« Why stop at two or even six? | Main | Hillary Clinton Prepared to Bring Democratic Party Down with Her »

A Chilling Effect

It seems the more news I read about "global warming," the more it comes across as a cult and not a scientific theory.

For example, last year we were supposed to have a record hurricane season because of global warming. Instead, it was a very mild season -- but that's proof of the theory.

Last winter, we had one of the snowiest winters on record. The cold was proof of global warming.

We are repeatedly told that single incidents or seasons can't be used as arguments against global warming -- but Myanmar's recent cyclone disaster (death toll: 100,000 and rising) is proof for the theory.

A while ago, I had two simple questions that I thought would help separate the scientists from the zealots, the honest seekers of truth from the evangelists, the sincere theorists from the fanatics:

1) What is the "natural" temperature and climate of the earth that we are so rapidly moving away from?

2) What sort of evidence would the global-warming advocates accept as proof that their theories are wrong?

I've dealt with the annoying evangelicals many times in my life. Usually, they're the most irritating sorts of Christians -- EVERYTHING is "proof" that God exists. The classic paradox -- where God pronounces that he doesn't need to prove He exists -- is literally a tenet of faith to them, and anything anyone brings up as evidence for the non-existence of their God is actually proof that He does. Hell, if I get exasperated and say "Jesus Christ, you're annoying," that's PROOF that I believe in Jesus.

I see the same mentality in the global-warming arguments. Every single incident, every single datum point, every single observation, every single measurement, is proof of the theory, and anything cited as evidence against their precious belief is treated much like many cult-like religions treat heresy and apostasy and blasphemy. (Scientology and Islam come to mind.)

I guess there's something in my psychological makeup that makes me want to be burned at the stake, because I have this compulsion to piss off zealots of pretty much any persuasion.

Luckily for me, the global footprint of my pyre would probably be prohibitive.

Hat Tip: Say Anything's The Whistler, who's been all over this lately.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/29596.

Comments (68)

It's a lost irrational caus... (Below threshold)
bill-tb:

It's a lost irrational cause to argue with irrational people.

The average condition of Earth is a snowball. Glaciation lasts about 100,000 years, warm periods called interglacials, nice name huh, last about 12,000. To check what is what you should go back to the last Interglacial and see what was going on then. If you do, you would find temperatures much higher than today.

The good news is the next glaciation period will bury New York and we can rejoice, the south will rise again. The climate is going to do what the climate is going to do, and Al Gore can't stop it, only tax it.

And if Al Gore is wrong abo... (Below threshold)
SteveC:

And if Al Gore is wrong about all this...he and the Sierra Club will be held accountable for their disaster, right?

Did you see the news of the... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Did you see the news of the record southern sea ice?

"Bush's fault""Wor... (Below threshold)
Mark L:

"Bush's fault"

"Worst economy since the Depression"

"Global warming caused it."

Three mantras mindlessly repeated by those who wish to substitute faith for reason.

To deny either global warmi... (Below threshold)
irongrampa:

To deny either global warming OR cooling is foolish--but to insist that a single species can have a material effect on either NATURAL phenomonon is the height of arrogance.

You can reason a man out of... (Below threshold)
tyree:

You can reason a man out of an opinion he was not reasoned into.

AGW is the latest attempt to force us into a Socialist economic model, where the government controls what types of light bulbs can be sold in America.

Ask a AGW believer this:
Since people who live in the US have massive carbon footprints.
And people who live in third world countries have small ones.
Why don't they agitate for restrictions on illegal immigration and watch the fun.
Haven't had a Sierra Club member yet give me a reasoned answer as to why they think an illegal immigrant has the right to trash the environment while I recycle aluminum cans and take shorter showers.

tyree, I think you meant "y... (Below threshold)

tyree, I think you meant "you CAN'T reason a man out of an opinion he was not reasoned into."

Other than that, great points. You too, irongrampa. No one in their right mind questions that the earth's climate is constantly changing. What I question is 1) Man's affect on that; B) whether or not any of these "green measures" will help, hinder, or do nothing; and III) why don't those who make the most noise actually practice what they preach for the rest of us?

As Glenn Reynolds likes to say: "I'll believe it's a crisis when those who say it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis."

J.

Quick question - what type ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Quick question - what type of science credentials do you have?

This is the one topic on th... (Below threshold)
Anon:

This is the one topic on this blog that I have to disagree with. The problem is with the way the message of global warming is being delivered, and I guess for the folks on this site, that it's being delivered by democrats.

While I agree that the Earth has a natural cycle, and that we don't have data going back far enough to judge conclusively what is going on, I also believe that man is having an effect on the climate. And this is the true message of global warming. No real scientist is saying that we're causing it, which really is absurd. That we are influencing it, however, is something that you would have to ignore all scientific data to refute.

A previous post said "to insist that a single species can have a material effect on either NATURAL phenomonon is the height of arrogance"

Apart from the spelling error, this is just an ignorant statement that turns a ablind eye on years of science. However, it's a great approach to take if you want to justify your continued use of giant SUV's that have never seen offroad conditions, dumping garbage in the ocean, etc.

I understand that we may be in a natural warming period, but that does not mean that human activity has not exacerbated this warming. Do you mean to tell me that the Earth's temperature would be exactly the same with or without human activity? 'Cause I'd like you to explain that to the giant ozone holes and pollution in the atmosphere affecting the way the sun heats the Earth. Oh, and to the chemicals in our water supply (such as pharmaceuticals, fertilizer, etc.), since I'm sure you're of the "the ocean's so big, we can dump anything in it, and it would never come back to haunt us" breed. Oh, and the increase in the rate of extinction of species - that has nothing to do with us, either, so you go on hunting bald eagles and fishing the manatees, what you're doing coiuldn't possibly have an effect.

Stop fooling yourselves - just because Al Gore has used questionable science to back his position, does not mean that position is incorrect.

Yes, the crazies are siezing upon anything to prove the global warming point, and much of it is not science as we know it, but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem with a root cause in humanity. (Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not following me...). I might add that this site is doing the same thing, pointing to blizzards in N.D. in May to say there is no global warming, while this actually fits with what is said about global warming causing more extreme weather (don't assume that means just warmer weather, please).

Humanity's hubris spawns the belief that the Earth was put here for us. The truth is, we evolved to fill a niche, which we have expanded. That doesn't mean that the earth will always be suitable for human life, and it is quite capable of self-correcting by becoming unhospitable for human life. The Earth will go on - will we?

Anon, the problem with dubi... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Anon, the problem with dubious science is not limited to Al Gore. The entire AGW crowd engages in questionable practices. A lack of meaningful review, failures to observe required data archiving and disclosure standards, concealment of methodologies and ad hominem argument.

Their act needs to be cleaned up before anyone starts basing policy upon their suspicious pronouncements.

Quick question - what ty... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Quick question - what type of science credentials do you have?

Besides a couple of years of college study in Environmental Sciences and 40+ years of actually studying science at a level most college graduates never touch?

In short, about ten times the science credentials of, say, Al Gore.

You might take into consideration that you don't need a degree in a field to notice that the people making money at it are, well, making stuff up as they go along.

Oh, and please stop using t... (Below threshold)
anon:

Oh, and please stop using the "they're doing it, why can't we?" argument. That's the refuge of 5-year olds. "Sally's eating cake for dinner, why can't I?" is the same as "Jimmy's service center dumps its waste oil down the drain, why can't I?". You damn well know why, you just can't stand that someone else isn't playing by the rules. Whether it's rich guys, foreigners, etc. breaking the rules, you can only control yourself, so do so.

That Hillary Clinton is driving around in 10 Suburbans while crying about the environment is not a sign that the environment doesn't really need protected; it's just a sign that she's a hypocrite who will jump on any bandwagon to gain a few more votes.

Anon | May 8, 2008 10:45 AM... (Below threshold)
iurockhead:

Anon | May 8, 2008 10:45 AM :

So, opposition to extreme measures that will cripple our economy needlessly to address a non-existent problem, implies that I also want to blow "holes" in the ozone layer (you really should read up on that, rather than swallowing what ever is fed to you), pollute the air, hunt bald eagles and "fish" for manatees (you forgot the polar bears, by the way)?

Non-sequiter, there Anon. No one with a lick of sense wants to harm the envoronment. But, also, no one with a lick of sense wants to destroy our economy and harm a lot of the rest of the world in the name of a nonexistent threat to the envoronment.

"Stop fooling yourselves - just because Al Gore has used questionable science to back his position, does not mean that position is incorrect."

False, but accurate? Right. Now, if the truth is undeniable, if the evidence is overwhelming, if the debate is truly over, then why the need to exaggerate, inflate, and outright fabricate information promoting "the cause?" If it is a tiny minority of people who are not convinced, they why is Al Gore spending 300 million dollars in an advertising campaign to convince them? Why not get that "tiny monority" in a room, but them dinner, and show them his powerpoint presentation?

Answer: The propaganda is wearing thin, the models have been shown to be inadequate, the hockeystick has been debunked, and the world has been cooling for 10 years. The urgency is growing to implement the "solution" before the whole thing collapses and too many people know it was all bunk.

Anon, Why don't you try ans... (Below threshold)
Socratease:

Anon, Why don't you try answering Jay's two questions?

If a theory is not falsifiable, then it is not a scientific theory. It's more a matter of faith, like intelligent design or something.

SPQR - you are absolutely c... (Below threshold)
Anon:

SPQR - you are absolutely correct that they are using crappy "science" to back the global warming position. I agreed with that in my first post. Despite that, if you've read any good scientific papers, there is plenty of evidence of mankind having an effect on the environment.

Let's not wait for "good science" to come from the global warming folks to scale back our effects on the environment, whatever effect it may be having.

Reduce pollution? Do we really need global warming to push that, or can we rely on the data detailing the health effects of breathing polluted air and drinking polluted water?

Electric Cars and nuclear power? Is global warming necessary to get this done, or is pollution, current politics regarding oil, etc. enough to push them through?

Whether or not the ice caps are melting and the polar bears are drowning, there are plenty of good reasons to speed up our reactions to these issues without resorting to a global warming debate. To poo-poo such initiatives because global warming is not supported by good science is like going back to a sun-revolving-around-the-earth theory because Gallileo forgot to carry a one in one of his proofs.

Anon | May 8, 2008 11:19 A... (Below threshold)
iurockhead:

Anon | May 8, 2008 11:19 AM :

Once again, you are mixing apples with motor oil. This discussion began with global warming. I agree wholeheartedly that we should not be polluting the environment. Clean water is paramount. Clean air is critical for our health and well being. I'm on board. But carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a product of respiration, and combustion (as is water), and it is an essential trace gas in the atmosphere. Without it, life as we know it would cease to exist, in that plants could not grow. At all.

So, get after the guy dumping motor oil in the storm sewer, and other real tangible problems. Global warming is a seperate issue
.

Anon, confusing greenhouse ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Anon, confusing greenhouse gases and "pollution" is sloppy thinking on your part. There have been enormous strides made in reduction of actual pollution. ( And there are arguments that reductions in aerosols have a warming effect ). Reductions in the production of greenhouse gases specifically have enormous economic impact and must be supported by convincing science.

As an aside, <a href="http:... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

As an aside, here's a story about Canada that illustrates just how ineffective Kyoto protocol has been. The Canadians, self-righteous as they've been, have been failing dismally to meet their commitments. Frankly the US is closest to meeting goals on emissions than almost all the actual ratifiers of the Kyoto Protocol.

My dad once told me that po... (Below threshold)
hermie:

My dad once told me that politicians would tax the very air we breathe if they thought they could get away with it.

With the Gorebots' GW / 'carbon footprint' strategy, you have the next best thing with the various 'carbon taxes' that are in effect, or are being proposed.

You don't need a degree in ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

You don't need a degree in anything but life to see the con of the global warming crowd, same as the con of the global cooling crowd. Just watch where the money goes. The fact is we have too many people with useless 'degrees' and no 'education'. They have to run a con to make a living and/or get rich since they have no real marketable trade. Media and (most) science degree's are now worth nothing since the average person has figured out they are degrees in lying to the public to make yourself feel important. I wouldn't recommend a degree in junk science unless you want to join Lawyers, Politicians and the Media as the most mistrusted people in the world.

Hey anon, if that's your re... (Below threshold)
bill-tb:

Hey anon, if that's your real name --- The error in your argument is you confuse pollution with climate change. If man is changing the climate, prove it. There must be some way you can prove the hypothesis, isn't there? Let's see, temperature dropping CO2 rising, nope that won't work .... Let's look at the tropics, the unique signature of global warming should be ... nope it's not there either.

OK, now t address the current favorite hobby horse the Arctic ice is melting. In the last Interglacial period, the Boreal Forests in many areas grew right up to the Arctic shore. In Russia the tree line was 400 to 1,000 kilometers further north than today -- How do we know that, the carcasses of the trees that grew there are buried in the tundra, must have been warmer back then right? ... The Arctic has always warmed more than the Antarctic, so it's convenient for the alarmists to point there, instead of to the Antarctic ... another falsehood debunked.

And don't go to the Antarctic Peninsular, where all the under ice volcanoes are. Al Gore already tried that.

Forget Greenland will melt, the last interglacial which was much warmer than today, only melted about 20% of Greenland's ice.

....

No one wants pollution, no one wants to pollute, well maybe communists do, but have you ever heard of photosynthesis? CO2 is a part of the carbon cycle of life. A minor greenhouse gas not capable of forcing anything. If it weren't for the phony notion that there is positive feedback when CO2 is part of the equation, there would be no argument. Ever heard of the absorption spectra of CO2? It's logarithmic for starters. Gas is a poor store for heat, water is far better. Try and heat your coffee with a hair drier and see for yourself.

...

And where did the notion that the feedback come from, the alarmists made it up so they could draw the scary graphs. There is now enough evidence, you hear that evidence not arm waving, but data, that says the feedback is not positive but is negative -- oopsie, wrong sign.

And why don't the computer fantasy models have water vapor and cloud formation as part of their equations, simple, they don't know how. And leaving out the sun is just delicious. I wonder, what would the climate be if the sun decided to change it's output say up it 5%... or drop down say the same 5% .... hmmm

...

The link between solar cycle length and decadal global temperature changes is obvious throughout all the weather records. It's not strictly a sunspot issue, it just happens that the longer the solar cycle is the less intense is the sunspot activity and presumably the overall heat output, not necessarily the same as what we artificially term Total Solar Irradiance, during the solat cycle. Google up center of mass for the solar system and where that imaginary point now is, and how it moves over time. Does gravity stir the sun's output? Interesting hypothesis.

...

Telling people government policies can control the climate if they will only pay enough in taxes is well, it's what liberals do all the time, tell a fairy tale to ignorant people.

What we know about man causing global warming, you could write a book, what we don't know about the climate would fill a good sized library.

Physics, chemistry and mathematics are your friend. You need not be a climatologist, a species of scientist that didn't exist in the not to distant past, to know AGW is a hoax.

1) There is no "normal" tem... (Below threshold)
max:

1) There is no "normal" temp. for the planet. There is, however, a temp. range suitable for human life. Obviously, it's in our best interests that the temp. stays within that range.

2) Global climate study is, by it's very nature, an observational science, like astronomy. There will never be conclusive proof one way or the other. Unless the earth self-corrects our asses outa here.

What sort of evidence would you accept as proof that their theories are correct?

Look guys, I don't know how... (Below threshold)
Anon:

Look guys, I don't know how to say this more clearly - I agree with JayTea's points, but I also see you attacking global warming rather than the science behind it. I don't see a whole lot of science refuting it, either - why are you not on that side? I believe it's because that would require us to do something, rather than being able to continue on our path of trashing the earth for profit and fun.

To address another point: to me, the assertion that we are affecting the environment is irrefutable. What that effect is, is up for grabs. I don't think it's a stretch to say that some effects are negative. I think that most scientists would agree (I am a chemist working in the pharmaceutical industry, btw, and read scientific papers on these topics regularly, including the ozone issue). Should we wait 10,000 years until we have more climate data to begin to curtail our effects on the environment? Wait and see, and maybe the earth will move on without humanity.

I also do not think that the general populace is capable of comprehending most scientific papers. They're more of a "batboy had sex with paris hilton" in the weekly world news group. Hell, look at scientology and the seemingly intelligent people that they rope in. Why would you expect those groups to respond logically to any science? I think this goes to the "No one with a lick of sense wants to harm the envoronment" comment. I was heartened to see that statement, but think that there's a lot of folks without that "lick of sense". They just don't want the government bothering them while they dump oil in the lake and hunt bald eagles.

And to address another point - at no time did I say that the ethanol initiative was a good idea. Nor did the original blog entry even address that (so I don't know why you're saying that's my take on the whole thing...). It's more bad science backing a bad, politically-motivated plan.

I do think that replacing fossil fuels with solar, wind, and water power are good things, both politically and environmentally. I think that pollution reduction, waste reduction, etc. are good ideas. Please recognize that some of the posts above, as well as the blog's entries, do not always give that impression.

Max, climate models that ac... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Max, climate models that actually matched observed climate and historical reconstructions that did not involve brazen manipulation, hidden methodologies and real review.

We haven't had either yet.

Anon, I've spent years part... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Anon, I've spent years participating in the debate on the science of global warming. To see AGW advocates respond with ad hominem ( "You are a 'Denier'", "What degree do you have?", etc. ).

I watched people discuss the physics of the predictions, and the methodology of the recreations of historical temperature trends to be attacked via ad hominem ( "You are a tool of 'Big Oil' ) and watched as people like Mann went before Congress to make up bogus excuses why they did not share data and methodology in an open manner consistent with real science. I watched Hansen whine about being told to shut up by the administration even as he gave literally a thousand interviews.

So don't give me this nonsense about not discussing the science. It is the critics of AGW who are most interested in the science.

This is my last post, need ... (Below threshold)
anon:

This is my last post, need to do some work today. Thanks max for saying something I agree with, whether it was meant to support me or not.

All I can say to recent posters is that yes, CO2 is a normal component of the atmosphere, and yes, life requires it. As I said before, I'm a chemist - I have done many analyses of gases and have seen absorption spectra, etc, so please come down off your high horses and talk reality here.

Do you deny that humanity alters the CO2 content of the atmosphere? That we convert other stuff into CO2, boosting the content of the atmosphere? Is this natural variation, or man-made? Yes, I've seen the science saying that they warm, cool, etc our atmosphere - obviously contradictory stuff.

I maintain that excess, man-made CO2 is a pollutant. Just because it's a natural component of the amosphere does not mean otherwise. Shit is natural too, but if somehow the human race's output increased by a factor of 100, I imagine we'd see it as a problem. And CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas that we contribute to.

We don't know the real impact of these things, true. By your reasoning, though, maybe we should pour more of this crap into our atmosphere and maybe that will cool the earth, if that science turns out to be correct. Hey, the clear-cutters of the Amazon saved us, hooray! Of course, if it was wrong, we're even more screwed.

I say, why not minimize our contributions until we do know more? And screw your economic impacts, I've worked for plenty of large corporations and know damn well they can afford that air scrubber for the smoke stack, they may just have to cut out the super-expensive ergonomic workstations, or buying a company-logo umbrella for everyone, or perhaps a few million of the CEO's absurd compensation. If your business can't survive without polluting the environment, perhaps it shouldn't, sorry.

The same guy who says science and math are our friends also seems to argue that, because science is incapable of calculating all the variables, that it should be disregarded. If you stick to that tenet, no science will ever be good enough for you. "Yes, I know it appears water boils at 100C at sea level, but have you taken into account the spin of the electrons?"

Nope anon, missed again, ma... (Below threshold)
bill-tb:

Nope anon, missed again, man has no way of knowing how the 30+ climate variables operate and interact. Our knowledge does not currently encompass that level of understanding. Real scientist know how to say, we don't know that and don't attemtp to try and make something that is imaginary real. They can also spot the imaginary using knowledge we have command of.

So where did the excess CO2 pollution come from during the last Interglacial? CO2 follows temperature by 400-800 years, doesn't drive anything, except making very big healthy plants. The geological record shows CO2 levels in the past many times what they are today with no ill effects.

Anybody see that new Chaiten volcano, who is going to pay the carbon offsets for that?

Anon, for a "chemist" you s... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Anon, for a "chemist" you seem ignorant of what you speak of.

First of all, this:

By your reasoning, though, maybe we should pour more of this crap into our atmosphere and maybe that will cool the earth, if that science turns out to be correct.
is simply a strawman. No one is arguing that.

Secondly, reducing CO2 is not a matter of just installing "scrubbers". Scrubbers are already installed in most plants that require them, but more importantly they only remove particulate matter, not CO2 itself. If anything particulates ( ie., aerosols ) reduce warming, according to papers by Hansen himself. There is no technology for removing CO2 from the output of fossil fuel powered generation plants. So this easily afforded "solution" of yours is a fantasy. Likewise, your identification of "solar, wind, and water power" above, ( the Sierra Club has an opinion on hydro generation by the way - as dams really are "pollution" ). Solar is far from being economical ( and would at present efficiencies require covering a large fraction of the US's surface area to replace any significant amount of generation ). Wind will always remain a stunt given its limitations and the opposition we are starting to see from environmental groups.

The only serious way to get the generation capacity we need is nuclear power - and until AGW advocates literally stand on street corner demanding the construction of hundreds of new nuclear power plants, I will view them as unserious.

One thing I agree with Anon... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

One thing I agree with Anon on: This has become political, and by that happening, it has the kiss of death on it. Like aids and abortion. An area that will never be addressed reasonably.

Whatever Algores intent was, he singlehandedly brought it into the political realm for his own benefit. So, you extreme environmentalists out there, that him for the reluctance to believe any of this. ww

Max: "What sort of evidence... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Max: "What sort of evidence would you accept as proof that their theories are correct?"

At a minimum, that when their mathematical models are run in reverse, that the results match known datapoints.

They don't.

Ever wonder why?

2 specific possibilities:
1) The models do not include all variables involved
2) The variables that are included are modeled incorrectly (ie, clouds and water vapor, which, in some models, are not included since their dynamic interaction is not currently understood.)

My favorite, (and latest!), indication that the climate modelers are out is the fact that the oceans have cooled somewhat over the last 7 years or so. Global Warming (and now "Climate Change" and soon to be "Any Weather At All is a Sign of the Apocalypse that must result in Marxists running our Governments") theory requires a significant warming of the oceans. This is not happening.

I read above some moron (anon?) who is still peddling the "oh my gosh, a large sheath of ice from the Antarctic has fallen off due to Global Warming" silliness.

Did this ice sheath fall off? Yes. Why? Because it's the one part of the Antarctic that juts up further north. Therefore, during Southern Hemisphere summer, it fell off. The real story, of course, is that the total ice mass of the Antarctic actually increased! This "inconvenient" fact was not, however, noted by our intrepid poster.

It must have been far too "inconvenient" a fact.

And so it goes.

anon: "I maintain that exce... (Below threshold)
Drago:

anon: "I maintain that excess, man-made CO2 is a pollutant."

jp2 would like a much more complete rundown of your credentials (including published peer-reviewed articles) before considering any further of your posts.

while ago, I had two sim... (Below threshold)
majarm:

while ago, I had two simple questions that I thought would help separate the scientists from the zealots, the honest seekers of truth from the evangelists, the sincere theorists from the fanatics:

Jay, I've never understood global warming deniers, my biggest problem with them is that virtually none of them have any expertise in the subject they are denying.

I won't say none, because difference do exist in the scientific community (although on this issue they seem few and far between.)

However, most experts are in agreement that the planet is warming up, that it is man made, and that their could be serious, even drastic consequences if this is not dealt with.

Yet because the petroleum industry disagrees(with Billions of dollars at stake who can blame them) Republicans feel they can tell the scientist they have no idea what they are talking about.

Now I don't know much about cars, can't change the oil, can't do a tune up, nothing. So when my mechanic says I have a problem, and the mechanic down the street says I have a problem and the mechanic down the street from him says I have a problem i go through this simple thought process. "Wow the guys that make a living knowing things about cars say I need to get something fixed"

Now I suppose if one mechanic four miles away disagreed with the other ten I might pay some attention, however I doubt I'd risk my car on it. Maybe you would I don't know.

Also I would point out that the article you link to does not say the storm specifically is proof of global warming but that there seems to be a trend of stronger hurricanes that possibly could be linked to global warming.

For example, last year w... (Below threshold)
marjarm:

For example, last year we were supposed to have a record hurricane season because of global warming. Instead, it was a very mild season -- but that\'s proof of the theory.

Just wanted to point out that the IPCC does not claim that global warming will make hurricanes more frequent - its 2007 report says that if anything, they are likely to become less frequent but more intense.

marjam: "Jay, I've never un... (Below threshold)
Drago:

marjam: "Jay, I've never understood global warming deniers, ..."

And with that first comment, one can safely ignore the remainder of marjams post without any fear of missing any substantive points or refutations.

marjam: "...its 2007 report... (Below threshold)
Drago:

marjam: "...its 2007 report says that if anything, they are likely to become less frequent but more intense."

Yes marjam, that is the "new" position of the alarmists.

It differs from the "old" position of the alarmists (of just a few years ago). A position that we were not supposed to disagree with either.

Again, I'll start considering your assertions seriously when you begin to attempt, even in rudimentary ways, Jay's very simple and straightforward questions.

Oh, and marjam, for the record, would you please cite your scientific credentials for the benefit of jp2?

I ask for him since he, being a forgetful sort, seems to "miss" the opportunity to ask this question of those posting in favor of the whatever the man-made current climate change advocates are positing.

And with that first comm... (Below threshold)
majarm:

And with that first comment, one can safely ignore the remainder of marjams post without any fear of missing any substantive points or refutations.

It\'s funny but that is the kind of response I actually expected to get. no attempt was made to address your lack of expertise in global warming or why you honestly think you have the level of knowledge needed deny what trained experts say on a given subject... nope your response can be summed up as:

\"Don\'t listen to him he is on the other side of this argument\"

Kind of sad really, it\'s a perfectly valid argument, and yet you have no reponse. I assume you might be one of those people who would have argued against Galieo on the basis of, \"the sun looks like it moving around us when I look at the night sky\" You proably wouldn\'t have even waited for an explanation on his part. sad.

No, Majarm, you are the exa... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

No, Majarm, you are the exact kind of AGW proponent that we've learned to expect. Ad hominem is your only tool. You don't have any actual arguments other than logical fallacies and name calling. You don't really have any scientific arguments other than "trust the scientists".

Well, I've examined their actual work, and I find it unimpressive because so much of it violates accepted scientific practice itself.

By the way, that whole "tru... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

By the way, that whole "trust the consensus" routine is hilarious specifically because the IPCC itself has ignored it when inconvenient to its argument. Just one example is that of the propaganda linking hurricane frequency / strength to global warming even though that contradicts the "consensus" of hurricane experts. That's why Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC, majarm.

And that's why we find your type of AGW proponent so predictable.

Yes marjam, that is the... (Below threshold)
marjarm:

Yes marjam, that is the \"new\" position of the alarmists.

Really? What evidence do you have that there was a change in position on this issue?

Again, I\'ll start considering your assertions seriously when you begin to attempt, even in rudimentary ways, Jay\'s very simple and straightforward questions.

I don\'t think you will ever take the opposing position seriously, I think you have completly made up your mind and nothing will change that.

Jay asked simple questions that are for a scientist to address, I am not, so I did not address them. I have no idea what the best tempetrue for the earth is and I have no idea what evidence would disprove global warming. I also have no idea how quantum mechanics works, and would have no idea what would disprove it. but I trust that it quantum mechanics is real, despite my ignorance. I hope you do as well and don\'t think you are on the internet due to magic.


Now my simple questions, unlike jays, (wich you refuse to address) are for the layman, they are,

why don\'t you trust scientist? Is it only on this issue or do you tell your doctor he also doesn\'t know what he is talking about? When you get your car fixed do you call your mechanic and idiot?
basically by what level of expertise do you feel comfortable ignoring the experts?

Oh, and marjam, for the record, would you please cite your scientific credentials for the benefit of jp2?

Sure I have none, now perhaps you or Jay could cite yours? Don\'t have any either? Damn! I guess I\'ll listen to the guys that do.

I ask for him since he, being a forgetful sort, seems to \"miss\" the opportunity to ask this question of those posting in favor of the whatever the man-made current climate change advocates are positing.

Look it is apparent, that If I bring in 100 scientist to tell you personally that global warming is real you wouldn\'t buy it. I only hope for your sake that when your doctor tells you you have cancer that you don\'t go see the one quack who thinks aids is a hoac and that smoking is good for you. regardless, I think you are pretty set in your position and until you answer my simple questions I don\'t see how I can take you seriously.


No, Majarm, you are the... (Below threshold)
marjarm:

No, Majarm, you are the exact kind of AGW proponent that we\'ve learned to expect. Ad hominem is your only tool. You don\'t have any actual arguments other than logical fallacies and name calling. You don\'t really have any scientific arguments other than \"trust the scientists\".

Did you think at all before you posted that? Seriously, perhaps you could quote where I used an ad Hominem attack? Maybe the part where I called you a name? or anyone a name? Basically it seems you don\'t like what I have to say so you accuse me of things I did not do in this thread. that is in my opinon a weak way to argue. Making up things your opponent said doesn\'t exaclty bode well for accuracy does it?

\"Well, I\'ve examined their actual work, and I find it unimpressive because so much of it violates accepted scientific practice itself.\"

Really? are you a scientist? How did you learn what is good scietntifc practice? Where did you study the work? On a conservative blog, or did you take the time to learn what theories relate to how the climate works? Did you take time to see what flaws exists in the argument of gelogist or other branches of science who also make that claim? Or diud you read the paper and think \"That don\'t make sense?\"


global warming even thou... (Below threshold)
marjarm:

global warming even though that contradicts the \"consensus\" of hurricane experts. That\'s why Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC, majarm.

Are you even bothering to fact check? Landsea, does beleive himself that the conclusions regarding hurricanes are incorrect However the majority of the scinetifc community disagress

Roger Pielke, a critic of the IPCC who originally published Landsea\'s letter, has said that the IPCC report \"maintain consistency with the actual balance of opinion in the community of relevant experts.\"

So your argument that resined because the IPCC would not listen to the consensus is in error.

marjam: "It\'s funny but th... (Below threshold)
Drago:

marjam: "It\'s funny but that is the kind of response I actually expected to get. no attempt was made to address your lack of expertise in global warming or why you honestly think you have the level of knowledge needed deny what trained experts say on a given subject... nope your response can be summed up as:..."

blah blah blah

Actually marjam, I have significant expertise in mathematical modeling (which is ALL that Global Warming Theory is based on.)

So marjam, lets see if you have a functioning brain.

All Global Warming (or cooling, or none of the above, for that matter) predictions are based on mathematical modeling.

Do you understand that?

That means that if the "modelers" "miss" anything, or don't understand "something" about what it is that they are modeling, their models are, generally, useless.

Useless.

Do you understand that?

Marjam, did you know that most of the models used until very, very recently, did not include variables and calculations based on clouds or water vapor interactions.

Do you know why that is?

Because the modelers did not (and still do not) understand what effects water vapor in the atmosphere have on the other variables.

And that assumes that all the variables necessary to actually model the atmosphere are already known.

Something that even some of the Global Warming alarmists now admit they do not know.

Did you know that marjam?

Why don't you know these things marjam?

I'll tell you why: it would violate your faith-based belief in man-made global warming.

Again, for marjam's benefit: I'll start BEGINNING to take seriously the PREDICTIONS of the global warming alarmists when their mathematical MODELS of the atmosphere, when run in reverse, actually prove CORRECT against KNOWN data points.

But they don't.

Did you know that marjam?

Why not?

Well, jpm, I am an astronom... (Below threshold)
David:

Well, jpm, I am an astronomer and we know that the sun is a variable star (it heats up and cools, not to go into to much detail when it heats up it is producing less energy and when it cools it is producing more energy, it has to do with size). But of course the sun has nothing to do with the temperature of the Earth, right?

"Look it is apparent, th... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"Look it is apparent, that If I bring in 100 scientist to tell you personally that global warming is real you wouldn\'t buy it."

That's part of the problem. You and many others say that we and many others deny global warming/cooling happens, or may even be happening, or recently happened and now is on the decline.

That is not the argument.

And all your wishing it was won't make it true. The argument is:

Is global warming mad-made?
If we are headed into a period of cooling, is that our fault too?
Can we even do anything about it?
If we can, will it be enough to justify the spending of billions and crippling of economies?

Most of say yes, we should try to be better stewards of the planet; its seas, its land and its air. But when people begin maligning the character of others simply because they're challenged, when they don't practice what they preach and when education becomes secondary to legislation, I stop listening.

blah blah blah ... (Below threshold)
marjarm:

blah blah blah

That's a counter argument worthy of you.

Actually marjam, I have significant expertise in mathematical modeling (which is ALL that Global Warming Theory is based on.)

And I'm the easter bunny.

All Global Warming (or cooling, or none of the above, for that matter) predictions are based on mathematical modeling.

Predicitons of global warming are based on modeling. you should get a cookie for knowing that.

That means that if the "modelers" "miss" anything, or don't understand "something" about what it is that they are modeling, their models are, generally, useless.

Not true, basically you are regurgitating a denier talking point on global warming that frankly I don't beleive you understand yourself. Models are tested and validated against all sorts of data. Over the last 20 years they have become able to simulate more physical, chemical and biological processes, and work on smaller spatial scales. All of the robust results from modelling have both theoretical and observational support.

Marjam, did you know that most of the models used until very, very recently, did not include variables and calculations based on clouds or water vapor interactions.

And they still give us the best availible data. You however don't seem in interested in the best availible data, that is your right.

Do you know why that is?

Why do you keep asking this bizarre question. I know what you are saying, it doesn't change the fact that most of it is illogical.

Because the modelers did not (and still do not) understand what effects water vapor in the atmosphere have on the other variables.

I'd like to see some citatations on this from a reputable source. What's more I'd like to see evidence that this significantly skews the results of the models.

Did you know that

Yes, and most scientist think it doesn't matter do you know that?


Why don't you know these things marjam?

Why don't I know what? talking points? You have not demonstrated that any of this matters, nor have you demonstrated your so called expertise in modeling. Basically, I think you made that up went to conservapedia and posted a bunch of things you don't understand.

I'll tell you why: it would violate your faith-based belief in man-made global warming.

So you're saying that a person who listens to their doctor has a faith based view of medicine? A person who listens to their radio has a faith based view that it is Quantum mechanics that makes it work? yes, I do have faith in the scientist who brought me modern medicine, quantim mechanics and warned the planet was heating up. Who do you beleive in, the witch doctor?

n, for marjam's benefit: I'll start BEGINNING to take seriously the PREDICTIONS of the global warming alarmists when their mathematical MODELS of the atmosphere, when run in reverse, actually prove CORRECT against KNOWN data points.

As we have established you will never ever change your mind as long as a republican authority figure tells you, you shouldn't. Even if they know nothing of science.

WHy is that?


That is not the argumen... (Below threshold)
marjarm:

That is not the argument.

Well, I beleive you when you say, that is not the argument for you, although I think there are plenty out there who still challenge the notion that Global warming is even happening.


Is global warming mad-made?

There is not much debate in the scinetifc community (that I have read anyway) on this issue. I beleive there are some scientist who have postulated that other factors (the sun) might be the cause, however, this is not majority at this time. if the data changes views in the scientifc communty will change. right now the overwhelming feeling is that it is man made.

If we are headed into a period of cooling, is that our fault too?

I don't think there is much evidence we are heading into a period of cooling, there are some who have postulated that and are trying to devise ways of testing the hypothesis though. I suppose it could be our fault or not.

Can we even do anything about it?
If we can, will it be enough to justify the spending of billions and crippling of economies?

Well this is the crux of the debate, will conservation cripple an economy? I don't think it will. nor do I think cleaner alternatives, hybrid vehichles or solar power are going to cripple the econmy. in fact they might help it and remove our dependence on foreign oil.

Most of say yes, we should try to be better stewards of the planet; its seas, its land and its air. But when people begin maligning the character of others simply because they're challenged, when they don't practice what they preach and when education becomes secondary to legislation, I stop listening.

Well I can't speak for everyone but I have not malined yours or others charecters, I haven't called anyone a nazi, or a facist or said go eat a dung pile. And yes, I think some could do a better job of practicing what they preach, but hey, seriously Doctor Phil has a weight guide. He may not practice what he preaches but that doesn't make him wrong on nutrition.

Did you think at a... (Below threshold)
SPQR:
Did you think at all before you posted that? Seriously, perhaps you could quote where I used an ad Hominem attack?

Your use of the term "denier". It is an intentional reference to Holocaust denial. It is the kind of terminology that shows you are not serious.

Really? are you a scientist? How did you learn what is good scietntifc practice? Where did you study the work?

I happen to have a degree in computer science with minors in computer modeling and mathematics. I've studied the statistical analyses of Mann, Bradley, Hughes etc. that was used to establish the claimed uniqueness of recent warming. And I've observed the failures of et al to maintain even minimal standards of disclosure and review of their work. I've read the transcripts of their appearance before congressional committees as well.

On a conservative blog, or did you take the time to learn what theories relate to how the climate works?
I've been a moderator on a blog dedicated to debunking junk science for over a decade. I have read the works of many climate skeptics. Your reference to "conservative blogs" again shows that you are just resorting to ad hominem.
Did you take time to see what flaws exists in the argument of gelogist or other branches of science who also make that claim? Or diud you read the paper and think \"That don\'t make sense?\"

I also followed along with the group that did the work that discovered Hansen's coding error in the GISS series last year.

marjarm, by the way, your "robust" climate models are not. There is not a climate model whose predictions have matched the real world, none of them predicted the flat temp trend seen in the last decade - for that matter, the large variation among the models themselves shows your comments to be hilarious.

I haven't called a... (Below threshold)
SPQR:
I haven't called anyone a nazi, or a facist
Yes, you did. That's the meaning of claiming someone is a "global warming denier".
"denier". It is an int... (Below threshold)
marjarm:

"denier". It is an intentional reference to Holocaust denial. It is the kind of terminology that shows you are not serious.

You deny global warming exsit, that is accurate. and has nothing to do with the holocoust. I don't think it is any worse than saying I am a global warming beleiver, and I don't think that links me to anything else, Like saying I'm a flat earth beleiver. it is unrelated.

I've been a moderator on a blog dedicated to debunking junk science for over a decade. I have read the works of many climate skeptics. Your reference to "conservative blogs" again shows that you are just resorting to ad hominem.

What blog is that, you are making these claims but frankly I don't beleive you. You could claim to have a degree in astro physcis as well. or that you are an astrnout. I have no proof.

I also followed along with the group that did the work that discovered Hansen's coding error in the GISS series last year

And I worked on the manhatten project. Mind you I won't prove it.

marjarm, by the way, your "robust" climate models are not. There is not a climate model whose predictions have matched the real world, none of them predicted the flat temp trend seen in the last decade - for that matter, the large variation among the models themselves shows your comments to be hilarious.

Actually, what you don't seem aware of is that climate models are tested using past data. meaning say we have a model, we run the test on the model to see what is predicts for 1983,

then since 1983 is in the past we can check the acual data in 1983 and see how close the model was in correctly guessing the outcome.

We can do this for the entire 20th century which gauges the accuracy of a model. If you actually knew anything about modeling you would know this. the fact that you don't while claiming to be an expert is rather hillarious.

Marjarm, you didn't respond... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Marjarm, you didn't respond to anything I said with any substance.

For instance, your answer to my question about GW being man-made consisted of 'consensus', 'feeling' and your impression that any challengers in the scientific community are pretty much easily dismissed based only on the fact that there aren't enough of them.

My question: "If we are headed into a period of cooling, is that our fault too?"

Your answer: "I don't think there is much evidence we are heading into a period of cooling, there are some who have postulated that and are trying to devise ways of testing the hypothesis though. I suppose it could be our fault or not."

You're afraid to commit until you can see a consensus?

My question whether we can really do anything about it and spending billions and crippling economies went right over your head. Instead you answered that conservation wouldn't cripple economies. This is what the Kyoto Protocol and other legislative propositions would do. This is the political aspect of the whole issue. Tax us, seize profits and push a reality that 'everything not forbidden is mandatory'. It's the idea that government thinks that conservation can only occur if enough money is wrangled from the individual or what corporations are deemed 'evil'.

And finally, when I spoke of maligned characters, I wasn't speaking about you. I was speaking about those members of the consensus and their financial benefactors. We are talking about the scientists and the science and the politics involved. Not you.

No. You didn't call anyone a Nazi or tell them to go eat a dung pile. But you did question their integrity. You did accuse them of being "deniers" rather than holding a different, but informed opinion. You did acknowledge that there were differences in the scientific community but downplayed them based on their population, not their science. You did claim that Republicans disagree because of oil industries (I guess Republican = Oil = Denier). When someone says they have a certain expertise relevant to the discussion, your response is to call them a liar (ie. "I'm the Easter Bunny")

No. You didn't call anyone a Nazi. But it's about the only thing you didn't do.

Yes, you did. That's th... (Below threshold)
majarm:

Yes, you did. That's the meaning of claiming someone is a "global warming denier".

No it's not a Nazi, is a person who is fanatically dedicated to or seeks to control a specified activity, practice, etc. or a member of the national socalist party..

a facist is, a person who is dictatorial or has very extreme right-wing views.

I accuse you of neither.

A denier of global warming is someone who denies global warming.

I do think this refelcts your view.

If you prefer the term global warming disbeleiver, or some such varation I'll be happy to use that. the point is to refelct your postion in the terminology not to insult you.

My question: "If we are... (Below threshold)
marjarm:

My question: "If we are headed into a period of cooling, is that our fault too?"

Your answer: "I don't think there is much evidence we are heading into a period of cooling, there are some who have postulated that and are trying to devise ways of testing the hypothesis though. I suppose it could be our fault or not."

You're afraid to commit until you can see a consensus?

this is a rather strange comment. What are you asking me to commit on? Wheter cooling is happening or not? I think the evidence is against it given the average tempterature has been rising however, if the data were differetn and the scientifc community were to accept it then yes I would say cooling is happening. Whether it is our fault or not depends on what we beleive is doing the cooling.

My question whether we can really do anything about it and spending billions and crippling economies went right over your head.

no it didn't, you asked whether we could do something about it and I said YES! we could conserve and find new technologies (that was the whole section where I talk about things like hybrids and solar.) We could also use Nuclear power and pursue other options as well. You say it cripples econmoies but give no data to support how fighting global warming cripples econmoies. a non argument doesn't go over ones head.

This is what the Kyoto Protocol and other legislative propositions would do. This is the political aspect of the whole issue.


Really like it is ruining Europe's economy? Last I checked the Euro was kicking the hsit out of the dollar. Perhaps you have some data I'm not aware of?

Tax us, seize profits and push a reality that 'everything not forbidden is mandatory'. It's the idea that government thinks that conservation can only occur if enough money is wrangled from the individual or what corporations are deemed 'evil'.

You are arguihng against a gas tax I assume, you might not of noticed that europe pays significantly more for gas than we do, yet amazingly enough when I went to italy last year they weren't starving in the streets. it was amazing really. In fact I found the place much more expensive than the locals (due to a weak dollar)

And finally, when I spoke of maligned characters, I wasn't speaking about you. I was speaking about those members of the consensus and their financial benefactors. We are talking about the scientists and the science and the politics involved. Not you.

Well I appreciate that.

No. You didn't call anyone a Nazi or tell them to go eat a dung pile. But you did question their integrity. You did accuse them of being "deniers" rather than holding a different, but informed opinion.

I don't beleive the opinion I have encountered has been informed, Soory, I don't. I don't think most of the disagreement has come from scientist, but industry executives afraid of losing a buck.

You did acknowledge that there were differences in the scientific community but downplayed them based on their population, not their science.

This is a rather fair argument, however, I guess this is my way of looking at it. As I said, I know nothing about cars, not a thing. If ten mechanics tell me my car needs work and one says it doesn't I have a few options.

beleive what the experts consensus is, or learn enough about it to know myself. I don't feel like going to auto mechanics school, so I choose the consensus. Does that metaphor make sense?

You did claim that Republicans disagree because of oil industries (I guess Republican = Oil = Denier). When someone says they have a certain expertise relevant to the discussion, your response is to call them a liar (ie. "I'm the Easter Bunny")

I don't beleive him, look would you beleive me if I told you that actuallly, I'm a physics profesor and will know more about science than you ever will? And then followed up with don't argue with me I know more about this than you ever could begin too? Might be sceptical don't you think? I'll beleive it when I see a bit more evidence.

No. You didn't call anyone a Nazi. But it's about the only thing you didn't do.

So by posting counter arguments I did everyhting but call you a nazi? Nice.

"EVERYTHING" is "proof" tha... (Below threshold)
Largin Testin:

"EVERYTHING" is "proof" that God exists."

your preceeding quote,( clearly out of its malevolent context), invites the inverse: "NOTHING" is proof that God does not exist.....and recall, "NOTHING" is impossible. The addled artman

So marjarm, your position i... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

So marjarm, your position is that everyone here who claims to have a background in science enough to criticize is a liar ... and everyone else in the offline world with the credentials you find impossible for wizbang readers to have is a stooge of "Big Oil" and is also lying.

Perfect illustration of what Jay Tea is talking about. Once you assume bad faith, it's remarkably easy to dismiss skeptics isn't it?

I think I should have tried that tactic when I presented my dissertation. Just scream "Liar!" and "Stooge" at the examiner. Obviously, I believe this new and improved Scientific method would be so much easier than having to actually prove stuff.

Have a nice day.

PS: marjarm ...You... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

PS: marjarm ...

Your mechanic analogy ... well, I don't think it's quite so analogous because we're talking about two different systems with a vast difference in the level of knowledge on how they work and what makes them work.

The mechanic today knows exactly how a car works. From combustion chamber to drive train, to radiator to gearbox he can tell you how each subsystem works and interacts with the other as part of the whole and accurately predict and model what would happen next given a specified set of conditions.

Climate science is no way near so advanced. Not only are all the factors not known, the factors that are known are not fully understood much less how they interact. Which is why none of their models work and real world measurements diverge dramatically from their predictions.

But then, what do I know? I'm just a lying industry exec. right?

So marjarm, your positi... (Below threshold)
majarm:

So marjarm, your position is that everyone here who claims to have a background in science enough to criticize is a liar ...

Actually if you bothered to read what I wrote, you'd know I told one person I did not beleive them. Maybe you beleive it. I'm actually a world renown real estate agent who can give you a peice of the brooklyn bridge at a first class rate care to buy in? No? Your're not syaing everyone who claims to have a background in real estate is a liar are you?

and everyone else in the offline world with the credentials you find impossible for wizbang readers to have is a stooge of "Big Oil" and is also lying.

Show me where I said that?

Perfect illustration of what Jay Tea is talking about. Once you assume bad faith, it's remarkably easy to dismiss skeptics isn't it?

Ahh, so I should beleive anyone over the internet on a blog whose posts demonstrate a lack of understanding of models when he says he is a great mathmatcian? Are you sure you don't want to buy some bridge?

I think I should have tried that tactic when I presented my dissertation. Just scream "Liar!" and "Stooge" at the examiner.

Actually I'm not in real estate, I'm the king of spain. Don't ask me to prove it though.

Obviously, I believe this new and improved Scientific method would be so much easier than having to actually prove stuff.

So you are saying that I am unscientifc for not beleving someone's claim presented with no evidence? his claim was fantastical and conveeint for the argument, that is why I didn't beleive it(on top of no evidence).

Have a nice day.

You too!

Your mechanic analogy .... (Below threshold)
marjarm:

Your mechanic analogy ... well, I don't think it's quite so analogous because we're talking about two different systems with a vast difference in the level of knowledge on how they work and what makes them work.

Ahh, I see so you would have prefered a more complex analogy, than something like auto mechanics. How about the weatherman, there is a nice complex system, but you proably think you are just as qualified as a meteorologist.


Climate science is no way near so advanced. Not only are all the factors not known, the factors that are known are not fully understood much less how they interact. Which is why none of their models work and real world measurements diverge dramatically from their predictions.

Actually, the models have been tested with past data and are pretty accurate. never mind that though.


But then, what do I know? I'm just a lying industry exec. right?

I seriously doubt you are the executive of anything. What I think is that you are unqualified to make the determination that models don't work or that climate scientist are wrong. I think basically you read an articlke someplace like Conservapedia and took it as gospel.

So gosh, I'm presented with a real tough choice here. Who do I beleive, published Scinetist? or the guy on wizbang who says he is an important mathmatcian? I don't know some of these guys won Nobel prizes.... but on the other hand the other guy was on wizbang...
hmm... Some of these guys work at the most prestgious universities in the country. And yet... the other guy was an anonymous poster on wizbang, with no credintials of anykind....

Hmm, this is really tough, but I'm going to go with the published scientist. Call me crazy, but for some reason I think they know more about this.


Look, I'm sorry, my first reaction is disbelief that SPQR is a mathmatician expert on modeling, it is too conveient in this argument. Maybe he is, no one knows for sure, but I am sure as hell not going to change my opnion because the unpublished anonymous poster on wizbang says he knows more than the scientific community.

So marjarm, your... (Below threshold)
Maggie:
So marjarm, your position is that everyone here who claims to have a background in science enough to criticize is a liar ...

Actually if you bothered to read what I wrote, you'd know I told one person I did not beleive them. Maybe you beleive it. I'm actually a world renown real estate agent who can give you a peice of the brooklyn bridge at a first class rate care to buy in? No? Your're not syaing everyone who claims to have a background in real estate is a liar are you?


And everyone else in the offline world with the credentials you find impossible for wizbang readers to have is a stooge of "Big Oil" and is also lying.

Show me where I said that?


Perfect illustration of what Jay Tea is talking about. Once you assume bad faith, it's remarkably easy to dismiss skeptics isn't it?

Ahh, so I should beleive anyone over the internet on a blog whose posts demonstrate a lack of understanding of models when he says he is a great mathmatcian? Are you sure you don't want to buy some bridge?


I think I should have tried that tactic when I presented my dissertation. Just scream "Liar!" and "Stooge" at the examiner.

Actually I'm not in real estate, I'm the king of spain. Don't ask me to prove it though.


Obviously, I believe this new and improved Scientific method would be so much easier than having to actually prove stuff.

So you are saying that I am unscientifc for not beleving someone's claim presented with no evidence? his claim was fantastical and conveeint for the argument, that is why I didn't beleive it(on top of no evidence).

56. Posted by majarm

Amazing.

Ahh, spelling errors. that ... (Below threshold)
marjarm:

Ahh, spelling errors. that will solve the global warming debate. In fact, that is the best anti-warming argument I've heard so far! Congratulations.

You're welcome.Just ... (Below threshold)
Maggie:

You're welcome.
Just wanted to be sure you were aware
of your misspellings.
First impressions and all that
you know.
Oh, and PIMF.

b> You're welcome.Ju... (Below threshold)
marjarm:

b> You're welcome.
Just wanted to be sure you were aware
of your misspellings.
First impressions and all that
you know.
Oh, and PIMF.

I figured people would ignore that and focus on the arguments, maybe even have some empathy for the guy carrying four conversations at the same time, and ignore the errors, obviously made while typing quickly in a feverish attempt to get to the next message so no one would claim he dropped an argument. I see I was mistaken though. Most could care less about the logic of the argument, perhaps logic in general.

PIMF? Please inform my friends? I'm trying to inform your friends.

You're welcome.... (Below threshold)
majarm:

You're welcome.

Oh I'm sorry I just realized you think I thanked you. No, I congratulated you on making the best anti-warming argument so far. You probably missed it being that you seem to ignore content and all.

I see you've made the effor... (Below threshold)
Maggie:

I see you've made the effort to clean
up your typing.
Preview Is My Friend.
You probably knew that.

Global Warming is just hot ... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

Global Warming is just hot air.

Actually, the mode... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:
Actually, the models have been tested with past data and are pretty accurate.

I think the people who would be most surprised to read this would be actual scientists. You continue to prove what Jay posted; ignorance (or faith) of the highest caliber.

You clearly have not been paying any attention to the debate if you actually think there's one single model that has matched up with actual past data, or that people here are such novices on the subject that you can bluff your way through with such a blatant falsehood.

Did you even read what Jay posted?

The models have NEVER been accurate. Until recently, water vapor - much more of a green house gas than CO2 - was not modeled in because they hadn't figured out how to plug it into the modeled system.

Read through this ... get yourself educated. You're coming from a position on willful ignorance and bad faith, which makes it pointless to argue with you.

"Really like it is ruini... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"Really like it is ruining Europe's economy?"

Europe has not even come close to meeting the obligations it committed to.

"You are arguihng against a gas tax I assume,..."

Wrong.

"I don't beleive the opinion I have encountered has been informed,..."

You don't believe. Okay, got it.

"So by posting counter arguments I did everyhting but call you a nazi?"

Me?

I think we're done here.

marjarm, I really like the ... (Below threshold)
Jamie:

marjarm, I really like the parallel you draw between scientists forming a consensus regarding global warming and talking with your doctor.

Many, many folks trusted their doctors whole-heartedly when prescribed various drugs in the past that ultimately killed them.

Are eggs good for you? How many answers have been given to that question over the past 20 years?

Maybe you can recall all the various advice medical professionals have given regarding various forms of fats & cholesterol.

The point that you seem to miss is that science, like medicine, is not The Truth just by virtue of its title. And with regard to the "consensus" argument, exactly how large a "consensus" agreed with Galileo?

If you don't at least understand one basic tenet of the scientific method (specifically the necessity that a hypothesis be falsifiable, and that good scientific practice seeks to disprove, not simply reinforce the hypothesis), then not only have you missed elements of science taught in grade school, you are incapable of bringing anything productive to this discussion.

I won't respond to demands from you for credentials that you'd subsequently deny, I'll simply refer you to Wikipedia if you have any beef with my explanation of scientific method.

<a href="http://www.itia.nt... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

An analysis of global climate modeling that shows that the AGW community has no scientific basis for its predictions.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy