Global Warming Denial.

[Johnny Canuck3]

Any climate /global warming boffs want to head over to these tech forums and lay some smack down?

It's mental nearly half the people polled think Global Warming is no big deal or is a myth, absolutely bonkers, though being a nerdy tech forum it is filled with right wing muppets of pseudo right wing libertarian bent, so not really that suprising. What is it with techy nerds and retarded politics?

The global warming thread

Also is anyone else from Urban on those forums already?

In her last column, Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote: "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers . . . "

This is worthy of some analysis.

First, it reflects a major difference between the way in which the Left and Right tend to view each other. With a few exceptions, those on the Left tend to view their ideological adversaries as bad people, i.e., people with bad intentions, while those on the Right tend to view their adversaries as wrong, perhaps even dangerous, but not usually as bad.

Those who deny the Holocaust are among the evil of the world. Their concern is not history but hurting Jews, and their attempt to rob nearly six million people of their experience of unspeakable suffering gives new meaning to the word "cruel." To equate those who question or deny global warming with those who question or deny the Holocaust is to ascribe equally nefarious motives to them. It may be inconceivable to Al Gore, Ellen Goodman and their many millions of supporters that a person can disagree with them on global warming and not have evil motives: Such an individual must be paid by oil companies to lie, or lie -- as do Holocaust deniers -- for some other vile reason.

The belief that opponents of the Left are morally similar to Nazis was expressed recently by another prominent person of the Left, George Soros, the billionaire who bankrolls many leftist projects. At the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, Soros called on America to "de-Nazify" just as Germany did after the Holocaust and World War II. For Soros, America in Iraq is like the Nazis in Poland.

A second lesson to be drawn from the Goodman statement is that it helps us to understand better one of the defining mottos of contemporary liberalism: "Question authority." In reality, this admonition applies to questioning the moral authority of Judeo-Christian religions or of any secular conservative authority, but not of any other authority. UN and other experts tell us that there is global warming; such authority is not to be questioned.

http://www.projectalberta.com/board/viewtopic.php?=&p=28517

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Global Warming Deniers as Bad as Sex Monsters
From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Wed, 2008-06-25 08:07

A quote from The Birmingham Post, 31 May 2008

The Bishop of Stafford has compared people who ignore the effects of climate change to the Austrian child sex monster Josef Fritzl. The Very Rev Gordon Mursell, claimed people who refuse to face the truth about global warming were as “guilty as” Fritzl of destroying the future of youngsters. […]

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3359

 

[revol68]

what level of retardedness they or what they can be compared to hardly affects the fact they are retarded or whether or not global warming is real.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

what level of retardedness they or what they can be compared to hardly affects the fact they are retarded or whether or not global warming is real.

There are many things about 'global warming' that are amorphous, poorly understood, and mistaken.

Denial presumes a truth that is disavowed or eschewed. The disputation of global warming is just that: disputation.

 

[bigfish]

and we're off...

so in bigfish land, if you insulate your house it couldn't possibly warm the house up as the insulation is not a primary source of heat - the heat comes from the radiators, so the only way to warm a house up is to turn up the thermastat on the central heating. Obviously the insulation alone can't create heat, but it can keep the heat from the central heating system inside the house much longer, so for any given heat output from the central heating system, the house will warm up quicker, and stay warmer longer than it would without the insulation.

Straw man. CO2 and home insulation have different thermal properties. If the atmosphere was filling up with human emissions of home insulation, then you would have a point. But it isn't, so you don't.

once again bigfish you're talking utter drivel.

And you're a paragon of scientific rectitude, presumably.

The impact on temperature per unit carbon dioxide actually goes down, not up, with increasing CO2. The role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is not directly related to the emissions rate or even CO2 levels, ... but rather to the impact of these gases on the greenhouse effect. --Richard Lindzen, MIT professor of atmospheric science

 

[888]

another prominent person of the Left, George Soros

Ha ha ha!

 

[888]

The impact on temperature per unit carbon dioxide actually goes down, not up, with increasing CO2. The role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is not directly related to the emissions rate or even CO2 levels, ... but rather to the impact of these gases on the greenhouse effect. --Richard Lindzen, MIT professor of atmospheric science

"Per unit" - he doesn't say it remains contant though, because he admits it has an indirect effect in the next sentence. I take it from that quote that you agree that anthropogenic greenhouse gases exist and they have an impact on the greenhouse effect?

 

[free spirit]

Straw man. CO2 and home insulation have different thermal properties. If the atmosphere was filling up with human emissions of home insulation, then you would have a point. But it isn't, so you don't.



And you're a paragon of scientific rectitude, presumably.

The impact on temperature per unit carbon dioxide actually goes down, not up, with increasing CO2. The role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is not directly related to the emissions rate or even CO2 levels, ... but rather to the impact of these gases on the greenhouse effect. --Richard Lindzen, MIT professor of atmospheric science

please note that quote doesn't contradict anything I've said, but it entirely contradicts bigfish's previous statement on this thread...

What lindzen is saying essentially is that it's not as simple as how much co2 there is in the air, you also need to take acount of how much water vapour, methane etc there is as the absorbtion spectrum for water vapour crosses over to some extent with the absorbtion spectrum of CO2 and methane. He's not however saying that CO2 has no effect on global temperature, which is what Bigfish is arguing, and indeed stated earlier in the thread...

The only way Earth's atmosphere can become warmer is by increasing the energy load from the primary heat source - the variable Sun.

so which is it bigfish, do greenhouse gas concentrations effect temperature as Lindzen agrees, or is the sun the ONLY thing that can affect global temperature?

If the only way the earths atmosphere can become warmer is by increasing the energy load from the sun... no wait, what the fuck do you actually mean by increasing the energy load from the sun?

energy input I could understand. Energy load would usually refer to the actual load being drawn from an energy source - eg a kettle would equate to a 3 kw load on a system. Was that just you mis-speaking, or did you deliberately write it that way, and if so why?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Ha ha ha!

I didn't post that, per se. It was in an article I quoted from.

 

[William of Walworth]

There are many things about 'global warming' that are amorphous, poorly understood, and mistaken.

Denial presumes a truth that is disavowed or eschewed. The disputation of global warming is just that: disputation.

Are you a denialist of aggravated global warming Johnny?

(And no, I'm not asking this in a 'are you or have you ever been a communist' type way, I'm just interested in trying to get you to be more HONEST).

I suspect you are a denialist, from what you've posted in other threads, but you've rarely come right out and said so straight out.

Posting up links/articles and trying from them to imply that global warming denialists are unfairly persecuted, unreasonably victimised heroes of free speech (or was that your intent??) ignores two things :

1. The enormous media power and corporate funding behind the denialist industry. Denialists are NOT marginalised voices.
2. Denialists are not (as you imply?) just one of two equally valid sides on either side of a neutrally debated unknowable.

To adopt position 2 -- are you doing?? -- requires you to ignore or defy the VAST amount of scientific evidence behind the generally established consensus supporting the FACT of aggravated global warming. Read all of free spirit's posts (frinstance) on the subject and his links. Then read denialist posts and links. You'd have a really hard job sustaining the case that the two positions are equally valid. Though perhaps you'd be happy to try .... ??

Consensuses aren't always wrong, and to defy this one is not being a hero of independent minded free speech, instead it's putting yourself in the same camp as ignorant idiots like bigfish** and requiring you to ignore the selective reporting, distortions, vested interests and highly compromised politics++ of and financial backing behind most prominent denialists.

**It's not persecuting or censoring him to call him an idiot -- it's just stating a fact -- see earlier up this thread

++Read upon the 'Living Marxism' (clue -- about as Marxist as Margaret Thatcher) and 'Spiked' network -- Bernie has provided links before now. Martin Durkin, maker of that notorious Channel 4 'documentary' last year -- the programme slated by Ofcom recently --- is part of the LM network. He's also a liar and a charlatan on AGW denialism, as the Ofcom judgement pretty clearly establishes

 

[free spirit]

I think I'd be right in saying roughly that Johnny's position is along the lines of Anthropogenic Climate Change being a real phenonemum, but Johnny has difficulties with the inaccuracies of the models / predictions, disputes how much of an impact climate change will actually have, and believes much of the change we've so far experienced is caused by factors other human emissions.


it's a lot more nuanced a position than bigfish's, though it's often difficult to really tell that from his posts (I sometimes think Johnny temporarily forgets that this is his position and slips into full on denial mode by mistake)

 

[kyser_soze]

I think JC2's position is that he doesn't want to give up the 8ltr V12s unless someone proves conclusively that it really is fucking the planet...

 

[laptop]

I think JC2's position is that he doesn't want to give up the 8ltr V12s unless someone proves conclusively that it really is fucking the planet...

Aye. And he says he's a lawyer, so his conception of "proves" would be "convinces the jury".

 

[William of Walworth]

Just jesting JC2! Would be genuinely interested to hear ...

Cheers, Prosecution.

I'm sure the Defence will be along very shortly ...

 

[kyser_soze]

Aye. And he says he's a lawyer, so his conception of "proves" would be "convinces the jury".

Well I'd have thought 'reasonable doubt' would include the defence's complete inability to actually come up with a coherent theory of why AGW isn't happening which it hasn't, unless you're bigfish, in which case it's all about Sol (by the way, is that gas model still crumbling?)

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

1. The enormous media power and corporate funding behind the denialist industry. Denialists are NOT marginalised voices.]

You have it exactly ass backwards.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

2. Denialists are not (as you imply?) just one of two equally valid sides on either side of a neutrally debated unknowable.]

So you say.

I don't agree with you.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I suspect you are a denialist, from what you've posted in other threads, but you've rarely come right out and said so straight out.]

I'd call myself a sceptic. I believe it to be a complex area of science, within which there is much disagreement and debate.

You are following the typical pattern of attempting to divide the debate into two camps 'us' vs 'them', with the 'them' being labelled 'denialists', thus beginning the march to demonization of this obviously loony rump of head in the sand tinfoil hatters.

It's so much easier than engaging in the rigours of real thinking.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

To adopt position 2 -- are you doing?? -- requires you to ignore or defy the VAST amount of scientific evidence behind the generally established consensus supporting the FACT of aggravated global warming. Read all of free spirit's posts (frinstance) on the subject and his links. ]

Have you read my posts and links in response to free spirit's on some of the other threads. I'll go out on a limb here, and hazard a guess that you haven't.

This may come as a surprise, and you may think it's heresy, but those things free spirit says, aren't actually inscribed on tablets, and FS didn't bring them down from any mountains nor burning bushes.

I hate to be the one to complicate your life and transgress your belief system, but...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

instead it's putting yourself in the same camp as ignorant idiots like bigfish** ]

Why not? You've put yourself into the camp of moronic snake oil salesmen like Al Gore.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I think I'd be right in saying roughly that Johnny's position is along the lines of Anthropogenic Climate Change being a real phenonemum, but Johnny has difficulties with the inaccuracies of the models / predictions, disputes how much of an impact climate change will actually have, and believes much of the change we've so far experienced is caused by factors other human emissions.


it's a lot more nuanced a position than bigfish's, though it's often difficult to really tell that from his posts (I sometimes think Johnny temporarily forgets that this is his position and slips into full on denial mode by mistake)

At least someone around here isn't dumb.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I think JC2's position is that he doesn't want to give up the 8ltr V12s unless someone proves conclusively that it really is fucking the planet...

Maybe that would be true, if I could afford eight liter v 12s....

 

[d.a.s.h]

There are many things about 'global warming' that are amorphous, poorly understood, and mistaken.

Denial presumes a truth that is disavowed or eschewed. The disputation of global warming is just that: disputation.

Indeed. For instance, some people like to claim that Antarctica is getting colder, when the evidence doesn't support this.

But at least there is the chance they can learn from such mistakes, even if vanity prevents them acknowledging their errors in public.

 

[William of Walworth]

Why not? You've put yourself into the camp of moronic snake oil salesmen like Al Gore.

Haven't really got time for this (off to Exeter very shortly), but that's a truly cretinous throwaway 'argument'.

Do I quote Al Gore? I do not. His political campaigning/strategy/approach may very well be questionable, but that's a separate argument, and I haven't seen his film, but the science (separate from Gore) can only be denied by people dismissing a LOT of fact/evidence/peer reviewed papers by real experts, etc.

Denialist papers are so shot full of holes (and are not properly peer reviewed either) it's not true.

You'll say you don't quote bigfish, but in implying as you seemed to be doing in your earlier posts, that denialism and the AGW position have equal validity as arguments, you lend far too credibility to deniers such as bigfish.

Your hatred of Gore blinds you to the far greater charlatanry and downright lies of people such as Martin Durkin and all his crew. You can't use Gore to discredit the SCIENCE -- argue the point with free spirit and Bernie, I'm not here from now on for a few days ....

Rushed cos I've got to dash now.

 

[bigfish]

No smoking hot spot

David Evans

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

....
I've been following the global warming debate closely for years. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

More: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

 

[laptop]

Bigfish is slipping. Hot in Cape Verde, is it?

Someone sent me a link to Evans' diatribe back on 30 July. A colleague agrees that it's "the usual nonsense".

 

[bigfish]

Someone sent me a link to Evans' diatribe back on 30 July. A colleague agrees that it's "the usual nonsense".

So you and a fellow epidemiologist agree that it's "the usual nonsense", do you? Well, I guess that must be it then

Which aspect of the climate system do epidemiologist's have expertise in, again?

 

[laptop]

Time to stop stringing the poor dear along. I do not work as an epidemiologist. Never have.

I'm a professional bullshit-detector. I get paid, well, by, among others, the Royal Society.

I have written here that I was taught epidemiology by Alice Stewart, who invented large chunks of the subject: it was in her own time, because she wanted to make a contribution to bullshit-detection.

Now. Bigfish. The one who propounds theories. The one who's increasingly obsessed with others' qualifications. Once more: your relevant qualifications and experience are... ?

 

[Signal 11]

David Evans

Debunked here.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Time to stop stringing the poor dear along. I do not work as an epidemiologist. Never have.

I'm a professional bullshit-detector. I get paid, well, by, among others, the Royal Society.

I have written here that I was taught epidemiology by Alice Stewart, who invented large chunks of the subject: it was in her own time, because she wanted to make a contribution to bullshit-detection.

Now. Bigfish. The one who propounds theories. The one who's increasingly obsessed with others' qualifications. Once more: your relevant qualifications and experience are... ?

Can I just say, I know laptop in the real world and can vouch for what he's saying here.