Consensus Science

This clip from Penn and teller must be about 2 years old, but does show how easy it is to lead people, and it's all the easier when the person with the petition is an attractive young woman.

P& T's "Bullshit" has been one of my kids favorite sites foe the past couple of years. Sometimes they're rather obscene, sometimes they expose obscenities, like "Global Warming", and I don't always agree with them, but they do shoot down mass stupidity in a very entertaining way.

LOL. Fooling rubes is always amusing. I saw something similar posted a while ago but in regards to Sadam having large underground bunkers of the lethal chemical di-hydrogen monoxide.

Yes, it's an old joke, but it's still current, considering the "quality" of debate presented by the Kyoto "SHUT UP!" cultists.

*
The dumbing down of humankind, or... "Why they
don't test automobile safety by crashing toy cars."

*

Kate, what do you mean by the quality of debate by the Kyoto "SHUT UP!" cultists. If you are arguing about Kyoto and saying that the political supports of it tend not to debate I possible could agree. However if you are arguing that the science of global warming is fundamentally flawed, then I would appreciate a good quality debate about it. I am interested in hearing your point of view.

Did this at my highschool a few years back. I still have the petition everybody signed. There are about 500 signatures on it -- about 10 people figured it out.

Thanks for posting that video. I sat there wondering if I would clue in on what dihydrogen monoxide is if someone asked me to sign something like that. Thankfully I always sign my name "Joey R. Shithead" whenever petitions are involved.

I suspect the shut up cultists are going to get even shut uppier as they are increasingly ignored.
Debating them does little good, and it's fun to watch them get increasingly hysterical. Look at me! I'm righteous and filled with fervour!!!

best laugh i've had in weeks. thanx kate.

John Cross:
I am not presuming to answer for Kate, but heres an example of the shut up debating style.
When Mr. Baird presented his report concerning the costs of the CO2 reduction plan put forward by the opposition parties, Mr Suzuki said this:
DONT LISTEN TO THE GODDAMN ECONOMISTS.
Some debate huh?

The video may be 2 years old, but this is the first time I saw it.

It's quite revealing.

Penn interviewed Patrick Moore a while ago and it is worth a listen:

http://www.telemark.net/randallg/stuff/PennInterviewsPatrickMoore.mp3

I often see Marilyn Churley-NDP on Michael Coren trying to halt proceedings by saying "the debate is over."

I wish someone would turn to the old NDP hack and say "sweetheart, the debate about the NDP is over. For decades you've run and lost - you'll never get elected. THAT debate is over, so scram!"

Debate Kyoto ?? Ok.

Kyoto came to life from Mann's 'hockey stick graph'. Anyone care to defend "The Graph" ??

I have put that question, privately and publicly, many times to many people. Even some so-called prominent ones, such as; Suzuki, Kinsella, Gore, Dion, Layton, CBC, CTV, G&M,.... Even The United Nations has given up. Apparently it does not cite it anymore.

Again, tell us why you believe the 'hockey stick graph' is not a fraud. If you cannot then Kyoto is also a fraud. And the media ....??

Let's see now, .... anyone want to sign a petition banning the dangerous gas -- 'Singular Carbonfurious Dyoxide ??

John Cross said; "However if you are arguing that the science of global warming is fundamentally flawed, then I would appreciate a good quality debate about it.

I have yet to see a good quality debate about global warming...

As for Cross' motives, I question those... John should try to be a bit more subtle.

John Cross,

Man-made global warming is a scam.

The Sun is more active and we're pulling out of the Little Ice Age.

Less than 800 years ago it was warmer than it is now.

(Medieval warm period coinciding with a time of high solar activity called the Medieval Maximum.)

A gradual warming is to be expected and appreciated.

Try reading "The Chilling Stars"

Ron in Kelowna,

If you check out the "The Weather Channel" climate change blogs, there's a fellow named Pete De Santo who is more than willing to defend Mann's hockey stick. Pete sees himself as a climate expert and goes around "correcting" those who don't toe the line on man-made global warming.

Oh boy!!

That woman was a good actress! Or, maybe it's just that she used BIG WORDS. Whatever. The Greenie Granola Groupies were impressed!

I hope Al, David, and Michael Moore have seen it. Not that it would change their minds--because I really do think there has to be something in the water they're drinking...maybe the reflection of dollar bill$...

Di-Hydroen Oxide in its Vapour form is the largest Greeen house Gas at 90% and it has to be reduced at all costs . I say Dr. Fruitfly should rent a bus and go around Canada to promote the banning of Showers and hot tubs as they release GHG's. Besides at the end of his cross country tour you'll freally get the smell of what he's about.

Thanks for the Holiday Yuks. Dr. Fruitfly et al should begin to vanish within six months, by then this cow should be milked out.

From MSNBC:

Updated: 12:05 p.m. PT March 15, 2004
ALISO VIEJO, Calif. - City officials were so concerned about the potentially dangerous properties of dihydrogen monoxide that they considered banning foam cups after they learned the chemical was used in their production.

Then they learned, to their chagrin, that dihydrogen monoxide — H2O for short — is the scientific term for water.

"It's embarrassing," said City Manager David J. Norman. "We had a paralegal who did bad research."

randal g 3:28 PM, great link, .. one for the documents file.

This Patrick Moore interview is so telling.

Is it not criminal that the CBC and others allow Suzuki and the like, unlimited air time, but will not even so much as report on Patrick Moore ??

A day long debate between the two would be as good as any Stanley Cup Final. Er, .. maybe not. Would not last that long.

Moore VS: Suzuki

TKO in a matter of minutes. That is why Dion or even Gore will not get within a country mile of the co-founder of Greenpeace.

Well intentioned people and unintended consequences.

From the other Robert:

"Man-made global warming is a scam."

Maybe, it certainly seems probably that the Sun is the major cause, considering the ongoing warming on Mars and Jupiter... the IPCC itself says that it's responsible for between 20% and 40% of the warming here on Earth.

That said, statements like yours above make it sound like, well... the debate is over. I disagree. There are still rational people introducing new data to show that the bulk of the warming may be human caused. New Scientist currently has a story [environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462]
explaining some of the arguments and providing peer-reviewed data to back it up.

Whether it is human or solar caused - honestly, I don't give a 'rat's'. Something like 40% of our country is frozen desert. We could use some heating up.

For the rest of the world - maybe we (the west) should stop paying them not to pollute and start paying them to build sea walls.

Personally I think we on the right should stop wasting our time arguing about causes and we should start arguing about solutions. I would vote for any politician who said that the world should learn to 'adapt'.

And for Penn and Teller - last week's episode was brilliant. For those who didn't see it: build more nuke plants, hybrid cars are wasteful.

The person who asks for a discussion of "climate science" could do well to look back in the archives for SDA, which has many links to good discussions, including the article by a former director of the KNMI.

I don't know if there is anything wrong per se with "climate science" as science. It simply doesn't go nearly far enough to support the conclusions which have been drawn from it; conclusions probably dictated not by science but by political agendas. And it probably never will go far enough. In particular, long-term prediction beyond forcing by insolation (the orbital changes are predictable but those inherent in solar variability are not) is probably impossible. Chaotic systems, you know. Just as an example of what I mean, despite all of the resources of the US and Japanese governments being thrown into hurricane and typhoon prediction, these predictions show no skill at all beyond about five days into the future.

Again, the popular concepts of "global warming" in some quarters go far beyond even what the IPCC claim - 10 ft rises in sea levels, for instance.

Peer reviewed. Is that like congressmen/women and senators and msm in the US voting for or against the 600 page immigration bill without reading it, just because someone says one thing for or against. Or how about the msm, libs and dippers making comments on what they think is in the so called dirty tricks book. How many so called kyotologist scients have read so much as one page of anything they have given peer approval to.

[deleted - off topic. ED]

Oh yes, The Weather Channel. Even worse than Canada's The Weather Network.

Hedi Collins seems to have quite the revolt going on in her comments section.

Who would have ever though the Weather Man and the Weather Women would be invoved in the scam of the century. I thought they were supposed to just "present" the weather. Not social engineering propaganda.

In the past, I always wondered why a so-called weather channel would go to all the trouble of making an elaborate map and then stand right smack dab in front of it !!??

It has been plain to see, the last 5 years or so, that the weather was secondary. The snake-oil was the real program.

Anyhoooo, TV wx is irrelevant in this day and age. Some really, really good sites on the Internet. In real time. Interactive. No sinister motives.

I almost died in some when I was small.
Nasty stuff..I agree, we should ban it.

:)

John Cross,

The debate over Kyoto ignores the simple fact that Co2 is absorbing all the energy it can. It is oversubscribed. If you go to the site below http://brneurosci.org/co2.html and scroll down till you see the absorption percentage of CO2 and you will see that it is already absorping 100%. Anyone thinking increasing CO2 will increase absorption and warming is simply ignoring the real science.

If you look at the H2O absorption you will see that it absorps in the same bands as CO2.

we have just recieved over an inch of di-hydrogen monoxide i sure hope my farm survives it. we may need a little extra C02 for an off set.

Robert J.,

I would put human contribution at about 10% and the Sun at 75%+.

Last Friday's Calgary Sun - Licia Corbella's column,

"----But it was an e-mail from a fella named Gerald in the Niagara region, that indicates just how good a job the man-made global warming believers have been at selling their message.

"If humans are not the cause of global warming ... who is?" Gerald wrote.

My response was: "Gee, Gerald. Can you really not think of anything? Nothing at all?"

Then I suggested he find the nearest child and ask them what makes the earth warm.

The next day I got a reply. "Do you mean the sun?" he queried, in all sincerity.

"Yes, Gerald. That big, burning yellow ball up in the sky is, not surprisingly, the main driver of global warming."

Yesterday, world renowned paleoclimatologist and geology professor at Carleton University in Ottawa, Dr. Tim Patterson, was in Calgary to pass that basic message on. Though his message was rather technical. He brought reams of proof, scientific studies, graphs and the like to back up his claims.

Indeed, one of the more interesting, if not alarming statements Patterson made before the Friends of Science luncheon is satellite data shows that by about the year 2020 the next solar cycle is going to be solar cycle 25 -- the weakest one since the Little Ice Age (that started in the 13th century and ended around 1860) a time when people living in London, England, used to walk on a frozen Thames River and food was scarcer.

"This should be a great strategic concern in Canada because nobody is farming north of us." In other words, Canada -- the great bread basket of the world -- just might not be able to grow grains in much of the prairies.

After the Little Ice Age, "things warmed up precipitously with no help from carbon dioxide," pointed out Patterson, in a telephone interview.----"

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2007/05/18/4189659.html

today we got some di-hydrogen monoxide here in the Fraser Valley, and a lot of the producers of same in the sky. The weather report for today was sunny and warm, well it was cloudy and cool with a little rain. If they can not predict the weather for tomorrow how the hell do they expect us to believe a weather prediction 50 years from now.

Saturday morning in Calgary was overcast, and I noticed, cool. Then the clouds opened up the sun appeared and it got warm.

Then some clouds moved in front of the sun and it got cool again.

Can I get a research grant for this?

Robert in Calgary,

To get a grant I think you'll have to find something on this list that doesn't (currently) have a grant.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

"brothels struggle" might offer both great opportunity for further research. You might want to tie it in with the winters in 2010 ... everything in the lower mainland seems to be caused by the Olympics or GW.

Its kinda like asking someone if they would be in favor of banning "organic" food production techniques, or if they would be in favor of banning "carbon-based technology" in food production.
Give something a nice friendly common word and its ok, but give it a big corporation evil chemical word and we better ban it quickly.

CO2 is plant food, even albatross knows that. want to feed plants, make more CO2, they will adapt. and Dr. Bono Suzuki knows that more plants means more fruit and more flys to study. he should be for it.

cal2 it's a plant "food" is it?
"want to feed plants, make more CO2"
Well now you almost have something there cal but the problem is people keep making CO2, but they also cut those trees down, don't they?

if we keep listening to the so called solutions we will soon be driving to the store on plant produced fuel to pick up what? the food will be in the tank.

Turning trees into wood and planting new ones is also known as carbon sequestration. It's when they die (they do that, you know) naturally or burn that their stored C02 is released.

So... Save the planet - build a new house!

Ron in Kelowna: I said I was interested in debating about the science, not Kyoto. However in regards to Mann’s graph, I am happy with the results of the NAS report and Wegman’s statements. Of course the only published criticism of it was McIntyre’s look at hockey sticks from noise and I do not believe that this is a strong criticism so I would be interesting in looking at that aspect.

The Greek: You said “ I have yet to see a good quality debate about global warming...” well, here is our chance to fix that. As for your other comment “As for Cross' motives, I question those... John should try to be a bit more subtle. I am glad that my motives are clear and I think that to be subtle here would be disingenuous. The only think I am interested in is the scientific truth. This is arrived at by looking at opposing points of view. That is all I am doing here.

Robert in Calgary: I hear this a lot – it’s the sun. Unfortunately there are no records that show a rise in the sun’s output sufficient to cause the recent warming.

John Lewis: If you could point me to some of those discussions I would appreciate it. The harder the science the better. Thanks.

Truthsayer: I already addressed this on this site in this thread. Essentially the view that you hold is what was held abut 100 years ago. We now know that this is not true. Future additions of CO2 will have less effect than earlier ones, but it will still cause the surface temperature to rise.

Cal2, the whole CO2 as food is an interesting and complex argument. I would say off hand that you are ignoring the difference between C3 and C4 plants as well as changes in nutritional densities. However there are good arguments to be made for moisture stressed plants.

Regards,
John

It is a real talent how one can talk/type many lines, seemingly to make a point, but makes nothing but mush.... Right JC ??

McIntyre, and about a million more have discredided the Hockey Stick Graph --- the mother of kyoto. Even the United Nations does not include it in their propaganda anymore. Liabilty.

One more time.
The HSG ignores establish climatic fact.

The thousand year Mann graph does not show the established climatic facts of the Medieval Warm Period or the Little ice age.

The Earth's climate has always been changing --- it didn't start just because Big Al came down in his Gulfstream V jet.

The earth is, what 4 or 5 Billion years old, and Mann said the 1980s are the warmest ever !!?? The earth has been so warm in the past, probably due to the sun's everchanging output, that there was no ice at either pole. None.

Much, much more graph squashing evidence --- but Kultists would never listen to reason anyways.

Hmmm let's see... some people are suckered into signing a petition banning water, therefore global warming is not happening. Makes sense. Where do I sign up?

Just goes to show. A certain segment of the population will sign up for or protest ANTHING. Why ?? Just because. That is why Kyoto got so far.

Same for the (now being lifted) dumb DDT ban.
Pet Rocks
Frankenfoods
Y2K fixes
70s ice age
Super milage gimicks
Flat earth society
Chain letters
Time Machines
Snake Oil
Rain Dance
Earth Charter
One WorldGovernance
Hockey Stick Graph
Income tax a temporary 1919 measure
And last, and the most bizzare, carbon-credits.

ron in kelowna: If my points are mush, then it should be no problem picking scientific holes in them.

However I will pick a hole in your post. Mann has never said that the 1980s are the warmest ever. I challenge you to find something to back that up. Failing that I would expect you to retract the statement since it is not true.

Regards,
John

Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations
Michael E. Mann and Raymond S. Bradley
Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts

"Abstract:
Though expanded uncertainties prevent decisive conclusions for the period prior to AD 1400, our results suggest that the latter 20thcentury is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence. The 20th century warming counters a millennial-scale cooling trend which is consistent with long-term astronomical forcing."

Typo; 1990s, not 1980s.

Does that make a difference in proving the hockey stick graph a fraud. 10 years out, ... in 4 Billion !! Good grief.

The "graph" is also here

//www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann_99.html

The United Nations displayed it regularily, along with the MSM, now they both do not mention it. Cause blogs, such as sda, exposed the fraud.

A fraud that Chretien put his, and Canada's signature, to. While adviser Warren Kinsella looked on.

Breaking the “Hockey Stick”. Read about it here

//www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/

The fraud was exposed three(3)years ago. But the Media, the UN, Gore, Suzuki, Dion, Maurice Strong, Sierra Club, Pembina Institute and others keep promoting the fraud.

Enough already --- case closed

ron in kelowna: If I can direct your attention to the title of the paper you are quoting from "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations"

So in fact what Dr. Mann essentially said was that the 1980's were warmer in the Northern Hemisphere than at any time in the last 1000 years.

Now compare this to how you quoted him "The earth is, what 4 or 5 Billion years old, and Mann said the 1980s are the warmest ever".

So based on the paper you appear to reference the quote applied neither to the whole earth as you claim or to the past 4 or 5 billion years as you claim. If that is your only justification then I trust we can see a retraction.

Regards,
John

ron in kelowna: If I can direct your attention to the title of the paper you are quoting from "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations"

So in fact what Dr. Mann essentially said was that the 1980's were warmer in the Northern Hemisphere than at any time in the last 1000 years.

Now compare this to how you quoted him "The earth is, what 4 or 5 Billion years old, and Mann said the 1980s are the warmest ever".

So based on the paper you appear to reference the quote applied neither to the whole earth as you claim or to the past 4 or 5 billion years as you claim. If that is your only justification then I trust we can see a retraction.

Regards,
John

Kate, my computer timed out on my first posting so I didn't think it made it through. Please delete the duplicate post if you wish.