Spectator Magazine front page spread: 'Relax: Global Warming is a myth'

[Undesired Walrus]

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magaz...on-trick.thtml

This surprised me. For those of you who don't know, the Spectator is a centre-right magazine that used to be published by Boris Johnson, current Mayor of London.

Despite the fact that I disagree with their political leaning, I always thought they were rational conservatives, who accepted things like Global Warming. No more:

Quote:

Imagine how wonderful the world would be if man-made global warming were just a figment of Al Gore’s imagination. No more ugly wind farms to darken our sunlit uplands. No more whopping electricity bills, artificially inflated by EU-imposed carbon taxes. No longer any need to treat each warm, sunny day as though it were some terrible harbinger of ecological doom. And definitely no need for the $7.4 trillion cap and trade (carbon-trading) bill — the largest tax in American history — which President Obama and his cohorts are so assiduously trying to impose on the US economy.

Imagine no more, for your fairy godmother is here. His name is Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at Adelaide University, and he has recently published the landmark book Heaven And Earth, which is going to change forever the way we think about climate change

‘The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology,’ says Plimer, and while his thesis is not new, you’re unlikely to have heard it expressed with quite such vigour, certitude or wide-ranging scientific authority.

[Megalodon]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magaz...on-trick.thtml

This surprised me. For those of you who don't know, the Spectator is a centre-right magazine that used to be published by Boris Johnson, current Mayor of London.

Despite the fact that I disagree with their political leaning, I always thought they were rational conservatives, who accepted things like Global Warming. No more:

Ok, one more of the deep end... Professor in Mining Geology, that's all the credentials I need to trust a non peer reviewed publication that purports to upturn a complete field of science (and the corroboratory evidence from several others).

[Molinaro]

I don't know what to say other than to echo Megalodon's post... Prof of Mining Geology?

[Alex Libman]

It's inaccurate to call global warming a "myth".

"Hoax" is a much more appropriate word.

[Seren_]

Critical review of Heaven and Earth.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/2...ven-and-earth/

Nothing groundbreaking in there.

[Megalodon]

Originally Posted by Alex Libman

It's inaccurate to call global warming a "myth".

"Hoax" is a much more appropriate word.

Conspiracy Theories is two doors down, to the left.

Don't let the door hit you...

[Alex Libman]

"Welcome to our Glorious Skeptical People's Forum. Opinions that agree with us may be posted freely. Opinions that disagree with us go to Siberia."

So then, once again, the word "myth" implies something that emerges organically, like through an oral tradition. Something that involves institutionalized academic pressure through thousands of government cronies is in fact a "hoax" and a "conspiracy".

[Megalodon]

Originally Posted by Alex Libman

"Welcome to our Glorious Skeptical People's Forum. Opinions that agree with us may be posted freely. Opinions that disagree with us go to Siberia."

No, stupid conspiracy theories should go to the Conspiracy Theory forum.

You can, of course, back up your "hoax" assertion with evidence, and shame me in public...


...yeah, right

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by Alex Libman

"Welcome to our Glorious Skeptical People's Forum. Opinions that agree with us may be posted freely. Opinions that disagree with us go to Siberia."

So then, once again, the word "myth" implies something that emerges organically, like through an oral tradition. Something that involves institutionalized academic pressure through thousands of government cronies is in fact a "hoax" and a "conspiracy".

Please explain:

1. When the conspiracy started.
2. Why the conspiracy started.
3. Who started the conspiracy.
4. Who is currently running the conspiracy.
5. Who isn't part of the conspiracy.
6. The truth of the matter.

[casebro]

I'm waiting for a few more years of satellite data before I make up my mind.

So far we've got 'proxies' instead of ancient temperatures, 'models' instead of contemporary data, and what contemporary data we have is finagled with an "urban heat island" adjustment. AND, it was all started by an avowedly exaggerated "hockey stick graph".

Tell you the truth, I half expect to hear that Obama tells the NASA/NOAA to fudge the data to make GW look worse. But if so, we won't hear about that for years.

Of course this is based on my understanding that one set of satellite data is surface temps, and another is incoming energy levels. Am I right about that?

[Cuddles]

Regardless of the reality of global warming, I find nonsense like this just bizarre.

Quote:

Imagine how wonderful the world would be if man-made global warming were just a figment of Al Gore’s imagination.

What is the deniers' obsession with Al Gore? He made a film about established science that was already discussed all over the media. And for all the fuss about it at the time, I still don't even know anyone who's actually seen it. Why do deniers like to parade Gore around as some kind of anti-Messiah who invented the entire thing?

Quote:

No more ugly wind farms to darken our sunlit uplands.

Personally I find wind farms far nicer to look at than large concrete boxes belching out clouds of steam and smoke. Of course, it's yet another bizarre fantasy of the deniers that global warming is the only driver behind renewables. Do they really think clean, unlimited power is somehow a bad thing that no-one would be at interested in if global warming had never existed?

Quote:

No more whopping electricity bills, artificially inflated by EU-imposed carbon taxes.

Oddly enough, by far the biggest influence on energy bills recently has been the price of oil. In fact, it's rather ironic that the same people complaining about alternative energy sources are the same ones complaining about the prices, given that sticking with past policies would result in financial disaster. In fact, as I noted just recently, it may well already be too late.

Quote:

No longer any need to treat each warm, sunny day as though it were some terrible harbinger of ecological doom.

I generally just treat sunny days as an excuse to get outside and enjoy myself. To each his own, I guess.

Quote:

contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology

So the idea of humans affecting the environment is contrary to two fields of science that deal solely with places humans have never been, one that deals almost exclusively with times when humans did not exist and two that demonstrate that humans have caused major changes to the environment? There's plenty of stupidity surrounding climate denial, but this is pretty special.

Quote:

wide-ranging scientific authority.

Huh? The wide-ranging authority of someone who has no expertise in the relevant area and has never actually published anything on the subject? Who describes anyone who may actually have relevant expertise as "pompous academics", while rather ironically complaining about "vitriolic ad-hominem attacks"? Even if you agree with his opinion you'd have to be particularly stupid to pretend he has any kind of authority.

[casebro]

Originally Posted by Twiler

Please explain:

1. When the conspiracy started.
2. Why the conspiracy started.
3. Who started the conspiracy.
4. Who is currently running the conspiracy.
5. Who isn't part of the conspiracy.
6. The truth of the matter.

I guess I don't think "conspiracy" is the right word. I think "Conspiracy" means "for a group to plan together in secret". I don't think there was any "AGW Planning Group". I think Mann's hockey stick started it, and a bunch of other people who thought that jumping on the band wagon would be good for their individual vested interests. Like the way many individual oil speculators drove up the price of gas a couple years ago. Or the way the stock market works- "Look, stock ABC is going up, BUY IT", which drives the price up, and others also buy it. But no conspiracy, just traders who spot a good thing.

Some with personal interests that would gain advantage via a AGW scare:

1) Weather scientists, who got grants/jobs/limelight.

2) News media, who realize scary news sells papers

3)Politicians who live by the maxim "Keep the people scared, then they will vote for me to lead them to safety".

4) Environmental organizations, similar to #3, but instead of votes, greater notoriety and $$$ in donations.

5) "Clean Industries", like solar energy.

6) Now to add the US Government, with various tax proposals that will pay for the various bail outs. And to fund more clean energy, see #5 above. This, #6, is the most conspiratorial chapter.

So, the proof of the pudding will be in the satellite data, but wait a couple years for the whistle blowers or the lack thereof.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by casebro

So far we've got 'proxies' instead of ancient temperatures, 'models' instead of contemporary data, and what contemporary data we have is finagled with an "urban heat island" adjustment. AND, it was all started by an avowedly exaggerated "hockey stick graph".

What was wrong with the hockey stick graph? (I'm honestly asking - I don't know much about it, but my impression was it turned out to be essentially correct, to within the uncertainties the authors themselves described.) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../4411032a.html

And why do you say "it was all started" by it? Here are some references I dug up with a three minute google going back to the 70's:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../360573a0.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/tm2507685mql8385/
http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/2261037a0

Personally, I'm a global warming skeptic in the same way I'm skeptical about all scientific results, particularly those involving extremely complex systems like climate and weather. If you put me in a time machine and jumped me ahead 30 years, I wouldn't be shocked if it turns out some as yet poorly understood effects had kept the global climate stable. But I think it's much more likely that the current science is essentially correct.

You have to face the facts: based on the best evidence we have the climate is warming, there is a mechanism that causes warming to happen when greenhouse gas levels increase, and greenhouse gas levels are increasing due to human activity.

Given that, the burden of proof is quite solidly on anyone what doesn't believe human activity is changing the climate. And yet I've seen no one really take up that challenge and make the argument based on real science and data - all I see are shrill, politicized attacks on the people actually doing the science, because the science keeps turning out the "wrong" way. And it's a shame, because the environment those attacks create is far from optimal for scientific progress.

[Molinaro]

Originally Posted by Alex Libman

"Welcome to our Glorious Skeptical People's Forum. Opinions that agree with us may be posted freely. Opinions that disagree with us go to Siberia."

So then, once again, the word "myth" implies something that emerges organically, like through an oral tradition. Something that involves institutionalized academic pressure through thousands of government cronies is in fact a "hoax" and a "conspiracy".

Bolding mine.

I am completely at a loss to understand how anyone could honestly believe what you just typed.

To me, it looks like a statement of extreme paranoia if not outright insanity.

[Megalodon]

Originally Posted by casebro

I guess I don't think "conspiracy" is the right word. I think "Conspiracy" means "for a group to plan together in secret". I don't think there was any "AGW Planning Group". I think Mann's hockey stick started it, and a bunch of other people who thought that jumping on the band wagon would be good for their individual vested interests.

You are wrong... The theory is much older than Mann's paper. It started a long, long time ago, when Arrhenius posited a mechanism by which atmospheric CO2 warmed the planet. As early as the 50's physicists started worrying about the emission of CO2, and several papers in the 70's show this concern.

The theory was dismissed by most scientists for a long time until evidence, both from the emergent field of climatology and several other scientific disciplines, and accurate projections were finally enough to convince the majority of scientists that AGW theory was essentially correct.

There was no bandwagon to be jumped on! There was, like with all groundbreaking theories, a tooth and nail fight for acceptance. A fight fought with solid evidence.

Quote:

Like the way many individual oil speculators drove up the price of gas a couple years ago. Or the way the stock market works- "Look, stock ABC is going up, BUY IT", which drives the price up, and others also buy it. But no conspiracy, just traders who spot a good thing.

This is actually a conspiracy theory, since you are accusing thousands of independent researchers, of different scientific disciplines, of making up corroboratory data to somehow feed this "good thing".

Quote:

Some with personal interests that would gain advantage via a AGW scare:

1) Weather scientists, who got grants/jobs/limelight.

Wrong! As late as the 90's people would avoid using the expression "global warming" in the grant proposals, for fear of being rejected outright. This theory wasn't born popular, much on the contrary. It stepped on to many toes, and it still does.

Quote:

2) News media, who realize scary news sells papers

The news media couldn't care less about any kind of science, scary or not. And you might as well accuse them of killing Anna Nicole Smith and Michael Jackson since you're at it...

Quote:

3)Politicians who live by the maxim "Keep the people scared, then they will vote for me to lead them to safety".

The same politicians that get huge contributions from fossil fuel companies, that give them more subsidies than to renewables and appointed politicians to alter scientific reports to discredit AGW... I can see real champions for AGW in that lot.

Quote:

4) Environmental organizations, similar to #3, but instead of votes, greater notoriety and $$$ in donations.

Yes, the great influence of Greenpeace and WWF on international politics...

Quote:

5) "Clean Industries", like solar energy.

You're kidding right?

Quote:

6) Now to add the US Government, with various tax proposals that will pay for the various bail outs. And to fund more clean energy, see #5 above. This, #6, is the most conspiratorial chapter.

The same government that until quite recently denied AGW to the point of altering scientific reports?

Quote:

So, the proof of the pudding will be in the satellite data, but wait a couple years for the whistle blowers or the lack thereof.

No, the proof of the pudding is in the next El Niño, that will in all probability blow the 2005 record out of the water.

[Alex Libman]

Originally Posted by Megalodon

You can, of course, back up your "hoax" assertion with evidence, and shame me in public...

Ah, the old "prove there's no God or obey the Church" dogma... How original...

Originally Posted by Twiler

1. When the conspiracy started.

Hoaxes similar to "global warming" predate written history. One example is a tribal shaman claiming that the sun will not go up in the morning unless he gets to have his way with a virgin the night before. Those lies were eventually formalized into popular mystical traditions and eventually evolved into religions, and in some ways have influenced the governments of the modern age. As the popular level of education has increased, so did the complexity of the hoax.

Originally Posted by Twiler

2. Why the conspiracy started.

Greed for unearned wealth and power.

Originally Posted by Twiler

3. Who started the conspiracy.

As I've stated above, this conspiracy does not have a definitive point of origin because it gradually evolved out of previous conspiracies: pagan traditions, mother earth, resisting evil spirits, mandate of heaven, the great chain of being, the divine right of kings, democracy, and so on. In every case, the conspiracy is perpetuated, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by a class of people who benefit from it.

Originally Posted by Twiler

4. Who is currently running the conspiracy.

You need to understand that complex systems emerge naturally when people act in their own interest: there is no central planner making sure there is a general store, a pharmacy, and a gas station in every town, people acting in their own interest open those establishments whenever an opportunity presents itself. And opportunities to take advantage of human stupidity are a dime a dozen.

Originally Posted by Twiler

5. Who isn't part of the conspiracy.

That's kind of like going back to 16th century Spain and asking who isn't a part of the "divine right of kings" conspiracy. The heretics being burned at the stake clearly aren't, but aside from that it gets pretty vague. Deep down, who knows what people truly believe...

Originally Posted by Twiler

6. The truth of the matter.

The truth of the matter is that human beings are fallible and untrustworthy, and should not be trusted to make rational decisions through a collective orthodoxy. When individual human beings are allowed to think for themselves, experiment, reap the individual consequences of their actions, and learn from their experiences as well as the experiences of others, free competition of ideas tends to result in social evolution: good ideas are favored over bad. That doesn't mean that bad ideas disappear outright, but only foolish individuals are harmed by them, while reasonable and cautious people have a chance to do what is right.

Some of the most fundamental ideas that human societies have throughout history found beneficial are called "natural rights" - the notion that cooperation is mutually beneficial, but only to a specific degree. The basis of this beneficial cooperation is "self-ownership" - rational economic actors (i.e. human beings) are most productive when they can expect other rational economic actors to recognize that they should not be killed, enslaved, raped, or stolen from. Societies that do the best job of protecting those rights tend to have a competitive advantage over societies that don't. Natural rights are protected through one's ability to defend oneself autonomously, to hire others to defend you, or to form mutual defense agreements with other individuals - in other words in a voluntary and decentralized manner, without any need for a centralized monopoly (i.e. government).

A natural right that becomes particularly important for societies that advance past the hunter-gatherer stage is the right to homestead, buy, sell, defend, manipulate, and otherwise rule one's private property. The ability to keep the consequences of one's actions (i.e. "fruits of your labor") for your own benefit creates an incentive for human beings to be ever-more productive, eventually learning to farm, build cities, write books, conduct scientific experiments, engineer better iPods, and so on.

Of course social evolution is not perfect, and throughout history individual rights have been recognized only to a degree. There have always been violent people doing great harm to others, but they've eventually learned that it is more profitable to ration one's violence - if you steal everything a productive person earns, he'll not bother working anymore, but if you only steal half then he'll continue working and you can steal from him again and again. Eventually those violent enterprises have evolved into regional monopolies called governments, and found new innovative ways to brainwash their victims to give up their loot peacefully and even willingly, using deception tactics like "God", "democracy", "global warming", or whatever other stories they find most effective in justifying their violence. People are taught to identify with the criminal enterprise that controls them, salute its flag, follow its rules, and so on. That has perpetuated an illusion that those violent monopolies are necessary to "rule" society, but in reality they have only kept a better, decentralized system of peer-to-peer governance from emerging.

So now let's get back to the specific issue of "global warming", which constitutes the ideal excuse for the governments' ultimate goal: worldwide control. For millenia governments have used divisive tactics to encourage the loyalty of their subjects - "serve me, or the neighboring king will conquer you and he's even worse than I am!" This regional competition has created a limit on tyranny to some degree, because the plebs could support the government that abuses them the least, thus creating historical success stories like Holland, England, and the United States that all other governments have been struggling to catch up to. With a world government in place, the plebs would have no where to go, and the entirety of the human civilization can be homogenized into a single control structure for the benefit of the ruling elite. The spin that the ruling classes will need to put on this massive power grab is very important - they need an alleged crisis that only world-wide central planning can cure. Thus we have the modern-day version of "worship us or the world will end" type of hoax.

The objective reality, that the ruling class is trying hard to suppress, is that we live in a plentiful universe that has mind-boggling quantities of natural resources. E does equal M times C squared, and there is a whole lot of M out there. Science and capitalism (which are one and the same really) have been tremendously effective in bringing about ever-better and ever-more-efficient power generation, transportation, and other technologies. The governments only stood in the way of progress, regulating the best technologies out of our hands, throwing trillions of dollars toward weaponization rather than market-driven innovations, subsidizing cheap production of the most primitive energy sources (i.e. oil and coal), preventing the establishment of market-driven commoditization of negative externalities (i.e. pollution), and so on. There is no "environmental crisis" except for the one the government has itself created!

Originally Posted by Molinaro

[...] To me, it looks like a statement of extreme paranoia if not outright insanity.

It's called skepticism.

[Seren_]

Why do you feel the need to quote large extracts from the AnCap Little Red Book in every thread ?

[Alex Libman]

There are no quotations in my previous post.

Just 100% pure verbal diarrhea a la Alex Libman.

[Megalodon]

Originally Posted by Alex Libman

Ah, the old "prove there's go God or obey the Church" dogma... How original...

The old "I have no evidence so I'll try some sleight of hand"... how dishonest.

Tell me Alex, isn't the slander of thousands of committed professionals akin to initiation of force in you wacky personal ideolwoogy?

Or is only force when harm is done to you?

[macdoc]

Casebro

Quote:

I'm waiting for a few more years of satellite data before I make up my mind.

So far we've got 'proxies' instead of ancient temperatures, 'models' instead of contemporary data, and what contemporary data we have is finagled with an "urban heat island" adjustment. AND, it was all started by an avowedly exaggerated "hockey stick graph".

Tell you the truth, I half expect to hear that Obama tells the NASA/NOAA to fudge the data to make GW look worse. But if so, we won't hear about that for years.

Of course this is based on my understanding that one set of satellite data is surface temps, and another is incoming energy levels. Am I right about that?

same answer as to others...

a) temperature is a minor aspect - energy gain is critical....energy transforms are different depending on the geo-system observed.

b) it would seem the critters, aka biota - birds, fishes, mammals are in on this "conspiracy".....their change in migration patterns match to a warming planet....none of them read the news nonsense.....

For your browsing to see the confirmation

Biological systems just ignore human squabbles and get on coping with the change we inflict.
They are the best indicators of what we are seeing in climate change.

Analogue - birds, animals, fish, insects...

Insects
http://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-event...global-impact/

animals
http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-10-26/47436.html

birds
http://www.terradaily.com/2006/06102....5tvasjk8.html
http://www.twilightearth.com/2009/02...limate-change/

fish
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4541429.stm
http://aprn.org/2008/09/03/beaufort-...arctic-waters/

and to see the changes on a larger scale from mulit-discipline and including a portion of the cryosphere where change is happening most rapidly

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/land.html

The energy aspect is critical - the latent heat for melting ice is very high so incredible amounts of heat are drawn out as glaciers and permafrost melt....so the local temperature may not change at all.....the cryosphere buffers our climate dramatically from intense and sudden swings..

Yet 600 plus cubic KM of net mass loss for glaciers alone occurs each year and that has accelerated in the past 3 decades...

Quote:

Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Up, Nearly Matches Greenland Loss
ScienceDaily (Jan. 24, 2008) — Ice loss in Antarctica increased by 75 percent in the last 10 years due to a speed-up in the flow of its glaciers and is now nearly as great as that observed in Greenland, according to a new, comprehensive study by NASA and university scientists.

continues..
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0123181952.htm

Satellites and ground stations only serve to confirm what is already observed...on a global and massive scale.....

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

The truth of the matter is that human beings are fallible and untrustworthy, and should not be trusted to make rational decisions through a collective orthodoxy. When individual human beings are allowed to think for themselves, experiment, reap the individual consequences of their actions, and learn from their experiences as well as the experiences of others, free competition of ideas tends to result in social evolution: good ideas are favored over bad. That doesn't mean that bad ideas disappear outright, but only foolish individuals are harmed by them, while reasonable and cautious people have a chance to do what is right.

Some of the most fundamental ideas that human societies have throughout history found beneficial are called "natural rights" - the notion that cooperation is mutually beneficial, but only to a specific degree. The basis of this beneficial cooperation is "self-ownership" - rational economic actors (i.e. human beings) are most productive when they can expect other rational economic actors to recognize that they should not be killed, enslaved, raped, or stolen from. Societies that do the best job of protecting those rights tend to have a competitive advantage over societies that don't. Natural rights are protected through one's ability to defend oneself autonomously, to hire others to defend you, or to form mutual defense agreements with other individuals - in other words in a voluntary and decentralized manner, without any need for a centralized monopoly (i.e. government).

A natural right that becomes particularly important for societies that advance past the hunter-gatherer stage is the right to homestead, buy, sell, defend, manipulate, and otherwise rule one's private property. The ability to keep the consequences of one's actions (i.e. "fruits of your labor") for your own benefit creates an incentive for human beings to be ever-more productive, eventually learning to farm, build cities, write books, conduct scientific experiments, engineer better iPods, and so on.

Of course social evolution is not perfect, and throughout history individual rights have been recognized only to a degree. There have always been violent people doing great harm to others, but they've eventually learned that it is more profitable to ration one's violence - if you steal everything a productive person earns, he'll not bother working anymore, but if you only steal half then he'll continue working and you can steal from him again and again. Eventually those violent enterprises have evolved into regional monopolies called governments, and found new innovative ways to brainwash their victims to give up their loot peacefully and even willingly, using deception tactics like "God", "democracy", "global warming", or whatever other stories they find most effective in justifying their violence. People are taught to identify with the criminal enterprise that controls them, salute its flag, follow its rules, and so on. That has perpetuated an illusion that those violent monopolies are necessary to "rule" society, but in reality they have only kept a better, decentralized system of peer-to-peer governance from emerging.

So now let's get back to the specific issue of "global warming", which constitutes the ideal excuse for the governments' ultimate goal: worldwide control. For millenia governments have used divisive tactics to encourage the loyalty of their subjects - "serve me, or the neighboring king will conquer you and he's even worse than I am!" This regional competition has created a limit on tyranny to some degree, because the plebs could support the government that abuses them the least, thus creating historical success stories like Holland, England, and the United States that all other governments have been struggling to catch up to. With a world government in place, the plebs would have no where to go, and the entirety of the human civilization can be homogenized into a single control structure for the benefit of the ruling elite. The spin that the ruling classes will need to put on this massive power grab is very important - they need an alleged crisis that only world-wide central planning can cure. Thus we have the modern-day version of "worship us or the world will end" type of hoax.

The objective reality, that the ruling class is trying hard to suppress, is that we live in a plentiful universe that has mind-boggling quantities of natural resources. E does equal M times C squared, and there is a whole lot of M out there. Science and capitalism (which are one and the same really) have been tremendously effective in bringing about ever-better and ever-more-efficient power generation, transportation, and other technologies. The governments only stood in the way of progress, regulating the best technologies out of our hands, throwing trillions of dollars toward weaponization rather than market-driven innovations, subsidizing cheap production of the most primitive energy sources (i.e. oil and coal), preventing the establishment of market-driven commoditization of negative externalities (i.e. pollution), and so on. There is no "environmental crisis" except for the one the government has itself created!

Wow. Just wow. Move to History, Conspiracy Theories or Social Issues and Current Events?

As for the OP's quote, I want to address this one in particular:

Quote:

Imagine how wonderful the world would be if man-made global warming were just a figment of Al Gore’s imagination. No more ugly wind farms to darken our sunlit uplands. No more whopping electricity bills, artificially inflated by EU-imposed carbon taxes. No longer any need to treat each warm, sunny day as though it were some terrible harbinger of ecological doom. And definitely no need for the $7.4 trillion cap and trade (carbon-trading) bill — the largest tax in American history — which President Obama and his cohorts are so assiduously trying to impose on the US economy.

What is it with this new requirement, imposed seemingly only on wind turbines and hydroelectric power facilities, that they need to be aesthetically pleasing? Would the people that so oppose wind turbines rather have a coal power plant in their neighbourhood?

There are legitimate arguments against windfarms, just like there are legitimate arguments against every source of power. "It's ugly" surely can't be one of them.

[Twiler]

If there's no centralised conspiracy, then why would environmentalists provide evidence for global warming?

[Molinaro]

Originally Posted by Alex Libman

It's called skepticism.

Skepticism has nothing to do with imagining conspiratorial motives on behalf of 1000s of people you've never met.

[Pipirr]

I'm no editor, but this just doesn't strike me as front page worthy.

If it was the Royal Society saying not to worry about global warming, sure. But it isn't the Royal Society. It's just some guy that wrote a book.

[macdoc]

and millions of critters that can't read.....

•••
Twiler

Quote:

If there's no centralised conspiracy, then why would environmentalists provide evidence for global warming?

that's akin to "have you stopped beating y our wife yet? "

It's only a "conspiracy" in your mind......climate science has observed warming and the science goes back a hundred years plus as to the GHG mechanism.

What environmentalist do with ANY scientific knowledge is up to the particular mandate of the group....

When senior climate scientists come out of the ivory tower and issue warnings.....best take heed as we did collectively with Ozone depletion and acid rain....
and act on it.....

There are more than climate reasons to go to C02 neutral

Quote:

How bad could it be...

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if the*
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-to-1-billion/

Monaco declaration
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7860350.stm

MITs updated assessment
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0519134843.htm

Climate impact and policy resources compendium up to date
http://www.iisd.ca/publications_reso...limate_atm.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6529307.ece

[BenBurch]

Next in Spectator Magazine; "Relax; AIDS is a Myth!"

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

and millions of critters that can't read.....

...and the melting permafrost, the 'drunken trees', receding glaciers, erratic storms and precipitation, temperatures increasing, and the melting Arctic... nature is in on it! Who knew the powers of the Illuminati could reach so far?

[Twiler]

Actually, I meant that if the supposed conspiracy is not centralised, as Alex Libman seems to believe, then he needs to give an explanation for environmentalists providing evidence of global warming, other than global warming being real. If there is no explanation, then such a conspiracy seems unlikely.

[Alex Libman]

Originally Posted by Megalodon

The old "I have no evidence so I'll try some sleight of hand"... how dishonest.

For the millionth time, you government apologists clearly don't understand what "evidence" is! You are 100% identical to the Catholic inquisitors placing the burden of proof on the alleged atheists!

The burden of proof is on the buyer, not the seller. If there is violence involved, then the burden of proof is always on the party initiating the aggression, that is the government. If I shoot an intruder on my property, it is up to me to prove that I acted in self-defense! If the government steals money from me, "regulates" me, and so on then whatever moral imperatives or justifications it claims to have must stand the test of open inquiry!

Originally Posted by Megalodon

Tell me Alex, isn't the slander of thousands of committed professionals akin to initiation of force in you wacky personal ideolwoogy? Or is only force when harm is done to you?

Free speech does not constitute aggression. Aggression is a violation of a natural (negative) right. There's no such thing as "a right to force people to obey and silence their skepticism of the system you are forcing on them"!

Originally Posted by Twiler

Actually, I meant that if the supposed conspiracy is not centralised, as Alex Libman seems to believe, then he needs to give an explanation for environmentalists providing evidence of global warming, other than global warming being real. If there is no explanation, then such a conspiracy seems unlikely.

(1) Governments derive their power from the alleged need for centralized control over an economy.

(2) "Global Warming" represents a limitless excuse for centralized government control. Only an extraterrestrial invasion, an asteroid on a collision course with Earth, or a major pandemic would have a similar effect, and those are slightly more difficult to fake.

(3) The vast majority of academic and research institutions are either funded entirely by governments, or are controlled by them significantly. Interpret a complex set of variables the way your employer wants, and you have a cushy job and a feeling of academic righteousness. Interpret them undesirably, and you will find yourself teaching 4th grade science in an inner-city school for less than half the money.

Which part of this progression escapes you?

[macdoc]

Quote:

what "evidence" is

Then why are the critters in on it.....??.

have they been subverted too...seems we have another libby lurking....

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by sol invictus

What was wrong with the hockey stick graph? (I'm honestly asking - I don't know much about it, but my impression was it turned out to be essentially correct, to within the uncertainties the authors themselves described.)

Long story short there was a legitimate error in the statistical method used in the original paper. This error was potentially serious, but it turned out that correcting the error didn’t actually change the final result. Applying other techniques entirely still gave the same result and there has also been a dozen or more papers since that reconstruct global climate, and all of them give similar results to MBH98.

End result is that while it’s conclusions were basically accurate, but if we only had MBH98 to look at we couldn't really be sure this was the case. Since we have many newer papers that say the same thing this is pretty much irrelevant at this point.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by Alex Libman

You are 100% identical to the Catholic inquisitors placing the burden of proof on the alleged atheists!

You'd best be quiet, or we'll make you sit in the comfy chair!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Megalodon]

Originally Posted by Alex Libman

For the millionth time, you government apologists clearly don't understand what "evidence" is! You are 100% identical to the Catholic inquisitors placing the burden of proof on the alleged atheists!

Spare us the histrionics. You know nothing about me, or any of the thousands of scientists you're slandering.

Quote:

Free speech does not constitute aggression. Aggression is a violation of a natural (negative) right. There's no such thing as "a right to force people to obey and silence their skepticism of the system you are forcing on them"!

That's not free speech, that's slander. If I, as an example, say that Alex Libman is a convicted criminal, I am violating your right to a clean reputation.

Exactly the same way you are doing with thousands of scientists!

But as I suspected, it's only initiation of force if someone else does it to you... You are a hypocrite.

[Perpetual Student]

Whether GW is real or imaginary can only be verified through ongoing scientific investigation.
Unfortunately, there are political and financial rewards that favor both sides of this debate -- if they are correct. So the popular media is saturated with quasi-scientific propaganda from both sides. This leaves the poor scientifically challenged layman to fend for himself -- with unfortunate results. Personal beliefs have become linked to political dogma instead of genuine thought.
So far, any fair minded informed, rational layman would conclude that the evidence leans toward the reality of GW, but as s. i. said, there is reason to remain "skeptical about all scientific results, particularly those involving extremely complex systems like climate and weather."

[Alex Libman]

Originally Posted by Megalodon

That's not free speech, that's slander. If I, as an example, say that Alex Libman is a convicted criminal, I am violating your right to a clean reputation.

I don't have a "right to a clean reputation". I earn it, or fail to do so, based on my own merits, without initiating aggression against others, which is what any slander laws in fact are.

Originally Posted by Megalodon

But as I suspected, it's only initiation of force if someone else does it to you... You are a hypocrite.

I am actually in a position where I can sue some people for defamation on the grounds that opposing the drug prohibition does not make you a "crackhead", opposing the child pornography prohibition does not make you a "pedophile", and so on. Needless to say, I will not initiate legal proceedings, because I believe in unlimited free speech. You can disagree with my stated opinions, but you have absolutely no basis for call me a hypocrite.

[macdoc]

Perpetual Student wrote

Quote:

Whether GW is real or imaginary can only be verified through ongoing scientific investigation.
Unfortunately, there are political and financial rewards that favor both sides of this debate -- if they are correct. So the popular media is saturated with quasi-scientific propaganda from both sides. This leaves the poor scientifically challenged layman to fend for himself -- with unfortunate results. Personal beliefs have become linked to political dogma instead of genuine thought.
So far, any fair minded informed, rational layman would conclude that the evidence leans toward the reality of GW, but as s. i. said, there is reason to remain "skeptical about all scientific results, particularly those involving extremely complex systems like climate and weather."

What reasons would those be.....care to argue with someone who knows....
would you like his email so you can tell him to be skeptical of what he KNOWS

e-mail: gammon@u.washington.edu

Quote:

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.

*“This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:
*"This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Dr. Richard H. Gammon
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography*
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington

You may indeed and should be skeptical of proposals about what to do about it....that's where the skeptical eye should reside.....the science is clear.....the roll out and extent of the consequences.....less so....( timing, extent - for instance the Arctic is way way ahead of anticipated change timing )

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Alex Libman

For the millionth time, you government apologists clearly don't understand what "evidence" is!

The peer reviewed literature and appropriate scientific bodies is the place to go for evidence. If you decide these are corrupt and suppressing the real facts, well, that’s an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof.

For a real skeptic, any suggestion that the peer reviewed literature and major scientific bodies are involved in some conspiracy or hoax *must* be accompanied with extraordinary proof. The reason for this is that rejecting these and using other sources instead allow you to “prove” just about anything. This includes, but is not limited to, Intelligent design, Moon landing = hoax, 9/11 conspiracy, UFO conspiracies, Homeopathy, etc.

In fact nearly every piece of crackpotery, quackery and woo at some point insists we much reject the views of the scientific community and accept their sources instead. It is in fact the seminal characteristic of such people. Therefore anyone who insists we should disregard the peer review literature and science organizations (in this case you) absolutely must come forward with extraordinary evidence. Now, will you provide such evidence or continue to wave your hands?

[Alex Libman]

Originally Posted by lomiller

The peer reviewed literature and appropriate scientific bodies is the place to go for evidence. If you decide these are corrupt and suppressing the real facts, well, that’s an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof.

Yeah, yeah... "A billion people pray to Allah! Emirs pray to Allah! Shahs pray to Allah! So you must pray to Allah! Or we'll chop your head off!"

Different gods, same tactics. Nice try, but the burden of proof is still on the seller.

Originally Posted by lomiller

For a real skeptic, any suggestion that the peer reviewed literature and major scientific bodies are involved in some conspiracy or hoax *must* be accompanied with extraordinary proof.

Nope. Take your Koran and shove it.

Originally Posted by lomiller

The reason for this is that rejecting these and using other sources instead allow you to “prove” just about anything. This includes, but is not limited to, Intelligent design, Moon landing = hoax, 9/11 conspiracy, UFO conspiracies, Homeopathy, etc.

I've just reiterated a very clear case for U.S. government complicity in 9/11. The moon landing can be independently verified, but it initially could have been a hoax, and skepticism of government power is always beneficial, especially when it comes to economically-irrational mega-projects like the moon landing (which could have been done by the free market a few decades later for 1/50th the cost).

The other issues you've listed are subjective cultural attributes that I am free to abstain from, so they should not be mixed into the same category.

Originally Posted by lomiller

In fact nearly every piece of crackpotery, quackery and woo at some point insists we much reject the views of the scientific community and accept their sources instead. It is in fact the seminal characteristic of such people. Therefore anyone who insists we should disregard the peer review literature and science organizations (in this case you) absolutely must come forward with extraordinary evidence. Now, will you provide such evidence or continue to wave your hands?

You're confusing science and government - the ultimate good and the ultimate evil as far as I'm concerned. You need to understand that science is a method, not a government-funded hierarchy of authority that must be obeyed uncritically.

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by macdoc

Perpetual Student wrote


What reasons would those be.....care to argue with someone who knows....
would you like his email so you can tell him to be skeptical of what he KNOWS

The reasons are simply -- that ALL scientific theories are subject to revision, augmentation, or outright overturning -- complex models of chaotic systems like climate are especially tenuous. But, as I have already said, the evidence favors the reality of GW. I appears that it is quite unlikely that all of the observations supporting it are merely coincidence or fanciful.
Would I "care to argue with someone who knows"? Why would I do that? I have no basis for arguing against the reality of GW.

[lomiller]

Ah yes the old “science is just another religious belief!!!” argument. You can’t swing a dead cat in ID forums without running into that one.