Climate change denialists have something in common with evolution denialists: they have a list of “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares,” just like the Discovery Institute’s list of hundreds of ‘scientists’ who “Dissent from Darwinism”. There is a difference, though: the DI got it’s list by asking crackpots and specialists in irrelevant disciplines to volunteer to sign on, so it is a real (but silly) list that exposes the existence of a tiny minority of loons within science.
The Heartland Institute, a think-tank for right-wing denialists, isn’t even that honest. They put their list together without consulting any of the authors they added to it — basically, anyone who published anything discussing the complexities or problems of climate analysis found their name added on to this list.
“I was surprised to find my name in the list of ‘Co-Authors’ in the Heartland Institute’s web page,” says Edward Cushing, professor emeritus in the U of M’s Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior. “I resent their implication that I agree with one of more of their statements.”
…
Herbert Wright Jr. is a former regents professor in the U of M’s Department of Geology, Ecology and Botany who was also named by Avery. “I requested that my name be removed from the list,” Wright said, “but the perpetrator refused to do so.”
Dozens of scientists have demanded that their names be removed from the list and that they be issued an apology, but the Heartland Institute opted instead to simply change the name of the study from “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares” to “500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares.” In a release accompanying the name change, Heartland Institute’s Joseph Bast said the scientists “are embarrassed — as they should be — to see their names in a list of scientists whose peer-reviewed published work suggests the modern warming might be due to a natural 1,500-year climate cycle.”
“I suppose the list included anyone who had published on past climatic changes as inferred from the dated geologic record, even without reference to human factors,” said Wright, who did not seem the slightest bit embarrassed.
Wow. I never thought I’d find an anti-science outfit sleazier than the DI, but they’ve been topped.
Oops, spoke too soon — DI is pretty sleazy, too.
I had read about the list on DailyKos few weeks ago, but this new twist about the change in the title, is just amazing. Not even a slightest hint of acknowledgment of wrongdoing. That has to top the dishonesty scale.
I guess Craig Venter can retire now.
Ah, the moral code of the anti-science community. Lie, cheat, steal. When you get caught, blame the other guy. Actually, I see very little difference between them and the Discovery [sic] Institute.
I can’t find the video at the moment, but some guy fact checked the DI list and found quite a few of the people listed there also tried without success to get their names removed.
It’s a pretty damning video, if only i had saved the url.
Clearly, the scientists don’t even know the real implications of their research. I thank Zombie Jesus that institutions like Heartland are here to tell smart people what they really think.
Found it:
How long do you think it will be before one of these scientists sues them over this list? I’d think that someone who tried to get their name taken off would have a case.
Is it at all possible that the level of sleaziness correlates to the stakes involved?
If so, it would seem that money still trumps god in this wonderful country.
I seem to recall seeing a similar list for HIV/AIDS denialists, but I’ll have to look it up. This whole “list of ‘experts'” (most or all of whom usually are not) who disagree with the scientific consensus seems to be a sure sign of crankery and denialism, and it’s amazing at how often they are deceptive and dishonest about it.
Would somebody PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE create a Brainland Institute that we can all join?
All of the anti-science cranks seem to operate the same way. The anti-vaccine nuts, anti-fluoride crackpots and devotees of innumerable “alternative” medical theories all grasp at anything that can be twisted to support their ideas or to discredit the scientific consensus.
It’s sad.
Hey, I thought this happened in America…why can’t I hear the sound of distant lawyers revving their engines over this? It’s spelled C-L-A-S-S-A-C-T-I-O-N-L-A-W-S-U-I-T.
I see over at the Heartland site they have a bright red button labeled ‘Crichton is Right!’, referring to ‘State of Fear’ no doubt. Enough said. State of Fear is a work of fiction and should be treated as such.
My dad apparently read that “State of Fear” book, and knowing that I had liked other Crichton works when I was much younger, started yakking about it and how right it was. Its weird to find this sort of uninformed sentiment so close to home.
The HIV deniers do that too. In fact, several scientists have written to request their names be removed when they found they were listed as signatories–in some cases, they’ve been refused. Super slimy.
A few months ago, I attended a lecture given by Dr. Jeffrey Severinghaus at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. His position regarding global warming was very clear — it’s a serious problem that we need to begin addressing now.
Imagine my surprise when I saw his name on that list. I’ll bet he’s hopping mad.
And it turns out that Dr. Severinghaus *is* hopping mad. Here’s his response to his inclusion on that Heartland list:
I recently learned from a colleague that I am listed on your (the Heartland Institute’s) website as one of 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares.
Please remove my name from the list of “coauthors” on your website. I do not agree with the conclusions attributed to my name, and in no sense did I “coauthor” anything on your website.
P.S. Using my name (and many others) in this way is a major ethical transgression.
Climate change denial is what you get when you combine the levels of delusion and honesty exhibited by creationists with the money, PR, and dishonesty of the fortune 500.
It’s no wonder climate change deniers are even sleazier than the DI or the ICR. It’d by a miracle for them to be more honest.
Speaking of climate change denialism and creationism —
There’s a scene from Jesus Camp in which Levi’s mother is homeschooling him and “teaching” “science”. She “teaches” him about how global warming is a lie that “won’t really hurt us,” that evolution is “stupid” and creationism is “the only possible answer to all the questions,” and that “science doesn’t prove anything.” Levi concludes that “I think personally that Galileo made the right choice by giving up science for Christ.”
The scene can be found here, starting at around 05:00.
It really goes for all the cranks. I have a colleague who does water research. He had a collaborator visiting, and she commented about how she was amazed that her work had been cited by the homeopathics as supporting their nonsense.
STOP PRESS – The DI has revised their list of scientists, without consulting the new additions.
More Scientists Who Dissent From Darwinsim:
Newton
God
Darwin
etc.
For the record: there’s at least one mistake in the video about the Disco Institute’s little fraud: the University of Florida and Florida State are not the same schools (as indicated around 3:00 minutes). Actually, by state law Gators and Seminoles are required to gnash their buttocks at each other at every encounter.
I wonder if the religious right’s antienvironmentalism is something they came up with themselves of if they were ‘encouraged’ to that position by the corporate right. The religious right has an uncanny ability to come up with theological causes that conveniently justify placing business interests above the public good. It’s questionable if this is merely coincidence or the result of cross-pollination between the upper echelons of the Christianist movement and the upper echelons of the business community.
What? What? I’m confused.
The Heartland Institute is a global warming denialist, right?
And their list is of scientists who may have disagreed with the consensus of man-made global warming, right?
And Mr. Bast, who is with the Heartland Institute and can safely be assumed to be a warming denialist, says these scientists who want their names removed “are embarrassed — as they should be — to see their names in a list of scientists whose peer-reviewed published work suggests the modern warming might be due to a natural 1,500-year climate cycle.”
So I’m confused. Mr. Bast claims that these scientists should be embarrassed for agreeing with his bosses. Is that the correct reading of this?
Even if the Heartland Institute is a total warming denialist, even denying the 1,500-year natural cycle idea, this list is one they hope bolsters their arguments. And their spokesman says that being put on this list is “embarrassing?” That’s more the sort of talk you’d use if you wanted to shame or out these scientists as denialists, rather than pretend they have signed on to agree with your ideas.
Crazy, crazy.
So I guess that makes atheists “God-denialists”, then. Like Christianity, Global Warmism is a doomsday cult. Christians, like the Warm-mongers, have a messiah figure (Christ vs. James Hansen). Most of the “true believers” have no experience with the underlying science. How many Christians / Jews / Muslims / whatever have ever actually studied the question of the existence of their “savior”?
Of course, like most if not all religions, “climate change” predicts The End Of The World As We Know ItTM, and only the chosen few (those with enough carbon credits) will be saved.
Congratulate yourself if you haven’t bought into the lie.
That last comment was parody. Right? Right?!
Re 25, 26: Numad, I’m afraid not. There really are people too stupid to see the difference between relying on people who say they have a direct line to a sky-fairy, and relying on the evidence-based consensus of relevant scientific experts, as expressed in the peer-reviewed literature.
#24 Falconer,
That puzzled me a bit too, but I think what he means is that they should be embarrassed at being ‘exposed as liars’. That is, being on that list (which is the truthTM) while publically espousing another view (which is Godless and wrong) demonstrates that they’re hypocrites and that (ironically) is something to be embarrassed about.
Ouch. That hurt my brain.
@#25: “Warm mongers” – heh, I like it.
Damn, I love those ExtantDodos!
Re 25, 26: Numad, I’m afraid not. There really are people too stupid to see the difference between relying on people who say they have a direct line to a sky-fairy, and relying on the evidence-based consensus of relevant scientific experts, as expressed in the peer-reviewed literature.
Well, looks like we have ourselves a genuine Global Warming Doomsday CultTM True Believer here. Tell me, O Pious One, how does your religion explain this winter’s record snowfall?
@#25 GWiaS —
How does this even work?! Is the Liberal Conspiracy building a space shuttle that they will use to whisk away the carbon credited elite? What a bizarre eschatology…
How does this even work?! Is the Liberal Conspiracy building a space shuttle that they will use to whisk away the carbon credited elite? What a bizarre eschatology…
No, the elites will be profiteering from speculation in carbon credits, while the rest of us poor schmucks will be bankrupted by evermore excessive government regulation, all in the name of junk science.
So…
The “Global Warmist’s” end of the world is government regulation? Makes sense to me!
GWIAS, you’re a moron; you don’t even know the difference between weather and climate. Don’t forget to wear your tinfoil hat when you go out.
# 38
Hey, pea brain, crawl out of your rabbit hole and look at the whole wide world around you. Over here in Lithuania we barely dropped below zero all winter. Last year we had weeks of 20 below. Explain that, my little rabbit.
[Clue: You don’t need to, it’s just another data point.]
How come you nutjobs always think everything is all about you and your backyard.
@#32 GWiaS —
But in the comment I quoted from, you were describing the alleged eschatological beliefs of GWDC™ True Believers. Now you’re describing your eschatological beliefs about government regulation.
@#34 Nick Gotts —
To be fair, this is a relatively common misunderstanding that the modern media’s framing of science contributes to. Every other odd weather phenomenon gets a paragraph in the news media to the effect of “oh noes, could this be global warming?!” This sort of (mis)framing only undermines the real science and data that exist wrt climate change….
Hey, pea brain, crawl out of your rabbit hole and look at the whole wide world around you. Over here in Lithuania we barely dropped below zero all winter. Last year we had weeks of 20 below. Explain that, my little rabbit.
[Clue: You don’t need to, it’s just another data point.]
So you admit that his whole “climate change” thing may be nothing more than random variability, which is what those of us who don’t follow your religion have been saying all along. Thank-you for your candor!
But in the comment I quoted from, you were describing the alleged eschatological beliefs of GWDC™ True Believers. Now you’re describing your eschatological beliefs about government regulation.
It’s not a belief; it’s a fact. All of the idiotic, repressive regulation coming out of the Warm-monger movement will drive most developed nations into poverty, which is the underlying goal of the Warmistas. Most of them are leftover leftists who haven’t quite gotten over the fact that their side lost the Cold War.
GWIAS, you’re a moron; you don’t even know the difference between weather and climate. Don’t forget to wear your tinfoil hat when you go out.
Ah, yes, the last refuge of the religionist: accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being mentally ill (thus also mocking those with legitimate psychiatric and psychological illnesses), while simultaneously throwing in a few third-grade-level schoolyard insults. You know you’ve won the argument when the other side stoops this low. This is exactly why the Warmista movement is running out of steam (pun intended!). People are seeing your religion for exactly what it is: a scam.
GWIAS, it’s climate scientists who have persuaded the majority of politicians that anthropogenic climate change is real, and a real threat. Politicians including those well-know communists John McCain, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, David Cameron – hell, Margaret Thatcher was ahead of the pack on this one. Even the denialists have largely given up pretending warming isn’t happening – you’re behind the times. Many of them have even given up pretending human activity isn’t causing it, and have gone on to saying the cost of trying to prevent it will be greater than adapting to it. Hell, even George W. Bush has got that far. Get with the program!
There’s another similarity between evolution- and climate change- denialists. They condemn a model because the evidence they choose to look at doesn’t even fit the problem.
“I don’t believe in [the gradual change of a population over time] because I don’t see [drastic changes in an individual in a single generation]”
“I don’t believe in [global climate change] because I see [inverse local weather changes]”
Sorry, you just lost my vote. Using this ‘denialist’ meme is disgraceful. It’s an attempt to equate people who – PROPERLY – approach climate science with scepticism with holocaust deniers. Contemptible. Scepticism is what brought us out from the darkness of religious delusion in the first place.
There were withdrawals from the IPCC signatory list as well, by scientists who refused to allow their names to be associated with the most recent report. That makes the IPCC neither right nor wrong; it simply means that, as with every other area of science, opinions vary.
The only reason lists like that of the Heartlands Inst are produced is that climate alarmists have insisted there are NO peer reviewed papers that question their ‘consensus’, and that’s untrue.
If Heartlands went beyond truth, that’s neither acceptable nor surprising, as it happens. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t have a point. See here, for example.
GWIAS,
already more than 300 words and still you haven’t said a thing.
GWIAS, it’s climate scientists who have persuaded the majority of politicians that anthropogenic climate change is real, and a real threat.
First, there are numerous climate scientists who disagree with this hypothesis. Second, the fact that politicians are convinced of some proposition has absolutely nothing to do with said proposition’s truth value. Third, politicians absolutely love crises, because it gives them an excuse to enact more legislation, thus increasing and more easily maintaining their power over the populace. This is why they will latch onto anything, no matter how insignificant or lacking in validity, which they can use to scare the public into supporting their far-left agenda. Fortunately it doesn’t appear to be working anymore.
Hell, even George W. Bush has got that far.
GWB, a big-budget, tax-and-spend RINO, exemplifies the power-hungry politician discussed above, as does John McCain. Not to mention Hillary and Obama. These individuals and their ilk will use any lie they can to obtain and maintain political power, which to them is an end unto itself. Their sycophants in the mainstream media, of course, will be right there with them every step of the way.
“I don’t believe in [global climate change] because I see [inverse local weather changes]”
Then why is it every time the temperature is above freezing in January, we get some “scientific” talking head telling us that it absolutely, postively must be a result of global warming? You can’t have it both ways, you know.
already more than 300 words and still you haven’t said a thing.
And you just posted twelve words without saying anything. Your point?
You might want to re-read what I wrote, this time after taking off your Global Warming Filter Glasses.
Using this ‘denialist’ meme is disgraceful. It’s an attempt to equate people who – PROPERLY – approach climate science with scepticism with holocaust deniers. – Peter Risdon
No, it isn’t, as I suspect you know full well. The equation is with evolution-deniers, HIV-causes-Aids deniers, tobacco-causes-cancer deniers, vaccination-saves-lives deniers, and other groups of anti-scientific halfwits.
It’s an attempt to equate people who – PROPERLY – approach climate science with scepticism with holocaust deniers
peter-
have you ever bothered to actually gander at the arguments made by holocaust deniers?
something tells me, that if you think they don’t employ “skepticism”, then you haven’t.
seriously, there’s being skeptical, and then there’s projecting wishful thinking onto reality and CALLING that skepticism.
two very different things.
start here to learn more about the similarities involved in the denialism exhibited by different groups:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
you could also search on the many comparative articles that have been done on the issue over the last few decades.
There were withdrawals from the IPCC signatory list as well, by scientists who refused to allow their names to be associated with the most recent report.
Don’t expect anyone here to acknowledge or address this, anymore than you would expect a True Chistian Believer to acknowledge any of the numerous contradictions in the Holy Bible.
start here to learn more about the similarities involved in the denialism exhibited by different groups:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
As we all know, Wikipedia contains the Sum Total Of All Human KnowledgeTM, and is never wrong about anything.
Poor Peter [#42] is sorry:
Reading for comprehension, Peter. It’s a wonderful skill. You should try it. Consider PZ’s opening words:
(my emphasis). He then specifically explains what this specific ‘something’ is: a faked-up list of ‘dissenters’. You don’t agree, then argue his point. As it is you just sound like a whiny schoolkid. Grow up.
No, it isn’t, as I suspect you know full well. The equation is with evolution-deniers, HIV-causes-Aids deniers, tobacco-causes-cancer deniers, vaccination-saves-lives deniers, and other groups of anti-scientific halfwits.
Nicks definition of “anti-scientific halfwit”:
Anyone who disagrees with my far-left agenda.
Did the IPCC add anyone’s name to the report without their knowledge, or against their known wishes? Those are the actions of the Heartland Institute which are being objected to.
Global warming does seem to bring out the trolls.
A bit of advise, GWiaS: Spinning an invective about how your opponents are part of some grand conspiracy to overthrow capitalism and subjugate the world’s poor is not going to make people take you particularly seriously. Science is not black and white, there exist uncertainties, hypothesis, observational evidence, etc. We leave the capital T truth to those religious folks. So while climate science is far from certain, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence to date, as seen in the peer reviewed literature, suggests that anthropogenic warming is a serious problem that we as a society must deal with. If you want to discuss the science, I welcome your arguements and references. Conspiracy theories, however, will get you nowhere.
You may want to start with familiarizing yourself with the definitions of weather and climate, and why a particular cold winter or hot summer in and of itself is somewhat immaterial to the discussion of climate change.
Did the IPCC add anyone’s name to the report without their knowledge, or against their known wishes? Those are the actions of the Heartland Institute which are being objected to.
Nice moving of the goalposts. Now do you care to address Peter’s point about scientists withdrawing from the IPCC?
Re #51. So GWIAS, don’t keep us in suspense. Which of these other batty groups do you belong to?
Re #51. So GWIAS, don’t keep us in suspense. Which of these other batty groups do you belong to?
None. Unlike you, I don’t have any religions.
Nice moving of the goalposts.
not even wrong.
Global warming does seem to bring out the trolls.
Zeke’s definition of “troll”:
Anyone who disagrees with my far-left agenda.
A bit of advise, GWiaS: Spinning an invective about how your opponents are part of some grand conspiracy to overthrow capitalism and subjugate the world’s poor is not going to make people take you particularly seriously.
I never used the word conspiracy, did I? Perhaps you need to bone up on your reading comprehension. No conspiracy is necessary, for each individual politician is acting in his or her own self-interest.
So while climate science is far from certain
…something one would never conclude from listening to the IPCC alarmists…
overwhelming preponderance of evidence to date, as seen in the peer reviewed literature, suggests that anthropogenic warming is a serious problem that we as a society must deal with.
There are many climate scientists who disagree.
Re #54. It was Peter moved the goalposts. I take your comment as an admission that the IPCC has not indulged in these clearly unethical practices. The usual complaint against the IPCC is that they exclude sceptics from their procedures. Actually, of course, they don’t the few sceptics who had actually published in the relevant peer-reviewed literature were welcome to take part. If they don’t want their names on a document they disagree with, that is their privilege, and no disgrace to either party. Deceitfully suggesting that scientists support views they oppose is something else entirely, but par for the course for the
LiarsHeartland Institute.Nice moving of the goalposts.
not even wrong.
Then it must be right. Thank-you for your candor.
I always feel compelled to point out irrelevant typos/errors: you’ve misspelled “its” in your first paragraph by adding an apostrophe.
There are many climate scientists who disagree. – GWIAS
Name them, and list their recent relevant peer-reviewed publications.
Then it must be right.
now that’s just plain wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/19/ideas.g2
it’s typically used when someone makes a category error, as you did when you tried to label what Nick said as “moving goalposts”.
you’re bugfuck nuts, you know that, right?
Name them, and list their recent relevant peer-reviewed publications.
So, obviously, you haven’t read them, much like many True Believers haven’t read anything other than their Holy Books. I assume you know how to use Google Scholar. If not, learn.
While you’re at it, tell us all about the validity of the hockey-stick model trumpeted by a certain former Vice-President of the United States.
So, obviously, you haven’t read them, much like many True Believers haven’t read anything other than their Holy Books.
You made the claim. I deny it, so I’m not going to waste my time looking for what I don’t believe to be there. Back your with evidence. Or admit it’s a lie. And stop trying to wriggle out of your lies by constantly changing the subject. It won’t wash here.
Sorry, you just lost my vote. Using this ‘denialist’ meme is disgraceful. It’s an attempt to equate people who – PROPERLY – approach climate science with scepticism with holocaust deniers.
If the tinfoil-hat fits, Mr. Risdon, feel free to wear it.
The “denier” label is entirely appropriate — you and your denier friends are either totally clueless or dishonest about climate-science, just as holocaust deniers are totally clueless or dishonest about history (note: when I use “or”, I use it as an inclusive “or”).
You clowns bring nothing to the table but lies and garbage.
In #65 “Back your with evidence” -> “Back your claim with evidence”.
it’s typically used when someone makes a category error, as you did when you tried to label what Nick said as “moving goalposts”.
What I wrote was nowhere close to a category error, as you are fully aware. Nick responded to a post containing the point in question (scientists withdrawing from IPCC) by equating everyone who is not a member of the Global Warming Death Cult with Holocaust denial. If that’s not moving goalposts, what is?
you’re bugfuck nuts, you know that, right?
I said this earlier, but it bears repeating:
You know you’ve won the argument when the other side stoops to third-grade-level schoolyard insults.
The scientists on these lists should get together and put out their own list of “Dissenting Scientists that don’t Dissent” with a clear statement of how dishonest these lists are.
And sorry Global Warming Denialists, but your tactics are exactly the same as the others: cherry pick data, quote mine, move the goalposts, make fake lists of dissenters, invent conspiracies. Check out Oreskes, and my little experiment where I remove the key words and challenge readers to tell me whether it is an evolution-denial or global warming denial. You can’ tell, the scripts are the same.
So, obviously, you haven’t read them
pot-kettle-black.
pathetic.
hmm, “something” makes me think you wouldn’t understand them, even if you had read them.
go back to sucking at Limbaugh’s teat, eh?
@Science Avenger:
my little experiment
I’ll play!
from the first one:
You shouldn’t be too surprised that those of us that don’t see XXXXX as settled science would do the same.
settled science is something I usually hear being spouted by the global warming deniers, so I vote the first one is a GWD.
yes/no?
You made the claim.
What “claim” did I make? That global warming will cause the end of the world as we know it? Sorry, it’s your side which has been making all of the claims.
I deny it, so I’m not going to waste my time looking for what I don’t believe to be there.
Spoken like a true believer! If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard this staement or something similar uttered by a fundamentalist Christian/Muslim/Jew…
Back your with evidence. Or admit it’s a lie.
Ah, the rules of evidence apply to everyone except Nick, because he’s RightTM.
And stop trying to wriggle out of your lies by constantly changing the subject. It won’t wash here.
How have I constantly changed the subject? What was the original subject, and to what did I change it?
Is there a billboard down there in Troll-land saying, “Go to Pharyngula – they’ll feed you till you pop!”?
And stop trying to wriggle out of your lies by constantly changing the subject. It won’t wash here.
stop projecting.
it won’t “wash” here.
where the hell do you think you are, btw?
you do realize we’re just playing with you, right? Just poking sticks at the shit-flinging monkey?
nobody here takes you seriously.
deal with it.
pot-kettle-black.
pathetic.
Projecting again, are we?
hmm, “something” makes me think you wouldn’t understand them, even if you had read them.
Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, because you’ve accumulated the Sum Total Of All Human KnowledgeTM from Wikipedia.
go back to sucking at Limbaugh’s teat, eh?
Stereotyping: another trait of the fundamentally religious. Like I said, you know you’ve won the argument when this is all the other side has to offer.
Is there a billboard down there in Troll-land saying, “Go to Pharyngula – they’ll feed you till you pop!”?
no, it’s a billboard that just says:
Better fishing will be had where there are the most fish. Find a popular blog, and drop your line there.
simple.
nobody here takes you seriously.
I take that as high praise, since no one at the Dishonesty Institute would take me seriously either. You’re in some pretty “select” company, dude!
Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is stupid
we haven’t even gotten to “disagreement” yet, and yet it’s pretty easy to judge your intelligence level.
go figure.
“First, there are numerous climate scientists who disagree with this hypothesis. ”
Good, then you should have no problem giving us the top three reasons for their disagreement.
I take that as high praise
indeed!
time to go start your own blog, eh?
we haven’t even gotten to “disagreement” yet, and yet it’s pretty easy to judge your intelligence level.
Yes, because (of course) anyone who isn’t a True Believer like you must be an absolute moron, because only a moron would not believe in (insert religion here). Congratulations. You’re a Global Warming Fundamentalist.
GWIAS #45,
Already more than 600 words and still you haven’t said a thing…
I mean, anything additional to your web handle “Global Warming Is A Scam”.
Your web handle already contains all your argumentation. It’s fine. We understood, interesting point of view. Maybe next time.
Already more than 600 words and still you haven’t said a thing…
I suggest taking some remedial readhing comprehension courses.
Nick responded to a post containing the point in question (scientists withdrawing from IPCC) by equating everyone who is not a member of the Global Warming Death Cult with Holocaust denial. – GWIAS
A bare-faced lie. And a pointless one, since the evidence it is a lie is visible in the sequence of comments above. Here is the whole of post in which I responded to that point, #52:
Did the IPCC add anyone’s name to the report without their knowledge, or against their known wishes? Those are the actions of the Heartland Institute which are being objected to.
Where is the reference to Holocaust Denial, liar?
Good, then you should have no problem giving us the top three reasons for their disagreement.
Perhaps, since it is your side that is making the extraordinary claims and demanding that the rest of us make sweeping changes in our lives, you could give us the top three reasons for your “scientists'” agreement with Global Warmism.
I believe the experts since they back their claims with published peer-reviewed articles, and it makes good sense to me regarding the physics, although I am relatively layman. The opposing side never has had any coherent argument, it’s all over the place: it’s not warming, it’s because of the sun, an ice age is coming instead (currently in fashion), it’s warming and it’s humans but it’s not worth doing anything… quite contradictory stuff there.
Most (but not all) of the stuff is propagated by fossil funded think tanks too. All the above people happily mixing at the Heartland institute’s expenses-paid conference in New York.
There are probably some honest scientists who really are sceptical about global warming, but majority of the “scepticisim” seems to be just paid stuff or by people who have fallen for that.
Nothing is absolute in this world, I have high degree of belief in what the vast majority of climate scientists state as their certainty about the matter, which is quite high, though not as high as in some other things like evolution or HIV.
So, GWIAS, just one question, do you really think Heartland is acting honestly with the list they are publishing?
GWIAS,
You’re wrong. In so many ways
Global climate change is solid, well evidenced science. Name three actual, peer-reviewed scientists who disagree. Three. Seriously, learn to read for comprehension. You’ve got the basics down, now move up to the next level. Start with this and come back when you learn something.
A bare-faced lie. And a pointless one, since the evidence it is a lie is visible in the sequence of comments above. Here is the whole of post in which I responded to that point, #52:
Did the IPCC add anyone’s name to the report without their knowledge, or against their known wishes? Those are the actions of the Heartland Institute which are being objected to.
Not quite, liar. Here is your comment to which I was referring:
No, it isn’t, as I suspect you know full well. The equation is with evolution-deniers, HIV-causes-Aids deniers, tobacco-causes-cancer deniers, vaccination-saves-lives deniers, and other groups of anti-scientific halfwits.
The fact that you didn’t explicitly mention Holocaust denial while subtly hinting at it makes it all the more disingenuous.
Global warming denial boils down to three main points:
A little like Bart Simpson’s “I didn’t do it, nobody saw me do it, you can’t prove anything!”
Re #85:
1) Temperature records from the past century show a marked increase in average surface temperatures, measured both using instruments located at the surface, and by satellite.
2) Concentrations of carbon dioxide and other known greenhouse gases that persist in the atmosphere have increased considerably, and isotopic studies show that the increase in the most important, carbon dioxide, is due in large part to the burning of fossil fuels.
3) The pattern of temperature change (troposphere warming while stratosphere cools, greatest warming in the Arctic, more warming at night than during the day), is exactly the expected result from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, and not what would be expected from any other hypothesized cause.
Now, let’s have some content from you. Oh, and a retraction of some of your lies and apology for them would be nice.
I never understood how alternative energy sources, recycling, fuel efficiency and energy efficiency was such a big deal.
Buncha babies. “How dare you ask me to consider driving a smaller car! How dare you inform me that compact flourescent bulbs save me money! SOLAR? WINDPOWER?! I ain’t no damn hippy!!!”
Babies. All of em.
Most (but not all) of the stuff is propagated by fossil funded think tanks too. All the above people happily mixing at the Heartland institute’s expenses-paid conference in New York.
Most of the pro-global-warming nonsense is funded by governments (i.e., politicians who know that scare tactics enable them to secure their grip on power), environmentalist groups or left-wing foundations. And the amounts spent by the “pro” side outweigh the “con” side by multiple orders of magnitude.
Sorry, ad hominem isn’t going to cut it.
Winger.
How’s that NWO bunker coming along?
Are you prepared for the Reptillian invasion?
I never understood how alternative energy sources, recycling, fuel efficiency and energy efficiency was such a big deal.
Then it shouldn’t be necessary to use the alarmist tactics of the Global Warming Lobby, should it?
Buncha babies. “How dare you ask me to consider driving a smaller car! How dare you inform me that compact flourescent bulbs save me money! SOLAR? WINDPOWER?! I ain’t no damn hippy!!!”
I do drive a smaller car. I do use CFBs. As to solar and wind power, I’m more than willing to set that up if you’re willing to pay for it. It’s easy to be politically correct with other people’s money, isn’t it?
Let me add that peer review is no guarantee of quality, but it catches some bad mistakes often.
The deniers don’t have much scientific publications for them at all, most of the stuff brandied about is published in journals with a lousy track record (because of shoddy review) and the papers are badly wrong in their fundamentals.
Take David Archibald or Stephen Schwartz for example. The former’s stuff feels like a parody of science. :P
The IPCC has a big body of scientific well reviewed material to reference to. Some of it of course has mistakes, just because there is so much of it, but it would be incredible if all the scientists were in on some conspiracy producing results with such similar conclusions from so different disciplines. Take glacier and sea ice status around the world, satellite sensing, weather stations, ice cores, rock and mud cores, CO2 measurements (I’ve heard the serious claim from a denier that the CO2 looks like it’s rising because the measurements are made on top of an active volcano!), corals, sediments, agricultural and sea faring records and countless other things.
I’d like to hear from GWIAS which slot he fits into.
1) There’s no warming
2) There’s warming but it’s not caused by humans, it’s caused by [insert reason here]
3) There’s warming and it’s human caused but we should not do anything to prevent it because [insert reason here].
Not quite, liar. Here is your comment to which I was referring:
No, it isn’t, as I suspect you know full well. The equation is with evolution-deniers, HIV-causes-Aids deniers, tobacco-causes-cancer deniers, vaccination-saves-lives deniers, and other groups of anti-scientific halfwits.
The fact that you didn’t explicitly mention Holocaust denial while subtly hinting at it makes it all the more disingenuous. – GWIAS
The comment of mine you quote here (#48) was in direct response to Peter’s claim in #46 that using the word “denialism” implied this equation. I did not address the point about the IPCC, also made in #46, until #52.
Moreover, in #48 I explicitly deny that I equate climate denialism with Holocaust denialism. For you to attempt to equate explicit denial of the parallel with “subtle hinting” at it, simply shows what depths of misrepresentation you are prepared to sink to.
Winger.
How’s that NWO bunker coming along?
Are you prepared for the Reptillian invasion?
Like I said, you know the other side has nothing and you’ve won the argument when all they can come up with is insults and stereotypes.
The comment of mine you quote here (#48) was in direct response to Peter’s claim in #46 that using the word “denialism” implied this equation. I did not address the point about the IPCC, also made in #46, until #52.
Moreover, in #48 I explicitly deny that I equate climate denialism with Holocaust denialism. For you to attempt to equate explicit denial of the parallel with “subtle hinting” at it, simply shows what depths of misrepresentation you are prepared to sink to.
So you like to obfuscate too? Why am I not surprised? Could it be because you are fundamentally dishonest, like the rest of the religious fundamentalists?
You’ve been asked a straightforward question, GwIAS. Are you planning to answer it, or wiggle out like the lying twit we all know you to be?
GWIAS, you have yet to produce any evidence or arguments whatever, apart from repeating that “Global Warming Is A Scam”, and blaming it on governments, environmentalists and leftists, while ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of relevant scientific experts agree that it is not. None of the world’s major scientific bodies agree with you. Where is your evidence? Where are your arguments? Who are the climate scientists who support your claims? Why do you keep telling lies?
GWIAS,
Have you read the AR4 report ?
You’ve been asked a straightforward question, GwIAS. Are you planning to answer it, or wiggle out like the lying twit we all know you to be?
Which question is that?
while ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of relevant scientific experts agree that it is not
I was wondering how long the fallacy of the majority would take to rear its ugly head.
Perhaps, since it is your side that is making the extraordinary claims and demanding that the rest of us make sweeping changes in our lives, you could give us the top three reasons for your “scientists'” agreement with Global Warmism. – GWIAS
I responded to this in #89. So it is yet another of your lies that all your opponents come up with are insults and stereotypes. GWIAS if you persistently lie, you really must expect to be called a liar – it comes with the territory.
Stereotype?
You’re the one who is basically claiming that it’s just a big liberal environmentalist scam to take over the world… or whatever.
You’re like every other conspiracy theorist. Short on evidence, long on conspiracy.
It’s fun to poke goofballs like you with sticks. It’s what’s amusing about posters like you.
So it is yet another of your lies that all your opponents come up with are insults and stereotypes.
Yes..tinfoil hats…NWO bunkers…Reptillian invasions…no insults or stereotypes there.
you persistently lie, you really must expect to be called a liar – it comes with the territory.
So you’re telling me that you expect to be called a liar, since you have consistently lied about me?
Did Joe Blow get out of the dungeon again? Or do right-wingers all pretty much hew to the same gotchas and “I know you are but what am I”s and “You say naughty things and therefore you’re wrong”? So tiresome.
You’re the one who is basically claiming that it’s just a big liberal environmentalist scam to take over the world… or whatever.
You’re like every other conspiracy theorist. Short on evidence, long on conspiracy.
Please take the time to learn how to read and actually comprehend what you are reading. I explicitly stated that there was no conspiracy, and that in fact none would be necessary. Not that what people actually say matters to True Believers like yourself.
It’s fun to poke goofballs like you with sticks. It’s what’s amusing about posters like you.
What’s amusing about you is that you still can’t come up with anything beyond stereotypes and third-grade-level schoolyard insults. Don’t worry, though. You’re helping to convince me all the more of the paucity of the Warmista crowd.
Re #106. Rey, I think you’re right – it is Joe Blow! He had me fooled because he didn’t mention Al Gore at first. Someone’s been tinkering with his software, but the basic program structure is still the same – and still not good enough to pass the Turing test for more than a short while: can’t formulate connected arguments, can only respond to about one point in ten, uses “I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I” all the time – that’s Joe!
Did Joe Blow get out of the dungeon again? Or do right-wingers all pretty much hew to the same gotchas and “I know you are but what am I”s and “You say naughty things and therefore you’re wrong”? So tiresome.
Do you have anything intelligent to say? Or are you, like the rest of the True Believers, capable of nothing more than insults and stereotypes?
Re #106. Rey, I think you’re right – it is Joe Blow! He had me fooled because he didn’t mention Al Gore at first. Someone’s been tinkering with his software, but the basic program structure is still the same – and still not good enough to pass the Turing test for more than a short while: can’t formulate connected arguments, can only respond to about one point in ten, uses “I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I” all the time – that’s Joe!
So, besides being a liar and a Global Warming Fundamentalist, you also have a very active fantasy life. Not surprising coming from such a strident religionist.
GWIAS, you’ve yet to produce one scrap- one name, one paper, one link- for this, according to you, significant number of credible scientists refuting either man’s role in climate change or in the change itself. Seeing as the conventional wisdom in the scientific community concurs with the IPCC report, YOU are the one making extraordinary claims and, thus, obligated to pony up the extraordinary proof.
Shorter, shit or get off the pot.
Note the repeated appearance of a small number of key phrases in the effusions from GWIAS: “True Believers”, “insults and stereotypes”, and of course “Global Warming Is A Scam” itself. Still, I must congratulate its programmer – (s)he had us believing we were arguing with an actual person for a while there!
GWIAS: You just proved my point!
(Gotcha!)
GWIAS: You just proved my point!
You had a point? I guess I missed it.
GWIAS:
that’s not the first thing you’ve missed.
Note the repeated appearance of a small number of key phrases in the effusions from GWIAS: “True Believers”, “insults and stereotypes”, and of course “Global Warming Is A Scam” itself. Still, I must congratulate its programmer – (s)he had us believing we were arguing with an actual person for a while there!
You really are a deluded member of the faithful, aren’t you?
You had a point? I guess I missed it.
That, um, was the point.
I guess “Wiggle out like the lying twit” would be your choice, then?
We have the science. You have??? We’re still waiting for it.
Folks, I think GWIAS will outlast us. Being a piece of software, it doesn’t get tired, or bored, or have anything better to do – and because it has pretty much run through all its canned responses, it will get less and less amusing as its limitations become increasingly evident. Anyhow, I need to get to bed – it’s 1.00 am here and I have to get up for work in the morning. Have fun!
I guess “Wiggle out like the lying twit” would be your choice, then?
No, that would be your choice. You haven’t presented anything besides the highly politicized IPCC bullshit and a litany of insults and stereotypes. Oh well…
We have the science.
According to a certain definition of science, I suppose.
I can attest to the annoying role played by talking heads on TV, radio and even in newspapers who still regularly point to their current local weather pattern and use that to bolster their opinion on climate change.
It is rampant whenever a day doesn’t conform to seasonal expectations although I’ve never seen any person knowledgeable on the topic do it. I actually remember a dimwitted TV host trying to close his show with such an observation and getting interrupted for this by the invited expert while the credits were already rolling.
On the climate “skeptics”, what I see is people getting their panties in a twist over political consequences and, just like the creotards, no convincing story why they are bypassing the scientific method AND community. To complement that, there is a similarly wide gap between the “scholars” advocating their positions and the ludicrous not-even-wrong BS from their fanboys.
GWIAS, I asked a question, but you didn’t answer. In short, do you say that the Earth has not warmed in the last three decades?
Folks, I think GWIAS will outlast us. Being a piece of software, it doesn’t get tired, or bored, or have anything better to do – and because it has pretty much run through all its canned responses, it will get less and less amusing as its limitations become increasingly evident. Anyhow, I need to get to bed – it’s 1.00 am here and I have to get up for work in the morning. Have fun!
Yes, the toilets at Burger King will definitely need cleaning by then. Just make sure you use environmentally-friendly toilet cleaner.
LOL.
GWIAS, I asked a question, but you didn’t answer. In short, do you say that the Earth has not warmed in the last three decades?
It has warmed by what, 0.2 degrees? BFD.
Hey Scam,
Link to some science that shows global warming is a scam or go away.
that’s not the first thing you’ve missed.
It’s not difficult to miss things that don’t exist. Case in point, global warming.
How about, GWIAS? Are you just a bot? Give me an actual response so we know you’re a human. Still a liar, but human.
Link to some science that shows global warming is a scam or go away.
Hey Stevie-boy:
Link to some science (other than the highly politicized IPCC) that shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that global warming will mean The End Of The World As We Know ItTM, or continue to have your hypocrisy called out.
Notice I didn’t tell you to go away, because, unlike you and your ilk, I’m not afraid of contrary views or evidence.
I asked first.
@#128 GWiaS —
Has anyone on this thread claimed that climate change = TEOTWAWKI? Besides you, that is?
I asked first.
Straight out of the schoolyard, as usual. You are pathetic.
TEOTWAWKI is a pretty strange term to use, given that the world as we know it changes day by day. I can’t imagine why someone would try to use that as a strawman to rail against tbh.
Has anyone on this thread claimed that climate change = TEOTWAWKI? Besides you, that is?
It’s only the centerpiece of entire Warmista movement, as I am sure you are well aware, and is the reason that they have been able to extort so much money for their “research” and get so much repressive regulation passed.
I’m pathetic?
LINK to some fucking science asshole. It’s not hard.
Where’s your evidence that it’s a scam? Where?
What repressive regulation???
Like the darwinists, the warmista movement doesn’t even seem have a website, so i think we can safely assume we are dealing with another fantasy, sry, secret global conspiracy here.
There is a great deal of papers referred to here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
Note that they are referred to by the IPCC, they are not written by it.
You can start reading from the first one and debunking it now.
By the way, there has been much more than 0.2 C warming in the last three decades. This
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/
is a nice tool if you want to quickly play around with temperature data.
I hope you really do study the stuff.
Hey, GWIAS, why not, instead of Warmistas or Warmmongers, you just call us Heatmisers? It perfectly suits your apparent grasp of science.
According to the video referenced Seelke believes in common descent. Seelke is one of the two biologists in Explore Evolution (Scott Minnich is the other). This is what it says:
Doing research? Wow. That’s dispatch Seelke first. Google Scholar:
Your search – author:r-seelke – did not match any articles published since 2003.
Scott Minich did publish some articles. Let’s look at him. Scott Minich in Dover said this:
How in the world can you do “evolution-related research” without really looking at evolution in detail? Isn’t that the canonical definition of “sloppy research”? What about his research on evolution-related topics? Again Dover:
Let’s look at this paper because not only is it one of the few papers that actually deals with evolution but it also refers to the only other paper tangentially involving evolution co-written by Minnich.
Maybe my note was too harsh. So, did the prediction referenced above drive how they found the frame deletion? No just standard evolutionary theory. Here’s reference 15 co-written by Minnich. The following is part of the discussion of the search for the reason for loss of motility.
How was this done in 1999 [from reference 30]?
What else does Minnich’s earlier paper say?
Who is the our here? Is it Minnich and Meyers? What is the evolution model? Is it irreducible complexity? No on both counts. References 13 and 26 are written by P Feng the main author of the paper. Here’s the abstract of reference 13, entitled Genotypic and phenotypic changes in the emergence of Escherichia coli O157:H7. That’s evolution boys and girls and Minnich signed off on it as a co-writer. Maybe the title is deceptive and it really backs intelligent design.
Here’s reference 26.
Genetic and evolutionary analysis of mutations in the gusA gene that cause the absence of beta-glucuronidase activity in Escherichia coli O157:H7.
What was the paper’s conclusion?
This conclusion reeks with biology that can be understood only in light of evolution that Minnich apparently missed in a paper he was a co-author of. So, you have Robert Seelke who directly affirms common descent and you have Scott Minnich by virtue of a paper he co-authored and referenced indirectly affirms common descent and natural selection. So, there you have it, 100% of the biologists who have written Explore Evolution believe it.
So are we saying scientists have absolutely proven that global warming is man made an not a natural cycle? So should we go by corn fed cars and starve the children in other countries just to save the planet? I am not a creationist or denier of evolution. I am just in the middle of the global warming issue who wants more proven facts.
WOW!
Nice work Rich Blinne!
I am just in the middle of the global warming issue who wants more proven facts.
Oh, you’ll get “facts” from the Pharyngular Warm-mongers, all right. The only caveat is that they have a rather “creative” definition of the term “fact” from that used by the rest of us.
You’re the one with the name “Global warming is a Scam”.
Show us the evidence that it is.
Natural climate cycles don’t change drastically in 3 decades.
And only a bonehead would think that burning millions of gallons of fossil fuels a year… and in increasing amounts no less, would have no effect on the climate.
You’re the one with the name “Global warming is a Scam”.
Brilliant observation, Sherlock! Got any more pearls of wisdom for us great unwashed?
Show us the evidence that it is.
Since you want everyone to change to suit your agenda, the burden of proof is on you. It is still a free society, despite the efforts of you and your ilk to the contrary.
Natural climate cycles don’t change drastically in 3 decades.
Evidence? Oh, that’s right, that rule doesn’t apply to True BelieversTM
And only a bonehead would think that burning millions of gallons of fossil fuels a year… and in increasing amounts no less, would have no effect on the climate.
Evidence? Oh, that’s right, that rule doesn’t apply to True BelieversTM
GWAIS – #139 and #141
Umm, you do know that you’re supposed to change your handle when using a sock puppet don’t you? Otherwise you just look like another loony talking with himself.
duh, preview is there for a reason. apologies
I’m done.
I call troll.
He refuses to back up his claim with any data or evidence.
Completely expected and really really funny.
Umm, you do know that you’re supposed to change your handle when using a sock puppet don’t you? Otherwise you just look like another loony talking with himself.
More fact-free bullshit from the Warmistas. I didn’t post # 139. And your sockpuppetry allegation is very likely projection on your part. So which one are you? Nick? Steve C? Raingodzilla? Do tell!
I’m done.
I call bullshit on that one.
I call troll.
Stevie-boy’s definition of “troll”:
Anyone who disagrees with my far-left agenda.
He refuses to back up his claim with any data or evidence.
Project much?
Completely expected and really really funny.
Indeed, I find your lies, projection and hypocrisy entertaining.
I would love to hear PZ’s opinion on the IP addresses used in #139 and your other posts.
GWIAS #147.
I noticed after posting that you didn’t post #139 – although the rhetoric and name were very similar. I apologise again for jumping the gun.
However, could you please let me know whether you think the actions of the Heartland Institute in this case are defensible? To me it smacks of libel.
I would love to hear PZ’s opinion on the IP addresses used in #139 and your other posts.
You mean there might be more than one person opposing your extreme agenda? Say it ain’t so!
IMHO the extremity of one’s position in any disagreement has a lot to do with the consequences of the proposed action on either side.
Premise 1: Global Warming is happening and we had better try and mitigate it’s effects
Worst possible consequences of taking action based on this premise: Global economic depression as energy prices rise as a result of changing to a more carbon-neutral energy economy
Premise 2: Global Warming is an illusion/leftist conspiracy
Worst possible consequence of taking action/inaction: Sea levels rise, millions of people become displaced, millions of hectares of arable land become unfarmable, sea currents change, drastic habitat loss, war, famine, pestilence etc.
If Global Warming is really happening, the consequences of inaction could be dire indeed. If it’s not happening, what is the worst consequence of trying to take action against it?
Troll? No. I call satire. Reads too much like a Monty Python argument clinic sketch. I wonder if Rev Hipple has a new handle…
Ignoring your wild speculation as to what my agenda is, you keep going back to politics, is that where you came from?
I liked your argument for balancing spending in terms of pro- and con- “global warming” research. Even supposing these sides actually exist in the terms that you use to describe them this would be a stupid idea. I’m pretty sure your half-assed political ideology (as you’ve exhaustively demonstrated in this thread) wouldn’t support BIG-GOVERNMENT taking control of science research that way. I remember your evil extreme leftist commie enemies trying to control science research in much the same way. I’m starting to think you are just a covert commie infiltrating some whacky conservative libertarian organization using this thread as your badge of honour.
Good luck with that.
Folks who are interested in finding out what makes global-warming deniers tick should google up “Dunning-Kruger”. Everything will then fall into place.
Attempt #2…
GWias,
Please give us the top three scientific reasons that support your contention that Global warming is a scam.
This isn’t asking for much. You can do it in bullet form; I’m not asking for a tome.
Every indication is that natural cycles will overwhelm any AGW effect (see for example).
#158 says “Every indication is that natural cycles will overwhelm any AGW effect” and links to a letter in Nature. But the letter says that “…global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.” – in other words, natural cycles MIGHT. TEMPORARILY. offset AGW. Hard to see where #158 gets the interpretation.
Indeed, the onus is on those who claim global warming to prove it. And when they do, damn it, I will refuse to read any of it. The onus is on them to inject the knowledge straight into my brain!
GWIAS:
I won’t insult you. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. What I see as a non-scientist on the climate change issue is basically the same I see on the evolution “issue”. On the one hand, great majority of scientists and experts who have NOTHING to gain assert something, and produce EVIDENCE usually with painstaking experiments and research.
Then, usually conservative institutions and “think” tanks usually funded by those with a lot to lose start spreading misinformation, and producing no evidence at all, just like that, the next day they come up with their “counter arguments” for evidence that took months, years or even decades for the actual scientists to produce. And after everything, it’s just talking points what these denialists do. I mean come on, did you ever see the “CO2, they call it pollution, we call it life” ads? Those were ridiculous.
The pattern of the denialists (which includes creationists) has been rampant and consistent dishonesty. You still haven’t addressed the main point here which is the proven dishonesty of your group. Also, calling non-believers “fundamentalists” and religionists, and believers, and such, is too a rather pathetic tactic of actual creationists. If you’re gonna do that, provide a good reason or argument. Following evidence and expert opinion is just the opposite as being a fundamentalist.
Also, and maybe someone else can expand on this, some of the IPCC scientists were indeed pissed about the final report, but not for the reasons you think, but because politicians actually censored some harsher conclusions that the scientists had come up with. I don’t know or haven’t heard of any scientist that didn’t agree that climate change was about 90% sure to be caused by humans as the report indicated, but you could produce some info on that, could you?
So after all that, as a non-scientist, I know which side I put my trust on.
Can someone more knowledgeable than I address ice cores and the trapped CO2 bubbles found in different layers, as well as the various conclusions drawn re: different concentrations for different years? What are the various theories (if any?) on why the concentrations *are* different?
I’ve heard that CO2 levels found in the ice core layers are not the same for each time period investigated.
Thanks!
My favorite quote about this whole thing actually arrived on a Starbucks cup…
So-called “global warming” is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable.
Don’t let them get away with it!
– Chip Giller, Founder of Grist.org
How are we going to stop global warming if it is a natural cycle? Sure we can have cleaner cars and more things to make the air we breath better. But in the long run the earth will keep going through a natural cycle and there is nothing us humans can do to stop it. Reading both sides in this past Skeptics magazine makes me wonder is it all worth taking away corn to feed people and using it for fuel really going to stop the natural cycle or man made warming?
So are we saying scientists have absolutely proven that global warming is man made an not a natural cycle? So should we go by corn fed cars and starve the children in other countries just to save the planet? I am not a creationist or denier of evolution. I am just in the middle of the global warming issue who wants more proven facts. – Global warming natural cycle
On the assumption this is a sincere enquiry:
1) Absolute proof is for logic and mathematics, not science. The conclusion that most of the warming over the past century is caused by human activities is as well-established as (for example) the conclusion that HIV causes Aids, or that smoking tobacco increases your chances of getting lung cancer.
2) No, we should not go by corn fed cars. This pseudo-solution has been pushed primarily by George W. Bush to benefit agribusiness. It has been opposed by numerous environmentalist groups, because peer-reviewed research indicates it is at best a very inefficient way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, at worst actually increases them. On wider biofuel issues, there is much current debate – some experts think that with the right crops, and institutional arrangements, they could make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions without causing hunger, others disagree. (Note that this is argument about the best way to combat man-made climate change, not about whether it is happening or whether it needs to be dealt with.) A good place to start is a recent UK Royal Society report: “Sustainable biofuels: prospects and challenges”, available online at:
http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=28914
If you really want information from professional climate scientists, your best general online source is http://www.realclimate.org/.
Start with their “Start Here” page.
I provided science, GWIAS. The IPCC WG1 chapter 1 has 6 pages of references. The findings are used in the working group report, so you get a coherent picture and don’t need to read all the individual papers. And the working groups’ work is is summarized in the shorter synthesis report (if you don’t have time to read the long WG reports) as well summary for policy makers that is even shorter. So it’s really easy to get a huge load of science, the table is set and you are invited. It’s free.
Summary for policy makers:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Synthesis report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm
The links to the working group reports are at the top:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm
Now it’s your turn.
You haven’t answered my questions or countered my claims.
You have even avoided the Heartland’s honesty question that was the original article by PZ.
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/index.html
I’m all for keeping the subject open to debate. I think we can all agree that we want a world that’s habitable, at best. I do feel that the coverage given to global warming borders on scare-mongering, but I think that may have more to do with the media than anything else.
And someone said something about scientists that were upset about the IPCC report, but because the final report wasn’t harsh enough… I have seen a film called “The Great Global Warming Swindle”…I think it was aired on the BBC…where they spoke to some scientists (I apologise for not having names available) that were upset because they felt they were included in a report they didn’t support. I’m sure that doc is available on youtube or something.
Anyway, I think the debate is good! Let’s make sure we understand this world of ours… But the name calling is sad and embarrassing. Surely we can engage each other in a more mature way?
Claudia,
“The Great Global Warming Swindle” (on Channel 4, not BBC) was an entirely fraudulent piece of work – bearing, in fact, a remarkable resemblance to “Expelled” in its M.O. The well-known oceanographer Carl Wunsch was tricked into taking part under false pretences (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/
and the producer, Martin Durkin, has a considerable record in making faux documentaries – see http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/03/16/modified-truth/.
Calling for “debate” on whether anthropogenic climate change is happening and needs to be addressed urgently is very much like calling for “debate” between evolutionists and creationists, or those who accept and those that deny the link between smoking and lung cancer, or between HIV and Aids. GWIAS’s complete failure to cite any sources, any ideas, any climate scientists is not just a result of his own ignorance: the few people with any relevant expertise still denying the reality of anthropogenic climate change have published almost nothing in the last 10 years – because their ideas have led nowhere, they have no coherent alternative theory, and no way to explain the data which the consensus position explains.
Thank you for those links, Nick. I especially liked reading about Carl Wunsch’s experience in making TGGWS.
I do think I didn’t make my point about debate clear enough; I meant that we should be sure we’re not over-dramatising what is the reality of global warming. Wunsch describes what I meant to say much more eloquently than I could ever hope for in the first paragraph of the link you gave.
Turn around is fair play. Someone with an interest/masochistic streak should go through random statements of preachers, theologians and other swindlers and come up with a list of “500 Clerics Who Doubt the Existence of God”, “500 Clerics Who Believe God is Evil”, “500 Clerics Who Support the Molestation of Children”, and so on and so forth.
It would be the gift that keeps on giving.
You wouldn’t need to go through anything. Just take random names. Start with the pope. After all, you can lie and fabricate anything if you are Heartland.
You could make a parody. List of astronauts who claim that the moon is made of cheese.
How long do you think it will be before one of these scientists sues them over this list? I’d think that someone who tried to get their name taken off would have a case.
If I were a faculty member whose name had been misused in this manner, you can bet that I’d be on the phone with the university attorney’s office within a New York nanosecond.
mz in #95 wrote:
I have seen that claim made by ardent anthropogenic enhanced global warming deniers that it has become something of a cliché.
claudia and #167
The Great Global Warming Swindle was a UK Channel 4 production, biased and light on real scientific fact or debate.
and yo and #161
I had thought of disabusing GWIAS on that very point and I am pleased that you got there first. I rather think this proves that GWIAS has a problem WRT Dunning-Kruger effect. This is exactly the effect of religion the less that IDIOTs and other religious apologists know, or can have proven, then the more they believe in their imaginary friends.
Seriously GWIAS, if you really wish to get a handle on the many issues concerning climate change then I suggest a little reading. There is a great little book around now in a new 2008 edition by Robert Henson, ‘The Rough Guide to Climate Change’. This is a masterpiece of production by being small in size and price, yet comprehensive and well illustrated. This little gem completes with an excellent list of other sources to consult including web sites such as Grist already mentioned above in an earlier post. Well known contrarians such as Lomborg and Crichton are examined too.
Whilst on Crichton and his rant ‘State of Fear’ I found this entertaining and rather to the point:
http://thenewlibertine.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the sea. The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone…US Weather Bureau in 1922
The air is cleaner than it was 30 years ago, yet we see claims of the climate change getting worse…Man compared to what is produced out in the wild, only contributes a very small portion of the Earth’s pollution. There is also another well known variable, the historical way the Earth warmed and cooled before the industrial age. Since man has progressed, does this mean the Earth is not allowed to do that anymore…lol
The list might be sleazier than the DI’s list, but denying anthropogenic global warming is overall less sleazy. Before anyone jumps on me, I didn’t say that it isn’t sleazy, it’s just that there are lacunae in our knowledge of weather and climate which leave more doubt that anthropogenic global warming is occurring than that life evolved.
As I recall, the IPCC says that it is something like 90% certain that humans are substantially responsible for our warming climate. Maybe it’s higher, and I’d probably give it a higher level, at any rate (95% seems a safe enough guess as to our certainty). What is the doubt that evolution occurred without a “designer” intervening? It must be a good deal less than one percent.
Sure, I’m just categorizing levels of sleaze here, not the most important issue in the debate. But I think that it matters to some extent, because we actually do well to admit that questions about anthropogenic global warming do exist (partly because it’s a single “event”), while there are no honest questions that life arose through evolutionary means without detectable intervention by a designer.
The certainty that we’re causing global warming is well above the threshold at which we should act. It’s still not to the same threshold as that life exists by inheritance and “natural” modification of that inheritance through its generations. Hence the DI is the sleaziest, and while the immediate danger of the DI’s denial is not as great as global warming denialism is, the DI would destroy science as a reliable evidence-based means to get answers about our world if it could do so (it would try to be selective, but I have no idea how science could be perverted in biology without it perverting the physics upon which biology rests).
If the DI succeeded, we would have no basis for any kind of science any more, thus warming denialists would be the equal of anybody else.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Re: Michael’s claim in #174 that the air and water are “getting cleaner:” they aren’t. They are being MADE cleaner, thanks to environmental laws, i.e. the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Montreal Accords on Ozone-Destroying Chemicals. This is old news. When (not if) a new regulatory system on greenhouse gases is put into play, and the results likewise come up as improvements, the people who touted their made-up 9/11 Truther-ish conspiracy theories will justifiably be left out of the negotiation table, and will have only themselves to blame for whatever burdens the law places upon them.
Why do idiots type LOL after their own comments? To let us know that they made a joke? Where I come from, people know you’ve made a joke when they laugh of their own accord, not because you’ve prompted them. What I find especially annoying is Michael’s tendency to consider his own little strawman arguments ‘jokes’. I can just imagine him and his little Christwit cronies sitting around, parodying ‘libruls’ and ‘athiests’, guffawing away at their poor little attempts at humour.
Ugh, what bleak, uninspired little lives such people must lead.
Re: Michael’s claim in #174 that the air and water are “getting cleaner:” they aren’t. They are being MADE cleaner, thanks to environmental laws, i.e. the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Montreal Accords on Ozone-Destroying Chemicals
just to make another thing perfectly clear, the issues addressed by the clean air/water acts have NOTHING to do whatsoever with greenhouse gasses.
they mostly have to do with nitrates/phosphates/sulfates and particulates both in air and water.
CO2 and Methane emissions were never considered to be a part of the issue of “clean” air.
Catalytic converters on cars were never intended to reduce CO2 emissions, for example. Nor were scrubbers on smokestacks.
Ugh, what bleak, uninspired little lives such people must lead.
OTOH, I’m sure some of them are well paid.
there is a growing body of evidence pointing to hired guns deliberately spreading misinformation about global warming on forums like this one.
there’s even a name for it, that escapes me at the moment, though I do recall documenting the issue the last time we had a bunch of GWDs show up on Pharyngula.
was it this thread?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/an_index_to_climate_change_den.php
hmm.
no.
maybe this one?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/2007_weblog_awards.php
ah yes, that was it.
It’s called astroturfing.
http://www.desmogblog.com/video-jim-hoggan-on-astroturfing-greenwashing-and-the-echo-chamber
I agree with Glen. Anthropogenic global warming is less certain than evolution. The science is upfront about this.
Recently a denier enabler Roger Pielke Jr has babbled a lot about how “global warming is unfalsifiable” even though when shown papers and told about estimates of observations that would falsify it. (To simplify and paraphrase.)
Here’s a summary by James Annan himself about it:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2008/05/are-you-avin-laff.html
Evolution and global warming are different issues, but the tactics by the deniers are often very much the same: rely on public ignorance, spread myths and outright lie.
Often the major tactic is not to claim that it’s wrong, just to muddle the waters and say “we don’t know” and pretend to be “in the middle” of “the environmentalists and the industry”.