Speaking of large houses, here's Thomas Friedman on the subject of whatever it is we're trying to prevent by driving a Prius. Friedman has written some great books about globalization and the benefits of Free Trade. That got him booed on college campuses, and there was a pie-throwing incident by a group called The Greenwash Guerillas.
(Note to self: do some research on whether college campuses are the most likely places for attacks on free speech.)
To recover some fashion cred, Friedman then wrote "Hot, Flat, and Crowded", which basically said that the gods aren't happy with everything you're doing so they're going to heat up the earth. The Thought Police began to smile again on Friedman.
Anyway, back to evil people with large houses. Here's Thomas Friedman in the New York Times:
....this bill’s goal of reducing U.S. carbon emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 is nowhere near what science tells us we need to mitigate climate change. But it also contains significant provisions to prevent new buildings from becoming energy hogs, to make our appliances the most energy efficient in the world and to help preserve forests in places like the Amazon.
Here's Thomas Friedman's house.
Where are the Greenwash Guerillas now that we really need them?
Two layers of Whitening (with a primer coat) to the good people at Small Dead Animals for the links.
49 comments:
I doubt that this paper (peer-reviewed, BTW) will make much difference.
Allen, do you really care what the peer-reviewed literature has to say? Or do you just want to cherry pick the stuff that you happen to like?
You madly leap onto a paper, any paper, that you think supports your position.
Why?
Why single out ONE SOLITARY PAPER from the multitude? Why ignore the others completely? What's so special about this particular paper that it magically trumps all the others?
Here's a heads up: Science doesn't work that way.
You need to do some fact-checking.
You need to get your science from science sources.
I notice by the way that you have not bothered to issue an update on the Gerald Dicken's paper.
He's not a global warming denier.
Yet you hijacked his paper, putting a spin on it and mis-represent his work.
That's very dishonest of you.
However, it happens all the time amongst the global warming denier community.
It's a trick they learned from the creationists.
Did you even bother to find out who the "three Australian scientists" were?
What makes these scientists so super-duper trustworthy all of a sudden?
How come you're prepared to go along with them without a moment's hesitation yet you turn up your nose at the rest of the planet's scientific communties?
Thank God Cedric stands at the ready for smacking you for this stuff. I was getting tired of doing it.
Cedric and Dr Ralph,
As is typical with most warmistas, you accuse your opponents of the very practices in which you engage i.e. "You madly leap onto a paper, any paper, that you think supports your position." It is obviously beyond the scope of a blogger such as Allen to present the entire spectrum of the warmista debate. For one example of the so called "denier" position you might peruse this tidbit or you could visit other scientific sites such as this or this.
In any event the dogmas of pope Gore would appear to have won dominance with the political establishment (surprise surprise) who will hitch their wagons to any nonsense that will contribute to an accretion of their power. Congratulations.
As a professed fan of scientific method, Cedric Katesby might want to give this a read.
The essence of the "this" being that a skeptical Professor Emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State who conducted a poll of climate scientists on their purported "consensus" regarding the impact of anthropogenic forcing of global temperatures. What the poll found was that there was overall agreement that the human impact had an effect, there was vast difference on how that human element measured up against natural causation. (Remember, the IPCC's report claimed consensus on human causation.) Further, the poll saw marked scientific difference on the general effect of CO2.
This study was presented to two online institutions specializing in climate science for publication. It was, on both counts, rejected. Clearly there exists a general bias against any semblance of science that does not support the dogma du jour regarding climate change. If it ain't Al Gore, it ain't getting published.
Not exactly the essence of scientific method.
It is obviously beyond the scope of a blogger such as Allen to present the entire spectrum of the warmista debate.
Nobody asked him to.
Pay attention.
However, he has hijacked a paper that doen't support his assertions.
He cherry-picks a paper without bothering to vet it.
This is wrong.
There is no "debate" in scientific circles.
Just like there's no scientific debate that the Earth is 6000 years old. The fat lady has sung. That's why all scientific communties on the planet support the science of global warming. Every single one of them. No exceptions.
As for your links...
Well, they're not very good.
Awful really.
:(
The scientific community doesn't care about "ICECAP" or "Co2 Science".
Science is not done via some no-name blog touting a think-tank.
If they have something to say, then let them enter the scientific arena. Just like all other scientists have to.
What's your next trick?
Linking to Answers in Genesis?
Aim higher!
I check out working scientists who do active research.
Scientists who are not afraid to enter the scientific arena.
Places like NASA and and The British Antarctic Survey.
They produce peer-reviewed research all the time. They get their hands dirty with real work.
Any dill can create a think tank and set up a web-site to entice the suckers.
It's quick and easy and neatly avoids the process of peer-review.
Handy that.
In any event the dogmas of pope Gore...
Never mentioned Al Gore.
I don't get my science from Al Gore. Bringing him up is a tired old cliche. Get new material.
Jay, I checked out the link.
Pielke did an online poll and wrote an article about it.
Then he submitted it to the forum section of the AGU.
The moderators rejected the article.
(...awkward pause...)
Um, so?
What has this got to do with anything?
This is supposed to be darkly significant somehow?
Perhaps part of a global conspiracy or something?
Where does the scientific method come into this?
Cedric Katesby claims to be adherent to the method of science and then simply dismisses the analysis of over one hundred scientists and their sporadic conclusions regarding the concept of both CO2 and human influenced global warming with a flippant remark about "global conspiracy."
I wonder if Cedric Katesby isn't just as guilty of the prejudice he maligned Allen with in his initial post?
...the analysis of over one hundred scientists and their sporadic conclusions.
What analysis?
What conclusions?
Read your link carefully...
We have undertaken a poll of scientists’ opinions...
Wonderful. So?
When do we get to the part where you demonstrate that "Clearly there exists a general bias against any semblance of science that does not support the dogma du jour regarding climate change."
Still waiting for you to support this nonsense. Get on with it.
I wonder if Cedric Katesby isn't just as guilty of the prejudice he maligned Allen with in his initial post?
Nope. I've never hijacked a scientist's legitimate work.
Also, I have never leaped onto a single peer-reviewed study as some sort of "silver bullet" that will magically slay all other peer-reviewed research that has ever come before.
Never ever.
Very Funny. Very well-written.
Everyone,
Welcome to the Wonderful World Of Allen And Cedric.
Cedric is someplace in Korea.
I think he does this for a living.
It's fun.
Next point....the general theme of this post is that Thomas Friedman, much like Saint Albert, The Goracle Of Music City, lives in a house that negates any carbon reducing activity you could suffer in your lifetime.
"Good for thee, but not for me" is the concept here.
The bidness about the Australian scientists, which I believe is just as valid as any of The Goracle's Powerpoints, only serves as an introduction to the main point.
If I claim that head suckers from the planet Nekthor are going to disintegrate my brain unless I always wear my tinfoil hat, my claim has a low degree of plausibility to begin with, but it helps my argument if I always wear my tinfoil.
If I never wear my tinfoil hat, and have never explained why not, well, the plausibility of the Nekthor brain suckers just dropped a bit more.
And if I want government funding from taxpayers to produce tinfoil hats ?
And if I want to pass laws mandating the constant use of tinfoil hats ??
I should be placed in a nice secure place until my mania subsides.
Cedric enjoys dismissing all data with which he disagrees as invalid and scientists who arrive at contrary conclusions as crackpots. This is typical of the warmista religionists and their political allies. The red herring allusion to the "6000 year old earth" is nothing if not predictable from a warmista. His reference to Naomi Oreskes' essay and citing "every one" of the scientific "communities" consensus simply boggles the mind of all but the ignorant booboise. Of course Oreskes only refers to "cherry picked" sources and conveniently omits credible contrary ones (duh).
By the way, my first link above was broken. The correct one is here.
Additionally, I call your attention to the prefacing comments to a DEBATE in the forum on Physics and Society
""There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."
Like most warmistas Cedric will doubtless cast both Lord Monckton and Dr Singer as cooks and crackpots along with the several hundreds of other scientists who question AGW.
...he disagrees as invalid and scientists who arrive at contrary conclusions as crackpots.
Nope. If we are to talk about science then let's talk about science.
I don't care about no-name blogs.
I don't care about "scientists" who are work-shy.
If a scientist has anything to say then let them get off their lazy asses and enter the scientific arena.
Your links are bunk.
The "Science and Evironmental Policy Project" is a very impresive title. It sounds very sciency. Yet, it's just the same ol' same ol'. Any silly person can set up a blog site with an officious sounding name.
Doesn't count for anything.
P.S.
Five of the nine science advisors on the website are dead. How do they continue to do scientific research? Via a spirit medium?
...citing "every one" of the scientific "communities" consensus simply boggles the mind...
Then here is is your opportunity!
Your moment of glory!
Claim your prize.
:)
Go ahead and tell us which scientific community denies or refutes or rejects global warming. Which scientific community is standing up to be counted and is swimming against the tide?
Name them.
Name even one.
Out of all the scientific communities on the entire planet, which of them reject the science of global warming?
Do tell. GO FOR IT.
(giggle)
Of course Oreskes only refers to "cherry picked" sources and conveniently omits credible contrary ones (duh).
Pure hogswill. How did she actually cherry-pick this data? Where was the fatal flaw in her methodology? Put up or shut-up.
Provide evidence.
I call your attention to the prefacing comments to a DEBATE in the forum on Physics and Society
A debate? Huh? Where's the work? Where's the peer-reviewed scientific research?
Gum flapping is a poor substitute for work.
Oh, and read the fine print on the forum guidlines. They are quite telling.
The Forum on Physics and Society is a place for discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters. Our newsletter publishes a combination of non- peer- reviewed technical articles, policy analyses, and opinion. All articles and editorials published in the newsletter solely represent the views of their authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Forum Executive Committee.
Any jackass can say whatever he wants in the newsletter. Doesn't count for anything much.
...several hundreds of other scientists who question AGW...
Oh, they "question" AGW do they?
They "question" it? Wow. I'm all a-quiver.
When can we expect some peer-reviewed research from them?
Allen, you hijacked Gerald Dicken's and the other co-authors work.
Do you feel that this was an honest thing to do?
If you met him face to face, could you look him in the eye?
If you sent him an e-mail, would he be supportive of the way you spun his paper?
Be honest.
Gerald Dickens
•PhD University of Michigan Oceanography (1996)
•M.S. University of Michigan Oceanography (1993)
•B.S. University of California, Davis Chemistry (1989)
•Paleoceanography, marine geology and low-temperature geochemistry
E-mail: geol@rice.edu
Phone: (713) 348-5130
(713) 348-4940
Office: 323 Keith-Wiess Geology Labs
Martel House, 001
Says Cedric; "Any silly person can set up a blog site with an officious sounding name."
Hey, wait just a gosh-darn minute!!!
Hey, wait just a gosh-darn minute!!!
Present company excepted, of course!
;)
Cedric,
Interesting you should refer to Dr Dickens. He appears to have been a participant in this scientific study.
In other words: "This isn’t just telling us that those stupid dinosaurs didn’t send themselves into extinction by driving too many SUVs and failing to implement global warming legislation to deal with carbon dioxide. It is saying that carbon dioxide was only a tiny, tiny little fraction of the global warming that the planet experienced 55 million years ago."
But wait a minute. We must ignore these data as they do not fit the template of the warmista religion. Nature Geoscience must be one of those "blog sites with an officious sounding name.
Doesn't count for anything."
Rave on Cedric.
Dear Pogo,
Read this blog a little before you comment.
Check out Allen's hi-jacking of Dicken's paper right here.
Make sure you read all the comments.
Now go back to this very thread and click the link that I so helpfully provided.
Notice anything?
(Pogo scratches his head in confusion)
Try harder, Pogo. Think. Read the links.
Notice the names?
(...Awkward silence...)
Pogo?
The paper you linked to?
That's actually the one I'm talking about. That's the reason why I brought up Dickens in the first place.
And guess what? You're guilty of the same dishonesty and misrepresentaion that Allen is.
You have hi-jacked a legitimate scientist's work.
Way to go.
In other words: "This isn’t just telling us that those stupid dinosaurs didn’t send themselves into extinction by driving too blah, blah, blah...
These are not your words, Pogo.
Naughty Pogo. Bad Pogo.
You cut and paste these words from a no-name blog with a hard-on for science denial.. What a surprise!
Nature Geoscience must be one of those "blog sites with an officious sounding name".
No. Nature Geoscience is a respected publication. It publishes work done by real scientists who are not afraid to enter the scientific arena.
It a publication that you have most likely never heard of before.
You certainly didn't find out about Dickens and his paper via Nature Geoscience.
Go there.
Now.
Do not pass "Go".
Do not collect $200.
Find out about what that paper actually says.
(Hint: Check out the press releases.)
Now call your mother and apologise to her for being a simpleton who never bothers to go to science sources for his science information.
Bad Cedric did not notice quotation marks and places his vacuous comments in wrong thread. Bad Cedric is also fond of placing his own spin on all things warmista knowing full well that his blog signature links to a tinfoil hat site.
Earth to Cedric: "The Emperor has no clothes!" (please note quote marks)
Bad Cedric did not notice quotation marks and places his vacuous comments in wrong thread.
True. Didn't notice the quote marks.
My bad.
:(
However, I did find out that the quote had nothing to do with the paper itself.
Nothing.
:)
It was just spurious nonsense that was tacked onto a legitimate science paper from a no-name science denial site.
The quote was not said by Dicken's or his co-authors.
If there really is good science behind global warming denialsim, then why hi-jack other people's work and twist it?
Earth to Cedric: "The Emperor has no clothes!
How would you know?
Some denier spins you a line on Dicken's...and you fall for it!
It never occured to you to check out the Nature Geoscience website itself and read the press releases in simple English.
Garbage in, garbage out.
You fail to get your science from working scientists.
You fail to understand the value or the relevence of peer-reviewed research.
Lift your game.
Check out the NASA web-site.
Or do you think they wear tin-foil hats too?
How about the National Acadamy of Sciences?
Do they wear tin-foil hats too?
Really? Is that what you believe?
How about The American Physical society.
Tin-foil? Part of the big spooky conspiracy? Black helicopters an' all?
All scientific communities across the globe support the science of global warming.
None of them are saying that the "Emperor has no clothes".
None.
The only reason why there is still debate amongst the uninformed (as opposed to the scientific community) is because of vested interests.
Spin is no substitute for real science.
Science requires work.
Cederic, you seem to conveniently "forget" to address Lord Monckton and Fred Singer but you finally realise that spin is no substitute for real science, Good!
Since when is consensus science? Hint; ask Copernicus and DaVinci.
...you seem to conveniently "forget" to address Lord Monckton and Fred Singer...
No. I didn't forget them.
I ignored them. You should too.
I don't care what they have to say.
Not in the slightest.
While they may have an opinion, they are not qualified to give it.
If they have something scientific to say, then let them enter the scientific arena.
Let them do some work.
Not gum-flapping.
Not yet another coffee-table book or a useless op-ed in a newspaper somewhere.
Work. Real scientific work.
Let them do some active research and convince the scientific community.
Hot air does not impress me.
Nor should it impress you.
"Since when is consensus science?"
There's a consensus that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Does that mean that it's not science?
About fifty years ago, there was no consensus on global warming.
Now, there is.
Do you ever wonder how the consensus changed?
Did the scientists cheat somehow?
Did they gather in smoke-filled rooms, huddled together with retired members of the KGB to destroy the free world from within?
Or...did they follow the scientific process the boring, old-fashioned way and gather a mountain of data that ended up convincing every scientific community on the planet?
Watch this video.
Tell me what you think. Please.
It turns out that the joke is on Cedric: "Physics Professor Alan Sokal wrote an article, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,” which was a parody of a scientific paper consisting of 39 pages of patent nonsense—“a mélange of truths, half-truths, quarter-truths, falsehoods, non sequiturs, and syntactically correct sentences that have no meaning whatsoever.”
This he submitted to a journal called Social Text [Duke University] which published it in 1996 as a serious paper.
Thereafter, the professor wrote an article, “Transgressing the Boundaries: An Afterword,” not a parody, explaining why he wrote the first paper. When he submitted that article to Social Text it was ”rejected by them on the grounds that it did not meet their intellectual standards.”
Wikipedia attempts to spin a better face on this hoax by stating that at the time the articles were submitted "there was no peer review" at the Journal. The kicker however is in the final 5 words of the QUOTE.
Over to you Cedric the Dervish.
Cedric,
Please get all of this stuff into the proper comment threads.
This one is about peer-reviewed science, the two best-selling authors of Anthropogenic Global Warming Evangelism Tracts, and the size of their houses.
In the meantime, if we're going to be swapping links (which gets old quick), you might enjoy this one.
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/new-study-climate-deniers-are-fundamentally-wrong/#comment-3663
WS -- what can you expect when you blog on global warming/climate change? Especially when you use the word "Digression" in the post title.
Come on, admit it. You love the traffic. You don't fool me for a minute.
Alan Sokal wrote an article...
Yeah. I know.
It's called the Sokal hoax.
It's kinda famous.
What's your point?
.................................
However, let's not forget your previous post.
:)
Previously, I asked you to Go ahead and tell us which scientific community denies or refutes or rejects global warming.
Still waiting.
Name them.
Name even one.
Out of all the scientific communities on the entire planet, which of them reject the science of global warming?
Is there some kind of a hold-up at your end?
(Also, just in case you forgot...)
You made the silly claim that...
.Of course Oreskes only refers to "cherry picked" sources and conveniently omits credible contrary ones (duh).
As I said before, this is pure hogswill.
You are talking out of your hat.
How did she actually cherry-pick this data? Where was the fatal flaw in her methodology? Put up or shut-up.
Allen, you hijacked a peer-reviewed paper.
You misrepresented a team of scientists' work.
Please act responsibly.
Set the record straight.
Do you really want to be part of a disinformation campaign?
Do an update. Tell people what the paper really means.
It's the decent, honourable thing to do.
Gerald Dickens
•PhD University of Michigan Oceanography (1996)
•M.S. University of Michigan Oceanography (1993)
•B.S. University of California, Davis Chemistry (1989)
•Paleoceanography, marine geology and low-temperature geochemistry
E-mail: geol@rice.edu
Phone: (713) 348-5130
(713) 348-4940
Office: 323 Keith-Wiess Geology Labs
Martel House, 001
Oops, stuffed up the link to the Sokal hoax.
Apologies.
Let's try that again....
Cedric,
I did not, and will never, approach a peer-reviewed paper with a weapon and demand that it take me to Cuba.
Get yer Mr. Dickens back over to the Mr. Dickens post. Don't create a Dickens-like subplot on this one, which is about the size of Tom Friedman and Al Gore's houses (they're of a size that they don't want you to ever, ever own, BTW.)
We can talk Dickens over there.
Everyone else, please follow us, if you're interested. Google "dickens" and "climate change". You'll find me. Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha
We can talk Dickens over there.
Let's do it. See you there.
Somehow I know this won't sit well with Cedric the Edutainer, but I'm sure he's aware of The Signature Project which features the signatures of over 31,000 scientist who do not agree with the general hypothesis that global climate change is anthropogenic. NOT that climate change doesn't exist. NOT that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to Sunday School. Just that Climate Change is primarily caused or could be reversed by actions of man.
This includes almost 4,000 Earth Scientists of different stripes (who are primarily engaged in the study of climate/geology/meterology). Almost 10,000 of the signatures belong to PhD's.
Again, not to say consensus means anything, but when he says 100% of the scientific community supports his stance, it's laughable.
Cedric, I'm assuming your creationism comments are geared to someone else since nobody brought it up. That's probably as maddening to you as when people bring up Al Gore's name without you mentioning it first.
However, keep in mind that the gist of Whited's original post was to point out that the people griping at others for their carbon footprint, live in gigantic mansions and take private jets vs. living in an adobe hut and taking a Prius or bicycle to work.
I enjoy hitting the Daily Climate Debate at http://climatedebatedaily.com. They post some pretty good articles daily covering both sides of the argument. I'm still waiting for the slam-dunk convincing me beyond any doubt that man is causing this change. Of course, it's called "climate change" now - since also as you probably know - the global mean temperature has been decreasing lately.
Lastly, you keep throwing out the IPCC as if they're a completely unbiased group of trustworthy scientists, when in fact, it's an organization within the UN which relies on startling reports on anthropogenic global climate change to maintain generous funding levels.
Note that The United Nations IPCC publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authored” by approximately 600 scientists. These “authors” are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.
(the last part swiped from the Petition Project)
Cedric -
Journal of Geophysical Research July 23, 2009
Influence of Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature
McLean/de Freitas/Carter
Interesting.... Seems scientifically legit to me.
Lots more where that came from... this is becoming tiresome.
...but when he says 100% of the scientific community supports his stance, it's laughable.
I welcome the chance to exchange viewpoints with you.
However...
There is no point in having a discussion with me if you are not going to read what I write.
Don't read what you THINK I wrote.
Read what I actually wrote.
I'll grant you the same courtesy, fair enough?
I said (and keep saying) that there is no scientific community on the planet that disagrees with the science of global warming.
Every single scientific community (both national and international) is on board.
This is not something that I made up. This is verifiable. This is checkable. I helpfully provided links to support my statement.
The Signature Project which features the signatures of over 31,000 scientist who do not agree with...
(facepalm)
Did you actually, y'know, vet this "list"?
Did you approach it with a critical mind or did you just latch onto it because it confirmed your pre-conceptions?
I checked it out and found that it was bogus. What fact-checking did you do? Where did you look?
Besides, if we pretend that the "31,000 scientists" are all legit then....why are they the laziest group of scientists on the planet?
Think about it.
Thirty-one thousand super-duper scientists. That's quite a number.
So...where's their work?
Do you see a scientific workload representing 31,000 scientists out there in the peer-reviewed literature?
There should tonnes of the stuff, right?
How many papers can you find that refute global warming with a quick google search?
Never mind the details.
Don't bother to read them.
Make the most generous of judgements completely in the global warming denier's favour.
I don't mind.
Can you find a workload worthy of 31,000 scientists?
(..awkward pause...)
Nope?
Why not?
Now go back to the original petition and ask some hard questions. Please. The kind of hard questions that you would ask if somebody was trying to sell you a second-hand car.
You are being flim-flammed.
Tell me how you vetted this list.
Give details.
One final question: Do you think that the scientific consensus on global warming was created by gathering lists of names?
Cedric, I'm assuming your creationism comments are geared to someone else since nobody brought it up.
You assume wrongly. Comparing the way creationists sell their pseudo-science to the way global warming deniers sell their pseudo-science is instructive.
Your "List of 31,000 scientists" is a perfect example.
Not even the labels have been changed.
If you understand how one brand of pseudo-science works, it helps you spot the same sleazy tricks in other pseudo-sciences.
Lastly, you keep throwing out the IPCC as if they're a completely unbiased group...
How many times did I "keep throwing out" the IPCC? Where? Give links.
Remember: read what I actually wrote. Not what you THINK I wrote.
Fair enough?
I enjoy hitting the Daily Climate Debate...
Why would you want to get your science from some no-name blog?
Why are you fearful of getting your science information from actual scientists?
Ever wonder where creationists get their daily fix of "science"?
Do you suppose they check out a natural history museum or something?
Nope, they go here.
Do yourself a favour.
Check out the NASA website or some other site of the same calibre.
They do real work.
Interesting.... Seems scientifically legit to me.
It does? Ok. Why? Give me your analysis. How do you judge the credibility of a scientific paper?
I'm not being sarcastic.
I'd really like to know.
This is the fun part of dealing with Cedric. He's going to ask dozens of questions per comment, spread it out over multiple blog posts, bring up things from a year ago, and basically force you to make a career out of your rebuttals.
Anyway....
For those who are wondering about the Creationist comments, here's a brief explanation:
Some people believe that gays and lesbians in New Orleans attracted Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. Others believe that prayers from the head of the Moral Majority caused hurricanes to bypass Richmond, Virginia. Others believe that living in big houses causes the earth's temperature to rise.
I'm of the opinion that people aren't significant enough to have much impact on the weather. For centuries, Climate cycles have been going on their merry way without us living in big houses or driving SUV's. Chicago used to be under 60 feet of ice. There used to be tater farms in Greenland. Things didn't change because of sin. It's a cyclical.
Next thing: Cedric, you threw down your challenge on the other post, but didn't include the email, phone, address, etc. Please put all the info there so it'll make sense without having to flip back to this post.
I'm of the opinion that people aren't significant enough to have much impact on the weather.
This not actually something that is supported by the scientific community.This is a P.R.A.T.T point.
For centuries, Climate cycles have been going on their merry way without us living in big houses or driving SUV's.
Another P.R.A.T.T. point. Not supported by the scientific community.
Chicago used to be under 60 feet of ice.There used to be tater farms in Greenland.
Yet another P.R.A.T.T point.
Other P.R.A.T.T points are available. A couple of warm years is not a trend. There are problems with the temperature records. One Hundred Years is not Enough. Glaciers have always grown and receded.The warming is just Urban Heat Island effect. The CO2 rise is measured on top of a Volcano!
Its cold today in Wagga Wagga.
Antarctic Ice is Growing.
Satellites Show Cooling.
It cooled mid-century, despite CO2 rising.
Warming Stopped in 1998.
Sea Level in the Arctic is Falling.
The concept of the Greenhouse effect is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Etc, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum.
Amazing isn't it? So many holes in Global Warming. There's an endless assortment to choose from. Any retired refrigeratior repairman or Sunday school teacher can simply look at all the holes and see for themselves that global warming is just...a hoax. Yet, for some strange reason, none of the scientists at NASA, the AGU, the NAS, APS, AAVW, EFG, EGU, GSA, IUGG and all the others have never considered these objections!
All those millions of scientists and none of them bother to get on the Internet to find out the truth!
Never, ever.
Shame on them.
Those money-hungry scientists are trying to fool us.
This is not the first time either! Oh No.
Remember the holes in the Theory of Evolution? Lots of holes. Lots and lots and lots of holes.
Cedric, you threw down your challenge on the other post, but didn't include the email, phone, address, etc. Please put all the info there so it'll make sense without having to flip back to this post.
Ok.
P.R.A.T.T. -- I confess I had to Google that one.
At first I thought you were referring to P.O.O.M.A. data.
Not that anyone here would ever stoop to that.
POOMA?
Oh, I had to google that one.
(I'm going to keep it for future use.)
I discovered "P.R.A.T.T" from reading discussions over at Pandasthumb.org
Comes in very handy.
That led me to the talkorigins.org site and the now famous "Index of Creationist Claims".
For anybody who's interested, approaching a single, lonely, peer-reviewed paper as some sort of "slam-dunk" is a dangerous thing.
Leave solitary papers well alone.
Let them gather friends and citations before you start praising them to the stars.
Wait to see what other papers say about them.
It's like when you go to the theatre.
Don't be the first one to clap.
If you clap by yourself, somebody might mistake you for a seal and throw you a fish.
Three Australian Scientists?
Really?
Who?
What's more to the point...
was their paper any bloody good?
Back in May, Allen was gracious enough to give prominence to a video that debunked the '70's Ice Age Myth.
The video is very well put together and is part of a continuing series called "Climate Denial Crock of the Week."
Well, I've managed to luck out and find a few more videos from the same series that forcefully address a couple of the PRATT points that our eternally patient host brought up.
Enjoy.
I'm of the opinion that people aren't significant enough to have much impact on the weather.
How about another one?
There used to be tater farms in Greenland.
And perhaps just one more...
For centuries, Climate cycles have been going on their merry way (...)Things didn't change because of sin. It's a cyclical.
The "paper" has been met with some stiff criticism over the last couple of days. (Scathing, perhaps would be a better word.)
In a surprising development, one of the authors (claiming to speak for all three) has attempted to put some distance between themselves and the bombastic press releases accompanying their work.
Awkward? Hmm. You be the judge.
For those of you who would like to read the hasty retreat word-for-word, look at comment number 56.
Of course it's been met with scathing criticism. It jeopardizes everybody's funding.
But too late....It's peer-reviewed ! ! !
But too late....It's peer-reviewed ! ! !
That's not how it works.
There is no "too late" in science.
It's not like something becomes peer-reviewed and then...everybody goes home to watch The Simpsons!!
Entering the process of peer-review is just the beginning.
The party has barely started.
Stick around for the fun!
There is a naive tendancy for some people to become over-enthused by a paper, any paper, to prop up their beliefs.
When they don't actually have any peer-reviewed work of their own, they will even hi-jack other people's work!
Desperate people clutch at straws.
Fraud is not beyond them.
For example....there's the Sternberg Affair.
There's considerable confusion about the process of peer-review.
Here's a primer.
Read it carefully.
Nowhere does it say that "it's too late".
One of the main ways that I like to show the pseudo-scientific nature of global warming denierism is to compare it to my other favourite pseudo-science: Creationism.
There is a very strong overlap between the two in terms of origins, tactics, rhetoric and demographics.
Compare the logic:
Global warming is a hoax and that all the world's scientists are just trying to get your money and destroy America.
"Evilutionism" is a hoax and all the world's scientists are just trying to get your money and destroy America.
Why stop at just one global scientific conspiracy when you can have two?
Well the "Three Australian Scientists" and their "paper" have been officially accepted by....The Discovery Institute. Beautiful.
(Hat-tip to the pandasthumb.org)
Cedric,
I trust you've seen the response I got from the professor Dickens email.
Second, history is littered with mad prophets who run around saying that the sky is falling. Sometimes there's a financial motive, sometimes there isn't. It's usually just a power grab.
Throughout the course of our debates, I have offered up numerous parallels between your "Earth Is Gonna Boil If You
Don't Repent" position, and those of religious extremists. I think the main aruguments of the Climate Turbulance crowd (yeah, they're saying Turbulence now) drip with apocalyptic religious imagery. It's almost like a Southern Baptist altar call (gotta act now before it's too late !)
In the meantime, do a bit o' Googling on the weather in Chicago this year. And Canada.
I can't wait for the Northwest Passage to melt. It's going to open up shipping lanes and make my life a lot easier.
Oh, wait a minute....never mind.
Second, history is littered with mad prophets who run around saying that the sky is falling.
Certainly, but prophets operate using revelation. Scientists work using investigation.
Big difference.
Sometimes there's a financial motive, sometimes there isn't. It's usually just a power grab.
There is nothing wrong with being cautious and approaching any claim with a healthy dose of reasoned skepticism.
Corruption can happen to the best of people.
However, it is wrong to be a contrarian and nay-sayer just because it's convenient for you to believe that all the world's scientists are all secretly biased or corrupt or commies.
Don't shoot the messenger.
Your suspicions must be investigated and laid to rest one way or the other. Don't let them fester and unfairly poison the hard-earned reputation of scientists.
If you can present evidence of a global plot, then present it.
If there is indeed a money trail, then show it.
If the scientific community has faked all of its peer-reviewed literature, then tell us how.
Otherwise, you are promoting a vapourware conspiracy theory that erodes public confidence in science and unjustly maligns a dedicated group of professional people who are doing their job.
I think the main aruguments of the Climate Turbulance crowd (yeah, they're saying Turbulence now) drip with apocalyptic religious imagery.
If all the global warming people have is fevered rhetoric and emotionalism, then why not focus on the science and win that way?
Global warming deniers refuse to enter the scientific arena, just like the creationists.
They create bogus lists of "scientists" to create an illusion that there really is a scientific debate going on out there, just like the creationists.
That's not my personal impression.
I can show you the lists.
Compare them yourself!
They target the uninformed general public with sciency sounding jargon on a multitude of dodgey web-sites, just like the creationists.
Once again, I can give you a string of web-sites to support this.
They create a multitude of "think tanks" filled with talking heads with Phds to create an aura of "sciencyness", all of them with impressive sounding names, just like the creationists.
When I want to defend Germ Theory from the anti-science types, I can turn to science journals and and the top universities in the world for my information.
I can do the same for Plate Tectonics, HIV research and vaccination studies.
I can do exactly the same for global warming.
I don't need to cherry-pick a couple of isolated studies from the multitude. I don't need retired scientists, dentists, engineers, newspaper editors, TV personalities, plumbers and politicians to tell me about climatology.
In the meantime, do a bit o' Googling on the weather in Chicago this year. And Canada.
Grrr! The weather is not the same as the climate.
I can't wait for the Northwest Passage to melt. It's going to open up shipping lanes and make my life a lot easier.
Allen, how much do you really know about the Arctic?
Where do you get your science information on the Arctic ice from?
Here's a couple of "Crock of the week" videos on the subject.
Tell me what you think.
Polar Ice Update
and
Ice Area vs Volume
Why do all you man-made global warming hoaxters seem to neglect acknowledging that the Earth has been warming for the past 18,000 years (you know, since the last Ice Age), or were you just not aware of that? Or that sea level has been rising throughout that time, even at a higher rate than during the past century, prior to a few thousand years ago? Most importantly, the rate of global sea level rise has not significantly changed in the past 50 years. I consider this fact to be the most significant nail in the coffin of man-made global warming out there. Your propensity to worship Man and the Earth (although it's hard to tell which you worship more) has removed your ability to look at the big picture.
Whatever happened to pool old Cedric?
His posts here are pre-Climategate.
Opinions have changed. "Peer review" is no longer the shield to criticism it once was now that we know about the huge effort underway to shape the debate.
What does poor old Cedric have to say now?
Cedric still leaves, breathes, and walks among us.
Climategate left him unfazed and unchanged, as would be consistent with his True Believer status.
He was gonna come visit me this past summer, but ran into some budgeting difficulties. Still comments once a week or so, regardless of the topic.
He ALWAYS chimes in when I'm writing about you-know-what.
Post a Comment