Climate change the new pop culture junk science of our age

[flogger]

The PRO AGW (Anthropological Global Warming) case starts with the contention that we MUST be responsible for global warming and then cobbles a dodgy case around that to fit that contention.

One can see this in even some of the much lauded IPCC climate modelling which cherry pick the factors likely to allude to human causation and omit those that do not. For instance it was recently pointed out to them that they had exaggerated human climate impact by a factor of 20 by omitting water vapour from its greenhouse gas models. This was eventually corrected but not until the original figures had been released into the public domain and made it into Gores dodgy documentary unamended ratcheting up the hysteria.

For instance we are told to ignore solar variability which by some estimates can vary by as much as 1% in favour of blaming the 0.054% of atmospheric gases caused by humans (0.28% of global greenhouse gases). Obviously common sense would suggest the former will have considerably more impact on temperature than the latter. Yet we are being told to dismiss variabilities in the output of by far the greatest global warming factor of all.....The Sun. Even basic common sense would suggest this is nonsense .Here is some more food for thought .

http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

We are also told to regard CO 2 as some kind of pollutant, when in reality it is a component absolutely vital for life on this Earth. Historically more CO 2 equates to greater biomass which surely benefits rather than hinders us.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...0/N25/EDIT.jsp

We are told to dismiss all climate history altogether in favour of surveys taken over the last 30 years or so. Indeed warmer times like the Holocene Maximum 2,500 years ago and the Medieval warming period 800 years ago now no longer exist and are written out of climate history altogether despite written anecdotal evidence from those times supporting the physical evidence that they did.

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

We are told there is consensus amongst the scientific community that we are responsible yet when one concentrates on surveying the ACTUAL climate scientists world wide there is a greater number that tend to the view that mankind is NOT primarily responsible for climate change. And if these experts cannot be certain why should we be ? There are huge financial incentives for the less scrupulous amongst the scientific community to jump onto this bandwagon and keep the momentum going with ever more alarmist pronouncements hence we get 'consensus' a word with absolutely no place within science.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noe...warming-theory

Finally the political aspect of the current AGW climate change agenda cannot be overstated . One can virtually date the emergence of the climate change agenda with the demise of communism. The old left have quite successfully hijacked the environmental guilt and idealism of the more naieve Western middle classes and harnessed it very successfully to its own ends in its fight against capitalism and globalization. Climate change is the new poster boy of the left since communism failed and like communism its message is monolithic and unchallengeable whatever its rights and wrongs. They said back then they could save the world with communist ideology now its with addressing alleged AGW. In both instances of course that meant the fragmentation or replacement of Western values and capitalism..... the real agenda of the 'watermelons' (green on the outside red on the inside) . Everybody wants to save the world but its a message as seductive as it is unneccessary. How deep this has penetrated the collective psyche of the idealistically gulible is witnessed by the vehement defence of totally indefensible positions in the face of irrefutable scientific fact. The world has been through far worse before this and no doubt it will do afterwards too. I'll bet the polar bears STILL dont drown.

Climate change is now a virtually fact free politicized religion whos sole agenda is now to purge us of the 'original sin' of capitalist industrialization and anyone intruding upon that agenda with any contrarian facts whatsoever is now a 'denier' (with all the holocaust overtones that implies) and a heretic bent on killing the planet.

Whatever happened to the new ice age gurus of the mid 70s ? You get my point I hope.

Here as a vast resource for anyone remotely interested in hearing the other side of this stifled debate for a change.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_T...showtopic=2050

[ninjalooter1701]

The PRO AGW (Anthropological Global Warming) case starts with the contention that we MUST be responsible for global warming and then cobbles a dodgy case around that to fit that contention.

No, they say that we have contributed. Not that we are responsible.

We are also told to regard CO 2 as some kind of pollutant, when in reality it is a component absolutely vital for life on this Earth. Historically more CO 2 equates to greater biomass which surely benefits rather than hinders us.

I'd like to see where these educated people are being misled that CO2 is some sort of pollutant, and where these educated people don't know that CO2 is also a naturally occurring gas.

One can virtually date the emergence of the climate change agenda with the demise of communism.

And if I had any doubt that this message were composed of half-truths, actually quarter-truths, those doubts were dispelled.

[Neko]

Originally Posted by flogger

We are also told to regard CO 2 as some kind of pollutant, when in reality it is a component absolutely vital for life on this Earth. Historically more CO 2 equates to greater biomass which surely benefits rather than hinders us.

And hey, the same thing's true about salt! Everyone says that too much salt is bad for you, but how can that be, as salt is necessary if you want to stay alive? You should eat as much as possible. In fact, you should go and eat a 5 kilo bag right now.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by ninjalooter1701

No, they say that we have contributed. Not that we are responsible.

You're absolutely correct here ninja. This is a product of my 10/90 rule. There is an informed debate going on in about 10% of the population - the other 90% hears of it in soundbites. The 10% (both pro and con) are hearing "contributed to", the soundbiters are hearing "caused".

[flogger]

"No, they say that we have contributed. Not that we are responsible."

Is that so. I'll refresh your memory. Heres what the IPCC said.

Now, the panel concluded that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet's surface.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm

Sounds like they are most certainly saying humans are primarily culpable to me. The IPCCs sole remit is to find human culpability for climate change as theres Billions of dollars to be made off the back of its ever more catastrophist pronouncements for its disciples. Not finding such causational factors would equate to turkeys voting for Christmas. Nobodys going to shoot this cash cow if they can milk it instead.

"And if I had any doubt that this message were composed of half-truths, actually quarter-truths, those doubts were dispelled."

And there are none so blind ninjalooter etc etc.......

[flogger]

"And hey, the same thing's true about salt! Everyone says that too much salt is bad for you, but how can that be, as salt is necessary if you want to stay alive? You should eat as much as possible. In fact, you should go and eat a 5 kilo bag right now."

Transferring your analogy to CO 2 it isnt 5 kilos but 5 grains of salt we are talking about theres a BIG difference Neko.

[Neko]

Originally Posted by clownboy

You're absolutely correct here ninja. This is a product of my 10/90 rule. There is an informed debate going on in about 10% of the population - the other 90% hears of it in soundbites. The 10% (both pro and con) are hearing "contributed to", the soundbiters are hearing "caused".

Personally I reckon it's more like 5% of the population know the science and accept that climate change is caused by us. 5% are religious nuts or scientists working for Exxon and insist that it's nothing to do with us. The other 90% thinks that there is a debate going on.

[juuustaaas]

You'd think those 5% religious nuts would side with those against polluting god's beautiful creation, not oil corporations. It's weird, really.

[Gilles de Rais]

Originally Posted by Neko

Personally I reckon it's more like 5% of the population know the science and accept that climate change is caused by us. 5% are religious nuts or scientists working for Exxon and insist that it's nothing to do with us. The other 90% thinks that there is a debate going on.

You're missing the % that doesn't understand the sciences but understand that 95% of the scientists are accepting climate change is occuring and man-made...

[Neko]

Yes, I did. I guess my version applies more to the US than anywhere else.

[flogger]

"You're missing the % that doesn't understand the sciences but understand that 95% of the scientists are accepting climate change is occuring and man-made..."

So why did only 51 individuals sign the final draft of the IPCCs latest fairytale chapter in 2007.

"2,500 scientists signed the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change) Report on February 2!" Suzuki exclaims.

, I decided to check this out for myself – and discovered that, in fact, only 51 individuals signed the IPCC Report released on February 2. "

http://www.canadianvalues.ca/issues.aspx?aid=267

[Gilles de Rais]

You're going to have a hard time convincing me. I got 2 friends who are geographic experts interested in climatology and one has either carried out missions in Antartica or contributed to them... They both maintain that, while the scientifc models are still hotly debated in some of their particulars, the general thesis of abnormal, man-made climate change is undisputed... One of them is rather conservative by European political standard so not much of an agenda either...

[Neko]

Originally Posted by flogger

"You're missing the % that doesn't understand the sciences but understand that 95% of the scientists are accepting climate change is occuring and man-made..."

So why did only 51 individuals sign the final draft of the IPCCs latest fairytale chapter in 2007.

"2,500 scientists signed the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change) Report on February 2!" Suzuki exclaims.

, I decided to check this out for myself – and discovered that, in fact, only 51 individuals signed the IPCC Report released on February 2. "

http://www.canadianvalues.ca/issues.aspx?aid=267

Who the fuck's Suzuki?

[flogger]

"Who the fuck's Suzuki?"

Duhhh .... Da guy in Da link ......lol

[Neko]

Well, yes, but we don't know him. He hasn't posted on this thread, or even on this board, yet for some reason you're replying to him here. Do you reply to us on other boards too?

[contracycle]

Duhhh .... Da guy in Da link ......lol

And just why should we care?


Btw:

We are told to dismiss all climate history altogether in favour of surveys taken over the last 30 years or so. Indeed warmer times like the Holocene Maximum 2,500 years ago and the Medieval warming period 800 years ago now no longer exist and are written out of climate history altogether despite written anecdotal evidence from those times supporting the physical evidence that they did.

Ahem:

Objection: It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum than it is today -- without any human influence.

Answer: Though some temperatures during that period were in the same range as today, they were confined to the northern hemisphere and the summer months.

What's more, the cause is understood (orbital forcing similar to what controlled the Ice Ages), just as today's cause is understood (CO2 emissions), and these causes are very different. NOAA has a page on this that contains the following quote:

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

As an aside, it's worth noting that even if the Holocene had been as warm as or warmer than today, it would do nothing to undermine the theories and data that indicate today's warming is rapid and anthropogenic.

As always, you're entire argument rests on the fact that the perople you are trying to convince are not scientists; that is,m these are rumours that pass between those who are not able to determine their veracity. As soon as they are presented to actual scientists, they get debunked.

Plenty more here at How To Talk To a Climate Sceptic and Anti-global heating claims - a reasonably thorough debunking.

[Gilles de Rais]

You got to give it to Contra: When it comes to close-combat discussion, his willingness to research stuff and put in the knife is awesome.

Thanks! Reading through these links... and SourceWatch is an interesting ressource too

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

You're missing the % that doesn't understand the sciences but understand that 95% of the scientists are accepting climate change is occuring and man-made...

That's just NOT true Gilles. There is an active debate over cause, and this was just what we were all telling the poster scientists WEREN'T saying. The IPCC says "contributed to", NOT "man-made" or "man-caused".

There's a good article in Reason detailing the debate.

Actually there are two debates going on. One between climatoligists (and there is NO concensus there, not even close), and the one everyone else is having (all non-climatoligists). Many of those "scientists" who signed on to the IPCC's magna carta are from disciplines that have nothing to do with climatology.

[contracycle]

Originally Posted by clownboy

Actually there are two debates going on. One between climatoligists (and there is NO concensus there, not even close), and the one everyone else is having (all non-climatoligists). Many of those "scientists" who signed on to the IPCC's magna carta are from disciplines that have nothing to do with climatology.

I've read the article; its not at all compelling. In the first case it sets one scientist "on whom I have long relied" says the author, against an entire panel. It goes on to cite the heavily discredited Lindzen; furthermore it repeats denialist myths about warming between 1940 and 1970 and in Greenland.

It is completely disengenuous to claim there is no consensus, there is definitely a consensus which the IPCC report clearly demonstrated. The fact that there remain a few skeptics does not alter the consensus, and pretending that this is a live issue is simply to misrepresent the state of affairs.

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by contracycle

It is completely disengenuous to claim there is no consensus, there is definitely a consensus which the IPCC report clearly demonstrated. The fact that there remain a few skeptics does not alter the consensus, and pretending that this is a live issue is simply to misrepresent the state of affairs.

I don't see it contra. The IPCC report proves nothing of a consensus. Well, I suppose it proves a consensus among those scientists from fields of discipline that have nothing to do with climatology. If you're okay taking your climatological opinion from non-climatological sources - fine.

How about we maybe start listening to the folks whose field of study this is.