Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
r-j said:
This "Ice Age is a myth" seems to be coming from the skepticalscience blog. It has a whole list of fallacies in which it describes all evidence and objections to a doomsday scenario as "myths".

It's called "Most used myths", which is is about as anti-science as it gets in the doom-o-sphere (dumbosphere/blogosphere).

For example http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

The argument (myth) is presented as "Ice age predicted in the 70s", and the counter you are told to use against this is The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. It very well may be the majority of papers predicted warming, that isn't the problem. The failing is obvious if you look at the opposite.
Click to expand...

I don't know why it is that I can understand other peoples posts but I can't understand yours. It's like trying to view the horizon through a pea souper fog. You take issue with sceptical science for saying "The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming" in reply to those who say that global cooling was predicted in the 70s. Are they wrong to point this out and if so why? Bear in mind that somebody could say in forty years time that people didn't believe in AGW in 2013. Would it be incorrect if somone pointed out then that the vast majority of scientific opinion at this time was that it is happening?

r-j said:
If the opposite was true, and the majority predicted an ice age, that has nothing to do with either the cooling then, or what science can tell us now. Just as if the majority predicted warming then has nothing to do with what happened. This is all about belief, about faith. Faith in experts, faith in the predictions, faith strong enough to make everything else fall by the wayside.

If you really believe, truly believe, and have faith that man made global warming is going to destroy all that is good, destroy not only civilization, but most of the species on the planet, if you are convinced of that, there will be no stopping you in your efforts to save the world. You will have the zeal and strength of a man trying to save his drowning child, the fervor of a newly transformed Saul, the righteousness of ,,,

Sorry. None of that deals with the science, even if it does expose my skeptical views on anyone preaching to me.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense to me either. I'm sure you have not made a logical or scientific argument why skeptical science is wrong though. Just more fog.

r-j said:
As for the Ice Age "myth", I would again wager no evidence will sway the believer of skepticalscience. That crew clearly didn't do their homework on the ice age scare. They all seem very young and dumb.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could state succinctly what they have said that is incorrect and back up what you are saying with some evidence.
 
Last edited:
batvette said:
Business, Industry and Capital tend to migrate to where there is less regulation and taxation. Doesn't everyone know this basic tenet of Capitalism?
Click to expand...
tenet
noun
any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., especially one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement.
Synonym - belief

Tenet's are poor substitute for understanding even when you get them right. In this case you seem to be closer to 17th century Mercantilism than anything in modern economics.

It’s impossible for both industry & capital to migrate from one country to another if those countries trade between them because balance of trade is the inverse of capital flows. IOW if industry moves to China so China sells more goods to the US than the US sells to China (China runs a trade surplus) than we know Capital is flowing from China to the US.

CO2 emissions are an externality is a cost that is socialized instead of being paid for by the producers/consumers. Externalities are a form of market failure. They prevent a market from operating efficiently and regulation is often essential to deal with them.
 
greybeard said:
You take issue with sceptical science for saying "The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming." in reply to those who say that global cooling was predicted in the 70s.
Click to expand...
that doesn't really describe the problem. It's that they call "Ice age predicted in the 70s" a myth, and avoid the larger picture, focusing only one the seemingly political or ideology of how many papers were published about the future climate. This quite simply avoids the real issue, as they defend their strawman.

greybeard said:
Are they wrong to point this out and if so why.
Click to expand...
It's not so much wrong as it is useless.

For example: I say several people in this topic were wrong when they claimed I was saying global temperatures were dropping in the winter.

The response to this is to point out more people claimed I was just trolling, so it doesn't matter that a few people were wrong.

The matter is now described as "the NH cooling myth"

How does one even describe how wrong that is?

In fact, the frame the "aargument" in regards to what "publications" say, not even any science.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Ice age predicted in the 70s
"[M]any publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895."
Click to expand...

As we saw in this here topic, that gets translated/garbled into "That there was global cooling is a myth", which is where it all goes south.
 
bobwtfomg said:
Absolutely you're so right, no conspiracy neccesary, and these ideologically driven, grant motivated "scientists" have been not conspiring for a long time.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1956.pdf
Click to expand...

"To him the carbon dioxide theory holds up, THOUGH IT MAY TAKE ANOTHER CENTURY OF OBSERVATION AND MEASUREMENT TO CONFIRM."

See me in 43 years.

Though I have stated I don't argue with the science per se, I'm more concerned about the failed policies promoted by self loathing leftists if it's right. And it may be simply a matter of their self flagellation producing a self fulfilling prophecy of doom. They don't care if their policies make it worse because they feel humans are a cancer which need to be wiped off the earth.

(this sentiment can be well documented)

If they can blame Republicans for the mess they helped create this is great for them.
 
batvette said:
Regulation that affects industrialized nations but not those whose pollution has eclipsed them, like China. Got it.
Click to expand...

Per our previous discussion China’s CO2 emissions are greater than the US in the same sense that US CO2 emissions are greater than Canada’s.

Unless you think every country should have the same CO2 emission lime (I.E. the US needs to cut it’s emissions by 95%)per person CO2 emissions is what you really want to compare. In this the US is emitting 3X as much CO2 as China.


batvette said:
The obfuscation of dictionary definitions of common words.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say you want your own definition for common words? If you don’t like what a word means don’t use it, don’t complain that people take exception to what you have said when you do use it.

BTW I note that you completely ignores the substance of my post pointing out that your understanding of economics is fatally flawed. It isn’t just your choice of the word tenet that suggesting you are espousing a personal belief rather than something that has any merit the rest of your post showed the same error.

batvette said:
You people have the policy all wrong
Click to expand...


We've established that your policy ideas don't reflect science, economic or the reality of CO2 emissions, yet it our policy ideas that are wrong? You act as if you can make something true simply by saying it.
 
Last edited:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=04373015-802A-23AD-4BF9-C3F02278F4CF

EPA Chief Vows to Probe E-mail Threatening to
‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic


During today’s hearing, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, confronted Stephen Johnson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a threatening e-mail from a group of which EPA is currently a member. The e-mail threatens to “destroy” the career of a climate skeptic. Michael T. Eckhart, president of the environmental group the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), wrote in an email on July 13, 2007 to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI):

“It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

In a July 16, Washington Times article, Eckhart confirmed that he did indeed write the email.

After Senator Inhofe read Eckhart's comments, Johnson vowed to launch a probe concerning the threatening e-mail. Johnson responded to Inhofe saying, “I was not aware of this quote.” He continued, “Statements like this are of concern to me. I am a believer in cooperation and collaboration across all sectors.” Johnson then added, “This is an area I will look into for the record.”
Click to expand...
 
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Watermelons-Environmentalists-Destroying-Stealing-Childrens/dp/1849542171

Delingpole exposes the left-wing/socialist bias that underpins the environmentalist movement - hence the title: watermelons are green on the outside, red on the inside. He also exposes the power, resources and tactics (including censorship and character assassination) of parts of the green movement, which belie its squeaky-clean image. And this, for me was the most telling part of the book. Even if one accepts man-made climate change as plausible, the remedies called for by the green lobby are socialistic, utopian, and of dubious utility. Authors who accept the climate change hypothesis - for example Mark Lynas - have come up with more practical and sensible approaches to dealing with it, whilst Bjorn Lomborg and others have exposed the inadequacies of the current Kyoto consensus.
Click to expand...
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9798713/David-Attenborough-was-sceptical-about-global-warming-claims-David-Bellamy.html

Mr Bellamy, 80, who used to present wildlife shows for the BBC and ITV, claims he has been “shunned” for his views on climate change.
In an interview with the Independent on Sunday, he said that “all the work dried up” after he questioned whether the world was warming.
“I was shunned. They did not want to hear the other side," he said.
In contrast, Sir David, 86, who continues to broadcast, has gradually come to be a proponent of global warming after initial skepticism.
“He (Sir David) was on our side at first but then he had a change of heart,” said Mr Bellamy.
Click to expand...
 
batvette said:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Watermelons-.../dp/1849542171
Click to expand...

So instead of posting your own views you are now just going to post the views of contributors to the Alex Jones' programme. A man with no scientific background. Very telling isn't it? If you can't make a scientific argument why don't you take your views back to the conspiracy forum.
 
Last edited:
batvette said:
Nothing I haven't been arguing here. What are you implying with that "honest enquirer" remark? You didn't change my mind so that makes me dishonest? No it means you're wrong.

So it's rather interesting you seem more interested in discrediting my person than you are in addressing this FACT:

During the years since the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, not only has Global GGE risen, so has the rate of their increase.
And the only thing on the table is more of the same.

Yet you don't seem at all concerned about that, only trying to put labels on people who point out the fallacy of these policies. Don't you care about the planet? Or are you just looking for cheap political capital?
Click to expand...

what was the plan of the kyoto protocoll? to halt all CO2 emissions imidiatly?
 
batvette said:
"To him the carbon dioxide theory holds up, THOUGH IT MAY TAKE ANOTHER CENTURY OF OBSERVATION AND MEASUREMENT TO CONFIRM."

See me in 43 years.

Though I have stated I don't argue with the science per se, I'm more concerned about the failed policies promoted by self loathing leftists if it's right. And it may be simply a matter of their self flagellation producing a self fulfilling prophecy of doom. They don't care if their policies make it worse because they feel humans are a cancer which need to be wiped off the earth.

(this sentiment can be well documented)

If they can blame Republicans for the mess they helped create this is great for them.
Click to expand...

i am not aware of any policies that were thought to mitigate AGW that instead led to a worsening of the problem than without the policy. you got an example where that was the case?
 
its amazing, so many years deniers have told me that my policies like the kyotoprotocoll leads to poor people die because they can't afford energy, and now the very same policy is said to have industrialized poor countries and made the problem worse. what is it now?
 
r-j said:
This "Ice Age is a myth" seems to be coming from the skepticalscience blog. It has a whole list of fallacies in which it describes all evidence and objections to a doomsday scenario as "myths".

It's called "Most used myths", which is is about as anti-science as it gets in the doom-o-sphere (dumbosphere/blogosphere).

For example http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

The argument (myth) is presented as "Ice age predicted in the 70s", and the counter you are told to use against this is The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. It very well may be the majority of papers predicted warming, that isn't the problem. The failing is obvious if you look at the opposite.

If the opposite was true, and the majority predicted an ice age, that has nothing to do with either the cooling then, or what science can tell us now. Just as if the majority predicted warming then has nothing to do with what happened. This is all about belief, about faith. Faith in experts, faith in the predictions, faith strong enough to make everything else fall by the wayside.

If you really believe, truly believe, and have faith that man made global warming is going to destroy all that is good, destroy not only civilization, but most of the species on the planet, if you are convinced of that, there will be no stopping you in your efforts to save the world. You will have the zeal and strength of a man trying to save his drowning child, the fervor of a newly transformed Saul, the righteousness of ,,,

Sorry. None of that deals with the science, even if it does expose my skeptical views on anyone preaching to me.

As for the Ice Age "myth", I would again wager no evidence will sway the believer of skepticalscience. That crew clearly didn't do their homework on the ice age scare. They all seem very young and dumb.
Click to expand...

on SS they do not use the word myth at all. the word myth is only once on that topic and is the title of a paper that deals with the myth of scientific concencus in the 70's of an coming ice age. which indeed is a mth, becaue there was no concencus about this, and the papers shows that most publications of the time predicted warming do to CO2.

why are you so extremely dishonest?
 
Don't mind me, I'm just over here in the corner talking about the "coming Ice Age" myth.

From the 30s to the 50s global warming was a popular subject, especially among the few climatologist of the time. Data was being gathered for the first time on an almost global scale, the jet stream was discovered, speculations about the sun and the upper atmosphere was fueled by high altitude balloons, with a few crackpots even suggesting some sort of energy besides sunlight was impacting the earth (the solar wind was considered woo woo talk at the time), and research connecting sunspot activity with weather was all the rage.

The climate was warming and it while a few people were still concerned about the next ice age, the consensus was things were warming up.

The record heat waves and droughts of the 50s started up the old "we might be doomed" talk, and it was really the climate cooling that put an end to that. Then it became "oh no it's getting colder", because it was.

The thirty years from 50 to 80, but especially the middle sixties, was what led to the ice age media talk. Not what scientists were saying. Nobody needed a scientists to tell them what was happening. In 73 the super El Nino and a few warm winters caused everyone to relax on the ice age stuff.

Then came the winter of 76/77

Nobody got it much worse than western New York State. The yearly temperatures had been dropping by .7 degrees a decade, but the winter average was dropping by 1.7 degrees a decade. But January averages, those were dropping like a stone. Over 2 degrees a decade. But that was the average. Reality was much worse.

In 77 the January temps went insane, setting the record low for January, and the record low monthly average of 13 degrees. It never got above freezing, and combined with the record blizzard, it was like the end of the world, for people used to snow.

It wasn't an anomaly, it was part of a trend.

It wasn't the media that caused the fears of a coming ice age.

It was the climate change.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom