the 20th century average of 57.1 degrees F, according to a study released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Source Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/x-20134-Milwaukee-Weather-Examiner~y2009m11d20-Octobers-global-temperature-was-sixthwarmest-on-record
Land temperatures were 1.48 degrees F above the 20th century average, making it the sixth-warmest October on record. Ocean temperatures were 0.9 degrees F above the norm, making it the fifth-warmest ocean temperature year on record.
And the following image highlights the centricity of the US to the rest of globe. Go to hell is there response with the Obama administration hands tied by dinosaur conservatives with the fine Republican Party with their hatred for the environmentalist like some vermin movement that requires exterminating.
http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID20134/images/global_temp_anomalies.gif
http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/16/nasa-noaa-hottest-june-to-october-on-record/
Ocean land data – RAW Text form temperature readings. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Comment by Web site:
NASA just quietly updates its data set (here). So you have to do a little math to see that for the June through October period, 2009 now tops both 1998 (easily) and 2005 (just barely, hence the asterisk).
There you have a snippet of truthful data. That is what denial is all about.
Plimer for me has gone strangely into denial of more robust and updated science based on observational and data collection. He has become a victim of a fixated scientific process of outdated data collection.
Reading his book is like a trip down memory on Climate Skepticism. And it would appear the same old arguments again and again re-raise themselves like the mythical city of Atlantis that folk are still looking for.
Ross Brisbane
Ross Brisbane
10
Hello Henry,
I am not ignoring other greenhouse gases at all.
Climate Science is complex.
Opening one window on the science does not highlight any deficient knowledge on my part – it is yet another “window” on the climate science. This is often a misleading and faulty claim many skeptics and deniers make against such folk like us – we the AGW supporters of the science are often accused of non-science.
So – yes are correct in stating their are far more potent greenhouse gases. What we are identifying here is the forcer – the under stated and often denied first cause – C02. Climate Sensitivity is another subject and the more potent and increasing greenhouse gases come later as the climate responds to the decreasing release of the sun’s daily energy input interacting with the earth’s atmosphere. As the radiated store of the energy is caught and trapped [longwave radiation) – (it takes at least three molecules) – the result of increased store is the well known law of thermodynamics. The great heat sink for the failed release to space at night of this is the ocean. The signature is then a provable phenomena and unmistakable – it is a scientific law of know physics – now proven by science based empirical based studies of the data gathering tools (observation).
Where does nearly all of this energy end up? Presently it is the oceans which in turn begin its slow trend of climate sensitivity on global climate. Are worldwide oceans getting warmer? Ask yourself and investigate.
Ask you a favor? If are a Brisbane 4BC employee/announcer – get me on air to debate.
Ross Brisbane
10
Dear Joanne,
As some of posts now show “awaiting Moderation” – I think you should delete the duplicates if you have time.
Sorry for that – I did not mean to spam here and I do apologise in advance.
Thank you,
Ross Brisbane
10
Ross #263:
Thanks. That’s empirical evidence that there is carbon in the atmosphere and that it does absorb some IR radiation. But note, none of those papers tell us whether feedback effects amplify or dampen the effect of carbon. None of them tell us how MUCH warming extra carbon will do. Half a degree or 3 – 6 degrees?
Most skeptical scientists don’t deny carbon is up there, and don’t deny that it absorbs IR. We want evidence that carbon is the major driver that some people claim it is.
10
Seven “knock-out” blows of Plimer?
#1: Can’t source a graph? Penny Wong can’t source the ocean heat graph she used either. The IPCC used a wikipedia graph. Must knock both of them out too.
#2: A student reckons Plimer is wrong and does an ad hom attack on his qualifications. (Are you serious that this was your second best “knock out blow”? Are you embarrassed?)
#3 #4 #5 #6: So you’ve googled, and expect us to read more waffle from journo’s, rabid bully bloggers, and another academic so we can tell you why they are irrelevant, or wrong? If you found ONE point worthy of repeating from these articles, perhaps you could explain it to us. We don’t have time to debunk all of them. There’s no evidence you have even read these articles and used their “reasoning” to evaluate Plimer.
#7 Plimer refers to the last 10 years or so. You give us averages on the last 100. Both you and plimer could both be correct at the same time because you are discussing different time periods.
Plimer’s giant work does not depend on sourcing one graph (though it would be good if he did). It doesn’t not depend on the last ten years. Plimer is attacking their theory, and has dozens of angles. They need to show he is wrong on all of them.
Plimers mistake is that he would have been better off with a shorter book, being more focused and presenting a smaller target for them to hit.
10
Hi Joanne,
Whether I admit Plimer did not get it totally wrong or correct is irrelevant to the debate regarding his book.
1. He is not a Climate Scientist.
2. He rehashed the Great Global Swindle errors with a repetitive fierceness that makes him rather foolish on submitting out dated data and hypothesis to counter AGW.
3. I would choose a critic of his book to best handle THE INS AND OUTS and those critics are valid alluding to errors throughout this book. It is an embarrassment to be quite frank to many skeptics.
4. There are wild claims within the hypothesis of lengthy dissertations on millions of year to support the accuracy in a time framed over 150 years of observational changes to climate.
5. The book has been scorned by skeptic and AGW scientists worldwide and demonstrated to be ineffective against the backdrop of mounting recent data (observation) that contradicts the claims.
6. The student concerned is quoted and relied upon as is common in court cases like a personalised witness on a person’s intergrety. This can validate and hold an argument together coherently as a legitimate basis as to the truthfulness and the varsity of the mentors skillset and evidence of his profession. He respects his science of geology – and that is where it should begin and end. The student then went to eloborate how let down he felt concerning the resultant so called climate science work throughout the book.
7. I have read the expose on the book by Ian G. Enting ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems The University of Melbourne. As with any work or book that falsely claims to overturn science as it stands – any concerned person wanting a sound critic should read rather then remain ignorant and just stand on the fallacious notion – that I am / he is correct and don’t go there with academics. That is wrong to do so.
8. The journalists in question and other scientists are really annoyed that such a book would be so eagerly embraced when it was so easily refuted.
On this issue – Joanne, I see the knockout points as cutting through – you may not see it but I do and so do others inclusive of real skeptics and scientists.
Finally – I was once a denier and skeptic in mid 2008. I now find the AGW hypothesis valid.
Ross Brisbane
10
Sorry, Ross, but the book by Ian Plimer is scientifically brilliant compared to the trash that the UN’s IPCC and Al Gore have published in support of AGW.
Best wishes to all for 2001!
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
10
Ross, 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8. so you can’t find a flaw in his book that shows his reasoning is wrong, that AGW is correct, but you can throw ad homs.
You rehash opinions and think you are discussing evidence?
Point 4 is not even a coherent sentence.
Point 5. & 8. Shucks. Inept illogical journalists, who can’t do real research “are annoyed” or some nameless scientists “scorn it”. Therefore the planet MUST be warming, and it must be due to CO2.
This is inane.
Seriously Ross, there is not much point in continuing to discuss the science if you keep positing baseless opinions and making illogical attacks.
Please lift your standards.
10
Hi Henry,
As you see I have a posting style you may not be accustomed to. In all my postings I always try to validate my sources and follow the science as closely as possible with very direct links to the original sources as much I can get access to.
You have to simply accept that this style will continue. I will always be polite and courteous to you as well.
I hope you appreciate the quality of endeavor that is going into these posts.
You understand of course I do not appreciate verbal attacks on my character as being under educated or go and do more homework on the subject. I also think that will all should endeavor to use “duty of care” with words and avoid bruising the self-respect of others in all their endeavors and persuasions.
In any debate we need to do a few things that really matter when it comes to science. We need to separate our politic and religion from this debate of science but always uphold principals of honesty and integrity within this climate science. Biased commentary is awash on both sides of this debate and sometimes it is guilt by association.
I feel we as humanity may be inadvertently as one famous proverb says: “sowing to the wind but will harvest the whirlwind. The stores of earth’s food will wither and produce nothing to eat. And even if there is any grain, foreigners will eat from our own land”
I do wish for you prosperity into 2010,
Ross Brisbane
10
Ross
May I suggest you read (say):
http://www.palisad.com/co2/slides/siframes.html
and
http://landshape.org/enm/oceanic-cayanobacteria-in-the-modern-global-cycle/
and give the whole matter some more (deep) thought.
10
Hi Joanne,
We are going to have to agree to disagree then. I however think you would carry high regard for Bolte – the journalist. However those journalists who promote AGW, you would seem to deem less then brilliant. You are pin balling some but not others. Very selective there aren’t we?
I think Bolte is great journalist but sometimes gets carried away with himself.
Reword: There are wild claims in the overall presentation of Plimer’s argument that span millions of years of geological activity. He supports this as proof that we can deny global Warming is caused by humans burning fossil increasing the natural background of C02 to levels not seen in thousands of years. The accuracy of presented argument fails as being valid due to more astute observations of the last 150 years that lend support to argument that Global warming is real and is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. In other words it is the stronger more valid argument to develop a hypothesis on observational data.
As for your final comments – that is throwaway line of scorn – scientists do not go for their fellow colleges unless their science is seriously deficient. Plimer accuses other colleagues in being deficient in science and over steps his levels of expertise.
I wish you prosperous 2010, Joanne.
Ross Brisbane
10
Hi Steve,
I will look at those web sites with my best interest.
Thanks,
Ross Brisbane
10
Hi Oliver,
I’m sorry to you missed these pages and pages of errors in Plimer’s book, Heaven and Earth.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php
Perhaps you would to address them all.
Ross Brisbane
10
Ross, most if not all of us here believe that climate change is a natural part of the earthly cycle. Temperatures go up, tempertatures go down. Most of us would also agree that a warmer climate is much better for food production.
Re Ian Plimer. Who cares if he was unable to authenticate a particular graph. There’s almost no dispute that the world warmed up to the 40s then cooled to the 70s which it shows. It’s just so typical of the warmers that they make so much of trivialities as if this completely destroys the opposing argument. If you took the trouble to look, “Heaven and Earth” is replete with “peer reviewed” references. Or do only your “peer reviewers” count, Ross?
Ever heard of Ben Santer Ross. He’s the delightful chap who excised whole sections of contributions to IPCC reports where the contributors wrote that there was no evidence of man-made warming. He then substituted words that there was clear evidence of man-made warming. Were you aware that some scientists had to threaten legal action to have their names removed from reports because they didn’t agree with the content? The IPCC makes no effort to be impartial despite its protestations to the contrary. Those who buck the trend are white-anted very quickly. Report reviewer Steve McIntyre was threatened with removal if he persisted in asking for raw data. This behaviour is apparently OK by you
Personally, I wouldn’t give a damn about the subject if it didn’t have such immplications for the country. Do you believe, like Maurice Strong that the developed economies have to be destroyed for the good of the world, Ross? It’s all about UN imposed socialism, nothing else.
In closing Ross, I will pose the same question to you that I have to other “warmers”.
Is there any evidence at all which would cause you to change your mind? I’d suggest there is nothing that would as you have chosen to believe. You prove this by resorting to tub-thumping and appeals to authority yet again.
Oh, don’t throw the question back at me; I’m not supporting the AGW hypothesis, you are.
10
Here’s some of some of the supposed errors cited by Dr Lambert in your link –
p22 Claims hockey stick is a fraud
p87-99 claims hockey stick is a fraud and the NRC panel that vindicated it was a cover up.
p349 the hockey stick is “infamous”
p382 claims hockey stick is a fabrication
p474 claims hockey stick is dishonest
p487 cites Melanie Philips as an authority on the hockey stick, asserting it is the “most discredited study in the history of science”
Read Dr Wegman’s report and then the Climategate emails and you will see that Prof Plimer is correct and Dr Lambert is totally wrong. The incorrect PCA methodology and the use of selective bristlecone pine proxies has rightly consigned Dr Mann’s hockey stick to the dustbin of scientific history.
Why you cite Dr Lambert as an authority is beyond me. He is a computer scientist who has not published one single paper on climate science. Indeed he has published very little at all. His home page tells us that his last publication (as third author) was in 2005 – Modelling Heating Of Liver Tumours With Heterogeneous Magnetic Microsphere Deposition N Tsafnat, G Tsafnat, T Lambert, S Jones, Physics in Medicine and Biology, . Iop Publishing Ltd, Bristol, 2005, pp. 2937 – 2953. This may be an interesting paper but has zilch to do with climate science.
His previous one (as fourth author) was so seminal that he hasn’t bothered to inform us what journal it was published in – Fields Solver Framework And Reference Implementation G Tsafnat, K Kua, S Cloherty, T Lambert, , . , 2005, pp. 372 – 375 . His three previous citations back to 1999 are conference proceedings and are not refereed journal papers. He has not a single publication as a sole author and none as a lead or joint author. Compare this with Prof Plimer’s publication record. I haven’t published many peer reviewed papers but I managed more in two years than Dr Lambert has in the last ten. And they were statistical mechanics physics papers, a topic that has a little more relevance to climate science than an analysis of liver tumors.
If you want to be taken seriously, don’t bother quoting Dr Lambert.
10
So Ross ignores other “alleged” greenhouse gases. Remember they are not proven to capture heat or stop radiation of heat.
Next issue.
In post #263 Ross says:
Satellites have been around 50 years. How do you compare this “data” with data collected the same way and the same place 50, 100, 1000 years before satellites were invented.’
You are not wise enough to know that you are fibbing if you pretend we have satellite data for accurate comparision. All you have is projection, extrapolation and wishfull thinking.
If you line up 2 million “scientists” and have consensus, you still don’t have measured data satellite data from 100 years ago.. \
Ross is getting exposed.
10
A very interesting thread this past week…A NEW Alarmist enter’s the picture with carefully spoken words towards a cause that has NO cause to support itself on! Mr. Brisbane, of course you set the tone here by your first few postings..I respect you only for not continuing your “thumping” as Lionell Griffith states. Religion has it’s own place..Not here and certainly not with “Science” but there are people on the “Realist” side that see what you support as a extreme religious application towards the cause of AGW..It’s out there in the Web, one doesn’t have to look far to see.
I really do wonder if you really did check out both “sides” of this issue…For me, it didn’t take long to see how Alarmists Sites were treating Realists by shutting them out of the debates, not answering questions…Now it has come to a head with ClimateGate. It “confirms” what Joanne, her Husband, David and the people here who step in on a daily basis to support what really is going on and yes, there is scientific research to prove it.
But finally I want you and all here to see this video. It all comes down to this phrase; “Unprecedented Rate Change”. Can you prove this is really happening???? How’s come you support temperature change that’s less than a degree over short time periods?? Watch this…very well spoken and to the point..
http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_with_Bill_Whittle/Nopenhagen%3A_The_Truth_is_Missing_From_the_Climate_Debate/2889/
At this time 2009 is being counted down by it’s hours and minutes! It has been a very interesting year on all fronts of the News! It’s too bad to be able to receive “both” sides is to be on the Internet…but we past it on to those who can’t, Right? I wish to state with my Heart for all of you to have a very “Happy and Prosperous New Year! Joanne, you have my A+ for the year on what you’ve done…Great Job my Dear!!! Talk to you next year!
10
Ross,
I have not read Ian Plimer’s book and never will because I have long learned that the AGW hypothesis was never verified.It is enough for me when the few specific tests of the hypothesis have been conducted and not a single one has been confirmed,it is time to go on.
I do have a lot of climate books with the last one purchased of Dr. Spenser’s book.I even have original books authored by Reid Bryson,Dr. Stommell and Dr. Imbrie in my personal library.In those books they make a presentation that are free of ideological baloney I see so often promoted by AGW believers.They did not push environmental causes or ask for donations to support them.It was straight and sober science presentation,something that in today’s politically charged world lacking these days from BOTH sides on the topic of global warming.
The merest hint of ideological or environmental propaganda in science books and presentations will turn me off,since I am for reading for the SCIENCE and not for political angle.
If you bother to read the negative book reviews about Plimer’s book at Amazon books,you will quickly see that AGW believers are running on empty,since it is obvious that many of the negative reviews of the NEVER READ book are very stupid.With strong evidence that they never even read the book they claimed to be posting a review on at all.I call it a lie and therefore has no credibility.I pointed this out a while ago,to show what a rotten bunch AGW believers can be,when panning publications written by known skeptic’s.
When Dr.Spenser published his book,he went to Amazon books to post a comment under his own book review having to specifically state that he is not being paid by “big oil” to write the book,because some AGW believers were spreading such lies.It is pathetic when people use that stupid funding angle anyway since it would not be illegal and that it would not and could not invalidate the books content.
Your absurd persistence is trying to support a dead hypothesis means you have continued to base it on faith since that is how you are writing now,you already know that the AGW hypothesis dead by the way you write.In time if you really care about learning you will tire of trying to support a lie and truly become enlightened instead that will fill you once again with excitement.Continuing down the path of deceiving yourself will make you one unhappy person,who is filled with conflicting thoughts on the topic.
I am now gravitating back to what I used to read and study on,that my overly long attention to people like you who are fond of writing a bunch of circular attempts to rescue a long dead hypothesis is now being considered a waste of my time.I find it is mentally exhausting having to read the irrational claims supporting a hypothesis that never took off after 25 years.I now view that anything old written by alarmists as being unworthy of reading anymore,since it will still be connected to the dead AGW hypothesis.
In time that change on my thinking will be reflected at my skeptic climate forum I own,when I will de-emphasize the AGW skepticism absurdity and pursue the old path I used to be on.The relationships of episodic climate change cycles that I think will be the key to understanding the cause why we have them.
The march to the next 90,000 cold period is already ongoing and that means we need to incorporate many energy saving techniques that has been known for centuries.Studying the CAUSES of advancing ice ages is where I believe is where we will learn the most about what drives the climate.
It is time to bury the dead AHW hypothesis and go on!
10
Rev Tom:
Tell us about the 1970 satellite weather data. How does it compare with satellite data 100 years ago?
Don’t answer. We also are dealing with speculation again.
Since we all know you are not a scientist, let me refer to the scientific method. One thing in the method calls for “observible. If your data was never “observed”, why should honest people believe you?
I admit catching people blindly
gathergenerate data is the downfall of the AGW movement.10
Rev Ross
Just for the record. You still cling to the worn out acronym AGW
Anthropogenic Global Warming. The cowards long ago migrated to the expression “climate Change”
After a decade of cooling, the acronym and fetish related to warming failed.
Just the expression Climate Change alone is an admission of defeat. We have always had changes in climate. Are you too proud to admit it?
10
Friends:
Can anybody tell me why this thread is debating Plimer’s book? It has nothing to do with the climategate timeline and/or scandal.
It seems to me that this thread has been hijacked by a troll whose sole intention has been to prevent debate of the real issue by introducing ‘red herrings’ (e.g. religion, false assertions of the existence of evidence that he fails to cite an/or explain, Plimer’s book, etc.).
An email from me was among those leaked from CRU and it demonstrates the malign and anti-scientific behaviour of the CRU clique. It demonstrates that I am one of those who has had publication of work prevented by malign activities of the CRU clique. I resent that.
And I resent this discussion of the subject having been destroyed by the postings of a troll.
Richard
10
Richard @ 291,
Ross has achieved his goal in the short run. The thread has been diverted. However, I suggest we have an actual gain here.
First, we dissuaded Ross from his incessant thumping. Admittedly there are a few feint echos of thumps in some of his later posts but for the most part he stopped his thumping. Second, we had an opportunity to state even more clearly the critical issues of what is science, what is the nature of evidence, and how one goes about proving one’s point. We then used that to show, to those who can see, why Ross is an idiot when it comes to science, evidence, and proof. The net of this is that we set the terms of the debate and he eventually lost control of it. This is how one wins wars. Especially intellectual, philosophical, and moral ones.
We may not be able to choose who we fight or what battles we engage but we can choose to set the terms by which they will be fought. I suggest then, this is good experience to prepare us for the time we will engage the real enemy. Ross is nothing but disposable cannon fodder and is irrelevant except as an exercise for the inexperienced.
I agree, however, further discussion of the topic has been delayed. We should have been traveling on a four lane highway but were detoured over a muddy dirt road filled with pot holes for a while. Sometimes you must simply make the best of what you find.
10
Actually I welcome Ross and his pretend science. The thread is about the years building up to Climategate. The even culminated around Nov 20,2009. This post catastrophy period shows how the clingy and insecure people are too proud to let it go. Just stop it.
we have no books and papers out studying this ending in a fiasco. Balloon boys parents have been sentenced for their fraud but Mann and Jones with their gang have not yet seen hearings and results of investigations.
This time at the end of 2010, the unravelling of the fraud will be less sketchy. Some key people will be fired. Some grants and funding cut off and Dr Pachauri of the IPCC may be selling used cars/rickshaws. This epic flop will show some C trading schemes and investors losing millions. Who will they sue?
If we are lucky, McIntyre will even have some uncooked numbers to review. I will not hold my breath waiting for the CRU, Met and NASA GISS getting their information out without legal pressure.
10
To All
RE: Plimer – Heaven and Earth Review.
Anyone with a fair handed grasp of science should read in detail the posted links in the 7 knockouts of Plimer’s book.
If anyone here had bothered to delve into the links I provided – the evidence was most certain, pointed and undeniably provided.
All it required was for those whose minds are still open is to delve a bit on the side of the broader science community provided by me in the first instance.
Professor Kurt Lambeck is president of the Australian Academy of Science.
Under Fact 7#
http://sciencekontent.blogspot.com/2009/06/reviewing-pilmer-geology-giant-gone-off.html
Therefore my conclusion is most likely the case. Skeptics and deniers whose minds are made up on alternatives, do not generally investigate evenly both sides of the argument accurately. Instead we feed on the logic food that most likely fits our own argument. I find in most cases the alternative is not a pretty sight and neither in most cases is it generally good science.
This ends the matter with Plimer – it is not my aim in life to castigate an excellent Geologist who over stepped his bounds of own science discipline and expertise.
On the matter of Climategate – I await the investigation outcomes. I am not a conspiracy peddler. I will not comment on anyone who has not had the benefit of reply. I do not believe in American style McCarthyism witch hunts – which to be quite frank belong only in old US Western movies whereby they strung up and hung suspects without trail.
Ross Brisbane
10
Richard S Courtney
I investigated your background. I am well aware of your stance within this debate.
To this I stand before to tell as a fellow Australian to you in the UK: I oppose your stand stand on AGW – I oppose your stand on Climate Change as what it has come to be known as.
Hence we are at odds. I do not believe in Kangaroo Courts – neither should you support such activity. I hope the inquiry that has tainted your excellent scientists in your country are either vindicated, disciplined or removed. Until the outcome on that inquiry is finalised, I will not comment on Climategate neither will I be supporting any conspiracy theory or countering it.
And as I am asking all here – please learn to separate the politic and religion from the science.
Ross Brisbane
10
Lionell Griffith
You have totally under estimated your opponent and reasoning.
I had a look at your web site – looks good and gives me a greater understanding about your background.
Ross Brisbane
10
“There is no dispute that the geological record shows that climate change has occurred throughout the earth’s history. The dispute is over whether the modern record can be understood in terms of the natural background processes or whether there is a new human factor that changes the rules about climate change. To address this requires more than geological insight.”
That is true.
However, in this connection, Ross, it may also be noted that the climatic record of just the last 10,000 years only (i.e. the Holocene = the current interglacial period) shows quite clearly that a much greater level of temperature variation, both positive and negative in relation to modern temperature, has applied AT LOWER LEVELS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 AND DEGREE OF CO2 VARIATION than in just the last 150 years.
It should also be emphasized that this simple and indisputable fact is particularly remarkable in the context that this current interglacial period is actually the longest and most stable interglacial in terms of temperature of the last 750,000 years.
This simple proof of the non-uniqueness of the modern period, temperature-wise, may be found in the records of the Antarctica Vostok (a 400,000 year history) and Dome C (a 800,000 year history) ice cores which are both on the public record e.g.:
http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/
and for which their technical interpretation is well established in the mainstream peer-reviewed literature.
I would be happy to supply graphs of the Vostok and Dome C ice core records of the last 10,000 years proving the above statements.
I also note that I yesterday supplied you with the the URL for George White’s excellent compilation of this and related matters:
http://www.palisad.com/co2/slides/siframes.html
to which you replied ” I will look at those web sites with my best interest.
Thanks,
Ross Brisbane ”
You appear to not have even glanced at George’s work!
I might add here that George is a mild sceptic who has excellent scientific credentials and understanding of the global heat fluxes and (most significantly) works with only mainstream scientific evidence that is in the public domain.
May I put it to you, Ross, that in your apparent great naivety about scientific matters perhaps you are completely missing a key point which is that there are indeed a significant number of sceptics with excellent scientific credentials and often very high intelligence whose sceptical position is based on very sound science.
That these sceptics are (currently) in the minority is absolutely true. However, we need to remember that this condition has often applied throughout the history of Western science.
This (minority status) may be largely an accidental consequence of contemporary history. I suspect this ‘accident’ has more to do with the rise of post-modernism in modern philosophy coupled with a woeful decline in the quality of much Western university-based scientific education over the last 3 decades than it does with scientific truth.
To put it more crudely, many of the Gen X and Gen y scientists I have come across in the last 3 decades are immature, arrogant, poorly educated lightweights. The numerous laughable furphies of their front man huckster, the Nobel Prize winning (yikes)Al Gore pretty much tells it all IMHO.
Strangely, if you go back to the body of pre-1975 educated scientists of the generation which I like to call ‘Gen VW’ (;-) the proportion who are sceptics on AGW suddenly rises to at least 50%.
Only time will tell if these ‘grumpy old man prejudices’ of mine are proved right, of course – but I’m happy to take the odd side bet.
Age 61; balding; one hernia; BS(Math/Chem); MS(Phys. Chem.); PhD(Geochem./Thermodynamics); ~100 mainstream peer reviewed papers & book chapters, 2 patents.
10
Ross,
I’m afraid it’s you who are underestimating your opponents in this debate. Of course, we have one thing on our side which you lack which is the certainty of real science and real data. You can cite as many of the incestuously reviewed pro AGW papers you can find, but it doesn’t change the science. The science works only one way and it’s not the way you think.
The catastrophic AGW hypothesis has absolutely no foundation in physics, chemistry, biology or any other discipline of science. I qualify your understanding with ‘catastrophic’, because like most other scientists who are skeptical of AGW, it’s not because we believe the effect is zero, but because we know that the effect is far too small to be obsessing about.
I find your little tantrums of censorship, etc. amusing. If this was a real climate blog, your IP addresses would already be blocked from posting. We tolerate you in this forum because we know the science is in our side and nobody here is afraid of opposing views. This is what separates the pro AGW side from the anti AGW side.
The reason for your misunderstanding is because your side considers water vapor to have a net positive feedback influence. In fact, the data shows conclusively that the net feedback operating on the system, dominated by the influence of weather, is negative. The reason you miss this is because AGW modelers (Schlesinger, etc.), only consider feedback from increases water vapor absorption. If they were to account for the fact that when water evaporates, it accelerates the removal of heat from the surface. Even nature has figured this out and is why you sweat when it’s hot. Another failure is the general decoupling of water vapor and clouds, which are otherwise intimately connected. Furthermore, when that evaporated water eventually falls as rain, the precipitation is generally colder than the surface and further cools it.
George
10
Dr Courtney is correct. Ross is a religious troll, totally unimaginative and sadly lacking in scientific basics. I suggest that we just ignore him and either discuss the topic (Climategate) or say nothing. On Climategate, Dr Mann has posted a letter in the WSJ. It’s a classic. I couldn’t put a response any better than Dr McKitrick who commented at Climate Audit –
And Mann’s comment on peer-review is a contender for the 2010 irony award ;
10
Mr Charles Bourbaki
Your attacks on my character I see sir have not diminished. I strongly appeal to your good sense to stop this line of attack.
Be a gentleman and not a bully.
I would appeal to your own better sense and read this link as to why we need an inquiry and for that inquiry to take due process to completion.
This drumbeat along with others is well noted and belies a lack of discernment and good reasonable sense in withholding a biased judgment. Respects and rights must be afforded to the accused for reply as to their defense.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/steve_mcintyre_down_in_the_quo.php
I await the result and I will not comment until the inquiry is completed on Climategate.
I trust we will see better discernment and a kinder nature to move this on to a more mature debate as I am endeavoring to do here and abide by.
Ross Brisbane
10
The issue of peer review is an extremely important important one, George.
At my age I confess to a fascination with the veritable tide of often acute, educated and well-reasoned critiques of the basic tenets of the AGW orthodoxy which now washes through the Internet. May I suggest that, if anything, the implication of this is that a radical revision of the notion of peer review will (and must) occur.
A PhD scientist of 30+ years, with approx 100 peer reviewed papers and book chapters I have long known that the peer review process, although extremely important to science is far from perfect. In my experience almost all middle-aged scientists will have a tale or two to tell about their own personal experience of some sort of corruption of the peer review process.
It is a far from perfect system, often easily corrupted by adherence to what may later prove to be historically transient ‘paradigms’, cliques of buddies, editorial and mutual back-slapping, pressure from various stakeholders etc., etc.
For example, many years ago, I co-invented a technique for the isotopic ageing of fish (an indispensable part of sustainable fisheries management) which was bitterly opposed for years, largely through debasement of the peer review process by ‘reputable scientists’ who had got all their funding from the fishing industry itself. To this day a few hard line ‘denier’ scientists (formerly the ‘leaders’ of a ‘consensual majority’) still beaver away trying to discredit a technique (and resurrect their reputations) now used in every major fisheries research and management institute in the world. So it goes, as Kurt Vonnegut would have said.
The whole amazing experience of the modern AGW bandwagon effect as seen through the Internet shows clearly that the peer review process has become a sick old dinosaur, left trailing behind by the effective peer review provided by hundreds of blogs.
If anything good is going to come out of this whole debacle it should be that within a decade or so ALL draft scientific papers will be submitted online in a blog for free and open technical reviewing and editors will then transparently judge them on that basis – with even the final journal copy generally also appearing freely online.
Only when peer review is based firmly on the principle of universal and mandatory transparency will it become the mainstay (and core strength) of the wonderful human endeavour that is science.
For the very first time we have the ideal tool – the Internet, to deliver that as a reality.
That is the one paradigm we should all be wishing for.
10
On what basis is it “extremely important to science” ?
The golden age of science (Newton, etc) did not use any similar process, and to a large extent peer review is nothing more than a convenience for the publishing industry. What contribution does it make to science?
10
Steve Short
I enjoyed reading your post. It was very well written and factual.
I understand the level of your qualification in a specific science discipline. I am going read the URL you posted with interest over the coming weeks.
I note your “run ins” with a few scientists on the internet who are pro-AGW. They were interesting to read and my opinion is no less of you for reading them.
As for myself – I am not qualified like yourself however I can read the science effectively. I am astounded that there those here who think the science and data does not exist that supports Global Warming.
AGW should be called IMHO: Rapid Climate Shift Phenomena
Ross Brisbane
10
Ross,
You really should take a look at the data. The ice cores show very rapid temperature changes, and these are changes in multi-century average temperatures which even exceed the exaggerated claims of the absolute change over some arbitrarily short interval favored by the AGW crowd. Even seasonal change occurs orders of magnitude faster than the phantom trends you keep wanting to see in the data. Do you know why seasonal change is so fast? Of course I know you do, and it’s the Sun. My point being that this is a proper forcing influence which far exceeds anything CO2 can do.
The only effect doubling CO2 has, is to change the atmosphere from being about 50% transparent to surface radiation to being about 49.5% transparent. It takes very little extra surface energy, i.e. a small temperature increase, to make the energy leaving the planet equal to that which it was before the change in transparency. In fact, it takes a 1% increase in surface energy at 288K (390 up to 394), where 394 W/m^2 corresponds to a surface temperature of about 288.7K. The real numbers are slightly different, but the example numbers are close enough for demonstration purposes.
I don’t know why I have to keep repeating this, but the science and data tells us that climate change is normal and expected, what the science and data does not support, is the idea that man’s CO2 emissions have anything to do with any perceived, imagined or faked climate change. You need to get past the fact that any temperature increased which happens to be coincident with mans increasing CO2 levels is just that, a coincidence. Stop trying to make up a reason for the coincidence. Just wait long enough and it will reverse. Wait a minute, it already has …
George
10
Lionell Griffith @ 292
> Ross has achieved his goal in the short run. The thread has been diverted. However, I suggest we have an actual gain here.
No, we have a hijacked thread. I came here to in hopes of improving Mohib’s poster, but trying to find the discussion is pointless.
> First, we dissuaded Ross from his incessant thumping.
Could’ve fooled me. The most effective way to deal with trolls is to ignore them. Nearly all of Ross’s posts have been replies to people replying to him. Break the link, and the troll can only debate himself, and that’s not the center of attention they crave.
Back to clicking dislikes….
10
Ric
A few points:
(1) There has indeed already been a lot of discussion of Mohib’s poster – going into considerable details
(2) Do you have any good suggestions for improving it? You’ve only had over 7 days to make them.
(3) I would suggest that at the very least Ross’s posts amply supports the following suggestion made by Barry Wood’s back on Christmas Day, viz:
“What about Dr Tim Mitchell – CRU, East Anglia (1997 – 2004)
He wrote the code (Harry_Read_me.txt)
http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-1129-Climate-change-and-the-Christian.htm
I think this article, and others should be in the timeline?
Don’t you?
It gives an insight to the mindset of ‘climate change’ religion.”
After all:
(1) it was Tim Mitchell who wrote the whole sorry mess of the CRU code (over a very critical 6 year period for the AGW movement) which fiddles the HADCRUT surface temperature database used so comprehensively by IPCC (please refer the extensive discussions on WUWT and other blogs).
(2) AGW being a undeniably apocalyptic movement – even to the very movers and shakers of it’s science such as Jim Hansen, is apparently psychologically very attractive to evangelical Christians.
(3) Surveys have shown that for the first time in recent history a Democrat captured significant total of evangelical Christian votes – at least partly on the basis of his endorsement (during the Yes we Can election) of apocalyptic AGW.
As we have seen.
Back to the last of the Yuletide ham….
10
I am totally supportive of Richard Courtney, want to find out more about him, what was mentioned about him in the e-mails, what papers of his were rejected where and by whom. This Ross Brisbane fellow really sounds like somebody who lost his pulpit and is trying to find another. He is the worst troll we have ever had with the least to offer. Jo should change her rules. If someone has written two posts which become hidden because of poor feedback, that person should not be able to post any more on that same thread. Next thread s/he has another go.
Alan Sutherland
10
Lionell Griffith @ 307
> How about the other readers of this blog? Especially the silent ones? I would suggest there is a significant impact upon quite a few of them.
The ones who are still reading saw through him already. Those not interested left.
10
As one of the silent (for the most part) readers I must say that I am (yawn) bored with Ross; I don’t know where he gets the time; maybe each of us should be restricted to two comments per day unless we are experts; one good thing to arise from Ross’s ‘thumping’ is the quality of the replies from those of us who have expertise in science; I’m a lay person so far as science is concerned but am trained in legal research (law) and when Climategate broke I began to look seriously at the issue of ‘global warming;’ I have been so grateful for the internet because so far as the fourth estate is concerned the sheep in Australia have remained well ‘sheep’ led by the fourth estate (except for Joanne and Andrew Bolt and possibly some others who don’t write for the MSM); but there is a lot of great info on the net including experts who take the time to respond to someone like Ross and in doing so and with the links they provide teach the rest of us a lot; so thanks guys for your patience with Ross and for the links you have provided; I haven’t checked John Daly’s site yet but have looked at most of the others but unlike Ross seems to have I don’t have the entire day to devote;
10
OK lets try this (one last time)
Imstead of being bogged down on the “science”, lets take a step back and look at the whole picture. Lets see if we can learn from history.
1-) One of the greatest killers of women in the past was Puerperal fever following childbirth. 1 in 6 died of this. In 1795, Alexander Gordon suggested that the fever was an infectious process. The consensus said NO. 48yrs later in 1843, Oliver W Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious. The consensus said NO. In 1849, Ignaz P Semmelweis demonstrated that sanitary practices virtually eliminated this fever. The consensus said he was a Jew, irrelevant and dismissed him from his post.
Finally, in the early 20th C, there was an agreement on puerperal fever by the consensus. IT TOOK 125 YEARS.
2-) In 1912, Alfred Wagener proposed that the continents had drifted apart. A consensus of great names of geology of their time sneered at him. IT TOOK 50 YEARS until 1961 for the consensus to agree with Wegener.
3-) Rachael Carson’s book, Silent Spring, snowballed a plethora of attacks on the use of DDT, often by advocacy groups (read environmentalists and greenies) which led to the banning of this insecticide in 1972.
By 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) had finally recognised their error and lifted the ban announcing DDT is safe to use.”
In the interviening 34 years, tens of millions of innocent people, mainly in Africa and mainly children, died of malaria and typhus. The people advocating the ban KNEW DDT wasn’t carcinogenic but proceeded with their campaign nonetheless. They are complicit in the deaths of tens of millions of innocent people. The banning of DDT via a new cause in environmentalism is one of the most disgraceful episodes in our scientific history.
4-) The 1970’s. Climate Science evidence points to catastrophic cooling and a new ice age. Such fears had been building for years. The first Earth Day in 1970 was set up because of it. Some notable quotes from that time….
Science Digest – “We must prepare for the next ice age”.
International Wildlife – “A new ice age must stand alongside nuclear war as a threat to mankind”.
Christian Science Monitor – “armadillos have moved out of Nebraska because it is too cold, glaciers have begun to advance, and growing seasons have shortened around the world”.
Newsweek – “ominous signs of a fundamental change in the world’s weather.”
K Watt of UC Davis Campus – “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.”
Global cooling faded out because the planet started to warm. Guess what the very same advocacy groups, scientists and MSM are drumming now?
Some of us are destined to never learn from our past.
Ross, you have a decision to make. If you believe the above examples I’ve provided (do your own research) then you must in the very least be skeptical about the current warming debate (welcome to our side). If you continue believing in AGW, then you are one of those who never learn from our history, you are not worthy of debate on this blog.
Which is it Ross?
10
Ric Werme @ 312: The ones who are still reading saw through him already. Those not interested left.
It’s not about Ross. It was never about Ross. There was no expectation on my part that Ross would significantly change his position. It was about exposure of his kind of ideas countered by a better set of ideas.
Ross entered this thread at comment 89. You had only two comments prior to his. Your complaint about his hijacking the thread was presented at comment 306. Why so long?
The content of any comment is determined by the one who comments – subject to Jo’s tolerance. You did not have to comment on anything Ross said. There was NOTHING keeping you from setting the terms of YOUR comments. You are perfectly capable of ignoring Ross. Why not do so? Why not take charge of the content of YOUR comments and make them say what you want them to say?
You have your purpose to serve by your comments. I have mine. Others have theirs. None of us can dictate another’s purpose. I suggest serve your own purpose as I do mine.
Keep in mind the following from the thread entitled “Where would we be without the internet?”
Our conversation is being viewed by a growing audience. There were over 20 visitors per comment last year. That audience is spread widely over the globe. What is said to that audience and how its said is far more important than pedantically sticking to the topic of any particular thread.
Stuff happens. Learn to take advantage of what happens and turn it to serving your own purpose. Then do it in an interesting way. You might find this is a powerful way to make things happen that you want to have happen.
10
Jo,
Can I suggest that there be an area on this site for the poor brainwashed souls like Ross_brisbane can go into to hear their views heard and discussed, thereby keeping comments on particular articles like this one relatively on topic.
You could call it the therapy lounge or something. Make sure there are rubber walls so the thumping doesn’t pollute the articles being published. I’d bet there are a lot of programmed people out there that will need some counselling.
Ross, regarding:
I am afraid it is only possible for me to be a gentleman to another. A gentleman doesn’t throw around insults like Denier, a troll, however, does, IMO.
I’m off to go camping, eat heaps of red meat ( the methane producing kind).
10
Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has an excellent solution to this and merely re-posts the comment to an “Unthreaded” site viewable on a sidebar and makes a note of it. Ross_brisbane et al can then go there and rabbit on to their hearts content, keeping the main thread on topic.
10
Lionell Griffith @ 318
> Ross entered this thread at comment 89. You had only two comments prior to his. Your complaint about his hijacking the thread was presented at comment 306. Why so long?
245 actually. Perhaps this thread is getting unweildly. Perhaps the author of the poster can find relevant entries by searching for his name. I hope he hasn’t clicked the “Notify me of followup comments via e-mail” I did that on “Global Warming: A Classic Case of Alarmism” last April and am still getting Email. I won’t make that mistake again until there’s an “Enough already” button.
Why so long:
1) I was hoping people would realize Ross will respond ad infinitum as long as there are people to respond to him.
2) It takes a while for a thread to go from trolled to hijacked.
3) On the 28th around noon OZ time (I think) I sent Email to Joanne asking if she had comments about my thought of asking people to click “dislike” on all Ross-related posts. She didn’t reply until late on the 30th, by then I had started.
All in all, Joanne doesn’t seem too concerned, the participants in the exchange with Ross all seem to think this is productive use of “ClimateGate: 30 years in the making,” and no one has joined my dislike campaign. So carry on, don’t mind me.
10
Alan Sutherland: Post 311,
Alan, I disagree! Does Joanne want to stoop to the level of “Climate Progress” or “Real Climate” ? Becasuse,IMO, that’s exactly what she would be doing…Realists allow debate in most forms as long as it doesn’t become a “Mud Slinging” exchange of Words…We don’t go to there “level”, the Alarmist’s level..Sure it’s disgusting to see what they continously give Us here and at other “Realist” sites..A few people here say “Don’t Respond” which is true, ignore them. The thing I’m concerned is how a “new person” just starting to research AGW would come across such actions and see that Joanne is no different!! Thank God, she isn’t this way..She runs a disciplined site and she has used authority but it doesn’t fall on a fine line..
I hope Alan you understand….
10
Thanks Jo. I appreciate the fact that you are willing to let people express their thoughts without censorship. Although I believe in God religion and science should remain as separated as church and state. I respect the opinion of a non believer just as much as I do a believer. Religion is based on faith whereas science is based on logic and repeatable tests and observations. If only the climate criminals at RC could allow a free debate they might have a chance at regaining their credibility. Happy New Year!
10
Religion and Climate Change comparisons. I’m sure others can add more.
Replace God with Gaia.
Replace ‘fire and brimstone’ with ‘catastrophic climate change’.
Replace ‘Lent and other fasting occasions’ with ‘living a less excessive lifestyle and vegetarianism’.
Replace ‘indulgences’ with ‘payments to off-set carbon footprints’.
Replace the old adage that ‘only the church can withhold and interpret the Bible’ with ‘only the IPCC scientists can withhold and interpret the data’.
Replace the old practice of ‘animal sacrifices to please God’ with ‘reduction in cattle numbers to please Gaia’.
Replace ‘Gregorian chants’ with ‘350 mantras’.
Replace the ‘council of Nicaea’ with the IPCC.
10
Jan. 2, oh Hell, I am already 60 in Australia.
Add to the list of faux consensus science the case of Peter Mitchell and his description of how energy is stored in living things by way of ATP. Consensus said that some big sexy protein worked its magic on ADP, held it in its loving arms and smacked it with another Phosphate making Adenosine Tri-Phosphate. Mitchell conceived of a humble ion pump that did the deed using the potential difference across the cell membrane.
He had private funds, set up his own institute apart from the university system, beat ’em to a bloody pulp. Over time. The Biochem teacher who told the story contended that progress in science was achieved when the entrenched ‘peers’, well…died.
I think the problem with climate science is that The Team created a new discipline, wrote the rules, and refereed at the same time they played the game. McIntyre smacked them over the head with their own hockey stick, definitively, but since he’s not on the team he can’t play the game. In fact, in some quarters of the blogosphere, he has ceased to exist!
But like the zombie that it is the stick is of the undead. It must be continually re-animated to recapture that moment in ’98 when we saw that graph and felt hotter than we had ever in life felt. Welcome, my brothers and sisters, the presence in our midst of Ross and all his best friends. He tries to blow life into the stick because it must live, as you say Ms. Joe (actually Miss Joe in purest Southern) without the stick all these guys are proving is that ‘…well, yep, I think it was a little cooler in oughty-ought.’
Another Southernism, appropriate because of the theological nature of this thread, may you all enjoy a blessed year.
10
Holy crap, another hockey stick. Scroll down a bit. http://wattsupwiththat.com/
10
Thankfully, we all seem to be awake now. Joanne, you’ve done a terrific job!
This must really annoy Liberals – who are used to getting away with this crap. I think we should organize and find a great lawyer. There are about 70 million of us. A dollar a piece and we could really go after all of the battalions established by these Alarmists over the years. Wouldn’t it be fun to watch them all fall? Joanne? You up to running this would be organization? Maybe with Lord Monckton on the board?
For a bit of levity, I have stripped Al Gore of his Oscar and given him a more appropriate one. Gore’s New Oscar
We need to database all of the battalions they used. We need to contact them and hold their feet to the fire. They include all of the mainstream media, newspapers, Liberal/Democrat organizations and groups, journals, Blogs, websites, paid off politicians and anyone else who bought into this one.
10
Most people like myself started to question the facts, researched and then realised we were being conned. Has nothing to do with any religious persuasion or lack thereof. Tho have been called all manner of things as though casting aspersions on me affects the facts I believe. Incredible times!
10
Ross Brisbane:
Please try to present rational arguments based on empirical data. Your behaviour seems to solely consist of making personal comments and you seem incapable of understanding when you are makingoffensive smears. For example, you wrote to me:
I have not confused politics, science and religion here or elsewhere at any time.
However, you have claimed (above) that religion is pertinent to the science of AGW. Your unfounded implication that I have done likewise – or would do likewise – is an offensive smear.
Richard
10
Alan Sutherland:
You say;
Some information about me in the public domain is on pages 25 and 26 of the item at
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
The pertinent Climategate email can be seen at
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=384&filename=1069630979.txt
I do not intend to explain the pertinence, context and significance of that email here because I suspect Jo Nova is considering whether or not to cover the matter. However, I point out that its most important statement may be where I say;
“Myles’ comments do not alter the fact that the masked data and the unmasked data contain demonstrated false trends”.
The trends are the rates of global warming indicated by the Jones et al., GISS and GHCN data sets of mean global temperature (MGT). They are each compiled from the same available source data (mostly obtained from weather stations), so if they indicate different trends then their methods of compilation generate spurious trends (where spurious indicates a difference from reality). There is nothing to calibrate these data sets against, so their different trends indicate that their methods of compilation provide errors of unknown magnitude to their estimates of the rate of global warming.
I hope this is sufficient to indicate that I am not being evasive concerning the Climategate email.
Richard
10
Richard,
I have never done that. You have misunderstood the context in which I was writing. That is not only misleading but patently false. All my posts showed that history proves an undeniable link to Climate Change denial: There are fundamentalist Christian movements that belong to the idealogical right that deny or is highly skeptical of climate change. On this issue alone I am only highlighting a movement in broad terms. This not an intended personalised attack on yourself. If you have an under developed theological response in this area it is not my fault but rather the bell tolls for you and your own conscience.
America is a wash with conspiracies about the science, and is an idealogical right wing movement with a bent to anti-science. For the record any average intelligence person can confirm its existence by doing a more thorough search of this movement on the internet.
The crux of the religious fervor is founded on the Young Earth Creationist belief/movement and ideology that attacks nearly all known science disciplines.
This is FACT: Most AGW politicians of the Republican Party in America are silenced by a powerful minority found within that party. These consist of fundamentalist Christians and idealogical twisted right wing extremists, beholden to energy corporations and their climate change policies lack scientific depth, is often exaggerated, uses fringe science and has failed on numerous attempts to prove a thing through major Senate blustering over the last decade. These are detailed on the internet and the result of those inquiries as part of the historical track record.
Our own Prime Mister Rudd was correct in making statements about this powerful minority. Our former Opposition leader Turnbull was also correct about his stand on Climate Change and a vocal minority seized power over the Liberal Party here in Australia. It is a political party doomed by past idealism.
On the issue of Climate Change for the record, I could debate you in any public place. I would immediately call all real Climate Scientists to aid in the presentation. And ultimately my friend you would lose the debate hands down in a face to face confrontation.
As for your ability with theology or your background in it as you have stated I could also lead the debate in this area under the terms of “Ethical commitments in anthropology”. Developing a healthy Christian world view with an appropriate response to Climate Change would be paramount. Fundamentalist track records on the various Science disciplines and how ought a Christian respond have been very poor and tardy. Getting a grip on the environmentalist movement and holding to a balanced response would have to be one of them.
Ross Brisbane
10
[hidden do to low comment rating]
Ha ha ha ha ha
10
Hi Joanne,
You seem to hung on offensive words – denier and skeptic.
I will attempt to set the record straight.
For starters the name calling and character abuse is cause for real concern. The militant nature and obtuse character assassination of myself is obvious. Let alone exclude the trial by Kangaroo Court held against others in other disciplines of endeavor in Climate Change.
Many refer to the climate change issue as a religion in the context of those who do not conform to Al Gores doctrine preaching, or dare to question it, are branded as sceptics/ deniers, or such, in the same manner as religions have used similar tactics of branding those who do not conform or question the doctrine as blasphemers/heretics/infidels etc etc, along with the threat that if you do not conform, that you will suffer in hell, or in this instance suffer in a planet destroyed.
First, as I have pointed out elsewhere, the terms “denier” and “sceptic” are literally true of, and literally describe people such as yourself and others here. They do in fact deny the claims of the AGW theory; they are in fact skeptical of those claims. That is reality and nothing you do or say changes those meanings.
And to the extent that it is comparable, it is a practice equally used by sceptics. Sceptics may be called deniers; but in turn they call the non-sceptics “believers in the New Religion”, “lazy folk … [who] sacrifice their own thinking abilities and shrink from any form of outward questioning”, “worshipp[ers] at the … altar” of global warming, who “bow down” and swallow “The Lie”. And that’s just in one post.
In other locations I have seen GW proponents labelled as fascists by a leader of the GW skeptics. Not only do (some) global warming skeptics use offensive labeling to silence dissent, they have even had global warming proponents up before Senate committees (shades of McCarthyism) and courts to have them branded as liars. And they have there own scare campaign, if you don’t believe them we’ll have a global economic catastrophe, or so they say.
In fact the only significant differences between the epithets of the two sides is that those of the anti GW camp tend to be more offensive, and are (unlike those of the GW camp) untrue.
One typical diatribe.
I agree with xxxxxx, it’s a farce. A lie.
Al Gore has presented a lie to the World and sadly, the World has swallowed it. Not many take the time (as has xxxxxxxx) to read, explore, and ask questions.
It may be that perhaps these lazy folk simply don’t like the label “skeptic” and therefore, sacrifice their own thinking abilities and shrink from any form of outward questioning.
Al Gore resembles the Advocate in Chief for The Devil himself! Lies, lies, lies. I am enjoying reading the posts here yet, I find it most difficult to debate on the issue as for myself, there is no issue if GW doesn’t exist. I won’t be worshipping at the same altar as the Climate Change/Global Warming Believers. No, you won’t find me there, ever
That is what many do expressing their opinions which all have a right to do. Let me see, xxxxxx calls opinions I largely share “a farce”, “a lie”, “Lies, lies, lies.” and later on, “poison”. “Lazy people” who “sacrifice their own thinking abilities” and “shrink from any outward questioning”, and none of that is in your opinion, offensive.
But when post an alternative viewpoint of thinking – openly put up some of the revealing expose on issues like Plimer’s book, I am being offensive even religious and deserves consignment to be treated as scorn.
I think that alone is enough to indite you of a very clear double standard. Your standard of what is offensive (as opposed to what is mere opinion) is clearly, and simply, which side is the poster on.
In this Forum some people merely voice their opinions while others will argue the validity or accuracy of scientific data from both sides of the issue, but they are seperate types of postings.
Fair enough.
So why do you have a problem if I in just one post voice my opinion of somebody elses opinion? Silly question, really.
As for evidence – if you don’t read contrary argument and expose other scientific argument to be balanced here what do you ultimately become?
Ross Brisbane
10
I came into this quite late. But I find comments by Ross Brisbane to be quite disturbing. If it isn’t obvious you folks on this discussion, it should be. The whole mess was a movement to create a global taxation scheme. It was dreamed up by Liberals and it has been in the works for about 30 years.
Ross says, “On the issue of Climate Change for the record, I could debate you in any public place. I would immediately call all real Climate Scientists to aid in the presentation. And ultimately my friend you would lose the debate hands down in a face to face confrontation.” This is, of course, utter nonsense. People on the group should not be fooled into debate with people like this. He is demonstrably ignorant of the facts. Perhaps he is even on their payroll? There is no logical reason for defending a position of such insanity.
What is more important now is that we collectively work to NOT let them off the hook. We have them on the run. Many of them will soon be castrated by their own science. We should prosecute all of the rest. Politicians who try to perpetuate this AGW myth should be voted out of office and investigated.
10
Ross,
We already know this is a political issue. Yes, those right of center tend to be anti AGW and those left of center tend to be pro AGW, but this has nothing to do with the religious right, or the lunatic left for that matter. Just as short term warming has coincidentally aligned with increasing CO2 emissions, political and/or religious alignments with AGW beliefs is just another coincidence. Conservatives who can’t understand the science tend to be against AGW for economic reasons. Liberals who can’t understand the science tend to be for AGW for ‘feel good’ reasons. Both camps tend to vote with their party, whether they think they understand or not.
You can distill the essence of the political components of this debate into a very simple conflict. Guilt vs. Greed
In America, we have a political right which the left perceives is driven by greed and a political left, which the right perceives is driven by guilt. Both are right and this issue just happens to plug in as a natural dividing point.
George
10
Bob Says:
Ok Bob. Show me your research that proves this claim. You are so typical of a Liberal. You can’t argue the facts so you start labelling things. I can find as many left wing ideologues that think AGW is bunk.
Bob… you can’t be this naive! Who are you working for?
10
Ros Brisbane:
You wrote to me saying:
I understand that to be you asking me to “please learn to separate the politic and religion from the science”.
I reponded by saying I have never failed to separate them and I added;
“However, you have claimed (above) that religion is pertinent to the science of AGW. Your unfounded implication that I have done likewise – or would do likewise – is an offensive smear.”
Your reply to that response asserts;
OK. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Please state in what way your accusation against me was a misunderstanding of “context” and is “patently false” because I fail to understand.
Furthermore, my illustration which you dispute was an example of your behaviour that I said was:
And you have replied by saying;
QED
As for your assertion:
Please see e.g.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2938
I will take on anybody any time with the debate but alarmists dare not face such debates: they have lost the few they did. And I thank you for your suggesting that I “would lose the debate hands down in a face to face confrontation” with you because it gave me a belly laugh.
Richard
10
Hi Nick
The article referred to science qualified folk within the Republican being silenced, castigated, demoted and denied potential debates within their own party. The link is old in terms of newspaper articles. You would have to do your own research by doing Google.
I hope you believe the statement. I do not have time to go through hundreds of links on an alternative forum I am on. It’s search engine is very weak.
The same identical thing happened here with our own politics – a minority seized power from fanatical climate change deniers.
It is a fact of idealogical left and right which will be soon dissolved as irrelevant in the coming decade.
I do not believe in the global taxation conspiracy – it is lot of rot. Any proof is just wild speculation on the internet. It is based on fear and an inbuilt ideology of right idealism which IMHO – is fiction – a phantom and an illusion to get your vote in a democracy.
Ross Brisbane
10
Richard,
Have your belly laugh. You are not degree qualified in any science discipline (unless my reading of you on the internet is incorrect) and you think you could win hands down. Come on mate.
Now go and grab your British scientists who agree with you and I’ll grab my fellow Australian Scientists and lets see the number who agree with you.
As always you take things too personal. It’s time you used your logic, got unemotional and start speaking to me as another traveler in this debate. Please my be real my English gentlemen and stop arguing over semantics. Treat me with respect and I will afford you the same courtesy. Let’s not bluster false egotism on the internet.
Ross Brisbane
10
Ross,
Here is where I agree with to totally:
I wonder, though, if you made a typo when you said: “The same identical thing happened here with our own politics – a minority seized power from fanatical climate change deniers.” I think you must have meant Alarmists. They are the principle fanatics in this equation. You have only to read their blogs. They won’t discuss the facts. They merely repeat the mantra and then resort to calling you names. That is the Liberal formula here in North America. I don’t know if it is different in Australia. Liberals here are at the root of pretty much every major scandal in the past decade. And it usually centers around money. Liberals here think public money is THEIR money. We’re presently sending them to jail for a multitude of kickback schemes.
Nick
Vancouver, BC
10
Ross : ” Treat me with respect and I will afford you the same courtesy.”
.
Try to stop using the degrading insulting shameful word ” DENIERS” and then ask for respect. If you need to use that word ..then all you have is emotional science tied to a religious belief.
10
Wilbert,
Describe your attitude to AGW.
If you investigated the science list every science paper you have sighted that entitles you to be skeptical.
If you listed the last ten web sites you visited – what were they on Climate related information?
If 100 scientists say there is AGW – do you read what they have in their science papers?
Now for curve balls:
Tell me in your own words how much the Northern Hemisphere Weather Circulation has changed and why?
Tell me why there is so much more moisture saturating the Northern Continent of America?
What do you see as empirical evidence all over Northern America that gives credibility to this?
Ross Brisbane
10
Nick I meant to say the extreme deniers brought about the political coup. Ross
10
” Tell me in your own words how much the Northern Hemisphere Weather Circulation has changed and why?…. Because it hate to stay the same.
Tell me why there is so much more moisture saturating the Northern Continent of America? … Them big scary predicted droughts did not happen?
10
Ross, this is a non-debateable point. Unless you can name and explain a paper we deny, you need to acknowledge you are throwing baseless insults, and agree to stop using the term “denier” in any shape or form, unless you can specifically back up it’s use.
I know it’s hard if you have practiced being condescendingly rude in other forums, which encourage that, but we have higher standards.
Surely you would have to agree that there is nothing scientific about “denier”, and also that you have not been able to provide any papers that we don’t have a good reply for.
Basic manners is the main requirement of commenting on this blog.
10
Brisbane:
Withdraw and apologise for your slander. You wrote:
I accept your claim that you have reading difficulties but that does not excuse untrue slanders.
Try reading the part of the internet I cited above (at #176) when I wrote:
It mentions some of my scientific qualifications.
You really are a piece of work.
(a) Here you have repeatedly pretend to be a clergyman but have displayed complete ignorance of the Commandments of Christ.
(b) Here you have repeatedly demonstrated you are a liar by claiming to have knowledge that you cannot cite, mention or describe when asked to provide it.
(c) Here you have repeaedly demonstrated your breathtaking arrogance so, for example, you assert an ability to debate ‘face to face’ when you have repeatedly demonstrated here that you are incapable of debate when given time to consider what points to make and how to present them.
(d) Here you have repeatedly demonstrated your astonishing ignorance of the scientific method and the complexity of climate, but think think your ignorance enables you to pontificate on these matters to people who work in both.
(e) Here you have thrown unfounded insults around like confetti.
(f) Now at #185 you have resorted to untrue slander in hope that this will deflect attention from a clear demonstration that you are a liar.
Each of these behaviours is not acceptable. In total they are disgraceful.
Apologise abjectly, completely and now.
Richard
10
Did I miss something? There seems to be two threads going on here. On the one hand, there is talk about the weather – Climate…and the fact that climate changes. It always has and it always will. On the other hand, there is talk about “climategate”. Please do not confuse the two.
I don’t think any reasonable person would deny that the climate is changing and will continue to do so. Where we run into trouble is when some people believed Al Gore’s insane rants about you and I being the cause of climate change. That is where the train runs off the tracks. The gas of life, CO2, is vitally important. It helps sustain the planet. It’s needed by every plant on the planet. Ross, don’t ask me to list which plants I’ve interviewed to establish this fact ok!
Climategate, as it has become known, was an effort by a well organized group of individuals to create a world government and taxation model. It became known as climategate because it tried to obfuscate logic with manufactured climate science. It relied upon long exercised social engineering methods that have proven successful in the past. After all, who would ever think of questioning a scientist? It all seemed reasonable and it made sense on the surface.
The entire game changed, though, when some hero deep in the bowels of East Anglia released the 62 mb data file. It proved that Lord Monckton had been correct all along. Once the ties to Ken Lay, of Enron, were established – people knew that something was foul in the kitchen! While Lay did not end up in jail, many at Enron did. This would be the beginning of the end for these guys. It won’t be long before Al Gore will have to move or leave the country out of shame. Just watch the next US elections if you doubt any of this. The Democrats are going to get creamed!
According to some reports, our own “Maurice Strong” from Canada is in hiding in China. The worst Prime Minister in Canadian history (Pierre Trudeau) handed Maurice Strong our big oil company (Petro-Canada) after he repatriated it from Royal Dutch Shell. Trudeau was riddled with problems. You can google his infamy. Strong became very wealthy from Petro Can. He joined the UN in the early 70’s and immediately connected with one of the Rockerfellers. The created the World Conservation Bank. That was the start of it all. Liberal love it when there is lots of money flowing.
But here we sit in 2010 arguing about who should load the dishwasher? How dumb is that? Lets just get on with prosecuting the criminals. All we can debate, really, about climate change is it’s rate of change or velocity. Does any of that matter? We should put our energy in to finding ways to cope with changes. There is nothing we can do to stop them. Having said that, please don’t take that to mean that we should just throw in the towel and go on polluting. Far from it. We should do all we can to help the planet. We need clean air and a clean environment.
The tax scheme is not going to happen. Any politician that even breaths this sentiment again will be tossed, vilified and pretty much boo’d out of town.
Above all we must take from this a critical lesson – It is no longer the big that eat the small, it is the fast that eat the slow!
Nick – Vancouver, BC
10
Quick not on pictures…
Joanne, how do I upload an avtar or picture of me for my posts?
I don’t have the full WordPress interface at this end so there is no facility for pics.
🙂
10
Richard; don’t waste your time responding to Ross; I don’t know where he gets the time and I thought he was going to start his own blog and not bore us; you have more positive things to do with your time; and Ross go away and start your own blog; I thought you said you were going to and I thought good; he won’t bore us any more
10
Australians reading comments from North Americans should remember when they mention Liberal, they are referring to the lefties like Rudd, Penny and co.
10
Buzz345:
Thankyou for your advice. I will take it and will ignore anything else for Ross.
However, I understand that this will give him ‘the last word’ and his writings above suggest that his ‘last word’ will be offensive and untrue. And others may believe it (which is why he presents his untruths).
Ho hum. Such is life.
Richard
10
Jo – Love your work but I hope people don’t confuse bad religion with bad science. Even if the AGW camp manage, (or even try) to. To quote: “You attacked reason”, said Fr. Brown. “It’s bad theology.” (From The Blue Cross, in “The Innocence of Father Brown”, by G.K. Chesterton, 1910.)
My faith tells me that God is on our side. Why? Something to do with “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” An inconvenient truth that M. Mann et al are going to learn about fairly soon, I hope!
Happy New Year, Speedy
10
I wonder how RealClimate would treat a sceptical visitor who turned up and behaved as Ros from Brisbane has?
A lot less politely than here I’m certain.
Any thoughts Ros?
See the difference?
10
Ross at his eloquent best –
Peruse the last sentence; as far as inane, nonsensical drivel goes it is peerless. And that is why it is great to have Ross on this Unthreaded thread. His words should be heard and they should be promulgated far and wide. If anyone tells you, “well there are some very clever people who are AGW proponents”, you merely have to quote some of Ross’s stuff and watch their jaws drop.
His is stupidity of the highest calibre and you really must keep this thread going Jo. Ross’s views must be encouraged and preserved for future students of the philosophy and history of science. He is pure gold – let’s hear more from you Ross. On this thread of course, not on any thread that addresses any serious issues.
But Ross will say, debate the science even though he knows nothing about it. Well I would if he’d first answer my question about PCA eigenvalues that I originally asked in a previous thread and that he has “religiously” refused to answer.
Mate, you are a legend in your own lunchtime. I salute you. {longest way up, shortest way down}
10
Science challenged people like Ross( EPIMETHEUS) are not use to debate. They are use to preach while other listen,they are the same zealots who scream and try to stop others from speaking if they do not follow the orthodoxy. The questions he asked yesterday were so childish and detach from reality that answering with anything less then the simplest answer possible was the only way to reach that low. As usual ..Just another alarmist trying to pass as something he is not.
10
Un exemple archétypal d’une poseur
10
I think many of you might be missing the obvious; that “Deep Green” has infiltrated christian chuches. It is a sign of a perhaps brilliant plan that divides a bastion of the right wing (ie more skeptical) politics. Religion has little to do with it, it is the PEOPLE they want as voters. A “pastor” like Ross can convert lots and lots of fence sitters with no mind to match. Be sure that while you fight on scientific principles you don’t over look the depth of political prowess at work behind this. If and when we cause the collapse of pro AGW thinking, the people behind it WILL come up with something else!
10
I forgot to add: That Ross thinks the OBVIOUS global taxation scheme “is rot” is particularly disturbing.
10
Ross, you are hereby “moderated”. All your comments will be held until you lift your standards of manners AND reason.
1. You need to apologize to Richard Courtney for throwing baseless insults and using the term “Denier”.
2. You need to show you can hold up a logical conversation.
In 58 comments you repeatedly claim you are well informed,and that there is masses of evidence. Yet you can’t provide any. It’s more than enough to show you haven’t got any, and are either deliberately misleading us, are grossly misinformed, or are delusional.
Here’s another example: Denier or Believer? What’s the difference? We can say what you believe in, but you can’t say what we deny.
Hence we are speaking accurately, and you are throwing baseless insults.
You think we throw the same baseless insults as you, but we can back up our insults. You can’t.
When we say “Al Gore Lied”: Al Gore used the ice cores in his movie. Read Caillon et al 2003. Al Gore has two years and a whole documentary to say three words: “Temperatures lead carbon”. He didn’t. He lied by omission. He lied by implication. He misused the graphs and deceived.
You can’t weasel out of an outright insult by pretending it really means something else.
This is a science based blog. When you say “denier” it refers to evidence. You have said as much. Don’t pretend we “deny the claims”. We are not denying that you have made claims that the world will warm.
This is nonsensical.
In 58 comments you have posted only 3 or 4 that mention scientific papers. (And they didn’t stand up to analysis). 4 out of 58 is too low a ratio to justify letting you throw rude baseless smears. If you had only posted papers with evidence, I would welcome your contribution, even if it was misinformed. At least we’d be talking science.
I allow any rational polite person to post here. I don’t like moderating comments.
Jo
10
John,
I know how RC treats people who are catastrophic AGW skeptics when the are considerate and ask thoughtful questions. They are blocked from ever being able to post again. Interestingly enough, they tolerate childish behavior from their own as long as it’s targeted at someone they disagree with. The chance that the same kind of latitude that was granted Ross would be given to a climate skeptic posting on RC is exactly zero.
George
10
Ian George:
At #170 you say;
I parodied a ‘hell-and-brimstone’ sermon accordong to AGW as the introduction to a presentation I gave at the First Heartland Institute Climate Conference. It seems to have amused some people because they have used it as soundtrack for You Tube items.
An audio of that presentation is at
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork08/newyork2008-audio.html
To hear it scroll down to
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
8:45 – 10:15 a.m.
Track 2: Climatology
then click on my name.
I hope its Introduction amuses you but please note that my congregation tomorrow morning will get something very different in both style and content.
Happy New Year.
Richard
10
There is something about saving the planet that messes with heads and Ross seems to be in a zone here so you might as well give up – you won’t get the accountability from these guys as usual. He already has one religion but has infused it with another into a self important delusional sort of mix. They put outlandish faith in the IPCC as if it WAS a bible. It confirms something I thought ages ago: conviction in AGW is a mind distorting affliction. They know little about the science they refer to.
In a recent doorstop Green senator Christine Milne started babbling incoherently about Siberian methane and positive feedbacks. They are in reverent awe of the “scientists” and don’t really try to understand. That default of thought screams cult, and Ross will only wave around papers that compliment his inflated view of himself in the world.
Saving the planet seems to resonate with someones’s personal sense of grandeur and once they have assumed that role/identity rational debate is hard. People like Ross will hit a wall and the counsellors will worked off their feet. They are in some rare space – why let go of something that makes you feel so exalted?
10
Ross doesn’t seem to be getting too many thumbs up from the posting crowd here, I’m a simple middle-aged man but when I was younger you could say I was progressive minded save the spotted owl and put those evil logging companies out of business and somehow I got the notion that government existed to take care of my every need, a funny thing happened on my way to middle age I learned to think for myself, read and listen I now know those beliefs destroyed people’s lives and led to a deepening dependency and loss of self-reliance, and the spotted owl didn’t even need to live in the old-growth forests they were doing fine in a hole in the Kmart sign.
Ross I don’t know what a neo-evangelical is I’ve never heard the term before but no matter, the modern environmentalist movement is a religion, Gaia worship and pantheism is at its core now if you think that your salvation is in the hands of rock and tree spirits I’ll pray for you. I don’t know what research you think you’ve done but this whole global warming climate change scam is just a more successful incarnation of the Ice Age alarmism of the early 70s that I’m grateful to say wasn’t believed but what is happening now is very disturbing science has become corrupted by politics, money and to another degree by big corporations hoping to ride the bogus carbon credits wave.
We now know that Copenhagen GW talks were a failure maybe the fact of the released e-mails (smoking gun) of scientific lies data manipulation and totally destroying the careers of anybody who tried to do honest scientific work in this field, the term global governance is all over this subject their own words not mine, you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to see they are using this climate change hysteria as a vehicle for political and social change in the direction of a one world government, now maybe you want to be a citizen of the world but I wonder what kind of rights will an individual have under that type of governance who will grant them and can they be taken away.
In this blog there is a story of a man on a hunger strike in Australia because he has lost his property rights and is suffering under governmental tyranny, the courts have denied him justice where then is he supposed to turn?
As an American I believe we’ve lost the wisdom of our founding fathers that was stated in the Declaration of Independence that our rights come from God what freedom loving person would rather have privileges bestowed by the whimsical beliefs of flawed men who may later take them away or deny they ever existed.
No Ross just like the educated and good people of Germany in the 1930s were sold a lie that they got caught up in the fervor and couldn’t see the truth until it was too late so is the lie that man is causing global warming is perhaps the biggest hoax and fraud ever perpetrated on mankind and millions will suffer needlessly.
Some may want to put their faith in Gaia and worship the earth but as for myself I will trust in Jesus Christ because plain old Christianity is good enough for me.
10
If you are among those professing a Christian faith, Mike N. has summed it up very well.
Peace Brother Mike!
Disclaimer to those agnostics, athiests, and of faiths I do not know, This is by no means a “diss” of your beliefs. I believe there is room for all of us.
Frankly this is aimed at “brother” Ross who needs a refresher in Christ. Wake up Russ to Gaia, the evil which is Pagan. You are falling!
10
Mike N: Bravo!!
Mike, that was very well put. You echo how I feel but was unable to express as well as you did.
As a Canadian I see what you are going through down there in the good ol’ USA! We, in Canada, generally love the USA. You might think otherwise if you watch the mainstream media. We have a handful – literally – of French here who have managed to re-write the history books and convince people all over the world that Canada is bilingual. BARF! French is the 15th language in Canada behind Dutch, German, Mandarine, Polish, Phillipino and a range of others. Our govern spends 9 billion dollars per year trying to bilingualize the country. We call it “synthetic bilingualism. It’s not working.
There is a strong movement here to join you guys. Together, we would be a formidable force. The largest and richest country in the world. We have more oil off the west coast that all of Saudi Arabia had at the BEGINNING of oil’s life. We haven’t even tapped it yet.
But you Americans need to take some action. I hate to say it, but you are going to need another tea party. You need to organize and take control.
“The anser to 2010 is 1776!”
10
Ross is getting a huge amount of space on this site. How does he explain why a lot of us can get no word on some of the pro-AGW sites
10
As a regular visitor to and longtime supporter of Jo Nova, I’ve been loath to dignify the postings of Ross_Brisbane with any response. How can you rationalise someone out of a position they never rationalised themselves into in the first place? Mike N’s great post has however inspired. For me it defies logic that with so much quality information available, anyone with access to the net and a mediocum of intellect can remain unsceptical of the “settled science” supporting the AGW hypothesis. That some still make the connection that CO2 is a driver of climate defies belief, and that’s the rub. Human beings need, indeed crave a belief system.
The erosion of traditional western Christian beliefs in return for secular politically correct standards has left us clutching at straws when it comes to believing. How often has the statement been made that AGW is the new religion? AGW and the need to save the planet has divided the west completely and utterly.
The world today revolves around key belief systems seeking to dominate. As a middle aged descendent of Scottish Presbyterians, Christian principles remain ingrained in me, as does my time at an American school where I learned about the proud traditions of the United States enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.
I have long struggled with family friends and fellow Australians who hated the US, capitalism or free enterprise while supporting the relevance of Marxist/socialist ideals in Australia. It’s telling that these university radicals of the 60’s and 70’s support conspiracy theories around the 9/11 attacks. Lapsed Christians and their descendants are caught between believing in an indelibly stamped memory and a misplaced ideal.
No such division exists in China. Despite its communist foundations, modern day China is the epitome of capitalism at work and there is a unity of purpose across all population demographics with very minor exceptions. The belief system in China is all encompassing. In my time there it was very evident that Leaders are revered and deservedly so. In China the belief system is permeated by respect. Respect for elders, respect for authority, respect for ancient teachings and respect for hard work.
So we have China and the divided West with no prize for guessing whence comes the usurper and the real challenge for the 21st century. Distractions like AGW, further trivialised by the Ross_Brisbanes of this world only exacerbate our problem. A complete and immediate purge of climate science is required. A dose of mainstream media realism, the abolition of political correctness and a return to old values will do far more for the planet than dreaming a magic tap to control temperature.
10
Censorship of AGW sceptics has gone beyond even openly pro-AGW blog sites too.
Despite being a mild sceptic (I accept that some warming may be due to anthropogenic CO2 but believe the evidence shows climate sensitivity to CO2 is low anyway,) about 6 weeks ago I was finally permanently banned from the Australian left-liberal online magazine ‘New Matilda’ after having been a subscriber for about 3 years and, in the early days, even a feature writer on new technologies.
After having a rash of my posts ‘moderated’ (disappeared) over about 6 months, the editor even finally had the hide to call me on the telephone whereupon she proceeded to lecture me tartly and aggressively about the sceptical content of my posts and their ‘inappropriateness’.
I note that pro-AGW academics from various Australian universities, including the Australian National University regularly write feature articles for New Matilda. It is clear they do not like anyone critiqueing their work from a background of solid scientific credentials and literature comprehension – they much prefer to be lecturing to the gullible and the willing. In other words their articles are seen as propaganda pieces pure and simple. In any case, most subscribers to New Matilda seem to have a level of scientific comprehension ranging from a turnip to a corgi – and in the latter case the manners of a rabid one at that.
The Fourth Reich might appear slow in the coming but we can be absolutely sure of from which direction and that there is no shortage of modern day would-be obergruppenfuhrers.
10
Has anyone seen this video?
Here is a guy doing exactly what the leaked emails said they were doing.
This is from about a year ago…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=216v5AoQcFQ&feature=player_embedded
10
Steve Short. Your banning from New Matilda should be taken as a compliment in spades. The quality of non debate there is only surpassed by the veracity of ad hominem attacks posted. We should look forward to more of the same as the pro AGW academia dig themselves into a deeper hole.
That said, the gullible are indeed out there in numbers, particularly Generation X which sees itself as the most educated and therefore best informed with respect to AGW/ Climate Change and Planet Saving. My greatest regret is buying my Gen X daughter James lovelock’s book on Planet management back in 1991. My naivety then has undoubtedly contributed to nurturing the pestilence that best describes the corrupt and politicised science of AGW today.
The most interesting thing for me now is watching Gen Y’s (the new sceptics) pit themselves against the Gen X’s (the true believers) over AGW. Gen X will attack and then walk away from debate but Gen Y take no prisoners. The Little Black Schoolbook opened their eyes to bias in academia and I look forward to gen Y saving us from the environmentalists, as Vaclav Klaus would put it.
10
Treeman,
I just can’t get enough of this commentary! Go man go.
We are loving it in Canada. Your’e welcome at my house any time!
Nick
10
Important Message from Leon Ashby
What sort a government arbitrarily blocks the free movement of the public?
Canberra has sent out the road authority greenshirts to keep you boys in your place.
If I were in Coffs Harbour I’d walk the rest of the way just to say UP YOURS to Canberra. Hells Bells.
10
Treeman, hate to throw a spanner in the Gen-Theory, but this sceptic is most definitely Gen X.
Jo
10
Treeman @ 260,
It’s not a generational thing.
My parents were born in the early 20th century. I have seen good and bad in every generation from then to now. Most were simply struggling to get by and lived day to day. Others, the so called squeaky wheels, took one side or the other of nearly every issue. Which side they took turned on their having an independent intellect vs having a mirror intellect. Its being willing to do the hard work of investigation and thinking required to form reliable conclusions vs being a chunk of mental flypaper that uncritically latches onto random bits of intellectual junk floating by.
10
off topic: Joanne.. I just got to say something here.
NICK! ” We have a handful – literally – of French here who have managed to re-write the history books and convince people all over the world that Canada is bilingual.”
French is the 15th language in Canada behind Dutch, German, Mandarine, Polish, Phillipino and a range of others. Our govern spends 9 billion dollars per year trying to bilingualize the country.
.
WOW! 9 billion/year and you still cannot speak french? You Must be linguistically challenged. It did not cost the tax payers that much for “I” to get off my butt and learned English as a second language. Of course I could have ,like you, fought not to learn a second language and stay vulnerable to repeat ” BARF” what i was being told about ” English” in round table bar distortions ..But unlike you i decided to find out on my own,it is called thinking outside the box..Give it a whirl it is very rewarding.
French-Canadian 7 million in Canada and 2.4 million people in the United States.
Scottish are next 4,157,210, Dutch in 8th place.
.
the 9 billion is what the Gov.paid to prove AGW is true in the last 10 years.
12.8 billion spend since 1969.
10
Jo and Lionell, deservedly chastised for generalisation am I. This noteworthy piece on scepticism augers well for mainstream media in the New Year. It’s back to work for me now. Thank you for your efforts Jo. Your contribution to global climate enlightenment cannot be overstated.
10
Finally it is warming up… just not on the planet. I am so please it is January 3rd here in Canada. Tomorrow it all starts…
See this:
10
Wilbert,
I agree a second language is useful – Just not French! In BC they are considered pests. Quebec has never contributed to confederation. They constantly whine about money, yet they are a net receiver of funds for the past 50 years. Members of the FLQ (don’t know if you are old enough to remember that crisis) are now in government there. In Quebec, English is BANNED from all street signs. Businesses get fined if they put up English signs. And you can’t send you kids to English Schools unless both you and YOUR parents were educated in an English school The RCMP (Canada’s largest street gang) are an arm of the Quebecois… You won’t find an RCMP detatchement anywhere in Canada that isn’t populated with Frenchmen (and women).
French is the 15th language in Canada. That is simple fact. You can go look that up. Also, The province of Quebec calls itself a Nation – a country! They claim to want to vote to get out of Canada. I wish they’d hurry up and do it. We’d all be better off. French from France are much different. Beautiful people. Nice .. friendly… good people. French from Quebec are mongrels. And that is not a slur.. it is an observation.
I am learning Mandarin and Punjabi. So when if I ever run into a Quebecer…I’ll speak punjabi to him.
10
” French from Quebec are mongrels. And that is not a slur.. it is an observation.”
I am a ” mongrels”?
Your racist ignorance slender has no place on a site like this or any sites as far as i am concern …. Could this be just Another Evangelical flavor? BTW Jo could you fix the title “Flavour” 🙂
10
We don’t need to bother this great site with our Canadian issues. I have no ill intent in my observations of Canadian politics. It is what it is. There is little you or I can do about it. I respect your position. If you are a Quebecer, then of course you are going to stand up for them. That is fine. In fact, I wish that BC had a premier with as much drive to work for his people as you have with Gilles Duceppe there in Quebec. He is a great man! I email him often and we have carried on conversations in the past. I’ve even sent his party money to help the cause (Seperation). Just know that BC would vote Quebec out if could.
We will never settle our dispute here, nor should we. We should argue on our own turf. These people will know nothing of what we speak.
Ok?
10
Thanks Mark, and Nick I was led to believe that Canadians hated America especially the young generation I’m glad to hear that isn’t entirely true, you are right things are going bad for us here you are seeing the transformation of the US from a prosperous middle-class capitalist free-market country to having failing European styled socialism shoved down our throats by radicals who have seized power and openly extol the virtues of Chairman Mao and cultural Marxism from their own mouths. Americans voted for a young charismatic president that people knew nothing about because the media was enamored and mesmerized by him and unquestioningly carried his water and protected him, he has spent millions of dollars in hiding his birth certificate from public scrutiny and it is entirely possible that he is not even constitutionally qualified to hold the office he now has, there should’ve been full disclosure just like all the other candidates had to do, why was he exempt? He is the one they been waiting for their Messiah!
Glenn Beck of Fox news Channel has done an excellent job in exposing the radical agendas of the people who surround the president, I have seen a clip of him countless times talking about his cap and trade legislation “would necessarily cause utility rates to skyrocket.” Our radical courts have ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and has given a green light to our Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate it all based on the phony assumption that CO2 causes temperatures to increase when the scientific fact is that temperatures do not follow CO2, CO2 follows temperature and this fact totally devastates the whole theory of anthropogenic global warming.
I don’t know what you are seeing from your news media in Canada I know that the US media is barely covering the true extent of the anger of the American people with having this radical agenda shoved down our throats! Our representatives come back to their districts to angry throngs at town hall meetings where average citizens holding copies of our Constitution demanding the representative to show them where they have the authority to do these things, these scoundrels know they don’t have the authority but they’re doing it anyway. When the speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi was confronted with the question of unconstitutionality of this healthcare reform debacle she merely replied “are you serious, are you serious?”
Americans are waking up getting informed and active, huge marches on Washington are barely covered in the state-controlled media but we are portrayed as antigovernment extremists, if that is true then we’re in good company because we extol the philosophies of our founding fathers of limited government, fiscal responsibility and the principles of justice extolled by the likes of Blackstone and John Locke, it’s not anarchy we want but merely the restoration of our constitutional republic so we can have our liberty live in peace and have a chance to be successful in business opportunities, to better ourselves and our families so the next generation will have a better standard of living than the previous, and when an Islamic terrorist in our own military does Jihad we are not so worked over by political correctness and multiculturalism that we deny the truth, political correctness is destroying us and that was its intent from the beginning.
I am active in the 9-12 project attended meetings and large tea party marches in my state networking with people spreading the news and educating Americans of their heritage and what they’re about to lose. About three years back I attended a very long seminar by a couple of guys with “National Center for Constitutional Studies” who traveled two weekends out of the month to give these seminars about the roots of our country’s history and the form of government we were given there were about 15 people taking the seminar than, I attended another one about six weeks ago except this time there were over 150 people attending and there are now 200 NCCS representatives giving these seminars nationwide so you see Nick a storm is coming in America the ruling political elites and their lap dogs in the media don’t have a clue, this movement transcends party lines but time is short and the people need to take back their power before it’s too late.
The environmental legislation they are trying to ram through will devastate our economy and those shockwaves will be felt throughout the world economy, you may think I’m joking when I tell you they are going to tax cow flatulence, attacking livestock production and agriculture and stigmatize the consumption of meat in an attempt veganize the populace, Tofurkey is coming to a market near you and if you don’t choose it over a nice rib eye steak is somehow a bad person and contributing to the destruction of the planet.
God help us, time is short when Russian Pravda can see the truth.
10
10
re: 225
Mongrel is such a vulgar term. I prefer mutt, or Heinz 57.
10
Nick: Post 215,
Nick, Glenn Beck who’s on Fox News is talking about what’s been going on for many of years…It took someone who had the initative to provide the “proof” of what’s been known….This is what made ClimateGate so big…Nothing new Nick if you’ve been investigating AGW for a few years….
10
Excellent points Mike. It is wonderful to have your perspective on this.
Who told you we Canadians did like you? I’ve often said that if the US wanted to annex Canada, I’d offer any of the troups free room and board while they do their business here! Many others feel the same way. I live just five miles form the Washington border. I do most of my shopping in the US. I have an office in Bellingham WA. I just love it there. Here in BC my home is worth about $700,000 and it is on a 70 X 100 lot. I can buy the same house on five acres just 6 miles south of here – In Washington stat… on FIVE acres for $259,000! The drug business here is so huge that it has been affecting house prices for about 15 years. Drug dealers buy home for cash and turn them into “grow ops”. They make about $800,000 net profit every 8 weeks on the average grow op. Much of the stuff goes south. I have friends that work in the US Boarder offices. They routinely catch trucks and helicopters heading south with marijauana. They often setup road blocks 300 feet from the Canadian board to catch the money coming back north. One boarder crossing here catches crooks and their money about once a week. Because of your tougher US laws, your guys get to keep the cash an put it to use in operations.
I read about Obama and his alleged real name of Barry Soetoro. He listed himself as an Indonesian Islamic student. I actually have a copy of the document (a scan of the original). The big difference in your country is that you all have the guts to do something about it when push comes to shove. A Canadian is the only one that I know of that will apologize when YOU step on THEIR toe! We are completely controlled by Liberal media here. But I sense that is changing. There is a strong conservative movement happening. The Liberals got caught pilfering over a billion dollars recently and that has hurt them badly.
It is sad that we have to take extreme action. But I see no alternative. The only thing that politicians seem to understand now is force. You are going to have to have a revolution again!
Good for you for getting involved! I have many US friends that email me every day. They feel just as you describe. What we really need is a national platform. We should form a coalition, setup an organization to save the country. We could easily fund it since everyone has so much to lose if we would fail. We’d need to establish a national committee. We’d need a couple of honest lawyers (pardon the oxymoron). The other thing to is that immediately we would have infiltration attempts by “the others”. We would need a way to control things this way. Extensive background checks etc. But once we had 30 Million dollars to play with, we could really expose the rot.
Beck is bang on. I’ve emailed him many times.
10
PaperTiger – I was over zealous in using that term. It is vulgar to some people. I’m a dog guy and have three “mongrels” – and just love them. I have a Hungarian Kuvacz named “Tundra” (I call him “hairbag”, and I have a border collie named Pepsi whom I call “The Squirt”, and finally an australian shepherd called Jazz… whom I call Poop Eater. It’s the perfect arrangement. The other two do their business and Jazz eats it. Makes me sick to think about it but apparently it doesn’t hurt them. He’s been doing it for five years! Makes cleanup a snap!
Aren’t we all Heinze 57’s? I’ve done my family tree back to 1504 in England. My Grandfather, Josh Swallow, was the guy who started the “Luddite” movement back on 1810 when he started a writing campaign against big corporations that he thought were ruining the textile mills. He wrote under the name “Ned Ludd”. He was eventually hung! I hope to avoid that fate.
10
Hi Denny,
I have learned this. I only found out about the whole mess in early December! I was previously oblivious.
I hear Lord Monckton talking about it on a radio program and almost fell off my chair. Since then, I’ve been all over it. I won’t stop until they are all in jail.
10
Nick:
January 4th, 2010 at 9:24 am
“…and finally an australian shepherd called Jazz… whom I call Poop Eater. It’s the perfect arrangement. The other two do their business and Jazz eats it. Makes me sick to think about it but apparently it doesn’t hurt them. He’s been doing it for five years! Makes cleanup a snap!”
Hey, hey, hey, Nick – we Aussies may well be the most laid back people on this planet. We can take a real lot of shit.
Up to a point.
But then….
PS: I have a full size English foxy who can open wall ovens and snatch out hot roasts (while grinning widely at the same time). Beat that! Just goes to show there is the odd smart Englishman….
10
Since Jo posted at # 205,there has been no more postings by Ross,who was insulting Richard Courtney openly and mocking him as well.It was so absurd and unnecessary.It has been more than 24 hours and Ross has not reappeared.That means he has not apologized and will probably not come back either,because he lacks the ability to reasonably discuss the issues that come up.
I have been Moderator and now Administrator for years and have communicated with Administrators and Moderator in several forums over the years.In my experiences people like Ross are always marked as a TROLL and receive warnings by Moderators.Depending on the Owner/Administrator’s level of tolerance of such behavior in their forum,they will be allowed to get the “shape up or get out message” to the quick banning.
Personally if he was doing what he did at my small forum,I would have posted 25% warnings at a time for his snotty comments,but what he did to Richard would have resulted in a suspension,until he tells me he will make an apology.I can easily put ANYONE under moderator post approval,meaning that any post made will require moderator approval before it becomes visible.
That is why I had asked Jo about changing the dislike number to a lower setting to help hide his odious comments,that have become more and absurd as his abject failure to dazzle us with his flood of baloney was being taken to task.His ability to comments will still have been possible but many would not have to read so it easily due to being judged so unworthy so many times by other readers to read it on the open blog page anymore.
I saw him as a TROLL who was going to go downhill as he rambled along to the point that he angers someone.I have dealt with people like him many times over the years and actually helped a number of them to get banned in forums,by just drawing them out into the open and they blow their cool and anger a Mod or Administrator.
But I have to tell you that he is mild compared to a number of TROLLS I have met over the years,who were sooo bad they were good! The expose alone was worth a little tolerance by the forum owner for the purpose of showing other readers how bad an AGW believer can be with their posted comments.
One person wrote pure ad homonyms and nothing else.I put him to task by posting the description of what AD HOMONYMS are (gave him a link to the website that discusses them) and it described him perfectly,then I pointed out that he never actually commented on what Dr. Robinson wrote in the first place.He comes back with more baloney and pointedly avoid the actual contents of what the scientists were writing about,with more AD HOMONYMS.That was months ago,but soon after he was exposed as a fool a few more times,he vanished and has not been back since.
Some people simply do not have the basic ability to successfully carry a conversation in a blog or forum and eventually are asked to leave or be Moderated out.I think Ross was one of them since he never got into anything deep and instead preferred the mouthy way and that is why he is now in the moderating basket.
Carry on and hope you all have a productive skeptical year of 2010.
10
Without CO2 we would not have any plant growing on earth, so no Life on earth at all. In the air ist 0,038% CO2 available. 1,2% is made bei burning of fossile energy. It means humans are responsible for 0,000456%. Any questions? Have a look on to this homepage http://www.klimamanifest-von-heiligenroth.de and take the english version.Best regards and an interesting new year.
10
Lol… Steve.. that is too funny. Jazz would try that if he could.. but we watch him like a hawk when he’s in the kitchen. He’s up on the counters if no one is looking.
I used to play rugby with a Steve Short back here in BC! He was a very fast outside center. We used to joke that he was a haemophiliac. We were so confident that he would never be touched! Ran like a bugger!
10
Excellent point Dieter.
That means that we are responsible for 45/10,000ths of a percent. This is simple math. So HOW do GW believers think that we can have any measurable affect? The margin of error based upon sun spot activity is larger than 45/10,000ths, so that would make our contribution virtually unmeasurable.
10
Sunsettommy, #235: I’m doing this only because you repeat the phrase quite a few times – Ad homonym.
The correct term is “ad hominem” being Latin for “against the person”, from the complete term “argumentum ad hominem” or “argument against the person”.
“Homonym”, on the other hand, comes from the Greek word comprised of “homo” (same) and “nym” (name). Two words are “homonyms” if they are pronounced or spelled the same way but have different meanings; e.g. “site” (place) and “sight” (view, see).
Sorry to be pendantic, but I’m a linguist and I just can’t help it … 🙂
10
Oops! Pedantic, not pendantic … hehehe!
10
Ross has tried to post a few more comments after being “moderated” until he apologizes.
I replied to one in a personal email to him, (below) but since he hasn’t replied to me I’m wondering if his email was like most trolls, fake. So here it is again Ross, just so you understand.
Ross,
Ad hominem attacks are an automatic failure of logic. You still cannot
post this comment below or others until you apologize for your baseless
smears.
You should be ashamed of yourself attacking the people who are mostly
volunteers or retired scientists and who are working hard to protect
your lifestyle, your freedom and your money from charlatans and greedy
bankers.
Knowing every detail about Richard Courtney, and what he earnt 20 years
ago, will not tell you whether the planet will warm. It’s stone age
reasoning, fit for fools and followers of tribal gurus and witchcraft.
Jo
_________________________________
Joanne Nova
http://joannenova.com.au
10
Dear Joanne, we are distributing within our network your homepage and the German edition of your book. If someone is asking and does having any doubts or is less informed about the climate affairs, your book is the answer to help him to understand. I have to explain who I am and who we are. Have a look on to these homepages. http://www.klimamanifest-von-heiligenroth.de, (translated in to 8 languages) http://www.der-teuflische-staat.de (only in German it means “the devilish state” this book is written by me) we have founded a new party last year, http://www.parteidervernunft.eu it means: “party of good sense” (some articles in English) and we have a very close relationship with EIKE. I would like to meet you, if possible. From 25.Feb to 15.Feb, I will be in Australia. (In Melbourne and Adelaide) If I could contact you it would be very great, maybe you can send me the phone number and/or your e-mail address. I would be very happy to hear from you. I wish you all the best and a lot of power for this new year
Best regards
Dieter
10
Joanne:
Sincere thanks for your defence of me.
As you say, an attack on any person – whether or not the attack is true and/or successful – contributes nothing to the debate of any issue under discussion.
Several web sites have been established to smear climate realists and they copy their lies from each other so their lies accumulate.
These lies are often irrational. One such concerns myself and was stated here by Ross; viz.
But the same blogs that make this claim chastise me because I served as the Senior Material Scientists at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment (CRE) and, hence, they say I am a ‘tool of the coal industry’.
I wonder how they think I had and held that job without qualifications.
I think it is important to consider evidence not people when discussing any subject because a truth can be stated by a Nazi child molester, and an error of fact and/or logic can be made by a saint.
And I am grateful when my statements are shown to be wrong because then I learn. But when I am attacked because of what I say then the attack suggests to me that my statement had some merit: as WW2 bomber pilots used to say;
“You know you are over the target when they are firing a lot of flack at you.”
Richard
10
Re # 239,
I have no problem with your correction.
But it is funny that the spelling checker keep insisting that it is Ad Homonyms,when I type AD Hominem.
LOL it did it again right here!
Try it yourself and see for yourself.
10
Hey Nick, I do Border Collie Rescue with http://www.nebraskabordercollierescue.com have since 2003 I have sure have learned a lot hanging around these BC people the lady who runs our organization has a champion sheepherding dog I’ve heard her say that all the good sheepherding dogs eat sheep poop. LOL!! These dogs are smart.
Dieter Ber gives us some excellent statistical facts regarding man’s contribution to CO2 in the atmosphereand that it is beneficial when compared to the amount of CO2 the earth produces naturally the anthropogenic factor is so small it’s almost silly to attribute so much significance to it. I checked out your link but I’m not up on my German haven’t spoken it since grandma passed away when I was a boy.
I live in central Iowa USA and were blessed here with having an excellent local conservative talk radio station WHO Des Moines (Michelson in the morning show) I listened to some of the national ones that this guy is my favorite he is really good when callers like Ross come to argue, it’s like he gives them plenty of rope slack that eventually ends up being wrap around their own neck when he starts to pick apart their argument with facts and truth, and most of the time they can’t debate on that level and end up calling him names and hanging up! But the thing is we get to hear their crazy arguments lined up and compared with logic and reasoned arguments by our side I’ve always come away from that with learning something new, I’ve only heard him end a call when the person got too vulgar or out of control.
So the way I see it folks like Ross serve a useful purpose that gives us a window into their thinking and the responses our side gives his educational as we learn new things and improve our debating skills. We need that for our own edification and to have the ability to sway others to our point of view, I’m an excellent example 25 years ago I was working the other side of the street but some conservatives didn’t give up on me and eventually my eyes were opened so it can happen people like Ross can have a come to Jesus moment in their life if they’re honest with themselves when they suddenly realize and accept the fact that they were wrong when confronted with the truth.
We’ve all seen the news coverage of the big global warming oops, I mean climate change conference in Copenhagen you guys remember the protesters did you see what flags they were carrying? Many were the hammer and sickle what does that tell you.
Question, is an ad hominem to point out that former Vice President Al Gore is poised to line his pockets with profits spurred by the new Green Revolution cap and trade based on the global warming lie, is it considered a personal attack if it is true? Just wondering.
10
Here are some more thoughts on religions involvement in Climate Lunacy:
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/climategate-and-the-green-dragon/
Ross Brisbane and his Leftist rants fit quite well.
10
kuhnkat:
I write to agree with, and to support, your comments at #246.
Like you, I object that an abuse of science is being used to justify a political objective. However, I think I need to state that I have no quarrel with left-wing stances because I am a socialist of the old-fashioned British type. My complaint is that science is being abused for a political purpose, and I strongly assert that such abuse of scince is wrong whatever the purpose.
In 2001 (before I was invited to join the Editorial Board of ‘Energy and Environment’: E&E) I published a refereed paper in E&E that discussed the IPCC SRES scenarios as reported in Chapter 2 of WG III of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (i.e. the TAR). Please email me if you want a copy of the paper.
Its Conclusion section includes these closing statements:
Richard
10
Sunsettommy: Post 235,
Thanks for the great insight. I’m sure there’s a alot more going on “behind” the sceens than most people realize. We get a lot over at GWH.com. I know this because Admin. has stated such…They even had “threats” of their lives…Most of the Alarmists that post call us names and leave..Some come back to which I think they are teenages with nothing else better to do..We’ve been getting a lot of people stating support for the “Realist” cause. Just like here I’ve noticed the increase since ClimateGate broke..This is good…I pray that 2010 can stop the “fiasco” that’s going on inside of the AGW controversy…We’ll see…
10
Richard S. Courtney,
unfortunately socialists of the old British type empowered the new socialists of the whack job type. Socialism (and most other isms) will not work until humans change. What are the chances of that???
I still welcome you and thank you for agreeing with the necessity of disbanding the Great Climate Scam.
10
@ Mike N.
Dieter Ber also gives us a link to a 9/11 conspiracy site he calls a party of… wait, what?
10
It is http://www.parteidervernunft.eu. A lot of cooments are writen in german; bat have a look on it, some are writen in english
10
He don’t even understand this.
10
For Rabe: If you mean me, please explain what matter I do not understand. Thanks
10
Jo wrote:
This whole topic breaks basic rules of logic and reason
and I reply that this is itself a philosophic assumption. Newton was a creationist, a theist and a great scientist. Was he incapable of reason?
the very notion that the natural world is open to be explored and reasoned about comes from the conviction that it is a rational order, which it can only be if created by a rational being. And, given that even Darwin himself was troubled by the doubt that if his theory was true his thinking was invalid for it arose not from reason but mere evolutionary action, he was dimly aware of this also.
If atheism is true nihilism is true: i held this even as a young atheist. But if nihilism is true NOTHING matters, not even the extinction of the race, and certainly not moral arguments.
You cant have it both ways. You cant have moral reasonings for or againt anything, and be an atheist. I am not saying atheists have no morals. I am saying that they have morals for being made in the image of God but that, in denying this, their morals have no basis, being only subjective matters of taste
10
QUOTE:
Yes, those right of center tend to be anti AGW and those left of center tend to be pro AGW,
STEVE:
this is a pity. I am centre left but am an evangelical utterly opposd to the religious right on biblical grounds.
And i reject AGW on rational grounds. To turn this issue into a poll of politics is lazy thinking (as I think was the point CO2is notevil was making in the post i quoted above
But the issue of AGW is to do with the evidence. The affiliation of a person is only relevant AFTER one has decided that such a person is wrong and his error needs to be accounted for. The trouble is too many leap to this conclusion of error without looking at the evidence
10
I took a look at the green dragon post.
The religion described there is pure idolatry.
I will buy indulgences from no man, I get my grace free from God direct.
It is odd that the god of the green’s needs saving. Is Gaia that weak?
Yet the God who created all things would save us, and has made the earth of tougher stuff than the greens would have us believe.
indeed i wrote to the local green party here in NZ saying that I have lost all respect for them because of AGW. They did not reply of course, even when i added that when AGW is refuted the big polluters may feel justified and have a field day
10
I am tail end of the Baby boom, being 51, born 1958, and I reject AGW entirely.
Again, it is not age or political or even religious affiliation that is relevant, but the evidence.
One prominent skeptic is the socialist Alexander Cockburn at counterpunch.org
10
Much is made of comparing AGW with religion, and it is as far as it goes valid.
But I hold that the religion AGW matches is false religion. Like al the made up religions of mankind it is totally devoid of grace and mercy .
There is only Law with its associated threats. There is no offer of free forgiveness, nor of personal relationship with the living God, no vicarious atonement, and the gods of men are not omnipotent but in the case of green idolatry themselves need saving. Moreover the gods of men have the temper of little boys or are impersonal images
And the belief required is not faith in the biblical sense, but faith in the derogatory sense, what i call bad faith, ie totally contrary to evidence and based on passion.
and the believers of these cults are vindictive and self righteous.
It is a great tragedy that most christians have been like this, and i have done my share of it also but in so doing they have defied their own doctrine. Therefore to reject the gospel because of this is to folow a straw man. For almost everything the atheist opposes in religion the Bible also opposes
Likewise to totally sunder faith and reason is to set up a false dichotomy.
So green idolatry is neither science nor good faith religion, but is a cult
10
Dogma in science is as dangerous as dogma in religion.
Both have prevented the natural evolution of knowledge.
E.g., Scientific Genesis: 1. Origin of the Solar System
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQZe_Qk-q7M
10
Black Day for free speech in Australia: Bolt loses caseWell,
As I remember it the Australian anthem contains the line:
“Advance Australia Fair”
Perhaps this should be rewritten along the lines of:
“Retreat Australia into the dark ages”
10
How did I stumble on this thread ? Ah yes, after Jo’s recent link to the preceding ‘Where’s The Evidence’ thread.
Well, ‘un-scientific’ as this thread may be, if one doesn’t consider Who made the Laws of the Universe, Who ‘pressed the button’ that caused the Big Bang, then there’s a huge hole in their view of the Whole.
10