The Problem with AGW: the boy who Cried "Wolf"

[Hallo Alfie]

It is not at all irrelevant. They were subject to a 'dirty tricks' campaign, designed to destabilise their focus and research. It has succeeded admirably.

Let me get this straight.

Because they were being scrutinised, any action they took to avoid that scrutiny is fair and reasonable?

If yes, presumably it's also OK with you if their actions were unprofessional, potentially illegal, immoral, unconscionable or it brought their whole field of endeavour into disrepute?

[a_unique_person]

Let me get this straight.

Because they were being scrutinised, any action they took to avoid that scrutiny is fair and reasonable?

If yes, presumably it's also OK with you if their actions were unprofessional, potentially illegal, immoral, unconscionable or it brought their whole field of endeavour into disrepute?

I think a short read of denialist sits will give you a good insight into disreputable behaviour and malignant attitudes. I don't have to deal with people like that, on a regular basis. They are crackpot conspiracy theorists who have been calling for years for scientists to be charged and punished, they have threatened them, they have publicly sought to humiliate them. When push came to shove, there is uproar. It's the typical attitude and tactic of the bully. Those scientists were open and accomodating with genuine people. As they said, all the deniers are after is ammunition to attack science, they aren't interested in advancing it.

[Hallo Alfie]

I think a short read of denialist sits will give you a good insight into disreputable behaviour and malignant attitudes. I don't have to deal with people like that, on a regular basis. They are crackpot conspiracy theorists who have been calling for years for scientists to be charged and punished, they have threatened them, they have publicly sought to humiliate them. When push came to shove, there is uproar. It's the typical attitude and tactic of the bully. Those scientists were open and accomodating with genuine people. As they said, all the deniers are after is ammunition to attack science, they aren't interested in advancing it.

By that I imagine you do condone their behaviour, due to the scrutiny under which they were placed?
It seems then they are responsible for shooting themselves in the foot to me.

[a_unique_person]

By that I imagine you do condone their behaviour, due to the scrutiny under which they were placed?
It seems then they are responsible for shooting themselves in the foot to me.

What they faced was not scrutiny. Every time a scientist publishes, he faces scrutiny.

[Hallo Alfie]

What they faced was not scrutiny. Every time a scientist publishes, he faces scrutiny.

I am under the impression you will support anything and everything that they have said and/or done.
You condone their behaviour regardless it seems, yet are reluctant to say so. Why is that?

[JihadJane]

The Teapot Tempest:

Pt1

Beavis and Butthead examine the "Climate-gate" emails controversy:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4605

"13 years of emails, and this is the best they can do?"


'Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack Pt.2'

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4615

[Hallo Alfie]

"13 years of emails, and this is the best they can do?"

Thanks JJ, but we aren't actually discussing whether they carry any weight at the moment, we are discussing whether their actions were appropriate under the circumstances.

But since you bring is up, have you seen what Monbiot (and others) says about warmists being "in denial" if they think these emails are not an issue?

[a_unique_person]

I am under the impression you will support anything and everything that they have said and/or done.
You condone their behaviour regardless it seems, yet are reluctant to say so. Why is that?

I'm reluctant to say.

[Hallo Alfie]

I'm reluctant to say.

Quite.:boggled:

[jnelso99]

Actually on review it appears to be a statement he made in 2008: Phil Jones, Dec 3, 2008: 'About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all'

Were the emails he's talking about deleted from just his inbox or from the server? Just because you delete an email from your inbox doesn't necessarily mean it's been deleted from the server.

If he deleted them from the server, is he a system admin with permission to do so? If not, THEN there's something suspicious going on. Like when all those Bush/Cheney emails went missing.

[cornsail]

Childish and uncalled for? The irony, it burns.

Here's some more childish and uncalled for assaults on innocent skeptics. :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtru3beRW0U

[JihadJane]

Thanks JJ, but we aren't actually discussing whether they carry any weight at the moment, we are discussing whether their actions were appropriate under the circumstances.

But since you bring is up, have you seen what Monbiot (and others) says about warmists being "in denial" if they think these emails are not an issue?

Yes. They are an issue but they don't seem to have turned Monbiot into a coldist!

[cornsail]

Monbiot feels that the scientists had a poor attitude and were not open enough with their data, but not that they engaged in any sort of fraud. He may have a point. I'm torn, but I'm not willing to make any harsh judgments based on emails that were cherry picked over ten years. From my experience in academia, grudges and egos are fairly common. As a_unique_person has pointed out the grudges evident in this case were understandable--considerably more reasonably based than some of the ones I've had experience with, certainly.

[Hallo Alfie]

Here's some more childish and uncalled for assaults on innocent skeptics. :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtru3beRW0U

And here's a response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqZRmsYszn4&feature=player_embedded

Don't come the holier than thou attitude on this. Both sides play dirty

Yes. They are an issue but they don't seem to have turned Monbiot into a coldist!

Correct - I'm glad we're agreed.
The point was that they ARE an issue, not whether they had changed his mind on the science.

[Piggy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqZRmsYszn4&feature=player_embedded

Speaking of warm mongers....

In all seriousness, is this the message the warmers should be sending?
Attack anyone you don't agree with?

Nice.

Someone throws something at a guy in a polar bear suit.

And you think this has some bearing on the issue of global warming?

Amazing.

[cornsail]

And here's a response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqZRmsYszn4&feature=player_embedded

Yeah, you already posted that... Why do you think I said "more"?

[Hallo Alfie]

Yeah, you already posted that... Why do you think I said "more"?

Oops.

My mistake - sorry.:o
Too quick on the trigger sometimes aren't I?:)

In the meantime, Lord Monckton has been barred from the conference and knocked out by the local constabulary.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/17/lord-monckton-barred-from-copenhagen-conference-pushed-to-the-ground-by-security/

[cornsail]

Lord Monckton who believes in Alex Jones' crackpot 'New World Order'? Someone like that has no place in a serious conference.

[quixotecoyote]

Oops.

My mistake - sorry.:o
Too quick on the trigger sometimes aren't I?:)

In the meantime, Lord Monckton has been barred from the conference and knocked out by the local constabulary.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/17/lord-monckton-barred-from-copenhagen-conference-pushed-to-the-ground-by-security/


Europe is no longer a free society. It is, in effect, a tyranny ruled by the unelected Kommissars of the European Union.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f253/quixotecoyote/smilies/bong.gif

[Hallo Alfie]

Lord Monckton who believes in Alex Jones' crackpot 'New World Order'? Someone like that has no place in a serious conference.

If that were true and accepted by all, he wouldn't have been sent or have a world wide audience, would he?

eta. btw I didn't raise this in an effort to discus Monckton (or any other individual for that matter), simply to show - again - there is a fair bit of heavy handedness going on and the skeptics seem to be on the receiving end in the reports I see.

Apart from your 'questioning' of Al Gore - who would not repeat his lies when asked further questions - I have seen nothing aggressive from the skeptics side at all.

All the aggression I have seen has been initiated by the warmers.

I will be happy to be shown more footage to the contrary.

[Hallo Alfie]

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f253/quixotecoyote/smilies/bong.gif

Thus making every other point of his invalid?
Again, I don't know the bloke, I was just pointing out the heavy handedness.

[quixotecoyote]

Given that invoking him to demonstrate 'heavy-handedness' relies on the credibility of his personal account, the fact that he's a raving nutter has a certain amount of relevance.

eta:

And talk about heavy-handed and aggressiveness

A former Conservative peer has become embroiled in a row after he branded a Jewish climate change protester a member of the “Hitler Youth”.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6954160.ece

[Hallo Alfie]

Given that invoking him to demonstrate 'heavy-handedness' relies on the credibility of his personal account, the fact that he's a raving nutter has a certain amount of relevance.

eta:

And talk about heavy-handed and aggressiveness

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6954160.ece

One to Monckton I would suggest.
Whilst I don't necessarily agree with his comments two things are obvious to me:
- his meeting the night before was ambushed by zealots
- the kids set him up for a showdown and were outsmarted, outdebated and outclassed. They didn't really have a chance.

At any rate, he gets called a lot worse and the point he was making is simple: their fascist-shout-down-the-opposition-attitude is reminiscent of the brown shirts of 70 years ago.

[a_unique_person]

If that were true and accepted by all, he wouldn't have been sent or have a world wide audience, would he?

eta. btw I didn't raise this in an effort to discus Monckton (or any other individual for that matter), simply to show - again - there is a fair bit of heavy handedness going on and the skeptics seem to be on the receiving end in the reports I see.

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/greenpeace-trio-charged-over-stunt-20091218-l5vu.html


Danish police on Friday laid charges against three Greenpeace activists who gatecrashed a royal gala dinner for heads of state at the UN climate summit.
"We have decided to charge them with illegally entering state property as we regard this as a serious incident and they will be brought before a court," Copenhagen police spokesman Johnny Lundberg told AFP.



:whistling

[Hallo Alfie]

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/greenpeace-trio-charged-over-stunt-20091218-l5vu.html

:whistling

Thanks UP.
I'm not sure what you are trying to show here, these protesters were arrested for being aggressive and tresspass. No? The police would have had no sympathy nor choice for a serious incident such as the one you cite.

Again, I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make.

You have simply supported my views that it is the warmers who are the aggressors.

Skeptics are silenced by the protestors, protestors act unlawfully through tresspass, UN police support through physical methods to silence bona fide journalists asking difficult questions, they manhandle Lord Monckton etc etc.

There is a litany of examples and you have added to the evidence.

For assisting in making my point, I sincerely thank you.

[a_unique_person]

Thanks UP.
I'm not sure what you are trying to show here, these protesters were arrested for being aggressive and tresspass. No? The police would have had no sympathy nor choice for a serious incident such as the one you cite.

Again, I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make.

You have simply supported my views that it is the warmers who are the aggressors.

Skeptics are silenced by the protestors, protestors act unlawfully through tresspass, UN police support through physical methods to silence bona fide journalists asking difficult questions, they manhandle Lord Monckton etc etc.

There is a litany of examples and you have added to the evidence.

For assisting in making my point, I sincerely thank you.

LOL, i could say more, but i'm reluctant to say it.

[Hallo Alfie]

LOL, i could say more, but i'm reluctant to say it.

Embarassed? I'm not surprised.

[cornsail]

One to Monckton I would suggest.
Whilst I don't necessarily agree with his comments two things are obvious to me:
- his meeting the night before was ambushed by zealots

Actually it was a talk and it seems the 'zealots' made up the majority of the audience.

their fascist-shout-down-the-opposition-attitude is reminiscent of the brown shirts of 70 years ago.

The brown shirts were responsible for helping Hitler gain absolute power in Germany and for guarding the outside of Jewish owned shops to make sure they were boycotted. They were part of a movement that carried out some of the most shocking and disturbing crimes in history.

[cornsail]

- the kids set him up for a showdown and were outsmarted, outdebated and outclassed. They didn't really have a chance.

lol, now you've really gone off the deep end.

[varwoche]

If that were true and accepted by all, he wouldn't have been sent or have a world wide audience, would he? Here (http://sppiblog.org/news/is-the-european-police-state-going-global) you go: Today, as I lay in the snow with a cut knee, a bruised back, a banged head, a ruined suit, and a written-off coat, I wondered whether the brutality of the New World Order was moving closer than President Klaus – or any of us – had realized. Then again, he's just wondering, right? :D

[a_unique_person]

Embarassed? I'm not surprised.

Alfie, you don't have a clue.

[varwoche]

More gems of wisdom from Monckton (http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-alex-jones-show-l-i-v-e-december-17th-with-lord-monckton.html), world class nutbag, in an interview with Alex Jones concerning Copenhagen: It's like a Nuremburg rally
...
He [Obama] had better tread very carefully indeed or he will be out of office and in prison
...
There are constitutional constraints which, thank god, may yet save America and the rest of the world from what you might describe as a tyranny. That was what they had intended. It was I who first revealed it. Welcome comic relief I say!

[a_unique_person]

More gems of wisdom from Monckton (http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-alex-jones-show-l-i-v-e-december-17th-with-lord-monckton.html), world class nutbag, in an interview with Alex Jones concerning Copenhagen: Welcome comic relief I say!

Monckton is now the man how single handedly saved the world from tyranny.

[Hallo Alfie]

Actually it was a talk and it seems the 'zealots' made up the majority of the audience.

Who didn't allow him to give his talks.

The brown shirts were responsible for helping Hitler gain absolute power in Germany and for guarding the outside of Jewish owned shops to make sure they were boycotted. They were part of a movement that carried out some of the most shocking and disturbing crimes in history.

I am quite well aware of who the brown shirts were. Thank you.

Here (http://sppiblog.org/news/is-the-european-police-state-going-global) you go: Then again, he's just wondering, right? :D

Whilst I personally don't agree with his comparison, he is entitled to an opinion is he not?

[Hallo Alfie]

Alfie, you don't have a clue.


You have provided evidence to support my view.
If not, I have missed something.
If so, I understand your reluctance to explain and not accentuate your embarrassment.

So please explain it to me.

[a_unique_person]

You have provided evidence to support my view.
If not, I have missed something.
If so, I understand your reluctance to explain and not accentuate your embarrassment.

So please explain it to me.

I have nothing to explain. You assume I have something to explain, but I haven't done so, your conclusion is that I am reluctant to explain it. You are the master of the false dichotomy.

[Hallo Alfie]

I have nothing to explain. You assume I have something to explain, but I haven't done so, your conclusion is that I am reluctant to explain it. You are the master of the false dichotomy.

Fine.
I will assume that you have supported my argument.

Again, a sincere thanks.

[Megalodon]

Fine.
I will assume that you have supported my argument.

Again, a sincere thanks.

Do your parents know you're playing with their PC?

[Piggy]

Oops.

My mistake - sorry.:o
Too quick on the trigger sometimes aren't I?:)

In the meantime, Lord Monckton has been barred from the conference and knocked out by the local constabulary.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/17/lord-monckton-barred-from-copenhagen-conference-pushed-to-the-ground-by-security/

Um... you do realize that the protesters being run in here are extremist "warmer" leftists?

As for this account of the proceedings, I'll have to have some sort of verification before I'll pay it any attention. It's dripping with CT paranoia.

[Piggy]

Who didn't allow him to give his talks.

That's because he's not supposed to give any talks.

[cornsail]

Whilst I personally don't agree with his comparison, he is entitled to an opinion is he not?

You say you don't agree, yet just expressed agreement. You suggested that his point was valid, because they were acting like fascists "reminiscent of the brown shirts".

You cheerlead his confrontation with them the next day as classy and that he "outdebated" them, which is strange considering that his arguments are those that you insist on distancing yourself from. That is, that the earth is not warming and the climate is not changing. Oh, and that we AGW sheep are have already killed millions of people via the 'biofuel scare'.

He said later on Alex Jones' show that we've already killed more people than Hitler and that the green activism in Copenhagen was a level of fascism that has never been seen since the occupation of the Nazis.

It seems that you cheerlead anyone who's a skeptic with no standards whatsoever for their arguments or tactics.

[Hallo Alfie]

You say you don't agree, yet just expressed agreement. You suggested that his point was valid, because they were acting like fascists "reminiscent of the brown shirts".

You cheerlead his confrontation with them the next day as classy and that he "outdebated" them, which is strange considering that his arguments are those that you insist on distancing yourself from. That is, that the earth is not warming and the climate is not changing. Oh, and that we AGW sheep are have already killed millions of people via the 'biofuel scare'.

He said later on Alex Jones' show that we've already killed more people than Hitler and that the green activism in Copenhagen was a level of fascism that has never been seen since the occupation of the Nazis.

It seems that you cheerlead anyone who's a skeptic with no standards whatsoever for their arguments or tactics.

Not quite - in fact quite wrong.
My point was actually about the fact that dissent by skeptics was being met with anger violence and vitriol.
Yes, he is entitled to his views.
No I do not agree that comparing them to brown shirts is necessarily fair or right. He feels it a valid comparison, I dont (but, I can see where he is coming from).
I do not agree with his comments about biofuel, Alex Jones etc.

When I say he outdebated them, he did. They tried to outwit him - they failed. That does not mean he is right either - just that he is more adept than they.

No, Monckton is not my hero. But the way he is pilloried is simply further evidence of how dissenters (any dissenter) is treated.

Now, show me where deniers have acted violently.

[Hallo Alfie]

Do your parents know you're playing with their PC?

They do, but I like girls (and more my own age) - sorry.

[a_unique_person]

Not quite - in fact quite wrong.
My point was actually about the fact that dissent by skeptics was being met with anger violence and vitriol.
Yes, he is entitled to his views.
No I do not agree that comparing them to brown shirts is necessarily fair or right. He feels it a valid comparison, I dont (but, I can see where he is coming from).
I do not agree with his comments about biofuel, Alex Jones etc.

When I say he outdebated them, he did. They tried to outwit him - they failed. That does not mean he is right either - just that he is more adept than they.

No, Monckton is not my hero. But the way he is pilloried is simply further evidence of how dissenters (any dissenter) is treated.

Now, show me where deniers have acted violently.

No, it is evidence that Monckton is a lunatic who should not be given any creedence. Once you start on the NWO, world domination, Alex Jones path, you have no credibility. The Copenhagen negotiations clearly show that there is no NWO.

[Hallo Alfie]

No, it is evidence that Monckton is a lunatic who should not be given any creedence. .

Creedence? As in religion?
No.... I guess he shouldn't be given any..., um...what?

Lunatic. Possibly - You know a lot more about him than I do.

Once you start on the NWO, world domination, Alex Jones path, you have no credibility. The Copenhagen negotiations clearly show that there is no NWO.

I assume you mean Lord Monckton in the 'you' I have bolded. I do not support that theory at all (i.e. NWO). In spite of continued aspersions, I am not a CTer.

You are right and I agree too; there is no NWO conspiracy due to the abject failure at Copenhagen.
The failure merely supports the underlying falseness of AGW religion.

[Trakar]

Actually on review it appears to be a statement he made in 2008: Phil Jones, Dec 3, 2008: 'About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all'



As above, it appears a statement which was then shown to be a lie when he then stated: Phil Jones, Nov 24, 2009: 'We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU'

Apologies - mea culpa.



The first instance (2008), sounds like he may have been referring to his individual, personal emails, its not clear whether he is talking about CRU emails, and in light of the more recent comment, would seem not to be. Of course, it is always possible that Dr Jones misspoke, or lied, but your suspicions - beliefs, are not compelling evidence of such.

[Hallo Alfie]

The first instance (2008), sounds like he may have been referring to his individual, personal emails, its not clear whether he is talking about CRU emails, and in light of the more recent comment, would seem not to be. Of course, it is always possible that Dr Jones misspoke, or lied, but your suspicions - beliefs, are not compelling evidence of such.

Really?
I am truly amazed. But then again, why would I be.

Let's see...

First.
He makes a statenment that he has "deleted emails" and doesn't have information for FOI requests because he has deleted them.
Next
We have emails (evidence) of him advising/urging people to delete emails to avoid FOI requests.
And lastly says
We have never deleted emails.

And you see nothing suspicious?
I'm sorry, but I do not share your trust in his final statement.
In fact, (and I say this respectfully) were the shoe on the other foot, I suspect you wouldn't either.

[cornsail]

No I do not agree that comparing them to brown shirts is necessarily fair or right. He feels it a valid comparison, I dont (but, I can see where he is coming from).

But you seem to think it's accurate.

When I say he outdebated them, he did. They tried to outwit him - they failed. That does not mean he is right either - just that he is more adept than they.

He outclassed and outdebated them by calling them nazis, making a bunch of demonstratably false statements about how the climate isn't really changing and then accusing them of killing millions of people?

[Hallo Alfie]

But you seem to think it's accurate.

That is your interpretation only. I have stated clearly otherwise.
Either call me a liar and prove it, or just let it go - I have stated my case.

He outclassed and outdebated them by calling them nazis, making a bunch of demonstratably false statements about how the climate isn't really changing and then accusing them of killing millions of people?

They didn't lay a glove on him, he beat them at their own game.

[a_unique_person]

Creedence? As in religion?
No.... I guess he shouldn't be given any..., um...what?

Lunatic. Possibly - You know a lot more about him than I do.



I assume you mean Lord Monckton in the 'you' I have bolded. I do not support that theory at all (i.e. NWO). In spite of continued aspersions, I am not a CTer.

You are right and I agree too; there is no NWO conspiracy due to the abject failure at Copenhagen.
The failure merely supports the underlying falseness of AGW religion.

The generic you, not you personally. Monckton is a rabid lunactic.

[elbe]

No, Monckton is not my hero. But the way he is pilloried is simply further evidence of how dissenters (any dissenter) is treated.

It couldn't be that he's treated poorly because he's a nutter and not because he's a dissenter? Occam's razor anyone?

[Trakar]

In fact, (and I say this respectfully) were the shoe on the other foot, I suspect you wouldn't either.


First, it is doubtful that "the shoe" would ever be on the other foot, as this is an issue of science, not one where there are equitible but merely perspective shifted differences of perspective and opinion.

Secondly, I seriously doubt that there is any respect in your statements.

[Hallo Alfie]

First, it is doubtful that "the shoe" would ever be on the other foot, as this is an issue of science, not one where there are equitible but merely perspective shifted differences of perspective and opinion.

Secondly, I seriously doubt that there is any respect in your statements.

There is total respect in my question, if not I wouldn't have stated it so.
I am many things but I rarely lie and I am sincere.

In the meantime, my hypithetical question remains unanswered, regardless of your doubts about the possibility of where the shoe fits.

[Trakar]

There is total respect in my question, if not I wouldn't have stated it so.
I am many things but I rarely lie and I am sincere.

In the meantime, my hypithetical question remains unanswered, regardless of your doubts about the possibility of where the shoe fits.

I perceive no sincerity in you, and will waste no more time on your confabulations and conflations.

[Solnishko]

I'm a complete and utter layman, where climate change is involved. While I have credentials in a branch of geology, it has nothing to do with the climate or anything of that nature.

So, when I look at the climate change debate, I see two sides, both armed with corporate support and a boatload of money, arguing with eachother.

The anti AGW side says: There's no problem, so keep giving us your money.

The pro AGW side says: The world is coming to an end, so give us your money instead.

Okay. Both sides want my money and seemingly nothing more. What I can tell you is that, in many industries, these green products are the same things that have been on the market for decades, with a pretty, leaf shaped assurance that they're "green." My ex husband is an architect and, when the green craze hit, they'd have vendors coming in, showcasing their new, wonderful green products. Which were the same crap they were peddling before, with a nice new name and a higher pricetag. When a heating company started calling it's gas/ electric heater a "Hybrid," the demand increased tenfold. Of course, so did the price.

There is plenty of science buried in all of this political posturing and capitalist money chasing. Unfortunately, I'm not completely sure what or where it is. These moneymaking organizations are paying for research that suits their ends and it's difficult to suss out just what's biased and what's not, which is sad.

And then there's the figureheads, who are mostly dishonest or hypocrites. Al Gore's propensity for frying in private jets to conferences on reducing CO2 emissions is just freaking amazing, as is his stake in the whole carbon offset credit racket. Or the modern version of buying indulgences from the church.

I don't think I have to even detail the nonsense that has and continues to happen with oil conglomerates, automakers (I grew up in Detroit...) and heavily polluting industries. We've heard about that nonsense for decades.

So, what's the average person, with no training or credentials in climatology, to believe? Who do you trust? Because both sides aren't nearly as innocent or altruistic as they'd like us to believe.

[a_unique_person]

I'm a complete and utter layman, where climate change is involved. While I have credentials in a branch of geology, it has nothing to do with the climate or anything of that nature.

So, when I look at the climate change debate, I see two sides, both armed with corporate support and a boatload of money, arguing with eachother.

The anti AGW side says: There's no problem, so keep giving us your money.

The pro AGW side says: The world is coming to an end, so give us your money instead.



No, the pro AGW side came up with a market based solution that makes CO2 producing parts of the economy seek alternatives to CO2 by increasing it's price. CO2 is outside the regular economy as it is an 'externality', they are just trying to bring it inside the economy.

If you honestly believed, as the AGW scientists do, that increasing CO2 levels in the atmposhere is going to seriously harm the environment, and us,
wouldn't you expect them to put a lot of effort into warning you about it and looking for ways to prevent the problems they see coming?



Okay. Both sides want my money and seemingly nothing more. What I can tell you is that, in many industries, these green products are the same things that have been on the market for decades, with a pretty, leaf shaped assurance that they're "green." My ex husband is an architect and, when the green craze hit, they'd have vendors coming in, showcasing their new, wonderful green products. Which were the same crap they were peddling before, with a nice new name and a higher pricetag. When a heating company started calling it's gas/ electric heater a "Hybrid," the demand increased tenfold. Of course, so did the price.

There is plenty of science buried in all of this political posturing and capitalist money chasing. Unfortunately, I'm not completely sure what or where it is. These moneymaking organizations are paying for research that suits their ends and it's difficult to suss out just what's biased and what's not, which is sad.

And then there's the figureheads, who are mostly dishonest or hypocrites. Al Gore's propensity for frying in private jets to conferences on reducing CO2 emissions is just freaking amazing, as is his stake in the whole carbon offset credit racket. Or the modern version of buying indulgences from the church.
No. The proposed solution was an economic one, that sees the money stay inside the economy by putting a price on CO2 production.

I don't think I have to even detail the nonsense that has and continues to happen with oil conglomerates, automakers (I grew up in Detroit...) and heavily polluting industries. We've heard about that nonsense for decades.

So, what's the average person, with no training or credentials in climatology, to believe? Who do you trust? Because both sides aren't nearly as innocent or altruistic as they'd like us to believe.The scientists don't get anything personally out of this. They are on salaries, not bonuses like Wall St.

This is first and foremost a matter of science. The science is supported by the peak scientific bodies around the world. If you cannot decide for yourself the validity of the science, then you should defer to an authority, which is the mainstream scienctific point of view.

[Piggy]

So, what's the average person, with no training or credentials in climatology, to believe?

It's a challenge, to be sure, because it's not a quick and easy scientific question that can be demonstrated by simple experiments like putting a mouse and a candle under bell jars.

That's why it took decades for scientific certainty (and I'm using that term with advised looseness) to develop.

What I always recommend to people who want to figure out whether or not there's a valid scientific consensus, based on overwhelming evidence, is to go to the Science Daily climate page (http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/climate/) and browse around.

Science Daily provides summaries of what's being published in peer-reviewed literature in a very broad range of scientific fields, so it's an excellent way to peek into the exchange of scientific ideas.

What you'll find when you go there is that none of the claims which show up in the anti-AGW pop media are actually represented in the published science.

Even in cases where the anti-AGW pop media do cite actual published papers, you'll find that they don't actually support the anti-AGW claims.

The most important point to note is that evidence from a truly stunning variety of research all supports the theoretically valid position that warming is being driven primarily by human activity, specifically the continual release of tons of greenhouse gases.

This has been so well established, that there's no point doing research on that basic issue anymore.

The questions that are up in the air now are "How fast is the warming happening?", "What will the impacts be?", and "What's the best way to slow or stop it?"

Once you recognize that the science all points in one direction, then the only way to deny that the science is valid is to propose a literally universal corruption of every scientist in the climate field, and every student in the field who graduates each year.

And not only that, but you have to believe that these guys have the power to fake not just their data, but also melting glaciers, melting polar icecaps, the polar migration of animal habitat, and the onset of sea level rise.

At that point, one should realize that the argument that it's some sort of trumped up scheme for grant money simply becomes impossible to believe.

[Hallo Alfie]

I perceive no sincerity in you, and will waste no more time on your confabulations and conflations.

Meh.
I said I was sincere, you suggest I'm a liar. I don't really care.
But I do note that you wont answer the question.

..snip..
The anti AGW side says: There's no problem, so keep giving us your money.

The pro AGW side says: The world is coming to an end, so give us your money instead.

Okay. Both sides want my money and seemingly nothing more.
So, what's the average person, with no training or credentials in climatology, to believe? Who do you trust? Because both sides aren't nearly as innocent or altruistic as they'd like us to believe.

Yep.
Pretty much nailed it.
I was going to post this elsewhere and may still do. But here's where some money goes and explains how some financial machinations work...

Even odder is the role of TERI’s Washington-based North American offshoot, a non-profit organisation, of which Dr Pachauri is president. Conveniently sited on Pennsylvania Avenue, midway between the White House and the Capitol, this body unashamedly sets out its stall as a lobbying organisation, to “sensitise decision-makers in North America to developing countries’ concerns about energy and the environment”.

TERI-NA is funded by a galaxy of official and corporate sponsors, including four branches of the UN bureaucracy; four US government agencies; oil giants such as Amoco; two of the leading US defence contractors; Monsanto, the world’s largest GM producer; the WWF (the environmentalist campaigning group which derives much of its own funding from the EU) and two world leaders in the international ‘carbon market’, between them managing more than $1 trillion (£620 billion) worth of assets.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html

[Piggy]

Solnishko, I invite you to compare my reply and Alfie's.

I think the difference between the methods of the anti-AGW camp and those who agree with the science is pretty well demonstrated right there.

[Trakar]

I'm a complete and utter layman, where climate change is involved. While I have credentials in a branch of geology, it has nothing to do with the climate or anything of that nature.

Credentials anywhere within even the most general geological studies, would imply that you have most if not all of the basic tools and understandings



So, when I look at the climate change debate, I see two sides, both armed with corporate support and a boatload of money, arguing with eachother.


If this is all that you see, then perhaps you are approaching the issue through some aspect that doesn't specifically examine the issue from a mainstream scientific perspective? Do you accept the mainstream general opinions and considerations of the AGU, and the opinions and considerations of other major branches and divisions of applicable mainstream scientific understandings both within their specific area of expertise and understanding and in climate studies specifically?

[a_unique_person]

Meh.
I said I was sincere, you suggest I'm a liar. I don't really care.
But I do note that you wont answer the question.



Yep.
Pretty much nailed it.
I was going to post this elsewhere and may still do. But here's where some money goes and explains how some financial machinations work...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html

Hmmm, nothing about science.

[Hallo Alfie]

Hmmm, nothing about science.

Hmm, social issues thread.

twit!

[cornsail]

What I always recommend to people who want to figure out whether or not there's a valid scientific consensus, based on overwhelming evidence, is to go to the Science Daily climate page (http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/climate/) and browse around.

Solnishko, you might also get something out of this study by Oreskes (2004) published in Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

[Hallo Alfie]

Solnishko, you might also get something out of this study by Oreskes (2004) published in Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Remarkable indeed.

[DogB]

Remarkable indeed.

Actually I'm fascinated this reply. I've heard about this research and never really thought about it before.

I wonder if there's any other field of science (in which significant new research is being undertaken) where 100% of new papers agree with a consensus opinion.

I’m going to go have a look. Anyone want to suggest a field?

[a_unique_person]

Actually I'm fascinated this reply. I've heard about this research and never really thought about it before.

I wonder if there's any other field of science (in which significant new research is being undertaken) where 100% of new papers agree with a consensus opinion.

I’m going to go have a look. Anyone want to suggest a field?

Agree in the sense that it's warming. You might find a paper that finds that gravity makes things fall up, but I doubt it. The fundamental science behind AGW is rock solid, CO2 is a GHG, we are on the way to doubling it's concentration in the atmosphere. The smart deniers all agree, doubting that is a lost cause.

[cornsail]

Actually I'm fascinated this reply. I've heard about this research and never really thought about it before.

I wonder if there's any other field of science (in which significant new research is being undertaken) where 100% of new papers agree with a consensus opinion.

The "consensus opinion" here is:

""Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"

just for clarification (quoting the study).

I’m going to go have a look. Anyone want to suggest a field?

How about the theory that long duration gamma ray bursts are typically the product of massive collapsing stars from external galaxies? Let's say that the research should be confined to the last four years. I know very little about the subject, so it's just an inductive guess.

[Upchurch]

Remarkable indeed.

(Interesting side note: One of the indications of a conspiracy theorist is that they see evidence against the conspiracy as evidence that there is a conspiracy.)

So, when you say it is "remarkable indeed" that "none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position", what do you find remarkable about it?

[Upchurch]

I wonder if there's any other field of science (in which significant new research is being undertaken) where 100% of new papers agree with a consensus opinion.

I’m going to go have a look. Anyone want to suggest a field?

I would suggest string theory, but I'm not exactly sure what the one might consider the consensus opinion.

[Hallo Alfie]

(Interesting side note: One of the indications of a conspiracy theorist is that they see evidence against the conspiracy as evidence that there is a conspiracy.)

So, when you say it is "remarkable indeed" that "none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position", what do you find remarkable about it?

Really?

You seem to think I should know something about it CTs. Others apart from me saw the interest in the statement.

But this from the man (presumably) who in another thread was espousing how science challenges and rechallenges itself so there would never be 100% consensus.

To me there seems an anomaly in your logic.

[Upchurch]

Really?

You seem to think I should know something about it CTs. Others apart from me saw the interest in the statement.
Not at all. This is why I explained it to you.

But this from the man (presumably) who in another thread was espousing how science challenges and rechallenges itself so there would never be 100% consensus.

To me there seems an anomaly in your logic.
No, only in your understanding.

In order for something to be published (in a reputable journal), it must be peer-reviewed for having scientific merit. That a contrary hypothesis is not published is not a sign that it doesn't exist, only that the paper had no merit. There could be flaws in the experiment, the citations, or any number of other things.

Of course, a paper promoting a bad hypothesis will never (or should never, it sometimes happens) make it through the peer review process because that process should catch any flaws. That a particular idea never seems to make it into the journals probably means that there is no experimental proof that supports it.

[lomiller]

Actually I'm fascinated this reply. I've heard about this research and never really thought about it before.

I wonder if there's any other field of science (in which significant new research is being undertaken) where 100% of new papers agree with a consensus opinion.

I’m going to go have a look. Anyone want to suggest a field?

I think you would be very hard pressed to find a physics paper that rejects the standard model, or Newtons laws of motion. They may add to them or reference them, but not reject. Likewise you would not find a paper on the evolution of the horse that didn’t implicitly accept evolution. In fact I doubt you would find any field of research that didn’t have doesn’t of theories that are implicitly accepted by nearly 100% of the papers where it’s relevant to mention them.

Climate papers no longer ask if CO2 warms the planet they ask how much more/less then previous estimates does it warm the planet. Climate no longer ask if glaciers are melting they ask when they will be gone. Climate papers no longer ask if the ocean is absorbing heat they ask “to what depth does that heat go” and so on.

[Peephole]

So, what's the average person, with no training or credentials in climatology, to believe? Who do you trust? Because both sides aren't nearly as innocent or altruistic as they'd like us to believe.
Well, you could go with the consensus that over 108 scientific organizations around the world support, namely that emissions are having a huge impact on our planet.

Here's an incomplete list:


Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
Academia Chilena de Ciencias
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Academia Sinica, Taiwan, China
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Akademi Sains Malaysia
Albanian Academy of Sciences
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (AMOS)
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) (Australia)
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Leopoldina, Germany
Ecological Society of America
European Geosciences Union
European Science Foundation – Marine Board
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Georgian Academy of Sciences
Indian National Science Academy, India
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
International Council for Science
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Royal Society, United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Science Council of Japan, Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Turkish Academy of Sciences
TWAS, the academy of sciences for the developing world
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union der Deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
World Forestry Congress
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

http://scentofpine.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/consensus/

[DogB]

Agree in the sense that it's warming. You might find a paper that finds that gravity makes things fall up, but I doubt it. The fundamental science behind AGW is rock solid, CO2 is a GHG, we are on the way to doubling it's concentration in the atmosphere. The smart deniers all agree, doubting that is a lost cause.

The paper states that the consensus position is (was) Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. I think this where I would have thought there would at least be some disagreement.

I mean this (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TVP-4XVC4M5-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f16d0fd89651f3da2143b7aa4c85445c) was in my inbox just this morning. Are we less sure in 2009 than we were in 2004?

[DogB]

How about the theory that long duration gamma ray bursts are typically the product of massive collapsing stars from external galaxies? Let's say that the research should be confined to the last four years. I know very little about the subject, so it's just an inductive guess.

Nice one – and I too know very little about it; but it sounds kinda interesting. I’ll do a thumbsuck survey over the next couple of weeks as see what I get.

[DogB]

I would suggest string theory, but I'm not exactly sure what the one might consider the consensus opinion.

:)

Maybe I’ll work on the basis that the consensus opinion is that there is no consensus position. Gonna be kinda hard to falsify that I imagine.

[DogB]

I think you would be very hard pressed to find a physics paper that rejects the standard model, or Newtons laws of motion. They may add to them or reference them, but not reject. Likewise you would not find a paper on the evolution of the horse that didn’t implicitly accept evolution. In fact I doubt you would find any field of research that didn’t have doesn’t of theories that are implicitly accepted by nearly 100% of the papers where it’s relevant to mention them.

Of course, that’s why I added the caveat that significant new research must be underway. It may surprise you to know that I do think it’s possible for a theory to become so entrenched that it effectively becomes proven*. That’s why we find flat earthers so amusing.

What I believe is that to reach this level of surety then most if not all of the variables must be well defined. At that point significant new research on the topic ceases. I mean nobody is out there trying to define the degree of sphericalness of the earth.

My believe is that the continued high level of climate research and the large error bars in expressions of factors such as CO2 sensitivity indicates that the variables aren’t yet well defined. This is why the suggestion that there are no conflicting views in the literature is so surprising to me.

Climate papers no longer ask if CO2 warms the planet they ask how much more/less then previous estimates does it warm the planet.

If the answer is much less then does the paper still ‘conform to the consensus? What if the answer is so much less that CO2 is irrelevant?

Climate no longer ask if glaciers are melting they ask when they will be gone. Climate papers no longer ask if the ocean is absorbing heat they ask “to what depth does that heat go” and so on.

Sure but unless said papers specifically address the suggested hypothesis - Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations - then they’re not relevant to the argument.

*Nothing in science is ever ‘proven’ but it’s a useful shorthand in this situation.

[DogB]

How about the theory that long duration gamma ray bursts are typically the product of massive collapsing stars from external galaxies? Let's say that the research should be confined to the last four years. I know very little about the subject, so it's just an inductive guess.

This was such a good suggestion it deserved better but it seems our lack of knowledge in this area was telling.

http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Zoology-and-wildlife-conservation/No-supernovae-associated-with-two-long-duration-gamma-ray-bursts.html

http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~avishay/grb060614.html

[Piggy]

Actually I'm fascinated this reply. I've heard about this research and never really thought about it before.

I wonder if there's any other field of science (in which significant new research is being undertaken) where 100% of new papers agree with a consensus opinion.

I’m going to go have a look. Anyone want to suggest a field?

I don't believe you'll find any biology papers taking issue with the Modern Synthesis on evolution.

[DogB]

I don't believe you'll find any biology papers taking issue with the Modern Synthesis on evolution.

The problem is that Modern Synthesis is such a catch all term. For instance do you believe that the gene centred view is ‘captured’ within the overview of modern synthesis?

You could make the case (like these guys) (http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/30) that modern synthesis is already dead.

[Piggy]

The problem is that Modern Synthesis is such a catch all term. For instance do you believe that the gene centred view is ‘captured’ within the overview of modern synthesis?

You could make the case (like these guys) (http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/30) that modern synthesis is already dead.

No. I agree with Gould that the fundamentals still stand, even as it is re-visioned, refined, and improved.

In other words, the changes don't knock the legs out from under the framework.

[lomiller]

Of course, that’s why I added the caveat that significant new research must be underway.

There is significant new research occurring in particle physics, and almost all of it touches on the standard model. There is significan new research occurring on the history of life on our planet and almost all that research touches on evolution.



What I believe is that to reach this level of surety then most if not all of the variables must be well defined. At that point significant new research on the topic ceases. I mean nobody is out there trying to define the degree of sphericalness of the earth.

On the contrary, mapping the exact shape of the surface of the earth is quite an active area, but in this case the analogy of evolution probably works better. Research into the details of evolution on this planet are quite intensely studied, that doesn’t mean there is any question about evolution itself.




If the answer is much less then does the paper still ‘conform to the consensus? What if the answer is so much less that CO2 is irrelevant?

If an 8000 year old Dinosaur skeleton were discovered would that change the consensus on evolution? Clearly not, because it, like the behavior of CO2 explains far too many things. To discard a working functional explanation you need another explanation for everything the first already explained.



Sure but unless said papers specifically address the suggested hypothesis - Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations - then they’re not relevant to the argument.

On the contrary the most powerful ideas in science are powerful precisely because they explain and link many other areas of investigation. There is no greater endorsement then using a theory to explain something else, and this is precisely where greenhouse gas theory is today. The type of research you are talking about is 50 years past and if it’s repeated it’s only to get more precise results not to overthrow the existing ones.

[cornsail]

This was such a good suggestion it deserved better but it seems our lack of knowledge in this area was telling.

http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Zoology-and-wildlife-conservation/No-supernovae-associated-with-two-long-duration-gamma-ray-bursts.html

http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~avishay/grb060614.html

Technically these don't question the theory that long gamma ray bursts are typically the product of supernovae. It appears that they were singled out as different in recognition of most bursts having a supernova-indicative signal.

[DogB]

No. I agree with Gould that the fundamentals still stand, even as it is re-visioned, refined, and improved.

In other words, the changes don't knock the legs out from under the framework.

So the words 'Modern Syntheis' are just another way of saying 'Evolution Theory'?

[DogB]

There is significant new research occurring in particle physics, and almost all of it touches on the standard model. There is significan new research occurring on the history of life on our planet and almost all that research touches on evolution.

See below

On the contrary, mapping the exact shape of the surface of the earth is quite an active area,

I’m pretty sure nobody is checking whether it’s a cube

but in this case the analogy of evolution probably works better.

Okay.

Research into the details of evolution on this planet are quite intensely studied, that doesn’t mean there is any question about evolution itself.

I could make the case that Evolution is a much much older discipline than AGW and that the watershed moment for Evolution (The Origin of the Species) hasn’t yet happened for AGW.*

IMO the debate is over in Evolution, whereas it’s barely begun with AGW. I mean when was the last time someone published a paper that explicitly defended evolution. Happens all the time in AGW.

If an 8000 year old Dinosaur skeleton were discovered would that change the consensus on evolution? Clearly not, because it, like the behavior of CO2 explains far too many things.

This seems that you are claiming that Evolution isn’t falsifiable – I’m certain that wasn’t your intent. Could you perhaps restate your point?

To discard a working functional explanation you need another explanation for everything the first already explained.

Anything but. The first time you find a piece of evidence that categorically rules out your explanation then you have no choice but to abandon it even if you have no alternative.

On the contrary the most powerful ideas in science are powerful precisely because they explain and link many other areas of investigation. There is no greater endorsement then using a theory to explain something else, and this is precisely where greenhouse gas theory is today. The type of research you are talking about is 50 years past and if it’s repeated it’s only to get more precise results not to overthrow the existing ones.

But that wasn’t my point. Remember I’m not casting an opinion on AGW here. I’m simply questioning the results of the Oreskes study. If a paper takes no position on the ‘A’ part of AGW then it’s irrelevant in this situation.

*I guess you could make a case for the 1985 Vostok ice core.

[DogB]

Technically these don't question the theory that long gamma ray bursts are typically the product of supernovae. It appears that they were singled out as different in recognition of most bursts having a supernova-indicative signal.

Pah! Semantics!

;)

[DogB]

Work now demands my attention and Christmas events are rapidly approaching so this will probably be my last post until after the day.

So I hearby wish all a very happy and safe season.

Take care.

P.

[Piggy]

So the words 'Modern Syntheis' are just another way of saying 'Evolution Theory'?

You know, perhaps I have muddled my terms, and hopefully others will correct me if I have.

My understanding (as a non-scientist) is that the MS is simply the melding of modern Darwinian theory with genetics and embryology.

It is certainly not just "evolutionary theory", however. After all, there were other evolutionary theories in Darwin's day, which were all knocked into a cocked hat by his theory of natural selection.

In any case, what I'm referring to is the core of modern evolutionary theory, which Gould sums up in a triad of core ideas which, if any were to be disproved, would nullify the entire theoretical framework:

1. The organism is the agent of selction
2. The environment is the enabler (forcer) or change
3. Natural selection is a creative force (not just a passive force that culls the excess, for example)

It's that framework which I believe is nowhere disputed in the peer-reviewed literature.

And keep in mind that Gould argues for group selection, and yet still does not discard premise 1.

[cornsail]

Pah! Semantics!

;)

Yes, but an important distinction if we're making an analogy to "most" of the recent warming being attributable to human causes. A good example would be a paper showing that the supernova signals found in most long gamma ray bursts may not actually be signals of a supernova, but something else.

[DogB]

You know, perhaps I have muddled my terms, and hopefully others will correct me if I have.

My understanding (as a non-scientist) is that the MS is simply the melding of modern Darwinian theory with genetics and embryology.

You and I understand it similarly. I use the definition that Julian Huxley used in 1942 but your summary is accurate if a little succinct.

It is certainly not just "evolutionary theory", however. After all, there were other evolutionary theories in Darwin's day, which were all knocked into a cocked hat by his theory of natural selection.

Perhaps I should have used ‘modern evolutionary theory’. MS is the widely accepted theory despite some small aspects of it being - shall we say - fine tuned. It does not, however, deal well with certain other ideas (see below).

In any case, what I'm referring to is the core of modern evolutionary theory, which Gould sums up in a triad of core ideas which, if any were to be disproved, would nullify the entire theoretical framework:

1. The organism is the agent of selction
2. The environment is the enabler (forcer) or change
3. Natural selection is a creative force (not just a passive force that culls the excess, for example)

It's that framework which I believe is nowhere disputed in the peer-reviewed literature.

And keep in mind that Gould argues for group selection, and yet still does not discard premise 1.

Hypothesis such as Dawkin’s Selfish Gene conflict with this framework. The fact that Gould (and later Eldredge) could argue this point with Dawkins is perhaps a vindication of my original point – though you could make the point that this argument is more philosophical than scientific at this stage.

[DogB]

Yes, but an important distinction if we're making an analogy to "most" of the recent warming being attributable to human causes. A good example would be a paper showing that the supernova signals found in most long gamma ray bursts may not actually be signals of a supernova, but something else.

This is a really good point and you are, of course, 100% correct.

[Piggy]

Hypothesis such as Dawkin’s Selfish Gene conflict with this framework. The fact that Gould (and later Eldredge) could argue this point with Dawkins is perhaps a vindication of my original point – though you could make the point that this argument is more philosophical than scientific at this stage.

Well, since even Dawkins stresses that the "selfish gene" is metaphor rather than biology, I don't see that it has any bearing.

[Solnishko]

Credentials anywhere within even the most general geological studies, would imply that you have most if not all of the basic tools and understandings

I really beg to differ. Just because I understand how crystalline structures form beneath the earths crust, how to identify marker minerals and things like that doesn't mean that I know the first thing about climatology. And, I don't. I really don't. My father was the same way. He didn't know anything about geology, but understood thermodynamics like nobody else I've ever met.

If this is all that you see, then perhaps you are approaching the issue through some aspect that doesn't specifically examine the issue from a mainstream scientific perspective? Do you accept the mainstream general opinions and considerations of the AGU, and the opinions and considerations of other major branches and divisions of applicable mainstream scientific understandings both within their specific area of expertise and understanding and in climate studies specifically?


See, I don't know. I've read papers, tried to understand the general science behind climatology, but... with my lack of knowledge about that specific branch of science, I don't know enough to really interpret any data or draw my own conclusions. I can give an advanced dissertation on the production of synthetic diamonds, but climate change is just not my field of expertise. At all.

So, really, I'm left with the opinions of others, which may or may not be genuine or influenced by who paid for the study. I don't really want to form a definitive position, based on something that someone else thinks.

[a_unique_person]

So, really, I'm left with the opinions of others, which may or may not be genuine or influenced by who paid for the study. I don't really want to form a definitive position, based on something that someone else thinks.

You could try reading the IPCC report.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

The technical summary and FAQ are a good place to start.

[BeAChooser]

There is no reason to doubt the science.

No, none at all. Other than a bunch of politicians and scientists at the top of the global warming heap misrepresenting truth. Other than top global warming scientists manipulating, hiding and destroying the data on which their case for global warming rests. Other than those politicians and scientists openly and covertly trying to stifle honest debate on the topic and prevent the other side from even being able to make their case. No, none at all. :rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

No, none at all. Other than a bunch of politicians and scientists at the top of the global warming heap misrepresenting truth. Other than top global warming scientists manipulating, hiding and destroying the data on which their case for global warming rests. Other than those politicians and scientists openly and covertly trying to stifle honest debate on the topic and prevent the other side from even being able to make their case. No, none at all. :rolleyes:

You aren't talking about the science, but about the political frenzy stirred since the deniers can't counter the science.

[Piggy]

No, none at all. Other than a bunch of politicians and scientists at the top of the global warming heap misrepresenting truth. Other than top global warming scientists manipulating, hiding and destroying the data on which their case for global warming rests. Other than those politicians and scientists openly and covertly trying to stifle honest debate on the topic and prevent the other side from even being able to make their case. No, none at all.

Since everything you cite is wrong, well yeah, none at all.

And if you care to debate those points, I'm sure that I and others here will be happy to debunk every bit of it.

Not that you'll pay any attention.

[Hallo Alfie]

No, none at all. Other than a bunch of politicians and scientists at the top of the global warming heap misrepresenting truth. Other than top global warming scientists manipulating, hiding and destroying the data on which their case for global warming rests. Other than those politicians and scientists openly and covertly trying to stifle honest debate on the topic and prevent the other side from even being able to make their case. No, none at all. :rolleyes:

Whether this is 100% true is not even relevant.
The fact is that the perception is that it is the case.

Perception is reality, and Joe Sixpack still has a voice through people like you BAC.

[a_unique_person]

Whether this is 100% true is not even relevant.
The fact is that the perception is that it is the case.

Perception is reality, and Joe Sixpack still has a voice through people like you BAC.

LOL.

[varwoche]

Whether this is 100% true is not even relevant.
The fact is that the perception is that it is the case.

Perception is reality, and Joe Sixpack still has a voice through people like you BAC. Up is down, black is white, perception is reality, and all is good in the ideological cocoon -- constructed from materials impervious to fact and unwittingly decorated with the perfect bumper sticker:

Whether this is 100% true is not even relevant

All hail Joe Sixpack.

[Skeptic]

Another problem is that global warming became a sort of social taboo. To say global warming is not occurring is not to say something wrong, it is to say something disgusting, like denying the holocaust or claiming slavery should be brought back.

[GreyICE]

Another problem is that global warming became a sort of social taboo. To say global warming is not occurring is not to say something wrong, it is to say something disgusting, like denying the holocaust or claiming slavery should be brought back.

More like something hideously embarrassing, like claiming that God created the earth 6,000 years ago and scientists serving Satan have created a false theory to indoctrinate the children.

No, it's not on the same level as the 'rah, rah, Hitler' crowd, but it's still like getting slapped in the face with a wet fish, in this day and age.

[Hallo Alfie]

Up is down, black is white, perception is reality, and all is good in the ideological cocoon -- constructed from materials impervious to fact and unwittingly decorated with the perfect bumper sticker:

Whether this is 100% true is not even relevant

All hail Joe Sixpack.

Edited for Rule 12.
Another problem is that global warming became a sort of social taboo. To say global warming is not occurring is not to say something wrong, it is to say something disgusting, like denying the holocaust or claiming slavery should be brought back.

My continued and untaken challenge is for you warmers to find three (just three!) on this forum that deny global warming is occuring.
Those on this forum are skeptical of the 'A' in AGW.

More like something hideously embarrassing, like claiming that God created the earth 6,000 years ago and scientists serving Satan have created a false theory to indoctrinate the children.

In actual fact it is the other way around.
The high priests of the AGW world have a theory and sell it to the masses, who in true groupthink fashion swallow up the whole lot as 100% fact.
Not a modicum of critical thinking or questioning takes place amongst the ignorant masses.

Remember, the opposite to skeptical is gullible.

No, it's not on the same level as the 'rah, rah, Hitler' crowd, but it's still like getting slapped in the face with a wet fish, in this day and age.

Just three.
Whenever you like.

[Ambrosia]

Those on this forum are skeptical of the 'A' in AGW.

I have a random question for people skeptical of the A in AGW.

What is so terrible about reducing the amount of CO2 we dump into the atmosphere?

If it turns out that GW is not our fault, and we reduce CO2 emissions anyway, what have we lost?

[elbe]

I have a random question for people skeptical of the A in AGW.

What is so terrible about reducing the amount of CO2 we dump into the atmosphere?

If it turns out that GW is not our fault, and we reduce CO2 emissions anyway, what have we lost?

From what I've seen, they generally think it's a good thing - unless it hurts business, for those with a more libertarian mindset.

[BeAChooser]

What is so terrible about reducing the amount of CO2 we dump into the atmosphere?

What is so good about destroying our economic competitiveness (and the truth) in order to do it?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/tst062609a.cfm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwCqbzM-g_I

[Peephole]

Reposting The Great Global Warming Swindle without its title, isn't going to fool people, BeAChooser.

[Hallo Alfie]

I have a random question for people skeptical of the A in AGW.

What is so terrible about reducing the amount of CO2 we dump into the atmosphere?

If it turns out that GW is not our fault, and we reduce CO2 emissions anyway, what have we lost?

Not much at all, however, there is a little thing called honesty that pops into ones mind. If certain elements are prepared to lie to meet an end, what more are they prepared to do? One immediately questions their motives and their agenda.

If the problem were addressed as simply one of global warming (as opposed to AGW) the scentific, political and popular take would be a lot different.

Personally speaking, I think things at Copenhagen would have taken a far different course had this been the case.

I also think that most reasonable people agree that polution is not good, that fossil fuels will run out, that population growth may need addressing and that people will be disaffected by the natural phenonenon that is global warming.

All these things need to be rationally and calmly discussed without the "sky is falling" alarmism that often calls for the dismantling of so much infrastructure, wealth distribution and some proposed harmful "social" reforms.

[Ambrosia]

I've run these posts through a filtration system thats designed to cancel out all of the extraneous filler. It's not perfect, and I can only apologise if it reads your post incorrectly.

What is so good about destroying our econom[y]

What is so good about our economy?

It captures most of the wealth of the planet and distributes it disproportionately to the top few % of people that live on it.

The Great Global Warming Swindle was described by the man who commissioned it as as being made to present the viewpoint of the minority of scientists who don't believe the A in AGW. Keyword there being "minority". Only they couldn't manage that very well, the film is riddled with errors and has been thoroughly discreditted.

The heritage foundation are a republican think tank who seem more concerned with preserving the status quo, whereby they are some of the top few % that do well out of the current wealth distribution model, than much else.

wealth [re]distribution

The cry of the people who say that the A in AGW is wrong always seems to come down to money.

Regardless of whos fault it is the earth is warming. The consequences of this warming mean that sea levels will rise, and that stable climate patterns will shift.

The infrastructure and wealth distribution systems we use are going to have to change regardless of whether we made the place warmer, or random chance did.

[Hallo Alfie]

The cry of the people who say that the A in AGW is wrong always seems to come down to money.

Regardless of whos fault it is the earth is warming. The consequences of this warming mean that sea levels will rise, and that stable climate patterns will shift.

The infrastructure and wealth distribution systems we use are going to have to change regardless of whether we made the place warmer, or random chance did.


Apart from the fact that you have selected just one line or a couple of words from a series of comments, I agree with what you say in general terms. That said, why we need to "change" the infrastructure and redistribute wealth in the hasty radical fashions is why there is a large level of distrust. The warmer zealots want to make change so fast that it makes ones head spin.

Add to this level of distrust the additional inconsistencies, political agendas and major and minor controversies around AGW and the climate (pun intended) is ripe for skepticism.

[a_unique_person]

In actual fact it is the other way around.
The high priests of the AGW world have a theory and sell it to the masses, who in true groupthink fashion swallow up the whole lot as 100% fact.
Not a modicum of critical thinking or questioning takes place amongst the ignorant masses.





Now who's being elitist? :whistling

[Hallo Alfie]

??

[Ambrosia]

why we need to "change" the infrastructure and redistribute wealth in the hasty radical fashions is why there is a large level of distrust. The warmer zealots want to make change so fast that it makes ones head spin.

Aha!

So you do agree the climate is warming, and you do agree that we need to make changes?

Do you agree that CO2 bears at least some portion of the blame for the observed warming?

[a_unique_person]

??

The high priests of the AGW world have a theory and sell it to the masses, who in true groupthink fashion swallow up the whole lot as 100% fact.

:whistling

[Hallo Alfie]

Aha!

So you do agree the climate is warming,

You seem surprised. My opinion has always been such.
So "yes".

and you do agree that we need to make changes?

I agree that assistance will be required for some to meet the challenges that climate change brings.
The short answer is again "yes" but with many checks and balances.

Do you agree that CO2 bears at least some portion of the blame for the observed warming?

Why would you think this? I remain skeptical.

[Hallo Alfie]

:whistling

What's your point?

[quixotecoyote]

What's your point?

That only you and those who agree with you are smart enough see through the webs of deception perpetrated upon a gullible public. Oh, and that everyone is elitist.

I personally get a chuckle that you're still making an assertion that you laughably failed to substantiate in the other thread.

[Hallo Alfie]

Oh, and that everyone is elitist.

At the risk of getting too far off topic; where have I accused anyone of elitism? If this is the thrust of his point, it's no wonder I don't get it.

[Ambrosia]

Why would you think this? I remain skeptical.

Aren't skeptics supposed to be swayed by evidence?

There is lots of credible evidence that CO2 is a major contributor to GW. Maybe I missed it but I cant find any credible evidence that CO2 has nothing to do with the warming we are observing.

In your opinion, and based on what evidence, what changes should we make in order to try to combat the observed warming trend of our planet?

If we dont know the cause how do we stop it?

If we have a pile of evidence to suggest CO2 is a very probable cause does it not make sense to act on that evidence and take steps to reduce our CO2 output?

[Hallo Alfie]

Aren't skeptics supposed to be swayed by evidence?

Sure. Unbiased absolute proof will do just fine.

There is lots of credible evidence that CO2 is a major contributor to GW.

According to who? Is this absolute proof?

Maybe I missed it but I cant find any credible evidence that CO2 has nothing to do with the warming we are observing.

Your not looking hard enough.

In your opinion, and based on what evidence, what changes should we make in order to try to combat the observed warming trend of our planet?

I don't know exactly but that seems a topic for another thread. That said I agree that certain things may need to be done to assist in combating global warming. I do not see that the total eradication of co2 is one of them.

Now, in your opinion, what do you think should be done?

If we dont know the cause how do we stop it?

Why do we need to stop it?
The globe has been warmer than this previously and it has been colder previously. We (and the earth) seemed to manage ok in the past.

If we have a pile of evidence to suggest CO2 is a very probable cause does it not make sense to act on that evidence and take steps to reduce our CO2 output?

So we don't have absolute proof, after all.
My bold

[Ambrosia]

Sure. Unbiased absolute proof will do just fine.


Well if you are going to wait for absolute proof then that might be a long wait.


According to who? Is this absolute proof?


According to the majority of climate scientists, whos articles are published in scientific journals. No it does not constitute absolute proof.


Your not looking hard enough.

But I am looking really, really hard, care to help educate me and point me towards some science or evidence that supports your position?


I don't know exactly but that seems a topic for another thread. That said I agree that certain things may need to be done to assist in combating global warming. I do not see that the total eradication of co2 is one of them.

Perhaps you are right and the issue of what to do about GW regardless of its cause is best kept to another thread. I'll go start a new thread.

Though I dont think anyone anywhere has ever advocated the total eradication of CO2, I'd quite like to see us take steps that significantly reduce our CO2 output, I'd like to see all new builds be made to paint their roofs white, and all new roads made to be more reflective and not made from black tar, and huuuuuuuuuuge incentives given to tech companies researching non fossil fuels like say these people (http://www.ls9.com/) or companies developing much more efficient solar panels like these (http://www.ecogeek.org/solar-power/294)


Now, in your opinion, what do you think should be done?


see above.


Why do we need to stop it?
The globe has been warmer than this previously and it has been colder previously. We (and the earth) seemed to manage ok in the past.


When has the earth been warmer than this while supporting this many people? Of courtse the earth will likely still be here until Sol goes red giant regardless of whether any life exists on it or not.


So we don't have absolute proof, after all.
My bold

No absolute proof, true. I just think the balance of evidence so far points to the fact that CO2 is a major factor in climate change.

If you look at the credible scientific evidence on the issue, what do you believe it points towards?

I would like to see the majority of discussions change from arguing over the cause, to working out how we can ameliorate the effects of climate change for our future, but thats just me.

[daenku32]

Does Alfie ever buy a car? I'm currently debating on buying one, but I'm really not sure if I should. A few car dealerships are running specials in which they have knocked down a few grand below the MSRP, yet, I'm looking for evidence that these would be the best deal. I'm weighing my current POS, future income due to move and graduation, the used car market, fuel prices and car fuel economy, etc, etc... Yet without a real independent market study that takes all these personal conditions into consideration I really cannot have absolutely proof that buying the car is the best thing to do. By the time I would gain this absolute proof my situation will likely have changed, different cars would be on the market, and incentives will likely be different as well. So, I'm going to be stuck in perpetual research mode with zero action if I keep waiting to get that absolute evidence of the proper car to buy, or whether I should not buy one at all. In the former case, at least I know I would have a reliable car, in the latter case I might end up broken down on the side of the road with the kids on the back seat. And while the case for a new car goes up every day simply due to deterioration of my current POS, lack of absolute proof dictates that I should just take it day by day in it and keep up the wishful thinking that eventually I'll have absolute certainty of what to do, and by then I hope I won't be such a bad situation that I'll have no option but to get the first car that comes my way, regardless of any cost-benefit analysis.

[Ambrosia]

that seems a topic for another thread.

Your input would be welcomed in my shiny new thread discussing this very issue.

over here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5503607#post5503607)

[elbe]

Alfie doesn't really seem to like talking facts, just implied accusations of conspiracies (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162714) and not so subtle insults (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162936) to anyone who doesn't see it like he does.

[Hallo Alfie]

Alfie doesn't really seem to like talking facts, just implied accusations of conspiracies and not so subtle insults to anyone who doesn't see it like he does.

And thanks for your informed, succinct and well considered facts on the matter at hand.

[Thunder]

Sure. Unbiased absolute proof will do just fine.

well, you seem to have already made up your mind. AGW is fake...phony....nada....doesn't exist. No amount of scientific research can change your mind. No matter how thorough or well corroborated.

sleep well.

[Hallo Alfie]

well, you seem to have already made up your mind. AGW is fake...phony....nada....doesn't exist. No amount of scientific research can change your mind. No matter how thorough or well corroborated.

sleep well.


Please show me where I have said that AGW is "fake", "phony" or "nada".
I remain skeptical in the light of anything that is unproven. I don't believe in ghosts either, but accept they may be a possibility. AGW is much the same.

Unlike others, I simply choose not to fall into line (yet) with the lemmings that follow the leader blindly over the cliff. Others may if they wish - that is their prerogative, but I don't have to remain silent about it, do I?

[Thunder]

I remain skeptical in the light of anything that is unproven. I don't believe in ghosts either, but accept they may be a possibility. AGW is much the same.


will you concede that there is just a weee bit more scientific evidence in AGW, than the existence of ghosts?

are you man enough to do that?

[Hallo Alfie]

Yep. No problem there.

[varwoche]

I choose not to bleat with the sheep nor follow like a lemming. There are lemmings and then there are contra-lemmings. Both being lemmings.

[varwoche]

Sure. Unbiased absolute proof will do just fine. This boldly underscores a lack of understanding about science.

There isn't absolute proof that smoking causes cancer.
There isn't absolute proof of evolution.
There isn't absolute proof that 911 wasn't an inside job.
There isn't absolute proof that everyone posting here except me isn't a bot. (Well, at least from my perspective.)
There isn't absolute proof that hemorrhoids aren't a symptom of mass anal probes by space aliens.

[Hallo Alfie]

There are lemmings and then there are contra-lemmings. Both being lemmings.

So we are all lemmings? At least we are getting somewhere.:)

This boldly underscores a lack of understanding about science.

Maybe, but I doubt it is that complicated.



There isn't absolute proof that smoking causes cancer.
There isn't absolute proof of evolution.
There isn't absolute proof that 911 wasn't an inside job.
There isn't absolute proof that everyone posting here except me isn't a bot. (Well, at least from my perspective.)
There isn't absolute proof that hemorrhoids aren't a symptom of mass anal probes by space aliens.


Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the variables in each of the (serious) items in your list, are far fewer, far less complicated, have been 'proven' time and again as accurate, far more than the case put forward for AGW.
Moreover, there is absolute and absolute. If there is (say) a 95% chance of something being true, I think I could accept that as absolute.

So, in percentage terms, what would you think:
- the link of smoking and cancer to be?
- evolution as fact?
- CO2 and AGW?

[lomiller]

Well if you are going to wait for absolute proof then that might be a long wait.


Indeed. Since science does not provide absolute proof, demanding absolute proof is a tacit admission you have left the realm of science and evidence and moved on to a quasi-religious explanations for the natural world.

[Peephole]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the variables in each of the (serious) items in your list, are far fewer, far less complicated, have been 'proven' time and again as accurate, far more than the case put forward for AGW.
Moreover, there is absolute and absolute. If there is (say) a 95% chance of something being true, I think I could accept that as absolute.

So, in percentage terms, what would you think:
- the link of smoking and cancer to be?
- evolution as fact?
- CO2 and AGW?
The IPCC in 2007 put it this way:

"Most (+50%) of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (+90% probability) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

[varwoche]

So we are all lemmings? At least we are getting somewhere.:) My point is that people who go against the grain are sometimes acting like lemmings. I see that with many libertarians and with a/gw pseudo-skeptics (an overlapping demographic indeed). It's a cultist mindset. Anyone who disagrees with The One Truth is called a lemming or such. Like you did in the post I quoted.

Now, before you write something like "that's my point" bear in mind: Those pesky things called facts have a way of sorting this stuff out.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the variables in each of the (serious) items in your list, are far fewer, far less complicated, have been 'proven' time and again as accurate, far more than the case put forward for AGW. You've apparently conceded that your demand for "absolute proof" is BS, and I'm content to leave it there.

[Hallo Alfie]

My point is that people who go against the grain are sometimes acting like lemmings. I see that with many libertarians and with a/gw pseudo-skeptics (an overlapping demographic indeed). It's a cultist mindset. Anyone who disagrees with The One Truth is called a lemming or such. Like you did in the post I quoted.

"The one truth" - and you accuse me of cultism?

Now, before you write something like "that's my point" bear in mind: Those pesky things called facts have a way of sorting this stuff out.

Quite right. Theory is not fact.

You've apparently conceded that your demand for "absolute proof" is BS, and I'm content to leave it there.

Not at all, I have 'reframed my definition' in line with you correctly pointing out difficulties with absolutes and 100%ers.
Seems you are wishing to avoid answering my question around the %s on the other examples you cited.

[Megalodon]

"The one truth" - and you accuse me of cultism?

Really, reading comprehension classes will help you reply to what people are actually writing.

[Piggy]

Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

[elbe]

Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

It's an amusing coincidence you saying that with your pseudonym.

[Piggy]

It's an amusing coincidence you saying that with your pseudonym.

Hey, I speak from experience here. ;)