rejection of climate change theory closely linked to conspiracy ideation

Global warming has no empirical backing. CO2 saturates at about 10 meters. AGW theory rests entirely on theoretical spectral broadening not that any warmmonger knows that.

 

Back to the OP another update on the stupidity of the premiss.

Dr. Mann once again claims what all warmmongers believe that skepticism is a massive oil industry funded conspiracy.

http://www.northcountrypublicradio....st-michael-mann-talks-climate-change-politics

So once again as I stated originally with this paper. You have a group who believes that there is a massive conspiracy being led by the oil industry to oppose them yet they turn around and claim that their opposition are conspiracy theorist.

And just about every warmmonger on this forum believes the same (*)(*)(*)(*). When the forged heartland memo came out they all bought it hook line and sinker because they actually believe that there is a conspiracy.

 

And in this there is no doubt. The earth has been warming now for over 10,000 years, at an accelerating rate. As geologists and other experts have predicted for decades. This is not rocket science here, as the ice caps melt things get warmer if nothing else because less of the sun's radiation is being reflected back into space. This is one of the key factors of "Snowball Earth" after all.

No, actually here there is a lot of doubt, you and many others simply reject it, ignore it, and hope to shout it down.

So tell me then, what caused the Little Ice Age? What about the Medieval Warm Period (where the climate got warmer then it is now, with no large CO2 emissions)? If man caused the planet to warm, then what caused Lake Manly to finally vanish around 2,000 years ago?

The problem here to me is that a great many people are really rather primitive. These are the people that want to stone individuals when they tell them that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, that the Universe is far more complex then imagined, or that human evolution is still ongoing today. These are people who see things as they are now, and anything that changes their perfect perception must be obliterated and fought against.

They do not want to try and imagine a time without ice caps, or have to move from their homes because of ocean levels rising, or because some areas become to hot and dry to sustain life, and others become to wet and marshy. These are changes that have been going on for millions of years, but they want to believe that man is causing this change, so they can somehow cause it to end.

But hey, if somebody wants to play Mad Scientist with the atmosphere, be my guest. We can start by taking all the Sulfur Dioxice scrubbers off of factories and power plants. After all, SO2 is a known global cooling gas. So what if it has side effects of melting stone and killing trees and plants, at least we won't cook, right?

A lot of scientists do deny the theories. And one of the largest reasons is also one that I myself happen to believe: that the "benchmark" used for what the climate should be was during an unusually cold spell (Little Ice Age), therefore all comparisons become invalid.

Think of it this way, you come in my house and take a temperature reading. You then come back later and take another temperature reading, and say suddenly it is to hot in here. Well, the first one was taken inside my fridge, the other is in my living room. Or one in the middle of winder, the other in summer. Either way, your data is skewed because the "base temperature" was set during a period of unusual cold (the Little Ice Age ended in the 1850's, the same time frame that is used for a "benchmark").

Add to that, a large number of the earliest "Global Warming" bandleaders were earlier "Global Cooling" bandleaders as well. Aresolos, burning of fossil fuels, comebine this with a 30 year trend of lowering temperatures and record winters and suddenly you had humans causing a new ice age. Then things started to warm up again, and suddenly it all reverses.

However, not all of them have jumped on that wagon. Nigel Calder was famous at the first Earth Day. He is the one that got up on stage and told everybody "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."

[video=youtube;Ov0WwtPcALE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE[/video]

 

Do you believe we are better off playing shell games with Statism than we are with promoting the general welfare through infrastructure development that can actually solve of our current social dilemmas regarding our environment?

 

the evidence is acceppted in the scientific community.

You may notknow this, but the aim of science is not to keep reinventing the wheel.

once something is known, this information is used as a basis for dseeking further knowldege.

I note your location is the roman empire.

perhaps your knowledge basis is a little outdated?

 

Then why are so many scientists saying it is a lot of nonsense? Why are so many people who are even listed as sources in the IPCC report saying their research was taken totally out of context, and even trying to sue to get their names removed from the report?

And why do so many of the scientists listed have absolitely no background in Environmental Science, or even Palological Climateology?

Yea, a lot of scientists are accepting of it. Scientists can't even agree on what causes the magnetic poles to shift, yet we have botanists and Nuclear Physicists who buy into this without any sort of background in the subject. And I am suposed to accept their belief?

Might as well give me an expert in jet engines, and have him or her tell me why Computers have to operate in binary. Personally, I am a believer that a lot of this is nonsense, just as the "Global Cooling" crowd was when I was younger. Same stats, same facts, 180 degree different opinoun of the result. To me, it is more chicken little talk, with the only clear consesnsus being "if you are not with us, you are against us".

 

So you admit that heartland publish fraudulent information?

 

who?

name them.

 

And here we go again.

Let's start with the previously mentioned Nigel Calder, who was the leader (with many TV specials) of the "Global Cooling" scare of the 1970's.

Then there is John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science, and lead author of Chapter 2 IPCC. He stated in 2003 on NPR he was "a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels". 2007, Wall Street Journal "As far as the AGU, I thought that was a fine statement because it did not put forth a magnitude of the warming. We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that's certainly true. There was nothing about disaster or catastrophe. In fact, I was very upset about the latest AGU statement. It was about alarmist as you can get."

Then we have Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meterology at MIT. He was the lead author of Chapter 7 of the IPCC. He was very critical about the final IPCC work, since large parts of it was actually written by politicians, government officials, and scientists working well outside of their fields of study.

And oh, there are lots of others. Here, let me just give you a single list of some of the most well known:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

And I am sorry, but is this science, a popularity contest, or an election?

But this is getting rather old, you know? I could give you long lists of scientists who oppose Global Warming Theories, but come on now, "name them"? What is this, a debate, an inquisition, the HUAC hearings, or that ever popular French Game Show, J'accuse!?

The facts are that there is no "global concensus", that most of their work can't be replicated, and these "majority of scientists" statistics are simply made up for publicity and propaganda reasons. Because I doubt anybody could actually give a count of the number of "scientists" in the country, let alone agree on a definition or poll them all.

But you do not like hearing these claims, so you simply challenge me to prove it. Tell you what, watch that video clip I referenced a while back. There are a lot of well known and respected scientists featured in there. And a lot of them worked directly on the IPCC report.

 

You realize this claim is irredeemably inane, right?

Facts are one thing, and conclusions drawn from facts quite another.

Why don't you tell me?

 

I'm not into any games...

 

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire
There is .0001% doubt identifying the potential and critical issues of global climate change.

 

The questions is idiotic, and serves no other purpose than to divert attention from the inanity of your original assertion. You're welcome.

More to the point, such thinking does not require any wisdom whatsoever when it is based on a hyper-inflated assessment of the available knowledge base.

It's only critical if there are facts indicating that worldwide GW-induced catastrophes are a real possibility that can be addressed by enforcement of global policies which won't cause more suffering than they alleviate, and I have never been presented with any such facts.

Yes you are, because you are, because you presume to engage in discussion with no awareness of your own ignorance.

 

But nobody disputes that, and it is foolish to even try. If the planet was not warming, we would still have Glaciers in Central Park, as well as most of the midwest and Northern Europe. We would also have a large lake in what is now Death Valley, wetlands covering North Africa, and forests in the Middle East.

The fact that the planet is warming has been going on for thousands of years.

Then tell me, what caused the last ice age to end? What caused the Medieval Optimum and the Little Ice Age? Why did global temperatures plumet from the 1940's until the 1970's, at the same time industrialization was causing CO2 levels to reach record highs?

All that I see is people making a theory, and then trying to connect any dots with a lot of propaganda to try and sell an agenda. One decade it is "Global Cooling, turn off the factories!", the next it is "Global Warming, turn off the factories!". All I see is people who adjust and adapt their theories, then play with the data because none of the models ever seem to come out right.

And I then see a lot of paranoia and panic related to this. To me, this is the "Red Scare" of the 21st Century.

[video=youtube;OqsRD4HPtH0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqsRD4HPtH0[/video]

The above video was made in 1986. This is when most people believed the "New Ice Age" hysteria, before it flipped to "Global Warming". And it is the same old coprolite, repackaged, new and improved, with now even more coprolite!

And of course a famous article from 1975 from Newsweek Magazine:



All I see is a bunch of people running around like chickens with their heads cut off, trying to find explanations for something they can't understand. Scientists can no more explain what causes ice ages to start and stop then they can the highs and lows during interglacials. But I know fearmongering when I see it. Here, check out these quotes:

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

"...some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions."

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution."

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

Now all of these quotes were made by knowledgeable people. Scientists, ecologists, professors. But these were made over 42 years ago, on the very first Earth Day. How many of these have come true? All of them? Most of them? Half of them? Some of them? Any of them?, or None of them?

This is among the largest reasons I pretty much outright reject such propaganda. Because I am able to recognize most of it for what it is, propaganda. This is fearmongering at it's worst, and since the "Spectre of Communism" is now gone, it has turned to a new target. If you are not with us, you are against us! Death to the unbelievers!

And the simple fact that so many people fail to accept that the conclusion is not universal, or as accepted ac they want only adds to the delusion.

 

And a claim that has zero empirical backing

 

If you can prove it, and even the perpetrators have admitted to it, it is not conspiracy theory

I love the next bit

http://www.northcountrypublicradio....st-michael-mann-talks-climate-change-politics

So let us get back to the so called "conspiracy theory" that big oil and others funded an "anti-global warming campaign" because as I said, if there is proof it is not a conspiracy theory

This paper is interesting because scientists, unlike gullible bloggers, who just go around telling each other about the conspiracy without explaining it,scientists actually study things - and they studied the opposition
http://www.climateaccess.org/sites/default/files/Kolk_Winds of Change.pdf

http://www.faculty.umb.edu/david_levy/BP02.pdf

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...climate-sceptics/story-e6frg6so-1225894256861

I know that $1 million is not much but that is simply what we know about. The original structure set up by the "Global Climate Coalition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition was basically self perpetuating. Once they had engendered doubt and raised their army of frantic fanatic bloggers all they had to do was sit back and throw the occasional crumb

So let us look at some of these "crumbs"

http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate-change-papers-exxon-mobil/

 

Do you want me to list those that support climate change because instead of just listing individual names I have to list organisations. You make the claim that the science cannot be replicated but that has to be a claim that can only be made by someone ignorant of how BIG this field is. The IPCC reports quoted over 6,000 papers and each year there is more. The Berkely Earth Surface temperature study was exactly what you are claiming has not happened - independent validation of science

Please do not fall for the "Elephant fallacy" Just because YOU have not seen something does not mean it does not exist

Oh! And the whole "Palaeontology and climate science" thing?

Next time - check facts before posting
http://www.gsa.org.au/pdfdocuments/publications/TAG155.pdf

Oh! and as for the "documentaries" and other "evidence" presented

DON'T CONFUSE BAD JOURNALISM WITH GOOD SCIENCE

 

It makes no difference if we are cooling or heating. The only thing important is no matter which direction we are going in at the 'moment', are we prepared to deal with the consequences? Can we mitigate the outcome? Are we part of the problem? How do we prepare?

Or do we do as you seem to prefer and just ignore the reality of what is happening? Ignore the trends? Just assume that if it's cooling or heating that within a fraction of human time it will correct itself and no harm done?

I care about the global climate change potential but I'm not panicking. I'm old enough that the (*)(*)(*)(*) will hit the fan after I'm gone. But I do care about the nation and Earth and I prefer as stewards of both that while we're on watch that we do the best that we can do. If Earth is heating, will it heat enough to cause critical societal issues? Same question if it's cooling?

You probably also don't believe Peak Oil? Or Peak Water? Or Peak Coal? Or Peak natural gas? You probably cannot surmise that these are finite resources. At some time, in the future of mankind, whether the issue is global warming or an oil crisis, these are experiences that cannot be avoided. So do we prepare for them? Do we ignore them? Can we mitigate them?

 

Yeah, we get it: "Eat s***. Ten billion flies can't be wrong."

 

No but which would you prefer - to use an anti-venom serum that has been researched and tested and is approved for use by multiple science organisations or rely on acupuncture which has never been tested for snake bite but some bloke in a pub reckons will work?

 

It really does not matter, because I am aware that there is no way to really debate with people that have completely closed minds.

Global warming is almost like a new religion, and anybody that does not follow it must be a heretic. That is really all I ever see. And ironically, as was stated before most of the "conspiracy theory" nonsense I see comes from that side.

"Oh, you do not believe in GW? Why you must then be a hack of the oil companies!"

But notice they will never address real actual questions. Those are simply skipped around and more charges are laid back.

I know there is no real talking with these individuals, my message is simply for those who have not joined their camp, asking them to do their own research and reach their own conclusions, do not have beliefs shoved down their throats. Which is another big difference, I actually encourage people to both protect the environment as much as possible, and at the same time do their own research. I do not ask or expect them to simply believe something because I or somebody else said so. But when you ask hard questions, I notice repeatedly that they are totally ignored, they simply vomit up the same phrases over and over and over again.

Such as the Global Cooling scare of 40 years ago. Only mention one made is about bad journalism. But this is not just bad journalism, this was the scientific concensus for well over a decade. And many of the top researchers talked about it constantly, and it was the basis of a long running series on the BBC. But amazingly, where is the proof that this was "bad journalism"? Sounds more to me like most of those that accepted it now want to pretend it never existed. And never mind the reversals we see between CO2 and temperatures, that did not really happen. Because we said it never happened.

 

But you haven't been debating at all

You have made a few (mostly completely unsupported) statements and then called US "closed minded"

And now, in lieu of discussion or rebuttal we get Ad Homs - Bravo!!!!

r
No, but an awful lot of those who have spoken out have received funding - and if you look at the link that Windigo posted to Michael Mann interview that is what he was saying - that this funding has obscured the real debate. If you really follow science debate you will realise that the scientists themselves are concerned and would like some better quality challenges - just witness the scientific response to hypothesis such as "cosmic radiation" - they independently researched it to find out if it were so.

Possibly because they were so founded on crap they were not worth touching - MWP - if you are going to claim that that invalidates current warming please give a link to the research you are quoting

BTW - here is your answer to Climate change skeptic argument No1 - The climate has changed before http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

Because they came from denialist blogs not science

No it was bad journalism because there was no consensus - check it out for yourself if you do not believe me

Here is a link for you
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm


While you are there check out no 44 "There is no Empirical Evidence" and No 4 "There is no consensus"

Now every single "point" you have made so far is straight from the denialist hand book - and every single one of them has been rebutted by science, logic and reason without resorting to Ad Homs

 

Actually, I do not know anything about any kind of "denialist hand book". Most of my beliefs were actually formed decades ago, long before "Global Warming" was mentioned. I am (*)(*)(*)(*)ed near 50 years old, and I remember all to well the claims of "New Ice Age", since it was all over the place in the middle 1970's. I remember reading books all about it (one I personally thought was hilarious was fiction, which had the characters buying ski boots to keep warm, a concept as a skiier I found outrageously funny). It is funny that I find so much denial about this today, when I know damed well it was the common belief because I lived through that era.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/...pots-Factsheet-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims

And it was during this era that my geology teacher explained a lot about the impact of ice sheets and global temperatures. That as ice sheets continued to melt (as they have been doing for 10,000 years), temperatures will continue to increase rapidly, as less solar radiation is reflected back into space. I was told this 40 years ago, and not a single thing I have ever seen has shown things any differently.

Remember, I am not a deniar, I am a skeptic. And none of the "science" I have seen to this date has shown me anything different. But I guess to the fanatics, since I am not 100% on board the camp, I must therefore be a denier (heretic).

But I have yet to see any evidence in any of the models that explain the beginning of the last Ice Age, the end of the last Ice Age, the reasons for the Medieval Warming, nor the Little Ice Age. Nor the period from the 1940's through the 1970's where CO2 raised, yet global temperatures fell.

I guess I am a heretic for daring to question the flawed science that claims to know the "truth", but can't explain such simple things. Nor give a single accurate model to explain them. Because every model I have ever seen seems to have to stretch over backwards and conflict with the next model to explain itself.

Here, want me to take you all ersiously, then answer those questions. What causes Ice Ages, and causes them to end? What caused the warming period, the little ice age, and caused them to flip-flop, then end? Why am I supposed to believe when people scream "We are warmer now then we ever have been before", when we know that is in itself a lie, and we have been warmer rather then cooler then now through most of our history?

And why are we accepting as a "base line" temperature readings that we know for a fact were set during the end of the "Little Ice Age", a period of unusually cold weather?

These are all facts, or questions that none of these so-called "experts" can explain. I mean, why not set the baseline at the Medieval Warm Period, since we have it so well referenced? Why not set it at the beginning of the Little Ice Age, before glaciers started to advance again through Europe? Why is it set to the end, where temperatures were only starting to warm again? What kind of scientist knowingly uses an aberration and defines that as a benchmark?

I mean, hey. Through most of human history, people have been polytheistic. So let's set the benchmark for religion as monotheism! We will ignore every religion on the planet that was polytheistic prior to the 16th century, and just assume everybody was monotheistic, since that is all that really matters.

That is the same kind of logic that is applied as to how most people approach Global Warming. Set the "standard" at the end of a period of unusual cooling. That way no matter what, things are getting warmer. Just ignore all that other stuff that does not apply at the time, wit does not matter.

And ignore the man behind the curtain.