James Randi should watch this video users videos in full about AGW

[duras]

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]

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]

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]

This belongs in the CT thread.

[macdoc]

Besides Randi admits he knows nothing about the science...

Quote:

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.

[Towlie]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

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/2...t_so_randi.php

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

[godofpie]

Mr Randi's AGW post-

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/...revisited.html

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

[yairhol]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

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]

Originally Posted by yairhol

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]

Originally Posted by yairhol

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]

Originally Posted by Towlie

"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.

[duras]

Originally Posted by Towlie

"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]

Originally Posted by yairhol

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]

[shawmutt]

Originally Posted by Towlie

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.

Quote:

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]

From Randi's post

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

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]

Just one comment.

James Randi FTW.

That is all.

[macdoc]

I guess this applies to you as well then....from Randi's post

Quote:

. 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......

[kevinquinnyo]

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]

Originally Posted by shawmutt

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]

Originally Posted by kevinquinnyo

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]

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by bobdroege7

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]

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]

Originally Posted by duras

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]

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)
Global warming is real
Both of these are by former climate skeptics.

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

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]

Originally Posted by Piggy

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]

Originally Posted by Towlie

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]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

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]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

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]

Originally Posted by cornsail

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]

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.

[BillyJoe]

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]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

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]

Reflects my assessment as well, Randi has tarnished his reputation

....good posts....both.

Shermer certainly is honest in his path

Quote:

Confessions of a Former Environmental Skeptic

April 2008

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2008/0...ental-skeptic/

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by macdoc

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.

Just three will do.
Anytime.

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by athon

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]

Originally Posted by macdoc

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.

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.

Originally Posted by cornsail

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]

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?