How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[mhaze]

Research of Hundreds More Scientists Shows the Natural 1,500-Year Climate Cycle

New York City—March 3, 2008—The co-authors of the best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years today released a second list of more than 400 peer-reviewed scientists who’ve recently found physical evidence of the long, natural climate cycle—bringing the total of such authors to more than 700.

Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute and S. Fred Singer of the Science in Environmental Policy Project presented the new list of scientists at the Heartland conference of man-made warming skeptics in New York City.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, at least maybe we can agree that they were both largely emotive and works of fiction.

-Dr. Imago

Here is the transcript of the film.

http://forumpolitics.com/blogs/2007/03/17/an-inconvient-truth-transcript/

Gore makes many claims, i'd gues 100. In the famous court case, a judge found only nine points were debatable or not supported by the scientific evidence.

I'd say for a layman, he's done pretty well, and is correct most of the time.

 

[mhaze]

Everything in Crichton's book was wrong. Al Gore made over a hundred claims in his film, only a few were wrong or debateable.

Not even RC's review of State of Fear approaches your "everything wrong".

 

[a_unique_person]

Research of Hundreds More Scientists Shows the Natural 1,500-Year Climate Cycle

New York City—March 3, 2008—The co-authors of the best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years today released a second list of more than 400 peer-reviewed scientists who’ve recently found physical evidence of the long, natural climate cycle—bringing the total of such authors to more than 700.

Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute and S. Fred Singer of the Science in Environmental Policy Project presented the new list of scientists at the Heartland conference of man-made warming skeptics in New York City.

There are over 400 hundred peer reviewed scientists doing this? If you're going to lie ( and I'm guessing it' Morano behind this, once again there is no link), at least make it sound slightly plausible.

BTW, Singer should have a talk to Michaels, Michaels does think CO2 is a GHG and contributing to Global Warming, he just doubts the extent of the temperature rise.

So, Mhaze, who are you going with, Singer or Michaels?

 

[a_unique_person]

Not even RC's review of State of Fear approaches your "everything wrong".

Yeah, OK, sexy, athletic women go for nerdy guys, I can believe that much.

 

[mhaze]

Here is the transcript of the film.

http://forumpolitics.com/blogs/2007/03/17/an-inconvient-truth-transcript/

Gore makes many claims, i'd gues 100. In the famous court case, a judge found only nine points were debatable or not supported by the scientific evidence.

I'd say for a layman, he's done pretty well, and is correct most of the time.

I agree. The things Al Bore says are either lies or not lies.

 

[Megalodon]

I agree. The things Al Bore says are either lies or not lies.

your entumescence for Gore is disturbing... do you keep a likeness of him in your boudoir?*

*Carbon credits for the first to identify the reference...

 

[CoolSceptic]

Well, at least maybe we can agree that they were both largely emotive and works of fiction.

-Dr. Imago

Strongly agree. Whilst they might make interesting social philosophy projects, neither of these two political advocacy / propaganda pieces really helps us get to the bottom of the real issues in the science.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

LOL. I haven't read SoF, but I have seem both AIT and TGGWS and your point about AIT is far more correct applied to TGGWS.

Here is the transcript of the film.

http://forumpolitics.com/blogs/2007/03/17/an-inconvient-truth-transcript/

Gore makes many claims, i'd gues 100. In the famous court case, a judge found only nine points were debatable or not supported by the scientific evidence.

I'd say for a layman, he's done pretty well, and is correct most of the time.

 

[Megalodon]

LOL. I haven't read SoF, but I have seem both AIT and TGGWS and your point about AIT is far more correct applied to TGGWS.

You would think so, wouldn't you... when it comes to AWG there's no liar or cheat that you won't back, right?

 

[TrueSceptic]

I was answering a direct question posed by Round Robin, which I assume was related in some way to the OP. Interesting how you single me out rather than Round Robin. Any reason for this?

RR challenged the assertion that the IPCC is dishonest, corrupt, or biased. This is a common feature of GWS behaviour. It is not about the science.

That said, let us look at your original post. The aim of your original post is not really clearly stated. You seem to want a list of arguments presented by global warming sceptics. In your list are a large number of poor arguments. The existence of poor sceptic arguments does not falsify the possibility of strong sceptic arguments, so the list does not discredit all sceptics. The people I listed (and would have linked to if I was allowed to) provide much stronger sceptic arguments. Therefore my response seems reasonably on topic; I'm providing you with stronger GWS positions than the straw men or poorly nuanced points you raised.

Not clearly stated?

Surely anyone can see that my intention was to show "how to be a GWS". There are some credible sceptics to be found, but the OP applies to the vast majority, whether they are well known or just forum contributors like us.

Which straw men? Everything in the OP is commonly observed, including in this forum.

You will soon gain the abilily to post links. I can't remember, but it think it might be 50 posts.

I can't link or quote the arguments yet (the former due to my newbie status, the latter because of forum rules). However I note nobody has yet addressed the content of my point, beyond

- smearing the people I link to as a few individuals having a hissy fit (argumentum ad hominem)
- an appeal to authority
- an attempt to divert the debate by claiming it was off topic (and not criticising the question asked for being presumably equally off topic)

All in all, not very convincing so far. Got anything better?

Well have you?

BTW there are other threads for discussing the science, or you could start your own, as I did.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

You mean Al Gore?

You would think so, wouldn't you... when it comes to AWG there's no liar or cheat that you won't back, right?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Well, at least maybe we can agree that they were both largely emotive and works of fiction.

-Dr. Imago

AIT was intended as a wake-up call. He made a few claims that are not supported (not wrong, just unsupported at present). The vast majority of AIT is in accord with mainstream climate science.

A recent court case found the above to be the case.

 

[mhaze]

....other threads for discussing the science

Laughable attempt to restrict thread in "science forum" to "non science".

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Nice try!

AIT was intended as a wake-up call. He made a few claims that are not supported (not wrong, just unsupported at present). The vast majority of AIT is in accord with mainstream climate science.

A recent court case found the above to be the case.

 

[CoolSceptic]

RR challenged the assertion that the IPCC is dishonest, corrupt, or biased. This is a common feature of GWS behaviour. It is not about the science.

Exactly, RR asked for evidence that the IPCC has a bias, on the basis that a failure to provide such evidence would be a weakness in a GWS claim. I provided that evidence, showing that RR's initial claim was inadequate. If RR's question was on topic, my response was on topic (IMHO).

Not clearly stated?

Surely anyone can see that my intention was to show "how to be a GWS".

Yes, but do you want a list of convincing arguments, or unconvincing arguments, vague or incorrectly nuanced arguments and straw men, as your original list primarily contained? Do you want a description of how to counter these claims, or just a list? Furthermore, surely you didn't think you could put up a provocative list like that and not get responses?

Which straw men? Everything in the OP is commonly observed, including in this forum.

A scientist should always seek out the strongest argument against his/her own viewpoint. If you're in the business of seeking out weak arguments, then I guess I am off topic. You should have stated you only wanted weak arguments in the original post. If you want strong arguments, just ask

BTW there are other threads for discussing the science, or you could start your own, as I did.

Point taken here, I will post more on those threads shortly Although, I would hasten to add: I have not yet presented my own scientific position on this thread, merely addressing points that have been raised previously.

 

[mhaze]

Here is the transcript of the film.

http://forumpolitics.com/blogs/2007/03/17/an-inconvient-truth-transcript/

Gore makes many claims, i'd gues 100. In the famous court case, a judge found only nine points were debatable or not supported by the scientific evidence.

I'd say for a layman, he's done pretty well, and is correct most of the time.

Except when he is telling alarmist lies.

"Tony Blair’s scientific advisor has said that because of what is happening in Greenland right now, the map of the world will have to be redrawn. If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay.

A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the low-countries: absolutely devastating.

The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta and, to the East Bangladesh the area covered includes 50 million people.

Think of the impact of a couple hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a hundred million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center Memorial Site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again. But this is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as the scientists could predict precisely how much water would breech the levy in New Orleans. The area where the World Trade Center Memorial is to be located would be under water. "

 

[TrueSceptic]

Laughable attempt to restrict thread in "science forum" to "non science".

This thread is about behaviour. Whether this is psychology or some other behavioural science, isn't it still science?

I'd ask the mods to move this thread if there were somewhere more appropriate.

 

[mhaze]

Nice try!

"Not wrong just unsupported at present".

 

[TrueSceptic]

So, Mhaze, who are you going with, Singer or Michaels?

Both, of course, until recent warming is reversed

Of course, I'm still not clear what mhaze's position on CO2 as a GHG is, or if it's changed during the last year.