CTs Concerning Global Warming Science

[varwoche]

In a number of threads in the Science section, some doubters of the science behind global warming frequently infer, if not out and out claim, that there is a broad conspiracy amongst scientists to willfully mislead the public. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss the merits of the science, but rather to (1) itemize the theories and (2) invite the theorists to support their claims with evidence.

There are two recurring themes that I've observed:

(1) GW Science is a marxist/socialist attempt to destroy western economies:

What we have in climate science is a failed political philosophy from the past (Marxism) finding a new outlet to cause mass poverty and environmental destruction link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2600979#post2600979)
a socialist desire to see the destruction of Western free market capitalism link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104101&page=3)


(2) Scientist are being bribed en masse, or are being threatened with loss of income:
There are geologists outside the petroleum industry who say it is AGW funding bribing scientists away from the principle foundations of science. link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2845530#post2845530)
Comparing the alleged funding from Exxon and others againsts the huge amount of money Government, Foundations, Companies (like Monsanto) and private donors put to stablish AGW as consensus science shows that, if that is a matter of money, AGW activists are the ones bribing scientists. link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2850585#post2850585)
the sop that the authors put in to placate the global warming industry and make sure they don't get their funding cut off, their research papers blocked and their names put on a list of suspected industry-funded skeptics link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3097962#post3097962)


And then there's a myriad of vague pronouncements and inferences, such as:
The "Generic" concept of Global Warming is a MYTH. I assert it's a gigantic con, there is so much money to be made from the "Concept" of Global Warming that it's absolutely staggering. link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2769252#post2769252)
That he [Senator James Inhofe] considers AGW a hoax makes him a nut? No, that makes him rational. link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3166679#post3166679)

[a_unique_person]

*crickets chirping*

[1337m4n]

Sam problem as the 9/11 CTs: No whistleblowers. Not one scientist has come out and said he was bribed or that he was part of some conspiracy.

[fsol]

My favorite is that you can't use the GISS figures because they are Hansens figures and he has an "agenda." Of course when you compare the GISS figures to the others...

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-hadcru/

[Nick227]

In a number of threads in the Science section, some doubters of the science behind global warming frequently infer, if not out and out claim, that there is a broad conspiracy amongst scientists to willfully mislead the public. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss the merits of the science, but rather to (1) itemize the theories and (2) invite the theorists to support their claims with evidence.

There are two recurring themes that I've observed:

(1) GW Science is a marxist/socialist attempt to destroy western economies:


Are there still marxists and socialists then? I thought they were extinct. Actually the main CT around GW I've heard is that it's just a big plot to bring in more and more nuclear power stations. I haven't come across the others you mention.

Nick

[gumboot]

I like the CT that it's a plot by the NWO to use it as an excuse to kill 80% of the world's population.

I wonder how long it will take Alex Jones to realise that if this is true it proves that George W Bush is not part of the NWO. :D

[CapelDodger]

In http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3363662#post3363662

is this :

Referring to ....
"that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.”
Several people responded with this comment.
One point of view is that this is a "politically correct" disclaimer. These are often seen in climate science articles. No big deal.

"Politically correct" carries the implication that there's some sort of party-line that scientists must follow if they're to be published, stay employed, and avoid harrassment. "Implication" is generally what we see, although accusations of politically-motivated fraud levelled at Hansen are not uncommon.

Diamond used to accuse Marxists as directly responsible for the IPCC etc., but he seems to have gone to a better-padded place.

Another direct accusation, this time from the neo-Marxist left, has AGW down as a Western Imperialist plot to deny the developing world the opportunities we enjoy in the West.

[Newtons Bit]

I personally think it's been hijacked by politicians who are using it to gain power. I think the whole carbon footprint and carbon credit idea is a crock of bs. But that's just because I think we're already boned at this point and there's not a damn thing we can do to prevent cities from going underwater in the next century or two. Even if we were to cut off carbon emissions today, right now, the next several generations will still be up a creek without a paddle.

And then of course there's the whole methane issue. Global Warming isn't just about carbon, it's also about methane. I don't see anyone coming out against methane emitters. But then, I guess it's easier for politicians to blame the oil companies than the milk companies (as the dairy & cattle industries are big methane emitters).

[WildCat]

I don't see anyone coming out against methane emitters.
I am! I propose an immediate ban on broccoli!


eta: and this guy!

ZHxMkIJuVfg

[CapelDodger]

Check out this thread :

NASA reports on two decades of temperature change in Antarctica
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3379990#post3379990

Hansen's minions at NASA have given themselves away by fabricating warming in the West Ice Shelf even though it's in East Antarctica! They made a fatal assumption, and the game is up. How much more proof of conspiracy can anybody possibly need?

[CapelDodger]

I personally think it's been hijacked by politicians who are using it to gain power. I think the whole carbon footprint and carbon credit idea is a crock of bs. But that's just because I think we're already boned at this point and there's not a damn thing we can do to prevent cities from going underwater in the next century or two. Even if we were to cut off carbon emissions today, right now, the next several generations will still be up a creek without a paddle.

It'll be the making of them. Look how the Boomer Generation turned out; coddled, weak and whining. Is that's the future of humanity? If I cared, I'd probably be glad I'm unlikely to live to see it.


And then of course there's the whole methane issue. Global Warming isn't just about carbon, it's also about methane. I don't see anyone coming out against methane emitters. But then, I guess it's easier for politicians to blame the oil companies than the milk companies (as the dairy & cattle industries are big methane emitters).

It's easy to blame melting permafrost and landfill-sites that current politicians aren't responsible for, but the crazy thing is that methane is a renewable energy source that's mostly getting flushed down the toilet (so to speak).

[CapelDodger]

I am! I propose an immediate ban on broccoli!

I'm sensing a reluctance to own responsibility. Which is understandable, but not easily defensible. However distant the fart, methane is methane. Broccoli doesn't fart (somebody would have noticed by now), but livestock does (that was noticed a long time ago).

[WildCat]

It's easy to blame melting permafrost and landfill-sites that current politicians aren't responsible for, but the crazy thing is that methane is a renewable energy source that's mostly getting flushed down the toilet (so to speak).

I'm sensing a reluctance to own responsibility. Which is understandable, but not easily defensible. However distant the fart, methane is methane. Broccoli doesn't fart (somebody would have noticed by now), but livestock does (that was noticed a long time ago).
I can assure you that broccoli will make you fart, but you better not try to attach a collection device to me Mr. Dodger!

[CapelDodger]

I can assure you that broccoli will make you fart ...

Given my beer-to broccoli ratio I defy anybody to extract that signal from the noise.

... but you better not try to attach a collection device to me Mr. Dodger!

The thought never crossed my mind with regard to cats or farmers, but cattle will put up with a lot.

[Corsair 115]

It's easy to blame melting permafrost and landfill-sites that current politicians aren't responsible for, but the crazy thing is that methane is a renewable energy source that's mostly getting flushed down the toilet (so to speak).Does that mean we can get the cool-looking methane powered vehicles seen in Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome?

I could live without the Thunderdome part though...

[leftysergeant]

I seem to recall watching some old movies about WWII in which there were Citroen vehicles with compressed gas bottles strapped to the top. And older German friend told me that these were mostly methane-powered. Has this technology been forgotten or just discarded as not ecconomicly feasible, given how cheap gasoline has always been?

[CapelDodger]

I seem to recall watching some old movies about WWII in which there were Citroen vehicles with compressed gas bottles strapped to the top. And older German friend told me that these were mostly methane-powered. Has this technology been forgotten or just discarded as not ecconomicly feasible, given how cheap gasoline has always been?

There were vehicles running on coal-gas in the UK during WW2, when fuel was tightly rationed. It was carried in canvas balloons on the roof (most ungainly, and quite impracticable in high winds).

Of course, this sort of thing is only resorted to when there are severe contraints.

[CapelDodger]

Does that mean we can get the cool-looking methane powered vehicles seen in Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome?

A beach-buggy is not cool, however much armament and body-parts you slap on it. M'kay? An Aston Martin is cool. A Bentley convertible is cool, and comes with an optional champagne/beer cooler. Ferraris are cool, but Italians aren't.

I could live without the Thunderdome part though...

I could live without Mel Gibson, but waddya gonna do? Fate deals the hand, and for every Mel Gibson there's a Nicole Kidman.

[Pipirr]

There were vehicles running on coal-gas in the UK during WW2, when fuel was tightly rationed. It was carried in canvas balloons on the roof (most ungainly, and quite impracticable in high winds).



That jogs a memory. Wasn't there an episode of Dad's Army about one of those vehicles?

[BenBurch]

Exactly NB - Methane is a huge problem. As long as people eat meat we will have methane being emitted, and nobody wants to tell 4/5 of the world who can still afford meat to become vegetarians.

Methane has a VERY short life in the atmosphere, so if we just stopped making it, we would see a large result quickly.

CO2 on the other hand will take decades to be reduced by organic processes.

However, I think a fully nuclear energy economy would go a long way towards ensuring the future even if carbon is the least tractable issue.

And if we build enough nuclear capability, we can use it off-peak to condense CO2 out of the air...

[volatile]

How did I know more than one of those was from the, errm, mouth of Mr T. Conservative of this parish?

Did anyone else see the report that was on the BBC News website? A journo put out an open call for consensus-busting papers that had been denied publication, or dissenting academics who had been denied a conference platform or job, and there was not one. Not ONE! I'm sure it's been linked from here before - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm

[The Atheist]

Are there still marxists and socialists then? I thought they were extinct. Actually the main CT around GW I've heard is that it's just a big plot to bring in more and more nuclear power stations. I haven't come across the others you mention.

Nick
Some of them over here, dammit. I found a bunch of them hiding in a political party. (http://www.charman.co.nz/commies.htm)
And then of course there's the whole methane issue. Global Warming isn't just about carbon, it's also about methane. I don't see anyone coming out against methane emitters. But then, I guess it's easier for politicians to blame the oil companies than the milk companies (as the dairy & cattle industries are big methane emitters).

Fortunately, to offset the Marxists, we're actually onto that. (http://www.teara.govt.nz/EarthSeaAndSky/ClimateAndAtmosphere/Atmosphere/2/ENZ-Resources/Standard/3/en)

[Corsair 115]

A beach-buggy is not cool, however much armament and body-parts you slap on it. M'kay? An Aston Martin is cool. The F4U Corsair is cooler. As are a number of other WWII fighters. So there!

[portlandatheist]

There's plenty of conspiracy-like thinking on both sides of the coin:
Deniers: Greenpeace, socialists, world government, population control, etc.
Believers: deniers are all right wingers, oil industry insiders, or are otherwise compromised by unseen forces

[leftysergeant]

Some developing nations, especially in Asia are rather skeptical of efforts to cut greenhouse gases because it threatens their food supply. Rice culture produces massive amounts of methane. When I was in korea, the man who pumped our pyonso made money on both ends of his run. We paid him to pump it, and a farmer paid him to dump it.

(Is it any wonder that most adult Koreans have, at some time in their lives been exposed to tuberculosis and hepatitis?)

Going to chemical fertilizers is not a totally satisfactory answer, for both environmental and ecconomic reasons.

[varwoche]

There's plenty of conspiracy-like thinking on both sides of the coin ... Believers: deniers are all right wingers, oil industry insiders, or are otherwise compromised by unseen forces I've no doubt that such thinking exists. But speaking anecdotally, I've never seen "believer" CT that is remotely in the same league as "denier" CT, at least here on jref. (In fact, I wanted to include such examples in the OP but couldn't locate any.)

Also, it's a fact that Exxon and others have paid lots of money to lobbyists/shills such as CO2 Science, Malloy/junkscience, and the DCI Group, who in turn propagate disinformation on Exxon's behalf. And it's also a fact that these dubious organizations are constantly cited (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3075882#post3075882) hereabouts. So naturally, when people cite these sort of bozos, they're going to be called on it and rightfully so.

Whereas... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3383862#post3383862)

[CapelDodger]

That jogs a memory. Wasn't there an episode of Dad's Army about one of those vehicles?

The butcher's van, which made the squad Motorised Infantry.

[CapelDodger]

The F4U Corsair is cooler. As are a number of other WWII fighters. So there!

A P-51 Mustang is cool. Foster Zygote's guitar is way cool. We're cool. Lots of things are cool, but a beach-buggy isn't, however you tart it up. That's all I'm saying.

[GregoryUrich]

I personally think it's been hijacked by politicians who are using it to gain power. I think the whole carbon footprint and carbon credit idea is a crock of bs. But that's just because I think we're already boned at this point and there's not a damn thing we can do to prevent cities from going underwater in the next century or two. Even if we were to cut off carbon emissions today, right now, the next several generations will still be up a creek without a paddle.

And then of course there's the whole methane issue. Global Warming isn't just about carbon, it's also about methane. I don't see anyone coming out against methane emitters. But then, I guess it's easier for politicians to blame the oil companies than the milk companies (as the dairy & cattle industries are big methane emitters).

Actually, here in Sweden we get reports on national radio saying that eating meat has roughly the same impact as a driving a long daily commute (normal commute in the US). I haven't heard anything regarding the dairy industry. Holy cow I guess.

[CapelDodger]

Some developing nations, especially in Asia are rather skeptical of efforts to cut greenhouse gases because it threatens their food supply. Rice culture produces massive amounts of methane. When I was in korea, the man who pumped our pyonso made money on both ends of his run. We paid him to pump it, and a farmer paid him to dump it.

And I'm thinking you never seriously considered a job-swap, did you?

The farmers are after the nutrients, so with some capital investment both fuel and fertiliser could be retrieved by the same plant, benefiting all concerned. It might even get so the guy that pumps it pays you for it.

[TShaitanaku]

In a number of threads in the Science section, some doubters of the science behind global warming frequently infer, if not out and out claim, that there is a broad conspiracy amongst scientists to willfully mislead the public. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss the merits of the science, but rather to (1) itemize the theories and (2) invite the theorists to support their claims with evidence.

There are two recurring themes that I've observed:

(1) GW Science is a marxist/socialist attempt to destroy western economies:





(2) Scientist are being bribed en masse, or are being threatened with loss of income:





And then there's a myriad of vague pronouncements and inferences, such as:

Good Thread!
I see it isn't getting much better response than my question over on the other thread. Interesting that many seem so inclined to imply CT but seem to run and hide from clearly enunciating and then supporting their implications.

[Corsair 115]

Interesting that many seem so inclined to imply CT but seem to run and hide from clearly enunciating and then supporting their implications.From what I can tell, it seems that many of the folks who imply conspiracy elsewhere simply don't spend time in the Conspiracy Theories forum. That might be why there aren't many replies.

[TShaitanaku]

From what I can tell, it seems that many of the folks who imply conspiracy elsewhere simply don't spend time in the Conspiracy Theories forum. That might be why there aren't many replies.

probably true, and yet, they seem to have the rhetoric down pat! :)

[The Atheist]

Grrrrrrrr. I'm gonna be nice to deniers here...

I'm not sure the comparison to CTists is fair, no matter how desirable it is.

The problem stems from dyed-in-the-wool CTists jumping on board the bandwagon. The attraction of something like anti-AGW is a red rag to every CTist born - any hint of "cover-up", "denial of rights"*, or any other bollocks which appeals to those minds is bound to be drawn to AAGW.

I feel sorry for the actual scientists as yet unconvinced by AGW, and I think it's actually a bloody good thing that there is opposition to the AGW agenda. The debate is no done deal and there is no question in my mind that many of the proponents of AGW are as loony as some of those who are on t'other side.

Yes, they can be bloody infuriating, but unlike CTists, not all deniers are crazy.

*The Senate report which started the bunfight in the other thread springs to mind immediately. One section, which I thought was pretty revealing, was where the report felt that some scientists had been denied some kind of rights by not being allowed to "vote" on whether an academic body could or should support AGW. Since when was science democratic?

[BenBurch]

Atheist, well, it would not be a CT, it would just be a truculent refusal to accept consensus, if they did not also claim that they have a conspiracy of silence to combat.

Its the claim that they cannot get their papers published, and that the MSM is all owned by people who are green zealots and so is all biased that take it from being truculency to being a CT.

Did I explain that clearly? My head is too full of PHP code to be sure. :)

[The Atheist]

Atheist, well, it would not be a CT, it would just be a truculent refusal to accept consensus, if they did not also claim that they have a conspiracy of silence to combat.

Its the claim that they cannot get their papers published, and that the MSM is all owned by people who are green zealots and so is all biased that take it from being truculency to being a CT.

Did I explain that clearly? My head is too full of PHP code to be sure. :)

Except that's not the attitude of all of them.

The Fart Tax is such a classic of Greenie/Commie tactics that it's now used as a ready "go-to" when the going gets tough. Nevertheless, it did happen.

Take a look at who 911 deniers are forced to use as "celebrity believers" - Rosie O'Donnell? A tired-out dyke who might have ben once famous for 15 minutes through playing Betty Rubble?

AAGW does contain non-lunatic actual scientists and until David Bellamy and his peers all move to support one side or the other, I just think it's an unfair comparison. You'd have to be a slobbering imbecile to think CD brought down the WTC, but not necessarily so to think that the period of warming is natural in origin.

[TShaitanaku]

AAGW does contain non-lunatic actual scientists and until David Bellamy and his peers all move to support one side or the other, I just think it's an unfair comparison. You'd have to be a slobbering imbecile to think CD brought down the WTC, but not necessarily so to think that the period of warming is natural in origin.

I disagree, primarily on the grounds that if they are AAGW they generally aren't legitimate scientists of relevent fields who have completed a thorough examination of the supportive evidence and concluded that anthropogenic effects are irrelevent to the current climate warming. There are numerous legitimate, field relevent scientists who are uncertain as to the the precise level and role of anthropogenic effects upon the climate change or even what the ultimate impact of these effects may be, but they do understand and agree with the general principles of AGW and would not label themselves with anything akin to AAGW.

Additionally there are many AGW proponents who likewise abhor the various pop-media/science sensationalisms of the various potential consequences. not that these consequences aren't possible, or even in some cases likely, if things continue as they are unabated, but rather because the sensationalism is both generally unwarranted and generally fictious. But again being opposed to these aspects does not make them AAGW.

I have yet to run into any legitimate, field relevent scientist or researcher who has carefully examined the available evidence and concluded that Man's impact is irrelevent to the currently occurring climate change. There may indeed be someone somewhere, but I haven't heard of them.

IOW, you are perfectly correct in that being uncertain as to AGW impact and effect, does not and should not automatically equate to woo. But, being AAGW, does not equate to being skeptical or uncertain, it denotes a certain conclusivity that in my experience, is generally little related to hard, mainstream scientific issues.

[The Atheist]

I disagree, primarily on the grounds that if they are AAGW they generally aren't legitimate scientists of relevent fields who have completed a thorough examination of the supportive evidence and concluded that anthropogenic effects are irrelevent to the current climate warming.

Well, you may not have met any, but they certainly exist.

The best example I can think of offhand is the late and much-lamented Prof. Augie Auer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augie_Auer)

But since he's dead, I'll give you James Hansen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen)

[TShaitanaku]

Well, you may not have met any, but they certainly exist.

The best example I can think of offhand is the late and much-lamented Prof. Augie Auer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augie_Auer)

But since he's dead, I'll give you James Hansen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen)

Prof. Auer, was not in a relevent field and I highly doubt that he had fully examined the available evidence. In fact, even a very simple examination (http://www.te-software.co.nz/blog/augie_auer.htm)of Auer's claims and the basic and well established mainstream science which he disputed indicates that he is not the type of example to use if you wish to claim that AAGW is not woo-based.

Exactly what do you feel about James Hansen leads you to believe that he has concluded that anthropogenic effects are irrelevent to the current climate warming?

[leftysergeant]

I would, for the purposes of the CT aspect, give greater attention to the reports circulating that political appointees of the Bush administration, with utterly no scientific credentials, redacted some of the government-sponsored research.

[The Atheist]

Prof. Auer, was not in a relevent field and I highly doubt that he had fully examined the available evidence. In fact, even a very simple examination (http://www.te-software.co.nz/blog/augie_auer.htm)of Auer's claims and the basic and well established mainstream science which he disputed indicates that he is not the type of example to use if you wish to claim that AAGW is not woo-based.

First off, how on earth can you say meteorology and atmospheric sciences are "not relevant"? It doesn't mean he's a climatologist as a speciality, but his experience was definitely relevant.

You've chosen a poor website to use to refute Augie (not that I think he was right, for the reasons shown) when it states this type of stuff as factual:

Augie Auer also made a colossal mistake in the NZ Herald interview inferring that only 3.2% of the CO2 in the athmosphere was human made. Far from it. Since the the beginning of the Industrial Revolution the CO2 content has risen from 280ppb to 380ppb, an increase of over 35%! And in short order we will have doubled the CO2 content to levels double of anything the Earth atmosphere has seen for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years

Are you quite sure all of the increase is human-made? I'm not. 650,000 years of evidence is still just an eye-blink in the history of earth.

Exactly what do you feel about James Hansen leads you to believe that he has concluded that anthropogenic effects are irrelevent to the current climate warming?

He's not in that camp, but his position has been opposite the mainstream view on occasions. I didn't make that clear when I raised his name - he's not a naysayer, but is sometimes anti.

[TShaitanaku]

Are you quite sure all of the increase is human-made? I'm not. 650,000 years of evidence is still just an eye-blink in the history of earth.

According to calculations of how much CO2 our open-cycle combustion of fossil fuels has produced and the isotopic ratios of the carbon in the atmosphere (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf),... Yes, almost all of the increase is directly traceable to anthropogenic activities.

[CapelDodger]

I would, for the purposes of the CT aspect, give greater attention to the reports circulating that political appointees of the Bush administration, with utterly no scientific credentials, redacted some of the government-sponsored research.

Rather obviously, and easily found out. Expendable pawns (like the Bush clan - look out for an October Surpirse in Florida, know what I mean?), black propaganda against the anti-AGW cause.

The Bush Minor administration cannot be explained otherwise. It was all part of a long-laid plot (easily tracked back to FDR and his Moscow paymasters, but try telling that to the liberal media).

[CapelDodger]

First off, how on earth can you say meteorology and atmospheric sciences are "not relevant"? It doesn't mean he's a climatologist as a speciality, but his experience was definitely relevant.

It wasn't. Meteorologists don't take greenhouse influences into account when they study weather, they take the greenhouse effect for granted. Meteorology is about fluid-dynamics. Auer spent his life on that, and only later was encouraged to make a fool of himself by venturing into a subject of which he new little if anything.

You've chosen a poor website to use to refute Augie (not that I think he was right, for the reasons shown) when it states this type of stuff as factual:

"Augie Auer also made a colossal mistake in the NZ Herald interview inferring that only 3.2% of the CO2 in the athmosphere was human made. Far from it. Since the the beginning of the Industrial Revolution the CO2 content has risen from 280ppb to 380ppb, an increase of over 35%! And in short order we will have doubled the CO2 content to levels double of anything the Earth atmosphere has seen for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years "



It is factual.

Are you quite sure all of the increase is human-made? I'm not. 650,000 years of evidence is still just an eye-blink in the history of earth.

That's what "in short order" implies, and it's on the order of a generation or three. What do you want to bet will happen in the next generation or two? CO2 isn't just moving between ocean and atmosphere these days, it's going into both. New territory. And six-plus billion living on the planet according to how it used to be.

He's not in that camp, but his position has been opposite the mainstream view on occasions. I didn't make that clear when I raised his name - he's not a naysayer, but is sometimes anti.

Water vapour is a climatic feedback, not a forcing. It responds. There's no reason to think that a retired meteorologist would grasp that when a new subject was presented to him. Auer is sinned against, not a sinner.

The atmosphere doesn't get warmer because it's wetter, it gets wetter because it's warmer. Something has to make it warmer in the first place.Step forward - CO2.

[CapelDodger]

According to calculations of how much CO2 our open-cycle combustion of fossil fuels has produced and the isotopic ratios of the carbon in the atmosphere (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf),... Yes, almost all of the increase is directly traceable to anthropogenic activities.

The real questions are about where the rest of it has been going, how long and at what rate will it keep going there, and what effects will it have when it gets there?

There's obviously no question that we're getting it out there in the first place.

[The Atheist]

It wasn't. Meteorologists don't take greenhouse influences into account when they study weather, they take the greenhouse effect for granted. Meteorology is about fluid-dynamics. Auer spent his life on that, and only later was encouraged to make a fool of himself by venturing into a subject of which he new little if anything.

Disappointed - I thought you could do a lot better than that.

If meteorologists aren't appropriate for giving opinions on climatic changes, it must be bloody galling that Bert Bolin (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/bert-bolin-meteorologist-and-first-chair-of-the-ipcc-who-cajoled-the-world-into-action-on-climate-change-768355.html)was the first president of the IPCC.

Also, if meteorologists aren't competent to discuss climate change, do you find it odd that lawyers, medical doctors, astronomers and anthropologists (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/sciwarn.html)are so heavily involved?

It is factual.

I don't need convincing, but I still don't believe the evidence is at 100% yet.

That's what "in short order" implies, and it's on the order of a generation or three. What do you want to bet will happen in the next generation or two? CO2 isn't just moving between ocean and atmosphere these days, it's going into both. New territory. And six-plus billion living on the planet according to how it used to be.
(Bolding mine)

Fortunately, I'm not taking bets on the outcome. As you say, it's new territory.

[CapelDodger]

Disappointed - I thought you could do a lot better than that.

If meteorologists aren't appropriate for giving opinions on climatic changes, it must be bloody galling that Bert Bolin (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/bert-bolin-meteorologist-and-first-chair-of-the-ipcc-who-cajoled-the-world-into-action-on-climate-change-768355.html)was the first president of the IPCC.

Not at all. I was referring to Auer, not Bolin. From the Bolin obit :

"The Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin was one of the giants of the climate-change debate. For 30 years he, more than any other individual, made sense of the rising tide of research emerging from weather observations and computer models, and cajoled a reluctant world into recognising the urgency of the issue."

The same can't be said of Auer. Notice which sides of the issue the two came down on.

Also, if meteorologists aren't competent to discuss climate change, do you find it odd that lawyers, medical doctors, astronomers and anthropologists (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/sciwarn.html)are so heavily involved?

Being a meteorologist doesn't make anyone incompetent of discussing the science behind AGW, but it doesn't automatically make them competent. Auer is an example of the incompetent. I'm not even a meteorologist, just an informed amateur, and I can see the error he's making.

I don't need convincing, but I still don't believe the evidence is at 100% yet.

95%? For me, enough is enough when it comes to being convinced, and there's more than enough.

Fortunately, I'm not taking bets on the outcome. As you say, it's new territory.

How likely is it that it's coinciding with an industrialised society powered by fossil-fuels is purely happenstance? It's a rational impossibility.

There's no new physics involved, of course.

[BenBurch]

There's no new physics involved, of course.

Indeed, it was predicted in the 1890s.

[CapelDodger]

On the right-wing free-market anti-science conspiracy tack, the Heritage Institute is sponsoring "The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change" in March.

See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/langswitch_lang/in

Monckton will be there (quelle surprise).

Comment #174 quotes from a Monckton email :

"For what it’s worth, my provisional conclusions are as follows: that the science presented by the IPCC is in numerous respects demonstrably defective and in several areas dishonest; that it has substantially exaggerated the imagined problem; that it has excluded eminent scientists who disagree with it (one of whom, the world’s foremost expert on the malaria mosquito, will be visiting me next week); that it ruthlessly suppresses all dissent; that its publications are not peer-reviewed in the accepted sense of the term ...

and more along the same lines. It's worth reading; the guy's quite eloquent even as he's chewing the carpet.

On the opposite conspiracy tack, I have presented my witness. Notice the assumption that the IPCC controls everything to do with climate science and research. It presents the science (not the scientists and the institutions that do the research); it substantially exaggerates the imagined problem (an imagined problem is necessarily insubstantial, so substantial exaggeration ... eloquent, but intellectually disjointed), it excludes scientists (nomination by their institution is all that's required), it ruthlessly suppresses all dissent (but not Monckton, he's built of sterner stuff. As are Pielke & Son, Lindzen, Singer, Michaels - there are dozens of unsupressed dissidents, some of them even scientists.)

Now that, to my mind, says conspiracy theory. Monckton seems to be very popular in the denialist camp for just this kind of contribution.

We'll see what he has to say in March. Perhaps he'll be persuaded to tone this sort of stuff down, to encode it rather than froth it out directly.

Sidebar : the Monckton email's Gore-count is zero, but then he's not 'Murrican. Perish the thought. 'E's a proper aristocrat is what 'e is, a real toff.

[CapelDodger]

Indeed, it was predicted in the 1890s.

Predicted in principle, confirmed by observation. Not yet precisely quantified, of course, but we'll know more about that soon enough. There's one heck of an experiment going on out there, with lots of data flowing in. The next seven years should clear up a lot of uncertainty.

[CapelDodger]

Another willing to witness to the conspiracy theory of AGW goes by TokenConservative.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104101

For all any of us know, TC is a mole bent on discrediting the denialist cause. Since we can't know any better - or invent a better mole, in my case - let's assume he's for real.

Has he made it all up himself? I don't think so. Which implies that the conspiracy theme is out there, and is fairly prominent.

[Dave Rogers]

For all any of us know, TC is a mole bent on discrediting the denialist cause.

Isn't that, in itself, a conspiracy theory?

Dave

[CapelDodger]

Isn't that, in itself, a conspiracy theory?

Dave

It is. Infinite regression looms ...

I've never been the same since I read the Illuminati trilogy.

[60hzxtl]

Scientists being bribed?

No - they call it receiving a grant. You don't get a grant to study nothing.

I find creationists who believe the world was created in 6 days a bore.

I find people who think the earth was finished when they got here equally boring.

[Cuddles]

I'm sort of with The Atheist on this one. You really can't group all people who doubt AGW in the same way you can group all the 9/11 nuts. To believe 9/11 was an inside job you have to either not know much about it, be stupid or be insane, and the people who actually spend their time arguing about it almost all fall into the second two categories. Global warming just isn't the same. Sure, there is an awful lot of evidence that says firstly that the climate is warming and secondly that humans have a significant influence on it, but it is by no means cut and dried. It is entirely possible to come to different conclusions, doubt some of the evidence or even say that we just don't know enough yet, and it is possible to do all this without being any kind of kook.

Sure, there are plenty of nuts involved and, as always, they will often tend to be the most vocal. But a few nuts do not make the entire field nuts. It is impossible to really believe things like 9/11 and the Moon hoax without being several Zionists short of a New World Order, but it is entirely possible to disagree about climate science in an entirely serious way, so the two just don't compare.

[BenBurch]

No, but certainly there is a large subset who are CTers.

[CapelDodger]

I'm sort of with The Atheist on this one. You really can't group all people who doubt AGW in the same way you can group all the 9/11 nuts.

Agreed. Truthism (Troothism? Trutherism? Whatever :)) is founded on conspiracy, whereas climate and climate change actually exist and are legitimate fields of scientific study.

That said, in the blogosphere the conspiracy theory of AGW is quite pervasive. I've quoted Monckton outing himself as a conspiracy nut-job, and he's quite the celebrity in that community. His presentation to "The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change" in March may give us even more to chew on.

Take everybody case by case is what I say.

[CapelDodger]

Here's a case. From the OP of this thread launched by TokenConservative

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104101

"Political Correctness: Silencing Dissent.
Anthropogenic Global Warming’s (AGW) closest ancestor is the political correctness movement that swept academia in the 1980s and ‘90s, and that continues today to put a chill on all academic research and reporting, but most especially in the liberal arts. This movement, designed by forces on the political left as a means of coercively driving thinking in a certain direction, has been very effective."

Designed by puts this firmly in the CT frame.

Just as Truthers see 9/11 as evidence and product of an existing conspiracy, so does TC see AGW as evidence and product of an existing conspiracy. In both cases the thinking is entirely founded on conspiracy, which makes them equivalent in this context.

The OP is quite a screed, well worthy of the Conspiracy Forum. And yet TC launches it on the Science Forum. What's that all about? Is it simply cowardice? There are special, conspiracy-honed skills in play here which I doubt TC feels prepared for. He's less than adequate in his chosen forum.

But hey, maybe TC will prove me wrong. He may turn up swinging like a good 'un, given enough provocation.

[CapelDodger]

More on the murky underworld of anti-AGW CT :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm


"The year seems to have brought no diminution of the accusations flying around the blogosphere.

"The research itself is biased," as one recent blog entry put it.

"Scientists are quick to find what they're looking for when it means getting more funding out of the government."

That particular posting gave no evidence to support its claim of bias. I have seen none that did, which made me wonder whether there was any evidence. [...]"

A rational question.

In that earlier article, I invited sceptics to put their cards on the table, and send me documentation or other firm evidence of bias.

Of course there was no such evidence, but Black now finds himself a target of accusations, his integrity and diligence questioned.

And all he did was offer a prominent pulpit for the evidence that so convinced the bloggers. It turned out they had squat, they just knew it was so.

For my part, I agreed to look into any concrete claims.

Given the fury evidenced by sceptical commentators, I was expecting a deluge. [...]

That's the fury of frustration.

I received e-mails from well over 100 people; some had read my original article, others had seen the idea passed around in blogs and newsgroups.[...]

The sum total of evidence obtained through this open invitation, then, is one first-hand claim of bias in scientific journals, not backed up by documentary evidence; and three second-hand claims, two well-known and one that the scientist in question does not consider evidence of anti-sceptic feeling.

No-one said they had been refused a place on the IPCC, the central global body in climate change, or denied a job or turned down for promotion or sacked or refused access to a conference platform, or indeed anything else.

These guys came forward to the bloggers, but not to Black. Or they are entirely imaginary. It's a no-brainer that they're imaginary.

[TShaitanaku]

I'm sort of with The Atheist on this one. You really can't group all people who doubt AGW in the same way you can group all the 9/11 nuts. To believe 9/11 was an inside job you have to either not know much about it, be stupid or be insane, and the people who actually spend their time arguing about it almost all fall into the second two categories. Global warming just isn't the same. Sure, there is an awful lot of evidence that says firstly that the climate is warming and secondly that humans have a significant influence on it, but it is by no means cut and dried. It is entirely possible to come to different conclusions, doubt some of the evidence or even say that we just don't know enough yet, and it is possible to do all this without being any kind of kook.

Sure, there are plenty of nuts involved and, as always, they will often tend to be the most vocal. But a few nuts do not make the entire field nuts. It is impossible to really believe things like 9/11 and the Moon hoax without being several Zionists short of a New World Order, but it is entirely possible to disagree about climate science in an entirely serious way, so the two just don't compare.


There are only three main categories of Denialists.
1) Those who haven't or can't properly read and understand the available bulk of scientific evidence in relation to this topic.
2) Those whose denialism has nothing to do with the scientific evidence and is predominantly political in nature.
3) Those with non-mainstream scientific perspectives, and who generally question or deny various large portions of mainstream science and scientific understanding.

There is overlap, likewise there are both sincere people with varying degrees of ignorance, and true nutters and conspiracy droolers spread throughout, but these are the general categories and the comparison to both the 9/11 troothers and Creationists is actually pretty accurate from my perspective.

[Cuddles]

There are only three main categories of Denialists.

No. This is exactly what i was saying, and is my big problem with many people on both sides of the argument. There are perfectly well qualified, sensible, sane people who don't think humans are causing global warming, and have come to that conclusion by looking at the evidence. The majority of them are probably more on the "We just don't know yet" side rather than "It's probably nothing to do with us", but they are still what many like to lump as "deniers". This is just how science works. I can't think of a single field where there aren't at least some serious scientists who don't agree with the mainstream. Just because they don't agree doesn't mean they are not real scientists or must be pushing an agenda. Even with things such as gravity and evolution there are plenty of different theories floating around, and they are by no means all crackpot theories.

This is nothing like 9/11. I have yet to see a single sane person who wasn't transparently pushing their own agenda who actually believes any of the 9/11 nonsense. I doubt any exist, because the claims are so obviously nonsense. There are so many things that we still don't understand about climate that it is just not possible to claim that everyone who disagrees with you must be wrong. It is that kind of arrogance that makes all the global warming debate such a joke. The serious scientists generally just stay out of it and leave all the arguing and ranting to the nuts on both sides.

[TShaitanaku]

No. This is exactly what i was saying, and is my big problem with many people on both sides of the argument. There are perfectly well qualified, sensible, sane people who don't think humans are causing global warming, and have come to that conclusion by looking at the evidence. The majority of them are probably more on the "We just don't know yet" side rather than "It's probably nothing to do with us", but they are still what many like to lump as "deniers". .

Those who are open to the evidence availabe, but are unsure as in "that seems to be what the available evidence indicates, but we don't know what we don't know," are generally not "denialists." And attempts to label them as such are misguided or simply incorrect. On the other hand, those who are capable of understanding the evidence and have looked at what is available and conclude "it probably has nothing to do with us," are deniers and fall into one(or more) of the previously mentioned categories

This is just how science works. I can't think of a single field where there aren't at least some serious scientists who don't agree with the mainstream. Just because they don't agree doesn't mean they are not real scientists or must be pushing an agenda. Even with things such as gravity and evolution there are plenty of different theories floating around, and they are by no means all crackpot theories..

Crack pot,...no. Unverified, incomplete and generally less comprehensive and thus, for the most part, flawed or failed,...yes. Until an alternative to mainstream concept establishs through either new evidence and/or multipley verified explanatory hypothesis, a system that better fits and explains all of the currently available observations and evidence, it is mostly conjecture. Once it does so, survives review and is found acceptable by authorities in the field, it then becomes Mainstream science. That is how science works.

[BenBurch]

Cuddles, there ARE few qualified people without agendas who think GW is not AGW, but they are like the people who think the sun has an iron core, or the people who think petroleum comes from the deep earth; absolutely iconoclasts, and not bloody likely to be correct no matter how sincere and earnest they are. The broad consensus is that GW exists and that AGW is most likely the reason.

And that is based on years of careful temperature measurements, calculations of the amount of CO2 we produce, measurement of fossil-source CO2 in the atmosphere directly, and measurements of CO2's ability to retain heat on the planet.

Some part of which would have to be conclusively overturned by those who believe that there is no GW or who believe that there is but its a natural phenomena unrelated to human activity.

In principle this is possible; Show a systematic bias in the measurements, show that the CO2 we believe originates in a fossil source is from organic sources and that the isotope ratios have changed over time in some obscure manner, or show that CO2 cannot sustain a greenhouse effect at its present concentrations.

But only a small minority of qualified scientists believe they will be able to do one of the above. Good luck to them.

However, the political trolls who latch on to the ideas of iconoclasts like the newly-converted latch onto Christianity are CTers, and that is what this topic was about as I see it.

-Ben

[CapelDodger]

In principle this is possible ... show that the CO2 we believe originates in a fossil source is from organic sources and that the isotope ratios have changed over time in some obscure manner ...

Along with that would have to be an explanation of where the CO2 we are putting out there is going, and why the organic CO2 isn't going there as well.


But only a small minority of qualified scientists believe they will be able to do one of the above. Good luck to them.

If you look at the most cited work (blogosphere-speaking), it's almost all about searching for a systematic bias in measurements. This would have to encompass weather-stations, satellites, radiosondes, ocean-buoys and what-all else. It'll take more than luck. And then (no rest for the wicked) they'll have to start on the changing tree-line :).

However, the political trolls who latch on to the ideas of iconoclasts like the newly-converted latch onto Christianity are CTers, and that is what this topic was about as I see it.

I think there's another class of scientists : those whose previously obscure and unexciting fields of research suddenly become anti-AGW-related. (I'm thinking particularly of solar dynamics and the Solar Cycle brouha that's erupted fairly recently.) Hanging on to such sudden celebrity must be sorely tempting, and may well influence their choice of which questions to ask next. Which is, of course, not dishonesty but is very human.

As to the thread, I think it's more about actual claims of conspiracy, such as the ones by Monckton and TokenConservative that I've alluded to. Those are particularly stark. Perhaps we should all start picking out the common elements of the AGW Conspiracy.

[CapelDodger]

It seems to me that the cap-stone of the AGW Conspiracy is the IPCC. Al Gore, Hansen, these are just agents. All Power to the IPCC.

As a UN body it fits the frame perfectly. Follow most conspiracies up the chain and you'll find the UN in there somewhere. AGW becomes a new tactic of an old conspiracy, dating back at least to FDR.

[TShaitanaku]

I think there's another class of scientists : those whose previously obscure and unexciting fields of research suddenly become anti-AGW-related. (I'm thinking particularly of solar dynamics and the Solar Cycle brouha that's erupted fairly recently.) Hanging on to such sudden celebrity must be sorely tempting, and may well influence their choice of which questions to ask next. Which is, of course, not dishonesty but is very human.

Well, and in many, if not most, cases these scientists fully accept AGW but they do believe that their particular focus does have an impact or additional contribution. More than once, they have proven correct.

[fsol]

I personally think it's been hijacked by politicians who are using it to gain power. I think the whole carbon footprint and carbon credit idea is a crock of bs. But that's just because I think we're already boned at this point and there's not a damn thing we can do to prevent cities from going underwater in the next century or two. Even if we were to cut off carbon emissions today, right now, the next several generations will still be up a creek without a paddle.

And then of course there's the whole methane issue. Global Warming isn't just about carbon, it's also about methane. I don't see anyone coming out against methane emitters. But then, I guess it's easier for politicians to blame the oil companies than the milk companies (as the dairy & cattle industries are big methane emitters).

People are coming out against methane emitters. The EU landfill directive is an example of this. Basically it sets out limits to the amount of biodegradeable waste that can be sent to landfill, precisely to reduce the amount of methane released to the environment.

Additionally, sometimes when people talk about CO2 emissions, they are talking about CO2 equivalent emissions. This isn't always made clear in the popular press.

http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php?IdSitePage=123

So the central message of reduce carbon is loudest but there are other things going on.

[fsol]

I seem to recall watching some old movies about WWII in which there were Citroen vehicles with compressed gas bottles strapped to the top. And older German friend told me that these were mostly methane-powered. Has this technology been forgotten or just discarded as not ecconomicly feasible, given how cheap gasoline has always been?

There is a fair bit of research into using biogas in combustion engines. Biogas is approximately 75% CH4 25% CO2. It is already used in stationary engines for CHP using the offgas from anaerobic digesters.

I would guess that the technical difficulties of actually running the engines reliably notwithstanding, the problem may be producing it in enough volume cleanly.

[TShaitanaku]

There is a fair bit of research into using biogas in combustion engines. Biogas is approximately 75% CH4 25% CO2. It is already used in stationary engines for CHP using the offgas from anaerobic digesters.

I would guess that the technical difficulties of actually running the engines reliably notwithstanding, the problem may be producing it in enough volume cleanly.

The greatest problem is that most commercially available methane is still predominantly sourced from ancient sequestered/geologically/environmentally isolated sources, so to burn it in open cycle combustion, presents all of the same problems we currently face in using coal and oil. I suppose that biogas sources would be acceptable as they are from organic sources that would decompose or otherwise vent into the atmosphere anyway.

[varwoche]

The telltale sign of CT/cult mentality is a rigid, absolute mindset, like this gem from Tom Delay on Hardball yesterday: There is no science to suggest that man is the cause of climate change.

5hyotvQxPuI

[CapelDodger]

The telltale sign of CT/cult mentality is a rigid, absolute mindset, like this gem from Tom Delay on Hardball yesterday:

5hyotvQxPuI

Do these people have their brains taken out or something?

So, if there's no science behind AGW there must be something else. That something is not obvious, therefore it's hidden. Which makes it a conspiracy.

Unless Al Gore alone is behind it, since one person - however powerful - does not a conspiracy make.

[BenBurch]

They are PAID to act as if they have no brains...

[CapelDodger]

They are PAID to act as if they have no brains...

They only get elected if they act as if they have no brains. Clinton only got away with it because his brains were clearly in his trousers :).

[TrueSceptic]

Reading this GW-related thread, along with the many in Science, etc. (including the one I started!), makes me wonder where the subject truly belongs. Every thread soon develops in such a way that different parts of it would fit in any of:-
Religion & Politics
Conspiracy Theories
Politics
Science, Mathematics, Medicine, & Technology

Most seem to be in Science, etc., but how often are they about the Science?

[TShaitanaku]

Reading this GW-related thread, along with the many in Science, etc. (including the one I started!), makes me wonder where the subject truly belongs. Every thread soon develops in such a way that different parts of it would fit in any of:-
Religion & Politics
Conspiracy Theories
Politics
Science, Mathematics, Medicine, & Technology

Most seem to be in Science, etc., but how often are they about the Science?

This is primarily because the vast majority of the science is established and well accepted without much controversy or brook for debate. In general, those who wish to argue the issue will quickly steer away from such and into areas where there is more room for opinion and interpretation.

[CapelDodger]

This is primarily because the vast majority of the science is established and well accepted without much controversy or brook for debate. In general, those who wish to argue the issue will quickly steer away from such and into areas where there is more room for opinion and interpretation.

And, of course, for sinister forces to be at work, making the unwary and unwashed think that the science is established because all dissent is silenced.

Frankly, I'm sick of hearing dissenters go on about how their voice can't be heard. I wish somebody would just shut them up.

I blame the liberal media. They don't have the stomach for it.

[1337m4n]

Reading this GW-related thread, along with the many in Science, etc. (including the one I started!), makes me wonder where the subject truly belongs. Every thread soon develops in such a way that different parts of it would fit in any of:-
Religion & Politics
Conspiracy Theories
Politics
Science, Mathematics, Medicine, & Technology

Most seem to be in Science, etc., but how often are they about the Science?

Well, "global warming" isn't all one issue. It's a whole bunch of interrelated issues, so depending on which aspect you're looking at, it could belong in each of these forums.

For instance:

Religion & Philosophy: For discussing ethical dilemmas regarding environmental protection vs. economic growth

Conspiracy Theories: For discussing the idea that Global Warming is just a big hoax cooked up by the NWO/Zionists/Jews/Illuminati/Freemasons/Liberal Media in order to garner support for socialism/as a means of population control/as part of a grandiose plan to take over the world. Or perhaps that AGW skepticism doesn't really exist at all and is just an illusion created by Exxon/Big Oil/the NWO/the Jews. Take your pick.

Politics: For discussing political issues related to global warming, such as the Kyoto Protocol, carbon taxes, carbon offsets, etc.

Science, Mathematics, Medicine, & Technology: For discussing the actual science. Things like the extent of global warming, what's causing it, what effects it will have, and how to prevent it or if preventing it is even possible.

[Garb]

What is the incentive for scientists lying about Global Warming anyhow?

And whether it exists or not, what harm does it do to be environmentally friendly?

[1337m4n]

What is the incentive for scientists lying about Global Warming anyhow?

Pick your conspiracy theory:

--According to extremist conservatives, it's part of some kind of agenda to push socialism on the masses.

--According to others, the scientists are being paid off by Big Enviro (Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc.) Sort of a counter to left-wing pseudo-conspiracy claims that AGW skeptics are just being paid off by Big Oil.

--According to Alex Jones and various Truthers, the NWO wants people to believe in catastrophic GW so it can push extreme measures on the people which will stifle the economy to the point where thousands die, thus helping the NWO with their goal of population control. (I am not making this up; there are actually people who believe this woo)


And whether it exists or not, what harm does it do to be environmentally friendly?

It doesn't necessarily have to do any harm. I've always been of the opinion that politicians should just work towards developing alternative energy regardless, and leave the question of AGW to the scientists where the debate can't be corrupted by politics.

Measures such as Kyoto or carbon taxes should be supported or opposed on their own merits rather than on the basis of some "AGW exists" or "AGW doesn't exist" blanket declaration, IMHO. Because regardless of what you believe about GW or AGW, these measures can be argued to have their upsides and their downsides, just like any other law.

[TrueSceptic]

And, of course, for sinister forces to be at work, making the unwary and unwashed think that the science is established because all dissent is silenced.

Frankly, I'm sick of hearing dissenters go on about how their voice can't be heard. I wish somebody would just shut them up.

I blame the liberal media. They don't have the stomach for it.
"I've had enough and I'm not taking it anymore!". I don't know who first said that but it seems appropriate. I must be delusional because I keep hearing and reading these silenced dissenters too. ;)

We need more stuff like Marcus Brigstocke's excellent rant about TGGWS. Here's a torrent (http://www.mininova.org/tor/656418) I created.

[TrueSceptic]

What is the incentive for scientists lying about Global Warming anyhow?

See HTBAGWS (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105743)
Scientists are lefties who want to force socialism on us all, or they cooked it all up to keep getting research grants!


And whether it exists or not, what harm does it do to be environmentally friendly?
Well, if we do that we'll all lose our freedoms, be forced to ride bicycles, and don't forget how our economies will suffer.

[TrueSceptic]

Well, "global warming" isn't all one issue. It's a whole bunch of interrelated issues, so depending on which aspect you're looking at, it could belong in each of these forums.

For instance:

Religion & Philosophy: For discussing ethical dilemmas regarding environmental protection vs. economic growth

Conspiracy Theories: For discussing the idea that Global Warming is just a big hoax cooked up by the NWO/Zionists/Jews/Illuminati/Freemasons/Liberal Media in order to garner support for socialism/as a means of population control/as part of a grandiose plan to take over the world. Or perhaps that AGW skepticism doesn't really exist at all and is just an illusion created by Exxon/Big Oil/the NWO/the Jews. Take your pick.

Politics: For discussing political issues related to global warming, such as the Kyoto Protocol, carbon taxes, carbon offsets, etc.

Science, Mathematics, Medicine, & Technology: For discussing the actual science. Things like the extent of global warming, what's causing it, what effects it will have, and how to prevent it or if preventing it is even possible.
I agree, but most GW topics seem to be in the Science forum. I think that most of those belong elsewhere.

[varwoche]

According to Alex Jones and various Truthers, the NWO wants people to believe in catastrophic GW so it can push extreme measures on the people which will stifle the economy to the point where thousands die, thus helping the NWO with their goal of population control. (I am not making this up; there are actually people who believe this woo) I'm not familiar with Jones, but there's definitely a segment of the far left that finds common ground with this sort of nutty thinking. For instance, whackjob extraordinaire Andrew Cockburn of counterpunch (http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06092007.html): We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. The claque endorsing what is now dignified as "the mainstream theory" of global warming stretches all the way from radical greens through Al Gore to George W. Bush, who signed on at the end of May. The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism by the weight of the global emergency. Amid the collapse of genuinely radical politics, they have seen it as the alarm clock prompting a new Great New Spiritual Awakening.

More Cockburn raving here (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1961846/posts).

[CapelDodger]

Well, "global warming" isn't all one issue. It's a whole bunch of interrelated issues, so depending on which aspect you're looking at, it could belong in each of these forums.

Good point.

Also Forum Community, for discussing how it affects (or potentially affects) us, and our responses to it, if any.

[CapelDodger]

It doesn't necessarily have to do any harm. I've always been of the opinion that politicians should just work towards developing alternative energy regardless, and leave the question of AGW to the scientists where the debate can't be corrupted by politics.

Solar power will surely become a major player at some point, so why not sooner rather than later? Much more could be done to promote energy efficiency as well, which seems inherently worthwhile.

[CapelDodger]

I'm not familiar with Jones, but there's definitely a segment of the far left that finds common ground with this sort of nutty thinking. For instance, whackjob extraordinaire Andrew Cockburn of counterpunch (http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06092007.html):

More Cockburn raving here (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1961846/posts).

Cockburn is the standard bearer of the Left Sceptics, it seems.

Knowing his type (to some extent) I'd say one of his influences is a distaste for science per se. Many intellectuals would rather die than admit to a passing acquaintance with anything so vulgar as physics.

Large parts of the Left have long dismissed environmentalism because their ideology is self-contained, and doesn't include natural constraints. It's a socio-economic philosophy, in which science plays the role (technology) assigned to it. No more, no less.

[Garb]

Solar power will surely become a major player at some point, so why not sooner rather than later? Much more could be done to promote energy efficiency as well, which seems inherently worthwhile.

What I would like to know is why you can't put solar panels on roofs to provide power? Last time I checked there were a lot of roofs around.

[BenBurch]

What I would like to know is why you can't put solar panels on roofs to provide power? Last time I checked there were a lot of roofs around.

Because there is a hell of a lot more to it than that, mostly.

A home power installation basically has to re-wire your whole house to 12v and you have to use only 12v DC things in your home unless you want to run an inverter which is expensive and which wastes a lot of the energy you put into it. You CAN get almost anything in a 12v version if you are willing to settle for a restricted range of choices. And then you need a room full of batteries and a charge controller. And remember you have to size the whole system for the number of days of sunlight you get and for the short days in winter. Now, for the panels themselves, just laying them on the roof is horribly inefficient. You have to have them on mounts that track the sun and adjust for sun angle seasonally, ideally, but a sun tracker with a fixed angle isn't too horrible if you go up and change that angle manually several times a year.

I wish it were that simple as to just shingle the roof with solar panels.

[BenBurch]

Oh, and...

You weren't hoping to have air conditioning were you? A swamp cooler would even be a stretch for a home power system's batteries, and those do not work in most places anyway.

[Magenta]

Because there is a hell of a lot more to it than that, mostly.

A home power installation basically has to re-wire your whole house to 12v and you have to use only 12v DC things in your home unless you want to run an inverter which is expensive and which wastes a lot of the energy you put into it. You CAN get almost anything in a 12v version if you are willing to settle for a restricted range of choices. And then you need a room full of batteries and a charge controller. And remember you have to size the whole system for the number of days of sunlight you get and for the short days in winter. Now, for the panels themselves, just laying them on the roof is horribly inefficient. You have to have them on mounts that track the sun and adjust for sun angle seasonally, ideally, but a sun tracker with a fixed angle isn't too horrible if you go up and change that angle manually several times a year.

I wish it were that simple as to just shingle the roof with solar panels.


You can also have a grid interactive system that does away with batteries.

[Garb]

Oh, and...

You weren't hoping to have air conditioning were you? A swamp cooler would even be a stretch for a home power system's batteries, and those do not work in most places anyway.

Thank you for the insight. Being a layman I have no idea on how that stuff works, if that wasn't apparent already. :)

[stilicho]

Solar power will surely become a major player at some point, so why not sooner rather than later? Much more could be done to promote energy efficiency as well, which seems inherently worthwhile.
Nuclear power generation is, at the moment, much safer and more economical than any of the alternatives to fossil fuels. It seems to me that the whole debate will become quaint in retrospect as new sources of power become available over the next century.

[BenBurch]

You can also have a grid interactive system that does away with batteries.

True, but then you need a utility intertie system, the one I would recommend is a 2500 watt Trace inverter, about $2800 before installation. And it goes without saying you'll need the power company involved to install the extra meter you'll need and to approve the work; They are very particular as to the quality of the electricity you will feed back into their grid, and the danger your system will present to linemen, so that is why you need an inverter that will shut down the moment the external power fails. Which, BTW, means that your power fails too at that moment even if its a beautiful sunny day.

-Ben

[BenBurch]

Thank you for the insight. Being a layman I have no idea on how that stuff works, if that wasn't apparent already. :)

I try to educate people when I can. We all should learn something each day, and I routinely discover things I am ignorant of!

[Magenta]

True, but then you need a utility intertie system, the one I would recommend is a 2500 watt Trace inverter, about $2800 before installation. And it goes without saying you'll need the power company involved to install the extra meter you'll need and to approve the work; They are very particular as to the quality of the electricity you will feed back into their grid, and the danger your system will present to linemen, so that is why you need an inverter that will shut down the moment the external power fails. Which, BTW, means that your power fails too at that moment even if its a beautiful sunny day.

-Ben


Yeah, they're not cheap. This (http://www.energex.com.au/environment/solar_solutions/solar_solutions_solar_pv_residential.html)is the sort of system supplied by my electricity provider. It's a substantial cost, even with the government rebate.

[dudalb]

Cockburn does have a point...something that rarely happens..in that some on the Left are using Global Warming as a stick to beat their favorite target, Evil Old Capitalism (ignoring the fact that socialists nations can be just as big offenders as capitalist nations).
But then Cockburn appears to be objecting to that only because he sees is as not being a big enough stick.
I would really like to try to take ideology out of the equation for dealing with Global Warming,but that is not going to happen.sadly.

[CapelDodger]

I would really like to try to take ideology out of the equation for dealing with Global Warming,but that is not going to happen.sadly.

Whatever response there is to AGW will require political decisions (even no response is a political decision). So ideology will enter into it. It certainly shouldn't enter into the science, of course.

[BenBurch]

Whatever response there is to AGW will require political decisions (even no response is a political decision). So ideology will enter into it. It certainly shouldn't enter into the science, of course.

Agreed.

There is more than one solution to the problem, and it might be that the best solutions are ones that cannot achieve political acceptance.

It might be that none of the measures that are politically acceptable will be sufficient to deal with the problem, too.

If we take the wrong steps here, civilization as we know it ends.

As James Burke observed in the very first episode of Connections; Our cities are technological traps; if the electricity fails, if the railroads shut down for lack of fuel, if the trucks can no longer run - we all die.

And you can put things out of whack in that way at either extreme of the political agendas.

And it is a significant probability now that is how its going to go down.

-Ben

[TShaitanaku]

We need more stuff like Marcus Brigstocke's excellent rant about TGGWS. Here's a torrent (http://www.mininova.org/tor/656418) I created.

I'd like to give it a listen, but I don't do P2P interface software, by any chance is there anywhere else I can download the MP3 from?

[TrueSceptic]

I'd like to give it a listen, but I don't do P2P interface software, by any chance is there anywhere else I can download the MP3 from?
It's about 4 MB so I could email it to you, or send it via YouSendIt (http://www.yousendit.com/). PM me with your email address. :)

[TrueSceptic]

On a different tack, I have a CT about some of the GWS we have in the JREF. They are so extreme that any parody I could make up wouldn't do them justice. I'm thinking of mhaze and especially Diamond (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3437240&postcount=129).
So rabid, offensive, ignorant, and arrogant are these people that I wonder if they are the work of someone who is trying to discredit the GWS cause!

[CapelDodger]

Agreed.

There is more than one solution to the problem, and it might be that the best solutions are ones that cannot achieve political acceptance.

Every solution, or even mitigation, will not spread costs and benefits equitably. Not globally, not nationally, not locally. "Best" is highly subjective.

It's my opinion that any actual respones will be reactive, and on at best a regional scale. Bush Minor has been up-front about it : the US should react to climate change only insofar as it affects the US. The US gummint's assesment of costs and benefits, and no way any surrender of sovereignty to a supra-national entity.

The Russians, Chinese, and Indians aren't so up-front about it. That's the only difference in attitude. And watch out for the Canadians - their time may have come :eek:. That whole NAFTA thing was engineered as a Mexico-Canadian pincer movement, with the connivance of the French and the Freemasons/Democratic Party. It's true!

It might be that none of the measures that are politically acceptable will be sufficient to deal with the problem, too.

This whole political and diplomatic response is as bad a joke as the League of Nations. We :rolleyes: the League of Nations; future generations will :rolleyes: the response to AGW. Like us, they'll be doing it in hindsight, from a very different world and perspective. And (if history's anything to go by) they'll be setting themselves up for their own :rolleyes: up the line.

If we take the wrong steps here, civilization as we know it ends.

Civilisations as they were known at the time have collapsed, and we're better off for it.

As James Burke observed in the very first episode of Connections; Our cities are technological traps; if the electricity fails, if the railroads shut down for lack of fuel, if the trucks can no longer run - we all die.

It's a house-of-cards, isn't it? But that's nothing new. Civilisations don't do soft-landings, but they have followed a trend to where we are now. We're hitting a bump in the road, no doubt about that, but it's happened before. Short of a full-scale nuclear exchange it's not nearly the end of the road.

(By the way, James Burke is the role-model that I most aspire to emulate.)

[TrueSceptic]

(By the way, James Burke is the role-model that I most aspire to emulate.)
I didn't rate him on 'Tomorrow's World' but 'Connections' completely won me over. Perhaps it's time for something similar covering the last few decades?

BTW 3:25 am? Couldn't sleep? ;)

[TrueSceptic]

It's a house-of-cards, isn't it? But that's nothing new. Civilisations don't do soft-landings, but they have followed a trend to where we are now. We're hitting a bump in the road, no doubt about that, but it's happened before. Short of a full-scale nuclear exchange it's not nearly the end of the road.

I'd like someone to rubbish the Olduvai Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_theory). GW might well cause problems for us, but the worst of it is a long way off, whereas energy shortages are just over the hill if the theory is correct.

LMK if this is OT here before I go any further. :)

[CapelDodger]

I'd like someone to rubbish the Olduvai Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_theory). GW might well cause problems for us, but the worst of it is a long way off, whereas energy shortages are just over the hill if the theory is correct.

LMK if this is OT here before I go any further. :)

Have you ever heard the term "cluster-f**k"? That's what we're heading for - arguably, we're already experiencing its leading edge. Peak Oil, peak food, peak artesian water, climate change, ocean acidification, financial judders. And things we haven't noticed coming, of course. Climate change may turn out to be the least of our worries in the short-term.

Old assumptions lose validity. The centre cannot hold, despite desperate efforts by establishments to maintain the status quo that has served them so well. A time of troubles, followed by a new dispensation. It's happened before, and will happen again. Poor Francis Fukuyama; History will enshrine him as the "idiot" who wrote The End of History. There's nothing he can do about that now.

(I tend towards the Great Wave Theory of History, obviously :).)

[CapelDodger]

I didn't rate him on 'Tomorrow's World' but 'Connections' completely won me over. Perhaps it's time for something similar covering the last few decades?

I wish I had what it takes. I'm more interested in History than I am in Science, and James Burke's historical understanding is encyclopaedic.

If you haven't already read it, seek out The Day The Universe Changed.

BTW 3:25 am? Couldn't sleep? ;)

Since retirement I've become as nocturnal as I was in my student days :). I guess it's just in my nature.

[TrueSceptic]

Have you ever heard the term "cluster-f**k"? That's what we're heading for - arguably, we're already experiencing its leading edge. Peak Oil, peak food, peak artesian water, climate change, ocean acidification, financial judders. And things we haven't noticed coming, of course. Climate change may turn out to be the least of our worries in the short-term.

Old assumptions lose validity. The centre cannot hold, despite desperate efforts by establishments to maintain the status quo that has served them so well. A time of troubles, followed by a new dispensation. It's happened before, and will happen again. Poor Francis Fukuyama; History will enshrine him as the "idiot" who wrote The End of History. There's nothing he can do about that now.

(I tend towards the Great Wave Theory of History, obviously :).)
Yes, I learnt the term "cluster-f***" some time ago. :)

I also have the feeling that things are coming to a head. We have the fight between religious fundies and the rest of us (not just militant Islamists but also Christian fundies, both of whom want to take us back into medieval theocracies), climate change, and resource depletion (not just oil but many other things, some irreplaceable like the natural world).

My question is: is Richard Duncan likely to be correct in his short-term projections? Will there be wide-spread power cuts as soon as 2012?

[TrueSceptic]

I wish I had what it takes. I'm more interested in History than I am in Science, and James Burke's historical understanding is encyclopaedic.

If you haven't already read it, seek out The Day The Universe Changed.

No but I'll look out for it. Trouble is that I've an accumulating pile of books that I don't get round to reading. When I'm not actually working (!) I'm spending too much time in places like this!


Since retirement I've become as nocturnal as I was in my student days :). I guess it's just in my nature.
I suspect I would do the same if I didn't have to get up for work. :D

[CapelDodger]

I also have the feeling that things are coming to a head. We have the fight between religious fundies and the rest of us (not just militant Islamists but also Christian fundies, both of whom want to take us back into medieval theocracies), climate change, and resource depletion (not just oil but many other things, some irreplaceable like the natural world).

[/meds]

Meh. You Marxist Green Fundies have been playing that song since the 60's :mad:

[meds]


My question is: is Richard Duncan likely to be correct in his short-term projections? Will there be wide-spread power cuts as soon as 2012?

That's the plan. It's meant to bounce everybody into the radical renewables revolution. (I have this from a reliable source - my head-buddies. Those meds haven't quite kicked back in yet ...)

[CapelDodger]

No but I'll look out for it. Trouble is that I've an accumulating pile of books that I don't get round to reading. When I'm not actually working (!) I'm spending too much time in places like this!

I retired early to spend more time with my books. I don't miss the routine, but I do miss the company and the intellectual challenge. Which explains why I spend so much time around here :).

[TrueSceptic]

[/meds]

Meh. You Marxist Green Fundies have been playing that song since the 60's :mad:

[meds]

Hah! Not like you then, you commie b*****d :dewink:

[varwoche]

Yet more CT being foisted in the science section (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3461129#post3461129): This movement, designed by forces on the political left as a means of coercively driving thinking in a certain direction, has been very effective. Relying upon a witch-hunt mentality and the positive feedback loop this can create in academic circles, it has been wildly successful--dissent has disappeared to the point where today, adherents are able to point to current works and at the same time both deny that PC is at work and proudly crow over it’s success in chilling dissenting opinion.

[CapelDodger]

Yet more CT being foisted in the science section (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3461129#post3461129):

(It appears TokenConservative got over the wall again. "Secure institution" my arse.)

From TC's perspective this isn't a conspiracy. He's quite explicit about that. Just what it is is anybody's guess, of course. Perhaps it was a conspiracy but now that it's succeeded it can come out into the open? After all, it was "designed by forces ... as a means", which sounds very much like a conspiracy to me. Presumably the people involved weren't designing it in an open forum, so they must have been conspiring.

So we've got a live one.

[CapelDodger]

Relying upon a witch-hunt mentality and the positive feedback loop this can create in academic circles,

The reason actual witch-hunts gained traction was that they engaged powerful interests. When they went too far, and became a threat to the social order, they were stopped by powerful interests.

By analogy, who were the powerful interests in TC's witch-hunt? And why were there no powerful interests that could stop it? I doubt we'll get an answer from him, so we're left with speculation.

Back when the conspiracy must have started, climate science was barely a discipline in itself, and of pretty much no account. Meteorology has been big since, well, at least agriculture cropped up, but climate science? Not so much. Ice-ages are quite interesting, but they're not very now, are they? Electronics, rocketry, materials science, anything defence-related (as ever) - that was the stuff. All of it technology-heavy and not likely to welcome the implications of AGW. So where would the positive feedback come from? I can see where the negative feedback would come from, if I was of a conspiratorial mind.

For this conspiracy to work climate science would have to get centre-stage. And so it has, but only because the climate has actually changed and made it a now issue. (Arguably the issue of the day.) So that was one clever conspiracy - unless the conspirators knew that GW was coming and framed CO2 for it in advance by subverting the nascent field of climate science.

In reality, TC probably thinks of the "scientific community" as a homogenous mass of lefties desperate to bring down the technological society they've done so much to create.

[TrueSceptic]

Yet more CT being foisted in the science section (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3461129#post3461129):
Wasn't that actually about PC, TC using it as a comparison with AGW?

[TrueSceptic]

(It appears TokenConservative got over the wall again. "Secure institution" my arse.)

From TC's perspective this isn't a conspiracy. He's quite explicit about that. Just what it is is anybody's guess, of course. Perhaps it was a conspiracy but now that it's succeeded it can come out into the open? After all, it was "designed by forces ... as a means", which sounds very much like a conspiracy to me. Presumably the people involved weren't designing it in an open forum, so they must have been conspiring.

So we've got a live one.
So what is a "conspiracy"? Does it necessarily have to be secret? I think it does.
conspiracy |kənˈspirəsē|
noun ( pl. -cies)
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful : a conspiracy to destroy the government. See note at plot .
• the action of plotting or conspiring : they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
PHRASES
a conspiracy of silence an agreement to say nothing about an issue that should be generally known.
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Anglo-Norman French conspiracie, alteration of Old French conspiration, based on Latin conspirare ‘agree, plot’ (see conspire ).

Thesaurus
conspiracy
noun
1 a conspiracy to manipulate the results plot, scheme, plan, machination, ploy, trick, ruse, subterfuge; informal racket. See note at plot .
2 conspiracy to commit murder plotting, collusion, intrigue, connivance, machination, collaboration; treason.

[CapelDodger]

So what is a "conspiracy"? Does it necessarily have to be secret? I think it does.

"Conspiracy" implies concealment. Without that, the word is redundant. The implied secrecy is what makes conspiracies so easy to invent.

Real conspiracies can mature - in triumph or ignominy - or they can be found out before they get the chance. To my mind, "Conspiracy Theory" implies somthing that can never mature, can never be found out, but can easily be eclipsed and forgotten about.

[CapelDodger]

Wasn't that actually about PC, TC using it as a comparison with AGW?

To TC, PC is the public face of the conspiracy. This guy imploded when the Soviet Union just sort of ... went away. Bereft of Moscow Gold he was left with PC (which was sad even in its day) and already-established Kremlin subversion. Where might the latter be? Obviously behind the issue of the day (AGW), which means scientists and the media. And the academic establishment. And US domestic politics (yes, I do mean the Democratic Party :)). And our own lying eyes.

My advice is not to engage with TC except for your own and your audience's amusement. He's an embarrassment to his own cause, but a lot of his peers don't realise it.

[TrueSceptic]

To TC, PC is the public face of the conspiracy. This guy imploded when the Soviet Union just sort of ... went away. Bereft of Moscow Gold he was left with PC (which was sad even in its day) and already-established Kremlin subversion. Where might the latter be? Obviously behind the issue of the day (AGW), which means scientists and the media. And the academic establishment. And US domestic politics (yes, I do mean the Democratic Party :)). And our own lying eyes.

My advice is not to engage with TC except for your own and your audience's amusement. He's an embarrassment to his own cause, but a lot of his peers don't realise it.
Yes, it's worth remembering Mark Twain's Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.:D

[CapelDodger]

Yes, it's worth remembering Mark Twain's Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.:D

Mark Twain is my prime hero. Everything that I unworthily aspire to be. (Ambrose Bierce is of slightly less stature.)

The great thing about mhaze is that he will latch onto obvious nutters, such as Tokenconservative, and idiots, such as Lucy. Agreeing with a fool sends only one message to the audience. And mhaze carries that message everywhere, like rats carry fleas. These people do themselves no favours, frankly.

Lucy's wriggling and petulance in his ill-judged "Evangelist" thread is there to be enjoyed, encouraged, and exploited.

[TrueSceptic]

Mark Twain is my prime hero. Everything that I unworthily aspire to be. (Ambrose Bierce is of slightly less stature.)

The great thing about mhaze is that he will latch onto obvious nutters, such as Tokenconservative, and idiots, such as Lucy. Agreeing with a fool sends only one message to the audience. And mhaze carries that message everywhere, like rats carry fleas. These people do themselves no favours, frankly.

Lucy's wriggling and petulance in his ill-judged "Evangelist" thread is there to be enjoyed, encouraged, and exploited.
From what I've seen, TC is a paranoid fantasist close to requiring real psychiatric help.

I can't decide if LR is a liar, delusional, or very stupid. That list of 4 examples supporting 4 of his Evangelist claims is just unbelievable.

mhaze and diamond are less obviously deranged but they are certainly mendacious and offensive.

[CapelDodger]

Diamond is a loonie, no question of that. Much the same paranoid fantasy a TC's - Kyoto is a plot to destroy 'Murrica, yadda-yadda. For these types, it goes without saying everything must be about the US. You get much the same thing from Eurosceptics, for whom everything must be about Britain.

I'm sure Lucy's just stupid. Remarkably stupid, in fact. The moment he steps beyond cut-and-paste and parrotting he's lost.

mhaze is pretty stupid. I regard him as a cultist, and it's almost impossible to educate a cultist. He came into the subject from right-wing ideological position (he likes the Heritage Foundation, which is a dead give-away). He's far too invested in it by now to admit he's wrong, whatever happens.

[Travis]

People can be skeptical of AGW for many reasons not necessarily having anything to do with ideology or bribery. Let's look at some categories while keeping in mind that not everyone can be lumped into a category.

Defensivists:
This individual will already feel that GW is related to the increase in Carbon in the atmosphere and feel that most of it is from human activities. Suppose they feel (for whatever reason) that the rise in atmospheric carbon is only 88% attributable to humans. However they start encountering people who feel it is 100% the fault of humans who start calling this person a "big oil shill" or something thereabouts. The Defensivist responds by calling their accusers "Techno-Anarchist Marxists" the accusations keep going back and forth and pretty soon this person who really believes in AGW and feels humans should do something about it is forced into a corner decrying the whole thing as a "scam."

The Jaded:
This individual would focus on the more fantastic claims of AGW proponents (like claiming that AGW will lead to the greatest mass-extinction event ever in the next 20-30 years (a claim I myself heard at an environmental rally back in college)) as evidence of the whole thing being blown out of proportion. Their viewpoint may be bolstered by continuous claims that every little bad thing that befalls humans these days--from hurricane Katrina to mudslides to the 2004 Tsunami--are all caused by AGW in some way. Past claims over other subjects such as the nuclear winter that was supposed to, but didn't, happen after the Kuwaiti oil fires or the claims back in the 1980's that all the tropical rain forests would be gone by the mid 90's (when I was in the 6th grade an Ecologist gave a talk at my school in which he said he was certain that 90% of the tropical rain forests would be gone by 1995 with the rest, excepting that which was in national parks, would persist until 2002) also help foster a general cynicism over predictions of disaster.

Scorned Pragmatists:
This is a viewpoint I have some experience with. When I was in college I was a part of an environmental group and one day I proposed that perhaps a voter initiative stating that all coal, oil and gas operated power plants in California would need to be shut down by 2012. This was met with resistance by the group because they said that it would lead to the construction of nuclear power plants. I asked why that would be bad if what we are concerned about is lowering carbon emissions. They said they'd rather keep the carbon going if it meant more nuclear power plants. This can make a person think that the problem must not be too severe.

[1337m4n]

The Jaded:
This individual would focus on the more fantastic claims of AGW proponents (like claiming that AGW will lead to the greatest mass-extinction event ever in the next 20-30 years (a claim I myself heard at an environmental rally back in college)) as evidence of the whole thing being blown out of proportion. Their viewpoint may be bolstered by continuous claims that every little bad thing that befalls humans these days--from hurricane Katrina to mudslides to the 2004 Tsunami--are all caused by AGW in some way. Past claims over other subjects such as the nuclear winter that was supposed to, but didn't, happen after the Kuwaiti oil fires or the claims back in the 1980's that all the tropical rain forests would be gone by the mid 90's (when I was in the 6th grade an Ecologist gave a talk at my school in which he said he was certain that 90% of the tropical rain forests would be gone by 1995 with the rest, excepting that which was in national parks, would persist until 2002) also help foster a general cynicism over predictions of disaster.

^^^

That'd be me.



I don't pretend to be even remotely educated in the complex workings of the climate, but I've never believed in Armageddon predictions. Heck, it seems like half the claims made by radical environmentalists aren't even put forth by the IPCC (the whole sea-levels-rising-to-the-point-where-we-all-drown thing comes to mind).

I've been ignoring doomsday prophecies for 19 years. Nothing's happened to me yet.

[varwoche]

Holy cow, John Coleman (http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf), meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel, is nuttier than an almond orchard: It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming... it is a SCAM.

Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmentalextremism type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

[CapelDodger]

People can be skeptical of AGW for many reasons not necessarily having anything to do with ideology or bribery. Let's look at some categories while keeping in mind that not everyone can be lumped into a category.

Defensivists:
The Jaded:
Scorned Pragmatists:


We're into conspiracy theories here. Sorry if that comes across as scornful, but there it is.

Try http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105743&page=10 "How to be a Global Warming Sceptic" for a lively discussion of GW Scepticism as practiced, or the "sister" thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106106&page=5 "How to be a Global Warming Evangelist" for a different take on the same issue (sort-of). Don't plough through them, heaven forbid, just get the flavour of the OP's and the later stages. You know what it's like with AGW threads, they grow like Topsy and get nowhere.

Perhaps you could start a middle-sister thread, "A Plague on Both Your AGW Arguments" or some-such.

[CapelDodger]

Holy cow, John Coleman (http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf), meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel, is nuttier than an almond orchard:

You've got a live one there, no doubt about it. Do people cite this guy? I wouldn't be at all surprised, but you're right that squirrel-droppings aren't even in the nuttiness race.

"Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda."

We know who that notable politician is, don't we? Tony Blair, that's who. I never did trust the guy. (And I never voted for him. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 either, to maintain the balance.) This guy's brought the inception of the conspiracy up to the "late 90's", which puts Al Gore out of the frame. Vice-President is the next best thing to a real job, and he never did get to be President.

This "late 90's" thing does bring us into "no warming since 1998" territory, after the fresh winds of the Bush administration blew away all that fabrication by imposing properly Republican oversight on federal activities.

If the Democrats get in next November, the fabrication will start all over again, mark my words. If McCain gets in, same thing, he hates Big Oil and prosperity. Whatever happens, global warming will appear to kick in again in the next few years because the White House won't be stopping it.

Looks like the radicals are going to win. Ralph "Look At Me! I'm Not Dead Yet" Nader will be President in 2012, mark my words.

[CapelDodger]

[quote=1337m4n;3468498I've been ignoring doomsday prophecies for 19 years. Nothing's happened to me yet.[/quote]

Nothing's happened to you for 19 years? Or just not your own personal doomsday? Are you quite sure you haven't just dodged a few bullets?

We're into conspiracies here, not doomsday prophecies. In CT-land doomsday is at best imminent, it never arrives.

[CapelDodger]

People can be skeptical of AGW ...

Secure in the knowledge that AGW doesn't give a toss what they think.

[varwoche]

You've got a live one there, no doubt about it. Do people cite this guy? I don't know if he's cited. But there sure as hell is a cast of characters hereabouts who channels him. :boxedin: But alas, they aren't exactly lining up in this thread to support the CTs that they're ever so willing to inject drive-by style into the science threads. (Unsurprising.)

[CapelDodger]

I don't know if he's cited. But there sure as hell is a cast of characters hereabouts who channels him. :boxedin: But alas, they aren't exactly lining up in this thread to support the CTs that they're ever so willing to inject drive-by style into the science threads. (Unsurprising.)

At least here we've got a quiet room where we can come and talk and laugh about them :).

I'll keep my eye open for John Coleman. Meteorologist and founder of the Weather Channel, those surely aren't qualifications to pass unnoticed. At the very least he must be on the Famous 400 List.