PDA

View Full Version : James Randi should watch this video users videos in full about AGW


duras
16th December 2009, 08:31 AM
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

They're very good and summarize the evidence well. The user also goes over (and debunks or validates) claims by skeptics and some claims by proponents (but non-scientists) like Al Gore.

I just can't stand that my biggest hero is so wrong on this subject. The whole time while reading his latest piece all i could think was, "he sounds like a goddamn creationist!"

Careyp74
16th December 2009, 08:48 AM
you might want to state some actual claims instead of just pointing us towards a video user.

Also, are you referring to Randi as your biggest hero? If so, what aspects of his latest piece (please link so that his next latest piece isn't confusing the topic) makes him sound like a creationist?

cornsail
16th December 2009, 08:55 AM
His citing of the petition project (who's scientists are not even climate scientists) reminds me of some truther arguments. Petitions in general are a terrible form of evidence. And he fails to cite any actual science that is contrary to the IPCC, he just seems to assume that it exists.

BenBurch
16th December 2009, 08:58 AM
This belongs in the CT thread.

macdoc
16th December 2009, 09:05 AM
Besides Randi admits he knows nothing about the science...

I strongly suspect that The Petition Project may be valid. I base this on my admittedly rudimentary knowledge of the facts about planet Earth. This ball of hot rock and salt water spins on its axis and rotates about the Sun with the expected regularity, though we're aware that lunar tides, solar wind, galactic space dust and geomagnetic storms have cooled the planet by about one centigrade degree in the past 150 years. The myriad of influences that act upon Earth are so many and so variable -- though not capricious -- that I believe we simply cannot formulate an equation into which we enter variables and come up with an answer. A living planet will continually belch, vibrate, fracture, and crumble a bit, and thus defeat an accurate equation. Please note that this my amateur opinion, based on probably insufficient data.if deniers think this somehow validates their nonense - weill it confirms the term denidiots. :garfield:

Towlie
16th December 2009, 09:22 AM
This belongs in the CT thread.I wish I had time to figure out what the "CT thread" is, but I don't so I'll just mention here that P. Z. Myers is upset with James Randi.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/say_it_aint_so_randi.php

A link to the "CT thread" would have been helpful.

godofpie
16th December 2009, 09:29 AM
Mr Randi's AGW post-

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html

CT Forum
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=91

yairhol
16th December 2009, 09:42 AM
you might want to state some actual claims instead of just pointing us towards a video user.

Also, are you referring to Randi as your biggest hero? If so, what aspects of his latest piece (please link so that his next latest piece isn't confusing the topic) makes him sound like a creationist?
I see you haven't visited the science forum lately...
Anyone who objects AGW is immediately called a creationist, a flat earth believer, etc...
You should visit that section of the forum. It's sometimes hillarious.

David Wong
16th December 2009, 09:45 AM
I see you haven't visited the science forum lately...
Anyone who objects AGW is immediately called a creationist, a flat earth believer, etc...
You should visit that section of the forum. It's sometimes hillarious.

This is because deniers use creationist and flat-earther arguments. If they would ever bring actual data maybe someone would take them seriously.

But it is hilarious, though.

Towlie
16th December 2009, 09:51 AM
Anyone who objects AGW is immediately called a creationist, a flat earth believer, etc..."Flat Earth believer" is an exaggeration, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to equate a global warming denier to an evolution denier. Both positions require blindness to overwhelming facts are therefore about equally absurd.

yairhol
16th December 2009, 11:07 AM
"Flat Earth believer" is an exaggeration, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to equate a global warming denier to an evolution denier. Both positions require blindness to overwhelming facts are therefore about equally absurd.
Ahh...no...
The disagreement is regarding the A in AGW. Not the GW in AGW. :eye-poppi

duras
16th December 2009, 11:14 AM
"Flat Earth believer" is an exaggeration, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to equate a global warming denier to an evolution denier. Both positions require blindness to overwhelming facts are therefore about equally absurd.

I do think that global warming deniers have a slightly stronger case than creationists, but it's a similar pattern of distorting data, outright denying data, ignoring data, and pure ignorance. The people who deny global warming tend to know very little about it (and the same goes for creationists).

The main reason I think they have a stronger case is because of one of Randi's main points: the future IS very hard to predict. However, the latest data, such as the old ice melting in the polar caps, temperatures rising globally, all correlated with rising CO2 and other greenhouse gasses shows a clear trend. To make matters worse, the sun is actually in a "cool" cycle and temperatures STILL continue to rise. If we were in the 1970s, I'd agree with everything he said. Today he's demonstrably wrong. And the fact that he brought up that petition is just embarrassing.

Towlie
16th December 2009, 11:27 AM
The disagreement is regarding the A in AGW. Not the GW in AGW.Most global warming deniers don't bother to differentiate between the two anyway, and will often switch back and forth freely in the course of a debate. They'll simultaneously claim that global warming doesn't exist and that mankind isn't responsible for it.

Others who do accept global warming often take the position that we don't need to do anything about it unless it can be proved that mankind is causing it. That's absurd enough as it stands considering what we're doing to our atmosphere, but even if it had any substance it would make about as much sense as saying we should never fight forest fires that were started by natural causes.

If it will make you feel any better, I'll equate anthropogenic global warming deniers to evolution deniers, but I'll equate general global warming deniers to young Earth creationists who believe the Earth is only 6000 years old.

macdoc
16th December 2009, 11:37 AM
:thumbsup::garfield:

shawmutt
16th December 2009, 11:50 AM
Most global warming deniers don't bother to differentiate between the two anyway, and will often switch back and forth freely in the course of a debate. They'll simultaneously claim that global warming doesn't exist and that mankind isn't responsible for it.

Others who do accept global warming often take the position that we don't need to do anything about it unless it can be proved that mankind is causing it.

False dichotomy. I accept global warming, and I say we can't do anything about it--might as well stock up on ammo and learn ways to work around ol' Mother Nature.


That's absurd enough as it stands considering what we're doing to our atmosphere, but even if it had any substance it would make about as much sense as saying we should never fight forest fires that were started by natural causes.

By preventing forest fires, we were actually causing more problems. Only after a bit of experience did we start using controlled burns to reduce the amount of fuel for forest fires--which adds to global warming, of course ;)

bobdroege7
16th December 2009, 11:55 AM
From Randi's post






Our Earth's atmosphere is approximately 80% nitrogen, 20% oxygen. Just .04% is carbon dioxide -- a "trace" amount. But from that tiny percentage is built all the plants we have on Earth. CO2 is a natural molecule absolutely required for plant life to survive, and in the process of growing, those plants give off oxygen. We -- and all animal life -- consume that oxygen and give off CO2. (No, this is not an example of Intelligent Design.) If that balance is sufficiently disturbed, species either adapt or perish. And the world turns...

Incidentally, we have a convenient phenomenon that contributes to our survival. Doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere will not double the temperature rise, small though it is. The basic principle of what's known as the "greenhouse effect" is quite simple: in a glass-enclosed environment, sunlight enters through the glass and strikes a surface, where it is transformed into longer infrared rays which do not easily reflect back through the glass; they're trapped. and raise the temperature. However, the greenhouse effect as applied to our planet is more complicated. The infrared rays that are reflected back from the Earth are trapped by the greenhouse gases, water vapor and CO2 -- a process that warms those gases and heats the Earth. This effect makes Earth habitable, preventing extremes of temperature. The limit of the influence of CO2 is dictated, not by the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but by the amount of solar radiation reflected back from the Earth. Once all the infrared rays have been "captured" by the greenhouse gases there is no additional increase in carbon dioxide.

Yes, we produce CO2, by burning "fossil fuels" and by simply breathing. And every fossil fuel produces CO2. Some products produce more than others, varying with their chemical composition. Methane gas produces less CO2, wood produces more. But almost paradoxically, when wood burns it produces CO2, and when a tree dies and rots it produces yet more CO2. Oceans are huge storage tanks for CO2, but as they warm up, they hold less of the dissolved gas. They release it into the atmosphere, then more of it is absorbed back into the oceans. And as far as humans are concerned, ten times more people die each year from the effects of cold than die from the heat. This a hugely complex set of variables we are trying to reduce to an equation






The first paragraph repeats the oft heard "trace gas" argument, which can be soundly debunked by pointing out that gases act independently of each other, and the other gases in the atmosphere such as Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon are opaque in the infared, so the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant, it only matters how much is there.

The second paragraph is even worse. He totally misrepresents the so called greenhouse effect due to his evident misunderstanding of the same. There is no magical transformation of the light rays hitting the surface into infared. It just isn't even wrong.
The last sentence "once all the infared rays have been captured by the greenhouse gases there is no increase in carbon dioxide" is an even better example of not even being wrong, as all the infared rays are never totally captured by the greenhouse gases, as there is a near endless string of absorb, transfer the energy to other nearby molecules or remit, and then absorb and so on. Its the top of the atmosphere energy balance that is important. More CO2 below the top of the atmosphere requires more heat at the surface for the energy to balance.


And in the last paragraph, as the oceans warm, they hold less of the gas, is true as we all like to drink our carbonated beverages cold, as cold water holds more CO2 than warm water. But what does "They release it into the atmosphere, then more of it is absorbed back into the oceans." mean?
As the oceans warm and release CO2, then how do they reabsorb it if they have released it due to the reduced solubility with increased temperature.

I know the science is difficult, but please do examine it before you publish such drivel.

CoolSceptic
16th December 2009, 12:51 PM
Just one comment.

James Randi FTW.

That is all.

:)

macdoc
16th December 2009, 03:57 PM
I guess this applies to you as well then....from Randi's post

. I base this on my admittedly rudimentary knowledge of the facts about planet Earth. This ball of hot rock and salt water spins on its axis and rotates about the Sun with the expected regularity, though we're aware that lunar tides, solar wind, galactic space dust and geomagnetic storms have cooled the planet by about one centigrade degree in the past 150 years. The myriad of influences that act upon Earth are so many and so variable -- though not capricious -- that I believe we simply cannot formulate an equation into which we enter variables and come up with an answer. A living planet will continually belch, vibrate, fracture, and crumble a bit, and thus defeat an accurate equation. Please note that this my amateur opinion, based on probably insufficient data.

Fine well informed hero you've put there CS.....par for the course...at least he knows he's poorly informed on the science and the planet.....the same lacunae amply demonstrated time and again here by the denier cadre.
But he's honest about it......:garfield:

kevinquinnyo
16th December 2009, 05:31 PM
It is just so bizarre that James Randi's opening line is "I strongly suspect that The Petition Project may be valid."

It's weird, because, although I admit I haven't read the entire thing, or researched any bit of its claims, my first impression is "I strongly suspect this is fishy as hell."

He admits his own ignorance, as do I, but how he came to the "strong [assumption] of validity," I just don't understand.

athon
16th December 2009, 05:37 PM
By preventing forest fires, we were actually causing more problems. Only after a bit of experience did we start using controlled burns to reduce the amount of fuel for forest fires--which adds to global warming, of course ;)

I know it was a facetious comment (not knocking that), but just to put the facts out there, forest fires aren't as bad as they first seem with regards to global warming. They only release about 15% of their carbon as CO2, and the new growth acts as one hell of a sink. All of the burnt wood and soot becomes part of the soil, sinking that carbon away.

Athon

athon
16th December 2009, 05:47 PM
He admits his own ignorance, as do I, but how he came to the "strong [assumption] of validity," I just don't understand.

This was the point I was making in another thread.

The damage has been done - he could retract, but I don't think the problem is so much that this is his opinion, but rather that he's readily acknowledged he isn't well informed and still proclaims his confidence in it.

If Randi had have admitted he suspected AGW was a farce while sitting around one day, shooting the breeze, I'd be surprised but would be happy to discuss it. SWIFT, however, is his soapbox. It's his pulpit. All well and good for skepticism to be about knowing your limits, but if a creationist had have admitted he knew little about biology before condemning evolution, I strongly doubt Randi would be all that forgiving.

Athon

applecorped
16th December 2009, 06:20 PM
:magnifygl:lightbulb:tombstone

Piggy
16th December 2009, 06:33 PM
I know the science is difficult, but please do examine it before you publish such drivel.

It is indeed sad to see Randi being so decidedly unskeptical.

There is so much good information out there that although the actual science is difficult, complex, and highly technical, it doesn't take a burdensome amount of research to debunk the anti-AGW arguments and to confirm that AGW is accepted mainstream science, and for very good reason.

It was especially sad to see Randi flirting with conspiracy theories, along with the repetition of roundly debunked arguments.

With all due respect, if Randi doesn't care to dive in and inform himself on the topic, he shouldn't be writing about it beyond saying, "I really haven't done any research on it, so I don't have any informed opinion".

:(:(:(

fourtoe
16th December 2009, 06:44 PM
That petition is pretty sketchy. I hope that ppl have already drawn Randi's attention to the fact that the fictional doctors from M*A*S*H and Spice Girl Geri Halliwell have signed the petition.

Come on Randi!

Puppycow
16th December 2009, 07:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

They're very good and summarize the evidence well. The user also goes over (and debunks or validates) claims by skeptics and some claims by proponents (but non-scientists) like Al Gore.

I just can't stand that my biggest hero is so wrong on this subject. The whole time while reading his latest piece all i could think was, "he sounds like a goddamn creationist!"

Peter Sinclair is really awesome.

If, like me, one suffers from Eyes Glazing Over when confronted with a stack of journal studies, but nonetheless wants to learn enough about AGW to have an informed opinion, Peter Sinclair's videos are an excellent intro.

Puppycow
16th December 2009, 07:30 PM
People shouldn't get too worked up about this.
Randi did say that he's an amateur and that this is his personal opinion.
He could have stuck to his previous policy and said nothing, but lots of people have been asking him to clarify his personal views, which he did. And he was smart enough to be aware of his own ignorance on the subject.

There's nothing wrong with being wrong for a skeptic. It only becomes a crime against skepticism and critical thinking when you remain impervious to compelling evidence and arguments and stubbornly persist in being wrong despite overwhelming evidence.

Here's another suggestion FWIW: A Climate Skeptic's Conversion (Little Green Footballs) (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35246_A_Climate_Skeptics_Conversion)
Global warming is real (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6931598.ece)
Both of these are by former climate skeptics.

Piggy
16th December 2009, 08:19 PM
There's nothing wrong with being wrong for a skeptic. It only becomes a crime against skepticism and critical thinking when you remain impervious to compelling evidence and arguments and stubbornly persist in being wrong despite overwhelming evidence.

There is something wrong, though, with coming out and saying there's reason to trust a flakey petition, and saying that there's a scientific controversy where none exists and reason to doubt the science where none exists, and repeating debunked ideas.

Randi went way beyond merely saying, "Gee, I don't really know."

Puppycow
16th December 2009, 08:34 PM
There is something wrong, though, with coming out and saying there's reason to trust a flakey petition, and saying that there's a scientific controversy where none exists and reason to doubt the science where none exists, and repeating debunked ideas.

Randi went way beyond merely saying, "Gee, I don't really know."

Well this can be a "teachable moment" then.

Hallo Alfie
17th December 2009, 01:15 AM
Most global warming deniers don't bother to differentiate between the two anyway, and will often switch back and forth freely in the course of a debate. They'll simultaneously claim that global warming doesn't exist and that mankind isn't responsible for it.

Rubbish!
I would challenge you to find three that consrtibute regularly in this forum that do not differentiate between GW and AGW.

I would suggest that those on this forum accept Global Warming as a reality but simply remain skeptical of the A in AGW.

athon
17th December 2009, 01:23 AM
There's nothing wrong with being wrong for a skeptic. It only becomes a crime against skepticism and critical thinking when you remain impervious to compelling evidence and arguments and stubbornly persist in being wrong despite overwhelming evidence.


On one level, this is true. Yet there is also nothing wrong with simply saying you abstain from presenting an opinion. So what if he's pressed? It's Randi - he's hardly one to bow to perceived pressure. Why be forced to adopt a position you admittedly know little on? If cornered, I might admit I know little about string theory but what I do know sounds a bit weird. But I wouldn't stand before a large crowd and say I think it's bunk...oh, but I'm fairly ignorant on the mathematics.

In any case, do you seriously think Randi would be so kind if some politician publically denounced evolution while admitting they didn't know much about it? Seriously?

Athon

cornsail
17th December 2009, 01:57 AM
Rubbish!
I would challenge you to find three that consrtibute regularly in this forum that do not differentiate between GW and AGW.

I would suggest that those on this forum accept Global Warming as a reality but simply remain skeptical of the A in AGW.

common anti global warming arguments:

-"the world has been cooling [or stopped warming] since 1998"
-"CRU emails reveal that data was faked to hide the decline in temperature"
-"the arctic passage being open is nothing new"
-"in the 1970s scientists were predicting global cooling"
-"station temperature data is adjusted to show warming where there is none"
-"temperature data is unreliable due to urbanization, which biases it towards finding warming"
-"troposphere data shows that warming isn't really happening"
-"the 'hockey stick' graph which shows a steep warming trend was debunked"

Hallo Alfie
17th December 2009, 02:24 AM
common anti global warming arguments:

-"the world has been cooling [or stopped warming] since 1998"
-"CRU emails reveal that data was faked to hide the decline in temperature"
-"the arctic passage being open is nothing new"
-"in the 1970s scientists were predicting global cooling"
-"station temperature data is adjusted to show warming where there is none"
-"temperature data is unreliable due to urbanization, which biases it towards finding warming"
-"troposphere data shows that warming isn't really happening"
-"the 'hockey stick' graph which shows a steep warming trend was debunked"


Just three contributors, that's all.

By the way, none of those come close to showing the skeptics in this forum do not think there is climate change (or GW if you prefer). They are reasons as to why the A in AGW is questionable.

macdoc
17th December 2009, 04:11 AM
Still trying to do science by popular opinion AA ???
...that you choose to stay ill informed is your own decision......we'll simply continue to point it out and ask for backup of your argument - whatever that is. :garfield:

BillyJoe
17th December 2009, 04:16 AM
I stopped reading Swift after Randi's ignorant remarks about Evolution.

And I see no point in reading the opinion of someone who admits he is an amateur and admits his opinion is based on an incomplete knowledge of the facts (as if that's an excuse).

Sadly, Randi is no longer one of the people I admire or pay much attention ot these days. He really has lost his edge and his good sense.

BillyJoe

athon
17th December 2009, 04:32 AM
I stopped reading Swift after Randi's ignorant remarks about Evolution.

And I see no point in reading the opinion of someone who admits he is an amateur and admits his opinion is based on an incomplete knowledge of the facts (as if that's an excuse).

Sadly, Randi is no longer one of the people I admire or pay much attention ot these days. He really has lost his edge and his good sense.

BillyJoe

I'm more or less with you on that.

Randi's knack was with the 'Houdini' old-school skepticism - showing how the seemingly impossible tricks of psychics and hucksters could be done without resorting to the paranormal. He won my admiration for that and I still think his presence in that regard will one day be missed. We need magicians who are prepared to get angry over their art being abused by charlatans.

However my respect began to wane when I discovered personally he had little interest in knowing how to approach education. It was the old 'everybody is an expert in education' wall I was facing. Then there were certain premature conclusions and opinions on matters of science that threw me. Such as this.

I will always view Randi as the magician who showed people how they could be fooled. Beyond that...I can only agree with you.

Athon

macdoc
17th December 2009, 04:34 AM
Reflects my assessment as well, Randi has tarnished his reputation

....good posts....both.:thumbsup:

Shermer certainly is honest in his path

Confessions of a Former Environmental Skeptic

April 2008
http://www.michaelshermer.com/2008/04/confessions-of-a-former-environmental-skeptic/

Hallo Alfie
17th December 2009, 04:38 AM
Still trying to do science by popular opinion AA ???
...that you choose to stay ill informed is your own decision......we'll simply continue to point it out and ask for backup of your argument - whatever that is. :garfield:

Just three will do.
Anytime.

Careyp74
17th December 2009, 04:55 AM
On one level, this is true. Yet there is also nothing wrong with simply saying you abstain from presenting an opinion. So what if he's pressed? It's Randi - he's hardly one to bow to perceived pressure. Why be forced to adopt a position you admittedly know little on? If cornered, I might admit I know little about string theory but what I do know sounds a bit weird. But I wouldn't stand before a large crowd and say I think it's bunk...oh, but I'm fairly ignorant on the mathematics.

In any case, do you seriously think Randi would be so kind if some politician publically denounced evolution while admitting they didn't know much about it? Seriously?

Athon

I have to agree completely with this. I wouldn't care, if he wasn't so well known as a spokes person for skepticism. Still, he said how he felt, and admitted that he doesn't know much about it.

Careyp74
17th December 2009, 05:06 AM
Still trying to do science by popular opinion AA ???
...that you choose to stay ill informed is your own decision......we'll simply continue to point it out and ask for backup of your argument - whatever that is. :garfield:

I Don't think this comment is called for at all.

I think a better one would be addressing what Alfie is asking, if you are going to comment at all. What is this about science by popular opinion? What science is he trying to convince you of? And don't say he is known for this or that, you should know better than take that type of position.

It makes me think that you don't even read people's comments, just think that they must be saying something against the OP, and so they are wrong.

The question is, and this may be a bit of a side rail, but it is addressing a statement someone else made, who here on this forum argues against global warming, and then turns around and argues that man isn't responsible for the global warming?

I don't necessarily agree with Alfie one way or the other, but I have to commend him for pointing out that a lot of times people on here just spurt off ideas that are passed as truth without anyone questioning it. I see it against religion, and although I am atheist, I still get disappointed. I see it against the paranormal, and still know that it isn't right.

common anti global warming arguments:

-"the world has been cooling [or stopped warming] since 1998"
-"CRU emails reveal that data was faked to hide the decline in temperature"
-"the arctic passage being open is nothing new"
-"in the 1970s scientists were predicting global cooling"
-"station temperature data is adjusted to show warming where there is none"
-"temperature data is unreliable due to urbanization, which biases it towards finding warming"
-"troposphere data shows that warming isn't really happening"
-"the 'hockey stick' graph which shows a steep warming trend was debunked"

Very good collection of arguments, but still doesn't answer the comment that you quoted.

sphenisc
17th December 2009, 05:39 AM
...we're aware that lunar tides, solar wind, galactic space dust and geomagnetic storms have cooled the planet by about one centigrade degree in the past 150 years.



I wasn't aware of this. Is it true?

macdoc
17th December 2009, 05:53 AM
Originally Posted by James Randi
...we're aware that lunar tides, solar wind, galactic space dust and geomagnetic storms have cooled the planet by about one centigrade degree in the past 150 years.


I wasn't aware of this. Is it true?

No.
See his honest - I know very little comment part of the same piece.

The comment you quoted is painful in reinforcing his own statement about his limited knowledge and limited information. One of those "wince" things.

Pixel42
17th December 2009, 05:55 AM
I wasn't aware of this. Is it true?
I'm pretty sure I would have seen something about it here or elsewhere if it was. And I haven't.

It's comments like this that are allowing me to hold out a small hope that Randi's conducting a little experiment.

GreyICE
17th December 2009, 06:06 AM
What I found most interesting about Randi's post is this:

Incidentally, we have a convenient phenomenon that contributes to our survival. Doubling the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere will not double the temperature rise, small though it is. The basic principle of what's known as the "greenhouse effect" is quite simple: in a glass-enclosed environment, sunlight enters through the glass and strikes a surface, where it is transformed into longer infrared rays which do not easily reflect back through the glass; they're trapped. and raise the temperature. However, the greenhouse effect as applied to our planet is more complicated. The infrared rays that are reflected back from the Earth are trapped by the greenhouse gases, water vapor and CO2 -- a process that warms those gases and heats the Earth. This effect makes Earth habitable, preventing extremes of temperature. The limit of the influence of CO2 is dictated, not by the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but by the amount of solar radiation reflected back from the Earth. Once all the infrared rays have been "captured" by the greenhouse gases there is no additional increase in carbon dioxide.
Yeah, so apparently he has no understanding that the earth emits light - and quite a bit of it.

Towlie
17th December 2009, 06:07 AM
It's comments like this that are allowing me to hold out a small hope that Randi's conducting a little experiment.I wonder what sort of experiment it could be. Could it involve Carlos somehow?

Could this be The Return of Carlos? :eek:

Careyp74
17th December 2009, 06:15 AM
I'm pretty sure I would have seen something about it here or elsewhere if it was. And I haven't.

It's comments like this that are allowing me to hold out a small hope that Randi's conducting a little experiment.

I was thinking the same thing. If this is true, it would still be a big mistake. Everyone is going to forget about the experiment, and only remember the statements made. I had to look at the calendar and make sure it wasn't April 1st.

Careyp74
17th December 2009, 06:22 AM
What I found most interesting about Randi's post is this:

Yeah, so apparently he has no understanding that the earth emits light - and quite a bit of it.

What makes you say that? The bolding seems to show that he does understand that. What am I missing? Is it that he is discussing radiation, and not light specifically? Is it the light or the radiation that is causing the green house effects?

GreyICE
17th December 2009, 06:30 AM
What makes you say that? The bolding seems to show that he does understand that. What am I missing? Is it that he is discussing radiation, and not light specifically? Is it the light or the radiation that is causing the green house effects?

The greenhouse effect isn't on light REFLECTED back from earth. If that were all it operated on, it wouldn't be a very large effect. It's on light the earth emits (light is radiation, in this context, we're not talking about decaying Uranium here - it's actually sloppy terminology, in a large sense, but since we're using it, we might as well use it).

!Kaggen
17th December 2009, 06:40 AM
I stopped reading Swift after Randi's ignorant remarks about Evolution.

And I see no point in reading the opinion of someone who admits he is an amateur and admits his opinion is based on an incomplete knowledge of the facts (as if that's an excuse).

Sadly, Randi is no longer one of the people I admire or pay much attention ot these days. He really has lost his edge and his good sense.

BillyJoe

I'm more or less with you on that.

Randi's knack was with the 'Houdini' old-school skepticism - showing how the seemingly impossible tricks of psychics and hucksters could be done without resorting to the paranormal. He won my admiration for that and I still think his presence in that regard will one day be missed. We need magicians who are prepared to get angry over their art being abused by charlatans.

However my respect began to wane when I discovered personally he had little interest in knowing how to approach education. It was the old 'everybody is an expert in education' wall I was facing. Then there were certain premature conclusions and opinions on matters of science that threw me. Such as this.

I will always view Randi as the magician who showed people how they could be fooled. Beyond that...I can only agree with you.

Athon

Reflects my assessment as well, Randi has tarnished his reputation



This is not just a tarnish, this is outrageous:mad:
The gap between morality and science widens once again with Randi at the helm..... Lets all just hope sanity prevails and we don't all fall into the hole....

Careyp74
17th December 2009, 06:43 AM
The greenhouse effect isn't on light REFLECTED back from earth. If that were all it operated on, it wouldn't be a very large effect. It's on light the earth emits (light is radiation, in this context, we're not talking about decaying Uranium here - it's actually sloppy terminology, in a large sense, but since we're using it, we might as well use it).

I was asking about radiation to clarify. He was calling it radiation, you were calling it light.

Anyway, yes, that is an oversight. I don't know from his statement though whether or not he didn't know that, or simply left it out for simplicity.

ejk
17th December 2009, 06:57 AM
I stopped reading Swift after Randi's ignorant remarks about Evolution.



What remarks were those, or when? I must have missed them, and am now curious.

Kuko 4000
17th December 2009, 09:31 AM
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/12/16/the-season-of-reason/

[Update: Lots of people are commenting on what Randi wrote in his Swift post today. Quite a few of these commenters are reading far more into what he said than he actually said, and running a bit (or a lot) wild with it. I just talked with Randi about it (and sent him some info on AGW), and he's posting a followup tonight. I don't know what he'll say, but I think it would behoove all of us to sit back, take a deep cleansing breath, and try not to fly off the handle, mmmmkay?]


Randi's follow-up is now online: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html

macdoc
17th December 2009, 09:41 AM
Wow going from bad to worse in some respect.....he really does not understand GHG at all


Sad? Yes, if it were true. But it's not. There were a good number of other, similar comments, all quite wrong. I do not, and did not, deny the established fact -- arrived at by extensive scientific research -- that average global temperatures have increased by a bit less than one Celsius degree. My commentary was concerned with my amateur confusion about the myriad of natural phenomena that obviously bring about worldwide climate changes and whether we can properly assign the cause to anthropogenic influences. Yes, I'm aware of the massive release of energy -- mostly heat -- that we've produced by exhuming and burning oil, natural gas, and coal.
We've also attacked forests and turned them into fuel by converting them into paper at further energy expense, paper that is also burned, in turn. My remarks, again, are directed at the complexity of determining whether this GW is anthropogenic or not. I do not deny that possibility. In fact, I accept it as quite probable. I remain respectful of science and its participants. I stand outside the walls of academe, in awe. :eusa_doh:

Quite a number of mea culpa's in the piece but it's still clear there is a yawning chasm of understanding the issue....

wait and see I guess..:popcorn1

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html

BenBurch
17th December 2009, 09:56 AM
I wasn't aware of this. Is it true?

No.

lomiller
17th December 2009, 10:30 AM
I was asking about radiation to clarify. He was calling it radiation, you were calling it light.

Anyway, yes, that is an oversight. I don't know from his statement though whether or not he didn't know that, or simply left it out for simplicity.

Both terms are sufficiently vague that they could apply. Light is simply an EM wave that holds special meaning for us. Itís the EM wave that makes up most of the Suns output, so itís what our senses have evolved to detect but otherwise itís no different then any other EM wave.

The earth is much cooler then the Sun which means it emits energy in longer wavelengths, but these are still EM waves just like the Sun emits. Instead of being visible light, these Earth emits a range of infrared light. Both EM waves just differing in their frequency.

Infrared and some forms of higher frequency waves are sometimes called radiation, but that same term is also used to refer to the high energy particles given off in a nuclear reaction. To further complicate things, depending on what you look at all EM waves are made up of massless particles called Photons.

The greenhouse effect is a function of what mater photons of differing frequencies can interact with. Photons of visible light do not interact with CO2, while the photon's emitted by the earth will interact with CO2 and will get absorbed if they encounter a CO2 molecule. This means energy can come in but not exit easily, which causes the earth to warm, which increase the amount of photons trying to escape. Once the earth warms enough the energy of the photons escaping will be in balance with the energy of the photons coming in and warming stops.

macdoc
17th December 2009, 11:17 AM
:thumbsup: very clear and succinct post....well done.

Careyp74
17th December 2009, 11:26 AM
Once the earth warms enough the energy of the photons escaping will be in balance with the energy of the photons coming in and warming stops.

Is that what we see every day, this balance?

With the rise of CO2 I imagine that this balance point is also rising?

GreyICE
17th December 2009, 11:32 AM
Is that what we see every day, this balance?

With the rise of CO2 I imagine that this balance point is also rising?

Exactly. The rise of this balance point is called 'Climate Change,' 'Global Warming,' or 'AGW.'

Ron_Tomkins
17th December 2009, 11:43 AM
Well, I gotta say, it's threads like this that make me proud of the true skepticism displayed in these forums. That this certainly isn't a sect with a bunch of Randi followers, blindly agreeing with anything he says. That just because we're posting in the "James Randi" website and that just because many of us came out of the skepticism closet through him, that we're not gonna exclude him from the magnifying glass of skeptical scrutiny. If the old, fallacious cliche question that woos pose "Are skeptics ever skeptical of skepticism?", this is it. This is the closest to a demonstration of that. We can show critical thinking even of those who triggered or inspired our critical thinking in the first place. This is why I'm proud of you guys.

And yes, Randi may show some lack of skepticism on his part with this subject, but I still admire him for being the one who made me ask myself the questions that I had to ask myself. I still love you, old man ;)

macdoc
17th December 2009, 12:00 PM
Ron I think a lot of people share your sentiment and are embarrassed for him.
He clearly did not think this through - even the second mea culpa.
The good thing is it's got his attention now.

ēē

Originally Posted by lomiller http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2green/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5423679#post5423679)
Once the earth warms enough the energy of the photons escaping will be in balance with the energy of the photons coming in and warming stops.

Carey74

Is that what we see every day, this balance?

With the rise of CO2 I imagine that this balance point is also rising?

Not so much a "daily" issue as the short term radiative factors are truly complex so say an event like a LaNina might reduce radiative outflow ( cooler ocean - less IR ).

More ice cover in the north ( seasonal ) will change it - even a particularly cloudy or particular clear day globally will alter the IR balance.

It's really the overall net balance over years and decades that is the signal.

Overall - we are in net radiative imbalance and with what is in the pipeline...if we stopped fossil emissions cold now it would take an estimated 50 years and a further .6 degree gain to get close to a radiative balance.

These are massive forces at work.

The cooling stratosphere is one of key bits of evidence.

lomiller
17th December 2009, 12:19 PM
Is that what we see every day, this balance?

With the rise of CO2 I imagine that this balance point is also rising?

The ďevery dayĒ effects are chaotic, so you canít really do much with them past a few days. This can be called weather. Over longer periods chaotic systems can make quite predictable patterns even if they never repeat exactly. Itís these larger patterns that climatologists study and when they talk about climate change they are discussing shifts in these patterns.

http://www.abarim-publications.com/ChaosTheoryIntroduction.html


Basically CO2 is shifting the baseline around which these random day to day variations occur.

Ron_Tomkins
17th December 2009, 12:36 PM
Ron I think a lot of people share your sentiment and are embarrassed for him.
He clearly did not think this through - even the second mea culpa.
The good thing is it's got his attention now.

You mean he's been reading the threads and responded to them?


(Does he ever post in these threads anyway? I've always wondered)

macdoc
17th December 2009, 01:01 PM
No - he's responding to those in contact with him....hence the first revision.....expect more. Stands to reason he does not like the negative publicity.

lomiller
17th December 2009, 01:02 PM
Just my 2 cents, but it seems to me Randi’s blind spot as it were is that he’s spent most of his efforts addressing false claims and not so much addressing arguments of denial. If you never have to address the question of how much evidence is enough you can, IMO, fall victim to claims of “there isn’t enough evidence”. Since he’s spent so much time refuting things where there truly isn’t enough evidence this is bound to be an appealing argument.

As this essay points out it can sometimes be hard for skeptics to shift gears when presented with people who want to deny something rather then make explicit claims of their own.

http://www.theness.com/skepticism-and-denial/

Angel Love
17th December 2009, 02:42 PM
I don't think JR is departing from his normal reasoning on this, he is merely pointing out that really the science so far isn't supported with enough evidence to make it certain, it is not solid enough yet. There isn't enough evidence there yet to determine a cause either way.

I don't see this as out of character, I think he is saying that the science doesn't convince him yet, and there is still justified reason for doubt.

macdoc
17th December 2009, 02:45 PM
Sure :rolleyes:

Nice try tho....are you hitching to his "I really don't know anything I'm just an amateur wagon"? :garfield:

Angel Love
17th December 2009, 02:49 PM
Sure :rolleyes:

Nice try tho....are you hitching to his "I really don't know anything I'm just an amateur wagon"? :garfield:

:) That made me laugh, yea, maybe.

lomiller
17th December 2009, 02:51 PM
I think he is saying that the science doesn't convince him yet, and there is still justified reason for doubt.


Heís definitely not saying that since he went out of his way to say he hasnít really looked at the science.

Angel Love
17th December 2009, 02:54 PM
Heís definitely not saying that since he went out of his way to say he hasnít really looked at the science.

But he did say this:

I do not, and did not, deny the established fact -- arrived at by extensive scientific research

Hallo Alfie
17th December 2009, 02:56 PM
I Don't think this comment is called for at all.

I think a better one would be addressing what Alfie is asking, if you are going to comment at all. What is this about science by popular opinion? What science is he trying to convince you of? And don't say he is known for this or that, you should know better than take that type of position.

It makes me think that you don't even read people's comments, just think that they must be saying something against the OP, and so they are wrong.

The question is, and this may be a bit of a side rail, but it is addressing a statement someone else made, who here on this forum argues against global warming, and then turns around and argues that man isn't responsible for the global warming?

I don't necessarily agree with Alfie one way or the other, but I have to commend him for pointing out that a lot of times people on here just spurt off ideas that are passed as truth without anyone questioning it. I see it against religion, and although I am atheist, I still get disappointed. I see it against the paranormal, and still know that it isn't right.

Very good collection of arguments, but still doesn't answer the comment that you quoted.

The cheque is in the mail. :D
A genuine and sincere thanks for your support.:)

You mean he's been reading the threads and responded to them?

That's my take too.

I don't think JR is departing from his normal reasoning on this, he is merely pointing out that really the science so far isn't supported with enough evidence to make it certain, it is not solid enough yet. There isn't enough evidence there yet to determine a cause either way.

I don't see this as out of character, I think he is saying that the science doesn't convince him yet, and there is still justified reason for doubt.

The thinking of many
My emphasis.

Piggy
17th December 2009, 03:29 PM
I don't think JR is departing from his normal reasoning on this, he is merely pointing out that really the science so far isn't supported with enough evidence to make it certain, it is not solid enough yet. There isn't enough evidence there yet to determine a cause either way.

You can't "point out" something that is not true.

Randi is wrong, plain and simple.

athon
17th December 2009, 04:20 PM
Heís definitely not saying that since he went out of his way to say he hasnít really looked at the science.

That's what troubled me...and continues to do so with his follow up.

I can't but help feel it's all rather hypocritical. Why advertise your opinion publically at all if you're not confident in it? Why add fuel to the fire of dissenting views if yours isn't one of them? Ironically, if Randi was anti-AGW, I might feel a little better.

Once again, just picture if a contemporary of his were to use his arguments against a theory he felt was well supported. You can bet your booties he'd be rather critical, especially if they admitted they were less than well informed.

The fact Randi has come across as anti-AGW is somewhat immaterial. If he displayed such ignorance in support of it and then admitted it was an uninformed opinion, I'd be just as concerned.

Athon

Angel Love
17th December 2009, 04:20 PM
You can't "point out" something that is not true.

Randi is wrong, plain and simple.

Hi Piggy, I'm not up to speed enough on this subject to really make a knowledgeable statement on this. Where do you think Randi is wrong, is it that you know there is enough evidence to support AGW?
Can you elaborate?

BenBurch
17th December 2009, 04:32 PM
You can't "point out" something that is not true.

Randi is wrong, plain and simple.

He's learning.

Piggy
17th December 2009, 05:22 PM
Hi Piggy, I'm not up to speed enough on this subject to really make a knowledgeable statement on this. Where do you think Randi is wrong, is it that you know there is enough evidence to support AGW?
Can you elaborate?

He's wrong on several points.

He's wrong to invoke the consensus argument, for example, because the consensus itself is not the evidence. Rather, the consensus is a result of the status of the evidence, just as the consensus on evolution (v. creationism) is based on the status of the evidence.

And the alternative hypotheses he cites have all been thoroughly debunked.

You can prove this to yourself by browsing the Science Daily climate page (http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/climate/), where you'll find that all the research currently being published accepts AGW, and no peer-reviewed papers are even attempting to refute it. Furthermore, all the science currently being done is based on the theoretical framework of AGW and consistently reconfirms it.

If there actually were a legitimate scientific controversy over AGW, you would see it being played out in the current exchange of papers. And if the counter-hypotheses were taken seriously, you'd see evidence of that, too. As it is, you only see these notions on blogs and other amateur/pundit platforms.

For a thorough overview, including FAQ and debunking of common misperceptions, start here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/)

Towlie
17th December 2009, 06:10 PM
Does it bother any of you that we never seem to hear a word from James Randi on his own discussion forum? If he ever joins in any of these discussions, you'd certainly expect him to join in this one. I wonder if he even reads these posts.

Piggy
17th December 2009, 07:04 PM
Does it bother any of you that we never seem to hear a word from James Randi on his own discussion forum? If he ever joins in any of these discussions, you'd certainly expect him to join in this one. I wonder if he even reads these posts.

That's not unusual. He has his own forum, and he has responded to the comments posted there.

This is the member community forum.

If Randi were to weigh in on topics here, it would only serve to derail the threads he participated in.

Besides, the man really is busy. (And I mean that in all seriousness.)

macdoc
17th December 2009, 07:07 PM
Towlie - that not unusual...Richard Dawkins I don't think participates either but mods are in touch and he makes primary decisions on some aspects.

Hallo Alfie
17th December 2009, 07:14 PM
Does it bother any of you that we never seem to hear a word from James Randi on his own discussion forum? If he ever joins in any of these discussions, you'd certainly expect him to join in this one. I wonder if he even reads these posts.

I suspect he keeps an eye on the posts. Maybe he even contributes under an alias- who knows?
I suspect the former because of the timing of his latest comment. Many of us had viewed his previous piece which concluded with (something like) "be skeptical of everything". Whether he actual wrote it or not - I don't know.

A lot of warmers castigated him/the writer for it - this has only been over the past week or two.
Then this!

I may well be wrong, it might just be a coincidence.

Hindmost
17th December 2009, 08:07 PM
Does it bother any of you that we never seem to hear a word from James Randi on his own discussion forum? If he ever joins in any of these discussions, you'd certainly expect him to join in this one. I wonder if he even reads these posts.

Mr. Randi has indicated in the past that he doesn't have the time to participate in the forums due to his work schedule.

glenn

Pixel42
17th December 2009, 11:58 PM
It appears to have mostly been information from Phil Plait, rather than comments here, that prompted his retraction.

I have seen him post here - under his real name - but only in the JREF sub-forums (the ones at the top of index page), and only when a member of his staff has brought a thread to his attention.

Piggy
18th December 2009, 04:14 PM
I suspect he keeps an eye on the posts. Maybe he even contributes under an alias- who knows?
I suspect the former because of the timing of his latest comment. Many of us had viewed his previous piece which concluded with (something like) "be skeptical of everything". Whether he actual wrote it or not - I don't know.

He did reply to selected comments on the SWIFT page, but not on these forums.

gtc
18th December 2009, 09:41 PM
Still trying to do science by popular opinion AA ???

That was a moronic thing to write. He was responding to the allegation that people here deny both AGW and GW.

Of course he is going to discuss the opinions of others on this forum.

Kuko 4000
20th December 2009, 04:16 AM
I'm badly uninformed here, so could someone link me to an article where these "denier" arguments have been addressed by people who know their stuff?

http://fora.tv/2009/12/17/FORAtv_Exclusive_Interview_with_Lord_Monckton_at_C OP15#Lord_Monckton_Questions_Global_Warming_Scienc e

Hallo Alfie
20th December 2009, 04:20 AM
Hear that Mac?

"Moronic"

Now just three.

Anytime http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=332&pictureid=1987

Piggy
20th December 2009, 06:15 AM
I'm badly uninformed here, so could someone link me to an article where these "denier" arguments have been addressed by people who know their stuff?

http://fora.tv/2009/12/17/FORAtv_Exclusive_Interview_with_Lord_Monckton_at_C OP15#Lord_Monckton_Questions_Global_Warming_Scienc e

A good place to start is RealClimate.org. Go to their "Start Here" page and look for links to various pages that debunk the anti-AGW arguments.

For a less technical (and at times more snarky) assortment of counter-arguments to the most common denier claims, go to YouTube and look for the Climate Denial Crock of the Week.

The thing is, there are a slew of denier arguments on various points (which, btw, do not hold together if you try to make a single theory out of them) so you have to look at a lot of different sets of information to debunk each one of them.

Holocaust denier arguments and creationist arguments are much the same.

Also, keep in mind that a proper debunking of bogus arguments about climate -- for instance, the false claim that solar cycles explain the change in temperatures -- can require technical information that simply cannot be summarized in a plain-English argument.

Towlie
20th December 2009, 10:08 AM
Now just three.Perhaps one reason everyone is ignoring your obnoxiously repeated challenge (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5422309&postcount=29) is that, although I was referring to the general population of global warming deniers, you've arbitrarily created the restriction of naming only individuals who "consrtibute (sic) regularly in this forum". You'd have to read a forum for global warming deniers to see what I'm saying, and this is not such a forum. Your restriction and challenge are therefore unjustified. Please give it a rest.

Kuko 4000
20th December 2009, 10:35 AM
Thanks Piggy, I'm already familiar with RC and think that its excellent for my general needs and future learnings. Thanks also for the couple of PM's I received, excellent excellent info. However, I was trying to highlight specifically the points that arise from this short (under 4 mins) and very recent video interview from Copenhagen:


http://fora.tv/2009/12/17/FORAtv_Exclusive_Interview_with_Lord_Monckton_at_C OP15#Lord_Monckton_Questions_Global_Warming_Scienc e


I realize now that I didn't make that point clear enough in my previous post.

Piggy
20th December 2009, 10:43 AM
Perhaps one reason everyone is ignoring your obnoxiously repeated challenge (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5422309&postcount=29) is that, although I was referring to the general population of global warming deniers, you've arbitrarily created the restriction of naming only individuals who "consrtibute (sic) regularly in this forum". You'd have to read a forum for global warming deniers to see what I'm saying, and this is not such a forum. Your restriction and challenge are therefore unjustified. Please give it a rest.

Not that it much matters anyway, since the A is as well established now as the GW.

Piggy
20th December 2009, 10:50 AM
Thanks Piggy, I'm already familiar with RC and think that its excellent for my general needs and future learnings. Thanks also for the couple of PM's I received, excellent excellent info. However, I was trying to highlight specifically the points that arise from this short (under 4 mins) and very recent video interview from Copenhagen:


I realize now that I didn't make that point clear enough in my previous post.

I've seen all those points debunked in other threads on this forum, and I'm sure that the climate folks here can help you out with explanations of the actual science.

But it would help if you actually listed, in a post, the basic claims being made in the video and the papers Monckton is referencing.

That will make it much easier for everyone to follow the discussion, including those who are not responding.

But be aware that the refutation of Monckton's claims is probably not going to be plain-English stuff. It's likely to be rather technical.

Edx
20th December 2009, 11:55 AM
Ahh...no...
The disagreement is regarding the A in AGW. Not the GW in AGW. :eye-poppi

Actually no its not, since thats why the anti-AGW guys spend so much time misrepresenting graphs and data, in order to show there is no warming, or its cooling etc.

Kuko 4000
20th December 2009, 12:07 PM
But it would help if you actually listed, in a post, the basic claims being made in the video and the papers Monckton is referencing.

That will make it much easier for everyone to follow the discussion, including those who are not responding.



Ok, I just wrote down what he said in the video:

Exclusive Interview with Lord Monckton @ COP15

http://fora.tv/2009/12/17/FORAtv_Exclusive_Interview_with_Lord_Monckton_at_C OP15#Lord_Monckton_Questions_Global_Warming_Scienc e

1)

It is agreed among all parties that there has to be an accumulation of heat energy in the oceans if it's human kind that is causing GW. Not that there's been any for 15 years, but let's pretend.

A paper recently published by David Douglas and Bob Knox. They say that there is no net accumulation of heat in the oceans for 68 years and they've done a more detailed analysis than NOA, which still pretends that there is an accumulation. And that's now the state of the art science.


2)

Roy Spencer is just about to publish a paper which completes his work on what's called the cloud albedo feedback. As the atmosphere warms for whatever reason, you will get more water vapour potentially be held in the atmosphere, that in turn will lead to more clouds. And as we now know the net effect of more clouds is to cool the earth, because the light that comes in from the sun, more of it will reflect it harmlessy straight back into space without causing any warming down here.



3)

Go up again to the tropical upper air, and there all of the UN's computer models predict that you get three times the surface warming rate if, and only if, GW is caused by humanity. However that warming differential, that tropical upper troposphere hot spot is not evident, it has never been measured in any of the satellite or radiosonde or dropsonde data set going back 50 years, it isn't there. Now we know why, a paper by paltridge et al just published, has established that even though you would expect, as the atmosphere warms, more water to accumulate even in the upper troposphere because of an equation called the Clausius–Clapeyron relation which dictates that you get near exponentially more water vapour in the air throughout the atmospehre column as it warms, in fact, up there in the upper troposphere in the tropics, the extra water vapour, as it forms, subsides to lower altitudes where the principal absorption bands of CO2 are already saturated and therefore it doesn't cause very much in the way of additional warming, we now know why it is that this upper troposphere hot spot, which is the absolutely predicted fingerprint, the one distinctive fingerprint of GW simply isn't there.


4)

The final proof has just been provided by the most eminent of all the climate scientists in the world, professor Richard Lindzen at MIT. He has just published a paper which measures directly how much of the outgoing radiation escaping from the earths surface continues to do so much as before, very nearly all of it is getting out to space, it is not being trapped by the extra CO2 to the extend imagined by the UN. And that is the final proof --- we have a single unified picture from a series of different papers in the peer-reviewed literature establishing, all of them, and they all come to the same result, that the warming effect of CO2, it's not zero, but it is one sixth of what the UN central estimate is.


Phew...I'm sure I messed up some terms, names and spelling, but that's all I could do now.

BillyJoe
20th December 2009, 12:41 PM
I'm badly uninformed here, so could someone link me to an article where these "denier" arguments have been addressed by people who know their stuff?

http://fora.tv/2009/12/17/FORAtv_Exclusive_Interview_with_Lord_Monckton_at_C OP15#Lord_Monckton_Questions_Global_Warming_Scienc e


The main problem for Monckton here is that he is selectively quoting four papers by four scientists that, according to him, provide evidence that AGW is false and putting it against all the evidence that has been accumulated over many years by numerous scientists that show that AGW is true.
In other words, he is cherry picking.

There are two things slightly in his favour. One is that he is at least cherry picking recent papers (or at least that is what he says). The other is that he is looking at a paper from "the most prominent of all climate scientists" (or so he claims, though I can't quite pick up the name ?Prof Richard Lindsay)


Here are the four claims he makes:

1) There has been no heat/energy accumulation in the oceans for the past 6-8 years.
Reference: A paper by David Douglas and Bob Knox
2) The albedo effect of clouds reduce any tendency for global temperatures to rise.
Reference: Roy Spencer
3)The hypothesised upper trophosphere hot spot has been shown not to exist.
Reference: Poulter? F?
4) The amount of heat escaping into space is not decreasing.
Reference: Prof Richard ?Lindsay, the most prominent of all climate scientists.

But its a merry-go-round trying to rebutt every denialist who pops up to have a go. There are always going to be papers that tend to show AGW/GW is false. But we make decisions on the totality of the evidence, not on an individual paper or two (or four).

Of course we would need to look at these papers to see what they actually say, then put what they say against the evidence from all other sources.....I'm sure you see the problem.

BillyJoe

sinnikal
20th December 2009, 01:51 PM
4) The amount of heat escaping into space is not decreasing.
Reference: Prof Richard ?Lindsay, the most prominent of all climate scientists.



That'll be professional contrarian Richard Lindzen then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Towlie
20th December 2009, 02:05 PM
That'll be professional contrarian Richard Lindzen then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_LindzenInteresting. He doesn't think smoking causes lung cancer either.

macdoc
20th December 2009, 02:06 PM
They are old arguments with little or no climate science merit- thoroughly discounted and from sources tainted with right wing fossil fuel advocacy and outright payment..
Lindzen is a paid for science denier with a very chequered history..

Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Member, Annapolis Center Science and Economic Advisory Council. Contributing Expert, Cato Institute. Contributing Expert, George C. Marshall Institute. Member, National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. Lindzen is one of the highest prolife climate skeptic scientists, arguably because he has been a member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and contributed to the Second Assessment Report. He regularly takes issue with the general conclusions drawn from the IPCC's reports and has been at the forefront of the consistent attacks on the IPCC since the early 1990's. His prolific writings assert that climate change science is inconclusive. His opinions are cited throughout the ExxonMobil funded groups and he regularly appears at events organised by them.

Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.) Lindzen signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration. http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17

Spencer is IDer as well as a right wingnut

Yes, Roy Spencer IS a creationist.

July 28, 2008 ∑ 6 Comments (http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/yes-roy-spencer-is-a-creationist/#comments)

[UPDATE: For those who are unaware, Roy Spencer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29) is a vocal climate change "skeptic", but a particularly influential one as a member of the UAH remote sensing team (http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html). He has been making the rounds (http://www.wikio.com/news/Roy+Spencer) of late peddling a "climate is self-stabilizing due to large negative feedbacks" take on the issue. He is a member (http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/expert.cfm?expertId=163) of the Heartland Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute), a contributor (http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=122) to the George C. Marshall Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute), and the favorite (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092007/content/01125119.guest.html) climatologist of Rush Limbaugh (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh).http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/yes-roy-spencer-is-a-creationist/

The "hotspot" has been a fav football of the deniers long since dispensed with - the observational measurements of a cooler stratosphere put paid to the nonsense and recent observations show upper troposphere actually warmer than the models expected....
Small talk aspect....convective forces move heat quickly to the poles one reason the north shows a much greater increase than the tropics.

Existing upper air records of radiosonde and operational satellite data recently showed a reconciliation of temperature trends but structural uncertainties remain. GPS radio occultation (RO) provides a new high-quality record, profiling the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere with stability and homogeneity. Here we show that climate trends are since recently detected by RO data, consistent with earliest detection times estimated by simulations.

Based on a temperature change detection study using the RO record within 1995–2008 we found a significant cooling trend in the tropical lower stratosphere in February while in the upper troposphere an emerging warming trend is obscured by El NiŮo variability.

The observed trends and warming/cooling contrast across the tropopause agree well with radiosonde data and basically with climate model simulations, the latter tentatively showing less contrast. The performance of the short RO record to date underpins its capability to become a climate benchmark record in the future.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039777.shtml

and the ocean heat energy claim is laughable in the extreme...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

Paper after paper and observation after observation have put paid to that ( not to mention the analogue aspect of continued net glacial loss ).

Not to mention the global records set this year..

OAA: Warmest Global Sea-Surface Temperatures for August and Summer

September 16, 2009

Global surface temperature anomalies for the month of August 2009. Temperature is compared to the average global temperature from 1961-1990.

The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest for any August on record, and the warmest on record averaged for any June-August (Northern Hemisphere summer/Southern Hemisphere winter) season according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/) in Asheville, N.C. The preliminary analysis is based on records dating back to 1880.
NCDC scientists also reported that the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for August was second warmest on record, behind 1998. For the June-August 2009 season, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was third warmest on record.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090916_globalstats.html

and the hottest decade

World Meteorological Organization and NOAA both report: 2000-2009 is the hottest decade on record

(http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/08/world-meteorological-organization-wmo-2000s-warmest-hottest-decade-on-record/) http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/08/world-meteorological-organization-wmo-2000s-warmest-hottest-decade-on-record/

But the fringe elements will find a crank or two - just as the IDers and anti-evolution crowd do.

Meanwhile mainstream climate science moves on with the news tending to get worse

The climate may be 30–50 percent more sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide in the long term than previously thought, according to a study published in Nature Geoscience yesterday. and the world moves towards dealing with a difficult problem.
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/

But of course it COULD be all a conspiracy by these evil mainstream climate scientists out to fleece the world :rolleyes:...:garfield:

lomiller
20th December 2009, 02:07 PM
Monkton is basically just making stuff up and regurgitating already debunked claims.


#1 The oceans have absorbed truly massive amounts of energy of the last 50 years and that absorption continues at a steady pace. The best current reference on the subject is probably Domingues et al which in addition to publishing the most current figures resolves some longstanding issues in Ocean heat content.

Check here for commentary and links to the paper.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/comment-page-3/




#2 There is indeed a high level of uncertainty regarding cloud behavior because they can act to either reinforce or conteract warming. Spencer ignores the fact that this uncertainty goes both ways and tries to argue it’s “possible” could formation could kick in and stop any warming but there are no observations that can back that up.

Furthermore if cloud formation did behave like this how did the planet warm at the end of the last ice age? Why didn’t this could formation effect kick in then?


#3 is blatantly dishonest. The anthropogenic/greenhouse fingerprint is cooling in the stratosphere. Warming in the upper troposphere in the tropics does appear in the climate models but it’s caused by increasing in the amount of rising moist air and shows up for any type of warming at all. It lack of precision in the measurements has made it impossible to confirm until recently, but as better techniques come it’s starting to emerge from the noise.

#4 is just bizarre. Lindzen hasn't published anything serious in a decade as far as I know and the notion that IR is getting out of the atmosphere without encountering any greenhouse gases at all is simply wrong. A single IR photon is generally absorbed and re-emitted many times before the energy escapes the top of the atmosphere. Adding more greenhouse gasses doesn’t stop this process it just delays it. This means there is more energy in the atmosphere at any given time.

Current estimate of the radiative imbalance runs at about 2W/M^2. Compared to 1360W/M^2 so only 2 W out of that 1360 actually goes into warming the planet, but that’s all it takes.

macdoc
20th December 2009, 02:17 PM
lomiller
#2 There is indeed a high level of uncertainty regarding cloud behavior because they can act to either reinforce or conteract warming. Spencer ignores the fact that this uncertainty goes both ways and tries to argue itís ďpossibleĒ could formation could kick in and stop any warming but there are no observations that can back that up.Spencer conveniently ignores that water vapour is a feedback from a warming geosphere - not a driver.
Where's the driver to increase the water vapour??

As you say clouds are transient and work in both directions with ZERO impact on the radiative balance TREND tho daily and seasonal transient shifts.

This latest bit tho tends - unfortunately - to a positive feedback...not a good thing...

Cloud feedback could accelerate global warming

Jul 23, 2009

Low-level clouds are involved in a positive feedback mechanism that could exacerbate global warming ó according to a study of cloud and temperature records from the north-eastern Pacific Ocean. Scientists in the US have found that low-level cloud cover decreases when the sea surface gets warmer. Fewer clouds mean that more sunlight reaches Earthís surface, leading to further warming.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39908

Hallo Alfie
20th December 2009, 04:12 PM
Perhaps one reason everyone is ignoring your obnoxiously repeated challenge (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5422309&postcount=29) is that, although I was referring to the general population of global warming deniers, you've arbitrarily created the restriction of naming only individuals who "consrtibute (sic) regularly in this forum". You'd have to read a forum for global warming deniers to see what I'm saying, and this is not such a forum. Your restriction and challenge are therefore unjustified. Please give it a rest.

You may well have been suggesting the global warming deniers of the general population and I have no issue with that. I apologise for misreading you. That said, why and/or your reasons you consider it to be "obnoxiously repeated" is beyond me.

My issue here is, and remains the fact that others continue to place any skeptic in this "denier" category. They link these "deniers" to flat earthers, and creationists and frankly, that is probably where they belong.
But I honestly don't think there is one single skeptic on this forum that does not think the globe is warming and that climate is changing. They are not deniers, they are simply skeptical of the A in AGW. There is a huge difference between the two.

These JREF pundits of honesty and integrity in science and humanity are frauds and hypocrits. They talk the talk, but do not walk the walk; they cast lies, ridicule, ad homs etc with gay abandon to discredit, but do nothing to back it up.

I will give the challenge a rest when the chants of "denier" etc cease to be dishonestly tossed about in reference to JREF contributors/skeptics.

BTW, Their silence and reluctance to take up the challenge, proves my point quite nicely imho.

Piggy
20th December 2009, 05:19 PM
My issue here is, and remains the fact that others continue to place any skeptic in this "denier" category. They link these "deniers" to flat earthers, and creationists and frankly, that is probably where they belong.
But I honestly don't think there is one single skeptic on this forum that does not think the globe is warming and that climate is changing. They are not deniers, they are simply skeptical of the A in AGW. There is a huge difference between the two.

Alfie refuses to actually read any of the science or to deal with evidence one way or another (for his position or anyone else's), so he hasn't actually seen any evidence contradicting his claim that there's some scientific doubt about whether human activity is the primary cause of the warming.

However, he's been on threads where the topic has been discussed at length, so he's been exposed to plenty of discussion of the evidence demonstrating that there is no controversy over whether or not human-emitted greenhouses gasses are driving the warming, and debunking claims to the contrary.

So he has no excuse for not knowing that his claims here are bogus.

Yet he continues to repeat this same line.

He complains that those who say that the warming is not caused by human activity are wrongly labeled "deniers" and wrongly compared to creationists and flat-earthers.

And yet, in the very threads he posts on, enough evidence has been cited to demonstrate that it is, in fact, denial, and that those who support non-human cause theories are using the same wrong-headed methods as creationists and flat-earthers.

So he can rant and rave about this all he wants.

He's in no position to be listened to, because the supporting arguments have all been laid out where he can read them.

BillyJoe
21st December 2009, 01:38 AM
To my mind a denier is someone who, when repeatedly shown evidence that their claim is false, continues to make the claim instead of addressing the contrary evidence.

mhaze
21st December 2009, 07:15 AM
You may well have been suggesting the global warming deniers of the general population and I have no issue with that. I apologise for misreading you. That said, why and/or your reasons you consider it to be "obnoxiously repeated" is beyond me.

My issue here is, and remains the fact that others continue to place any skeptic in this "denier" category. They link these "deniers" to flat earthers, and creationists and frankly, that is probably where they belong.
But I honestly don't think there is one single skeptic on this forum that does not think the globe is warming and that climate is changing. They are not deniers, they are simply skeptical of the A in AGW. There is a huge difference between the two.

These JREF pundits of honesty and integrity in science and humanity are frauds and hypocrits. They talk the talk, but do not walk the walk; they cast lies, ridicule, ad homs etc with gay abandon to discredit....You left out "shills of the Big Oil Industry" and "deniers of AGW are deniers of second hand smoke".

Unfortunately, in thousands of places, in the comments sections of newspapers and web which discuss climate, a new skepticism has arose with the Climategate and subsequent Russian dataGate issues.

A few liars won't make it go away.