• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

2 November 2004: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3975805.stm

The Arctic is undergoing rapid and possibly irreversible change, according to a new report prepared for the eight nations which rim the region.

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) endorses recent warnings about melting ice, with perhaps all ocean ice disappearing in summers by 2060-2100

19 June 2008: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7460000/newsid_7462800/7462806.stm

Ice in the Arctic is melting even faster than before, and some scientists fear the area could be completely free of ice in summer by 2013 [...]

A few years ago, scientists were predicting ice-free Arctic summers by about 2080. Then computer models started projecting earlier dates, around 2030 to 2050.

But summer 2007 saw Arctic sea ice shrink to the smallest level ever recorded, down to 4.2 million sq km from 7.8 million sq km in 1980.
 
Wikipedia, "open to edit by anyone" cannot show "what the views of Carl Wunsch are". So you may or may not be right, but should not use Wikipedia as a reference to prove the assertion.

Quite obviously, Wunsch's views as relevant to this matter are reflected by his work as shown in his published papers.

But credit is due to you for good misdirection.

Fortunately, they have provided quotes from Wunsch himself, and references, so you don't have to rely on Wikipedia at all. What it shows is how science is misunderstood and misrepresented, yet again. Wunsch states quite clearly what he thinks, despite coolskeptics misrepresentation of what the paper means.
 
Are the denialists still at it? Still?

Come on, there are still people out there denying that nicotine is addictive.

Global warming is real, and is a real problem. Of course, doing something about it will be costly and involve compromises... two things that the right-wing is incapable of even considering. So, the denialist movement: the right-wing machine spews nonsense, and the followers lap it up and repeat it religiously.

The fundamental (sic :)) issue is that it demands interference with the unfettered free market, by regulation and education. Laissez-faire ideology cannot cope with externalities, so when they arise they must be denied. Reality is defined as a two party interaction, buyer and seller. There is no third party.

Fred "Smokin'" Singer is the classic example. Whatever the issue - tobacco (first- or second-hand), DDT, mercury, acid rain, CFC's, hexavalent chromium, ocean acidification, yadda-yadda - if it implies third parties it cannot be real. Only a commie would think (or more likely pretend to think, for their own nefarious purposes) that it is.

The point of the denial machine is to put off doing anything at all for as long as possible. I'm not sure what mental defect drives the followers, other than that they ARE followers.

You're absolutely right in distinguishing the cynicism of the leaders from the true belief of the followers. The leaders don't believe, they don't even care, but they know what the bottom line is. If you own half-a-dozen homes across four continents, AGW really isn't a threat.
 
Fortunately, they have provided quotes from Wunsch himself, and references, so you don't have to rely on Wikipedia at all. What it shows is how science is misunderstood and misrepresented, yet again. Wunsch states quite clearly what he thinks, despite coolskeptics misrepresentation of what the paper means.

Yet another shallow assault by mhaze. Wiki is a useful starting point (far superior to Google); anything on it can be verified or not, as the case may be. mhaze stops at Wiki because he can't cope with what Wunsch has actually said.
 

Remarkable, isn't it? Deadlines are seldom drawn forward as rapidly as that. A record low in 2005, smashed (by over 20%) in 2007. Who saw that coming?

I've said it before, but I'll say it again : ice dynamics is a damn' sight harder to model than climate. It's also a damn' sight harder to deny that it's doing what it's doing. Ice is very visible.

Hence the GWSceptic focus on the tropical mid-troposphere. These are desperate times for them, after all.
 
Remarkable, isn't it? Deadlines are seldom drawn forward as rapidly as that. A record low in 2005, smashed (by over 20%) in 2007. Who saw that coming?

I've said it before, but I'll say it again : ice dynamics is a damn' sight harder to model than climate. It's also a damn' sight harder to deny that it's doing what it's doing. Ice is very visible.

Hence the GWSceptic focus on the tropical mid-troposphere. These are desperate times for them, after all.

It's like the creationists. "how do you explain this then?". There will always be holes in our knowledge, or things that don't work quite the way expected, if that's actual measurements or models.

What they don't seem to ask is, besides how do you know it will be that bad, is how do you know it won't be worse. The errors can go both ways.
 
It's like the creationists. "how do you explain this then?". There will always be holes in our knowledge, or things that don't work quite the way expected, if that's actual measurements or models.

What they don't seem to ask is, besides how do you know it will be that bad, is how do you know it won't be worse. The errors can go both ways.


I agree, it is like the fundies.

The end of the world is nigh.

Repent now.
There will be
floods!

Famine!

Drought!
Pestilence!
Pandemics!

 
Now, Now. You believe it is really important to repent now (lower your carbon footprint and that of everyone else whether or not they believe as you do), otherwise it is more likely that we shall have ...

floods!
Famine!

Drought!
Pestilence!
Pandemics!
 
It looks like a Jeova Witness speech, Hansen claimed 2 days ago that doom is inminent. Since AGW is unfalsiable, they keep moving the dates for the end of the world. Now they have maneged to move it to 2100, hoping of course that they won't be around to be accounted for.

What amazes me is that they claim that this unfalsiable theory is "scientific".
Now, Now. You believe it is really important to repent now (lower your carbon footprint and that of everyone else whether or not they believe as you do), otherwise it is more likely that we shall have ...

floods!
Famine!

Drought!
Pestilence!
Pandemics!
 
Come on, there are still people out there denying that nicotine is addictive.
Right... it is another hippie conspiracy!
The fundamental (sic :)) issue is that it demands interference with the unfettered free market, by regulation and education. Laissez-faire ideology cannot cope with externalities, so when they arise they must be denied. Reality is defined as a two party interaction, buyer and seller. There is no third party.

Fred "Smokin'" Singer is the classic example. Whatever the issue - tobacco (first- or second-hand), DDT, mercury, acid rain, CFC's, hexavalent chromium, ocean acidification, yadda-yadda - if it implies third parties it cannot be real. Only a commie would think (or more likely pretend to think, for their own nefarious purposes) that it is.
Confirmation of that comes when you scratch the surface of a denialist. When you corner them and get them to answer why there is supposedly a worldwide conspiracy of climate scientists "lying" about the data, their answer very often boils down to "they're all a bunch of goddamned Commies trying to destroy the free market!" In their eyes if something interferes with corporate profits and the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, it cannot be anything except an evil conspiracy. It just CAN'T be true, because all "true" things support the "free market"... :rolleyes:
You're absolutely right in distinguishing the cynicism of the leaders from the true belief of the followers. The leaders don't believe, they don't even care, but they know what the bottom line is. If you own half-a-dozen homes across four continents, AGW really isn't a threat.
No kidding. The millionaires and billionaires have known about AGW probably longer than most of the rest of us, and have been working diligently to muddy the waters with their bogus "doubts" about climate change.
 
:dl:

LOL, you accuse "denialists" of conspiration and right below you resort to conspiration accusations for part of the millonaires and billonaires.
 
Right... it is another hippie conspiracy!Confirmation of that comes when you scratch the surface of a denialist. When you corner them and get them to answer why there is supposedly a worldwide conspiracy of climate scientists "lying" about the data, their answer very often boils down to "they're all a bunch of goddamned Commies trying to destroy the free market!"....

My, My, No!!! The scientists all a bunch of commies yada yada yada? Of course not!!

Now You, on the other hand....:)
 
Right... it is another hippie conspiracy!

Oxymoron :). Most hippies I've known couldn't get a sandwich together, let alone a conspiracy. And they mostly smoke like chimneys.

Confirmation of that comes when you scratch the surface of a denialist. When you corner them and get them to answer why there is supposedly a worldwide conspiracy of climate scientists "lying" about the data, their answer very often boils down to "they're all a bunch of goddamned Commies trying to destroy the free market!" In their eyes if something interferes with corporate profits and the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, it cannot be anything except an evil conspiracy. It just CAN'T be true, because all "true" things support the "free market"... :rolleyes:

I just made a post on the Polar Bear thread touching on history (as a discipline). History is actually my main interest, and it gets just the same sort of treatment from ideologues (left and right) as science does. It has to be battered into the shape they need, to fit the boxes they live in. If the evidence says different, the evidence must be rigged, or it's irrelevant because of this other thing over here, the tropical tropo-whatsit thingy, what about that, eh? And where's the Soviet Union now? Ergo ... some crap or other.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes" (Mark Twain). That can't be quoted too often. (Mark Twain is my hero :o.) That's why I'm quite confident that no effective global action will be taken on AGW. For the upcoming Copenhagen Conference, 2009, see the Congress of Vienna, 2015 (the Congress to End All European Wars). As AGW bites there will be local, national, and regional responses, in that order.

Another thing that the likes of mhaze don't twig is that the impact will be fractal. Some continents will be hit harder than others, within each continent some countries will be hit harder, ultimately down to each society, and even within each social class. The folk with a dozen homes across four continents will fare much better than most, but even some of them will get screwed. Check out what happened to the Romanovs. Were I an Al Saud I would take serious note :). "Don't go down to the cellar ..."

mhaze and his ilk will not fare well but will probably go down blaming it all on Hansen, as their free-market heroes jet off to their high-ground gated communities. Remember how Bush Minor could feel the pain of Katrina because a friend of his lost one of his homes?

Tobacco and health : where's the downside if you're selling it, not smoking it? Peak Oil : where's the downside if you're selling it, not buying it? AGW : where's the downside when you live in a controlled environment anyway? Have your people deny it; they know how to work dupes, such as mhaze and Steve McIntyre. It doesn't even cost much to set them off like Duracell bunnies.

In the meantime, of course, you have your people scope out the reality and position yourself accordingly. It's not (as Lucifage Rocifale assumes) a conspiracy, it's individuals acting in their own best interests as they see them. The same kind of individuals will see their own best interests in pretty much the same way. There's no co-ordination, and no need for it. The Bush Minor Administration is an emergent phaenomenon, not a crafted one.
 
Another person comparing the scientific method to religion. :rolleyes:

Yet another person in deep denial that his views on climate and the environment are rooted not in scientific facts but in irrational beliefs. :D

As has been shown for many years, neither you nor Capeldidgy are going to shift from a position not reached by science.
 
Yet another shallow assault by mhaze. Wiki is a useful starting point (far superior to Google); anything on it can be verified or not, as the case may be. mhaze stops at Wiki because he can't cope with what Wunsch has actually said.

Oh come on, after all some people will claim nicotine isn't addictive. Won't they?
 
If I was being hounded by a bunch of abusive bullies, I'd just ignore them too. The simple fact is, people such as yourself will never be convinced that AGW is valid science. No point wasting your time on trying to do otherwise. Any time spent on meeting their needs is dead time.

Aww the nasty people are asking nasty questions. Its a crying shame.


Denial, a simple yet effective way of dealing with any problem you don't want to face up to.

Its worked well enough for you and Capeldodgy for many years so don't stop now!
 
Capeldodger said-
In the meantime, of course, you have your people scope out the reality and position yourself accordingly. It's not (as Lucifage Rocifale assumes) a conspiracy, it's individuals acting in their own best interests as they see them. The same kind of individuals will see their own best interests in pretty much the same way. There's no co-ordination, and no need for it. The Bush Minor Administration is an emergent phaenomenon, not a crafted one.
​
You forgot the end note, the plug for the summer-sea-ice-a-thon. Probably there will be some coincidental drama, a prayer vigil to Greenland with reporters invited , a North Pole swimmer or two, a frantic headline of some minor ice shelf breaking off... :clap:

You'll have Hansen going to a 300 foot sea level rise, stories about giant snakes invading to USA, cat population explosions, etc.

No one will listen, though. The momentum of your beloved movement cannot be sustained while the planet does not dance to your prophesy.

I give you credit, though, for a very fuel efficient movement: One ran on imagination.
 
Last edited:
Goddam drongo. That's why it's called AGW. We weren't around before, nor were the massive quantities of hydrocarbon. This is something new.

Really? You should know of the two recent studies of paleoclimate that shows that carbon dioxide has been mich higher than the present for at least 300 millions and possible more than 500 million years.

There is nothing new about the climate and nothing new about climate change. Especially there is nothing new about the current levels of carbon dioxide.

But since you haven't shown any connection between your beliefs and any facts its kind of irrelevant isn't it?
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom