Our traffic statistics from October 25, when the poll went live, to November 1 (the latest for which we have data on referrals) indicate that 30.5 percent of page views (about 4,000) of the poll came from Watts Up. The next highest referrer at 16 percent was a Canadian blog site smalldeadanimals.com; it consists of an eclectic mix of posts and comments, and if I had to guess, I would say its users leaned toward the climate denier side based on a few comments I saw. Meanwhile, on the other side of the climate debate, Joe Romm’s Climate Progress drove just 2.9 percent and was the third highest referrer.
Beauty.
Colin, S-Y-F, you keep using the word “theory”. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Sue nails it !! “The opposite of skeptical is gullible.”
And no, you are not alone – not at all.
Do tell, Alex. Elucidate for us, please. I’m quite curious to hear this.
Sue, there’s no question that human GHG emissions do act on the climate. If you’re denying THAT part of it, then we have no commonality and nothing to discuss. How much of an effect those emissions can have is a bit more contentious, and when it comes to that part of the theory I’d agree that there’s room for disagreement. I don’t think that the case for it has been 100% made, but I know that most people who reject it do so for the wrong reasons. You only need to scroll through the comments section here to realize that most of the AGW-denial is based on political or religious beliefs and the inability or unwillingness to understand science. When people start pulling out the “evolution is just a theory” canard, you know they have absolutely no basis for even discussing any science-related topics, let alone deciding whether a complex subject like AGW is properly supported by the available data.
I congratulate you on being “a small minority”, but that doesn’t invalidate my criticism of the majority. I’d say you probably have more in common with me than you do with the majority of the respondents here.
Alex, by continuing to use the ‘denier’ meme, it is you who have no basis to discuss matters of science. To use an ad hominem is a common fallacy which you are guilty of.
Also, I invite you to read the following. A succinct explanation of the differences between scientific hypotheses, theories, and facts (or laws).
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
It is you, in my humble opinion, that does not understand the scientific meaning of the word.
there’s no question that human GHG emissions do act on the climate.
Unless you have a very radical and localized definition of the word “climate”, then I submit that there is no evidence that ‘human GHG emissions’ act on the climate at all.
This was not mischief – How does peaceful and lawful speech constitute mischief?
The Alinkyite left would like to call it mischief, but that just shows you their view of a right to free speech- you have no such right, as they view you as beings less worthy than themselves. Sort of the way criminals do.
I can completely understand why Alex and others ,but rapidly becoming fewer, are still believers. AGW science has been conducted like a corrupt legal trial. A trial in which:
-the defense is never allowed to present its case. AGW skeptics were blocked from publishing in peer reviewed journals
-the prosecution refuses to give the defense pertinent and crucial information. FOI request were denied, methods for the computer modeling were hidden and raw data destroyed.
-the jury is handpicked by the prosecution. The IPCC only picked those who agreed with them and government grants never went to skeptics.
-the judge personally benefits from a guilty verdict. Governments and conforming scientists will get entirely new powers and revenue sources.
-the written law is completely ignored. The scientific method of an open, objective process that welcomes dissent, shares information and debates skeptics was turned on its head. “Persecute deniers” was the replacement.
Our intrepid media unquestioningly accepted the guilty as charged verdict with no interest in the facts or process that led to the conclusions. The one-sided presentation of the case made sure the public was never given the opportunity to judge the case on its merits.
Fortunately, blogs and deniers started asking inconvenient question and the case for carbon taxes and carbon rationing is rapidly falling apart.
No, Alex, you need only look at the ENTIRE HISTORY of the Greenhoax Effect to realize that it isn’t about science or life on the planet, but rather a leftist ideological movement which is attacking capitalism. Deprive industry of energy, and a vital engine of economic growth is powerless.
The Greenhoax movement is tied closely to anti-globalization, pro-abortion, anti-industrial, wealth redistributing, grass eating, hemp smoking leftist buffoons.
I don’t think anyone here flatly denies GW or AGW. I think we all recognize that the science which supports it has been thoroughly corrupted for POLITICAL purposes. Others, such as Big Green, are trying to cash in on your gullibility.
EVEN IF AGW exists, there has been no stringent cost-benefit analysis to determine the proper course of action. Human beings have survived far greater swings in climate than this, with far less technology.
We all know what “theory” means and most of us have seen The Princess Bride. The theory you’ve swallowed hook, line, and sinker is weak, and you’re too much of a sycophant to realize it. You deserve to be condemned to zero CO2 emission.
Colin, the page you link is garbage. They get some things completely backwards; for instance this phrase:
“Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them”
is inverted 180 degrees. Scientific Laws in fact describe things, but do not explain them. The Law of Universal Gravitation tells you that particles with mass are attracted to each other, but it does not tell you how or why this is so. It’s Gravitation Theory which creates the models to explain how the process functions. For a real explanation of scientific theories, check here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Pay particularly close attention to the bottom part:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Scientific_laws
Also, your understanding of the word “ad-hominem” is clearly a little muddled. If you think the word “denier” is an insult, I’d suggest you take your purse and go home.
Colin from Mission B.C. – It’s too bad that so many of the AGW advocates are so full of themselves, that they have never paused to apply reason, leading naturally to ludicrous conclusions. But of course, as you point out in your educational post, their exist rules in logic, and the left really, really, hates to be told they are wrong; or that their Promethian selves should be bound by anything but their own, magnificent, lambent will.
Alex, you’re pompous and insufferable (ad hominem quite intentional). You don’t know the science and your generalizations about “the majority of the respondents here…” are based on nothing but some empty-headed bigotry you picked up off the MSM (at Ace of Spades HQ they refer to it as the MFM now; guess what that stands for).
I’m an agnostic who doesn’t have any issue with the Theory of Evolution, although I will admit that almost any new data which made Richard Dawkins cry would cheer me up.
The term “denier” is an insult because of its evocation of Holocaust denier, as even you must surely be aware. I’ll explain to you why “Teabagger” is insulting, too, if you really can’t grasp this stuff.
I’m with you, Sue C. And there are many others.
Many people seem to misunderstand that, in science, “theory” is as close as you can come to “fact” when you’re talking about explaining processes. AGW is a predictive model burdened by a tremendous amount of data gaps, political dogma, and strong evidence to the contrary. It is NOT a theory.
I never bought the Scientology of Global Warming.
DAVE, LOL. What I know about science could be easily etched on the head of a pin. The ONE and ONLY question I ever asked my warmonger interlocutors was: Why did that one-mile thick slab of ice over Edmonon 12,000 years ago … MELT? The numbers may not be precise.
But I always believed in the awesome power of the sun.
… although as a denizen of Vancouver, I could be guilty of sun worship …
Oz, you wrote:
“Unless you have a very radical and localized definition of the word “climate”, then I submit that there is no evidence that ‘human GHG emissions’ act on the climate at all.”
If you deny that basic premise, then you deny the existence of the Greenhouse Effect. Given that AGW is fairly recent, there are certainly parts that cold be disputed, but we’ve known about the Greenhouse Effect for almost 200 years. You can even do an experiment on your kitchen counter which demonstrated it. If you’re willing to reject the greenhouse effect, you’re clearly not basing your opinions on evidence, which is why I stated that we’d have no commonality, and nothing to discuss.
Given that AGW is fairly recent,
Yes, AGW is fairly recent.
How recent?
As recent as the Urban Heat Island effect which is how the ‘warming’ was measured.
It wasn’t Global Warming that was measured, it was the affect that Urban sprawl had on the ground based temperature stations.
Actually, Alex, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect. From Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, by Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2007:
Here are some excerpts from the summary at the end of the paper:
And then, of course, there’s the Beer-Lambert law, which has also not been falsified, and which requires that increases of atmospheric CO2 concentration past the levels we are already at are essentially irrelevant, and there’s the latent heats involved in thermo-convective transport, which are generally not accounted for. Lastly, truth be known, we would be better off if it were about 4 C warmer and we had about 4 times the current CO2 concentration.
You know, I was going to link to one of the many refutations for that paper, but really, why bother? As I said, if you’re denying the greenhouse effect, you’re a nut. You’d be better off trying to argue against evolution. If you cared about the validity of that paper, you’d punch it’s title into google and see if it’s been answered, but you’re not looking for the truth, you’re only looking for ammunition to throw at anyone who questions your preconceived beliefs.
As I said, if you’re denying the greenhouse effect, you’re a nut.
hahaaa.
I can’t wait for Vitruvius’ response.
(goes and makes popcorn, cracks a beer)
Alex, what part of PROVING premises do you not understand? We don’t have to “accept” your premises until you have proven them.
The Earth’s atmosphere is not your kitchen table. A model airplane can prove flight is possible, but there is no guarantee that the concept is scalable. For flight, we’ve determined it’s clearly scalable because the force of lift is much more powerful than gravity and the mechanics of aerodynamics are always smaller than the massive scale of our atmospher. Neverthess, the conditions of our atmosphere put a ceiling on flight. But exoskeletons on insects impose a physical limit on their size. It’s possible that batteries have physical limits which will never be surmounted.
The theorems derived from models are only as valid as the assumptions and conditions contained therein. You cannot possibly induce all of atmospheric variables into a table top experiment. That might be a good didactic tool, but it’s valuable only for seventh graders. And if you don’t warn the seventh graders that the observed results are not necessarily applicable to situations outside the confines of the experiment, you are not educating the students, but misleading them into hasty generalizations.
A refutation of the paper does not make it wrong, it simply indicates that the debate continues. That is how science works or how it is supposed to work, anyway.
The greenhouse effect, as applied to CAGW, has serious problems when hypothesis and models are compared to observations. It is also unable to account for many of the major variables – clouds, currents, sun variations and UHI.
Scientists should never expect to be given a free pass on glaring weaknesses in their work. Climate science, with its influence on government policies, needs to mature to the point where it is not afraid to follow basic premises and procedures of science.
Yelling “Denier”, “Flat-Earther” or “Nut” is not a valid substitute for debate. Maybe you need to mature a bit, too, Alex.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume AGW is happening as you describe, Alex. Please provide comment on why we should sink billions into trying to stop it, rather than, say eliminating the budget deficit, or cutting taxes, or, improving schools? After all, there exists a finite amount of money available to any society, and society must corporately or individually prioritize uses based on relative benefit.
Do you believe that spending the billions and billions proposed to fight AGW is morally defensible, in light of the need to improve schools or getting rid of the budget deficit? If you consider AGW a budget priority, what would be your source of finance to fund AGW amelioration? Close schools? Fire departments? Police departments? Gut highway maintenance? Cut health spending? Please specify, with dollar amounts.
Thank you for your considered response, Alex; I knew that’s what you would say. It’s nice to be proved correct again. But here’s something to consider, Alex: I received a B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering, with distinction, in 1977, and an M.Sc. in Computing Science, in 1980, and for the last 15 years I have been developing thermodynamics modeling software for large-scale high-pressure and high-temperature plants. Our software was used to help figure out how to effectively stop the flow in the Macondo well problem. You might also like to check out my Peng-Robinson 30th Anniversary essay on equations of state.
In other words, Alex, although I may not know much about many things, I actually am a knowledgeable expert on the particular matters at hand: physics, thermodynamics, modeling, and software. For you to cast aspersions on my situation without relevant information thereto simply underlines, my dear Alex, your lack of understanding of the foundations of metaphysics and epistemology. No wonder you like arguing on blogs so much, you’re with many like-minded people: you care about feeling emotionally like you’ve won, not about being actually correct in practice.
LC Bennett, POWinCA and Vitruvius, thanks. Those of us who are not as articulate or knowledgeable salute you.
Alex might want to ask IPCC head Pachurri where he spent the carbon credit money he got for closing the steel mill in England last year, moved the plant to India and throwing eighteen hundred Britains out of work.
Don’t argue with Alex. He has evidence. He has Wikipedia, and we all know how accurate it is. We know as well, that it hasn’t been coopted by the left.
SueC
You are so right!!!. Alex is insulting and full of himself.
I am not an atheist but like you (and many others) I am strong proponent of theory of evolution but an AGW skeptic.
****
As I said, if you’re denying the greenhouse effect, you’re a nut.
ROFL
Vίt: Steven Jones has a PhD in Physics, and Deepak Chopra is an MD. They’re both also complete lunatics. By suggesting that your education is relevant to the discussion, you’ve only further reinforced my observation that you have no interest in figuring out what’s true. If you had any understanding of how science works you’d never have attempted to pass off that paper as a disproof of the greenhouse effect, so you’ll forgive me if I remain just as unimpressed by your “qualifications” as I do by those of Steven E. Jones.
Alex. Vitruvius gave us his qualifications. Let’s see yours!
Of course I’ll forgive you, Alex, I believe
in being kind to those less gifted than I am.
Game, set, and match. Thank you.
@ Vitruvius
*I bow deeply to the master*
You’re welcome, Alex. It’s a honour just to be able to help educate
you. Do let me know when you’re ready to try learning some more.
If you’re interested in doing a little more work on your own, your
homework for now is to describe the difference between greenhouse
effect, which exists, and atmospheric greenhouse effect, which does
not. If you get stuck, here’s a hint: the atmosphere isn’t a greenhouse.
Alex, if we have “nothing to discuss” then skulk your way back to the Fortress of Smugitude where your thoughts are unquestionably welcomed. If you had spent more than a day here, you’d know we don’t all agree here on every issue.
Many of us here are scientists – real scientists – with Ph.D.s and everything. We read, we listen, and we learn inside and outside our sphere’s of expertise.
I’m an economist with some facility in statistics. I may not know how to do good climate research, but I know bad research when I see it. I also know when the peer review process has been corrupted, when grants are unfairly allocated, when “debate” has been stifled, when dissent is ridiculed, and when entire academic departments and disciplines have become monoliths of a particular political ideology. LC Bennet did an amazing job of describing AGW research as a kangaroo court more befitting the People’s Republic of China than the United States of America. If you don’t recognize those self-evident truths, you are a mindless automaton.
My own science is filled with spirited debate and discussion, from numerous schools of economic thought – formualted and reformulated over centuries. There is vigorous disagreement, and when ideas are put into practice they are rigorously analyzed. There is consensus only in a few well-measured, well-controlled, and long-observed theories.
Your “science” is a cult of leftist dogma where dissenting opinions are branded as heretical, people who change their views against the orthodoxy are apostate, blogs like WUWT and CA are apocrypha.
I am perfectly willing to accept AGW if and when it is proven to my satisfaction. After that, I’m prepared to discuss the costs and benefits of alternative remedial policies. But I reject your absolutism and suggest that you have lost all sense of healthy scientific skepticism and respect for others. Coming here to discuss things is brave, but coming here thinking you are the sole voice of sanity is delusional.
Vίt: I’ll get right on that, as soon as you describe why the greenhouse effect has nothing whatsoever to do with greenhouses.
Honestly, are you really this ignorant about the subject, or are you just using whatever talking-points you can in order to try and sound smart in front of your herd?
Also, what’s with the editing of already posted comments? Apparently Kate’s given you some super-powers around here, but it sure would be nice if you’d limit yourself to the same abilities as us mere mortals.
POW:
“I also know when the peer review process has been corrupted, when grants are unfairly allocated, when “debate” has been stifled, when dissent is ridiculed, and when entire academic departments and disciplines have become monoliths of a particular political ideology.”
Yeah, I know, I watched “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, too. Amazing what those Darwinists are doing in the name of their eeeevilution.
“But I reject your absolutism and suggest that you have lost all sense of healthy scientific skepticism and respect for others”
There’s nothing absolutist about my position. I’ve already pointed out that there’s plenty of room for debate about AGW. Your entire comment is an attack on a straw-man. On the other hand, you have to have some understanding of basic facts. If you’re not willing to accept that 2+2=4, I won’t bother acknowledging you at all. If you think the Greenhouse Effect is a government conspiracy, I’ll treat you the same way I would a 9/11 denier. You have to have SOME understanding of reality before we can engage in a productive discussion.
Please re-read my comments above, Alex. At no point did I say that the “greenhouse effect has nothing whatsoever to do with greenhouses”. Indeed, were you to able and willing to read and understand Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s paper, as opposed to just Googling for counter-arguments you can spout, you would find, as I hinted for you, that while the greenhouse effect is fine for greenhouses, the so-called “atmospheric greenhouse effect” makes no sense, because the atmosphere is not a greenhouse. This isn’t rocket surgery, you know.
Vίt: I know you didn’t say it. I said it. Here, I’ll say it again, just to make sure you understand:
“THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GREENHOUSES”
That you think there’s some sort of equivalence between the two speaks volumes about your understanding of the subject.
(Nice try, Alex, but that trick won’t work now ~ I’ve played this game before, you know.)
The Greenhouse Effect has only to do with greenhouses, my friend, where it correctly notes that in an enclosed silicon-glass container containing appropriate vapour-state fluids, with inbound photonic radiation of appropriate wave-lengths, heat- transferred energy may accumulate resulting in a rise of temperature. Of course, that doesn’t work for an enclosed container built out of sheets of transparent sodium-chloride crystals (assuming the same gasses and wave-lengths, of course).
That you would reference the greenhouse effect in a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentrations, not in an enclosed container, oblivious to the necessary limitations of the Beer-Lambert law and the latent heats involved in the thermal convection of the phases of dihydrogen monoxide, speaks pressures about your lack of understanding of this subject, Alex.
Alex is a troll.
Not only a troll, he is convinced of his knowledge, rightfulness and mastery of reasoning – when he has none of the above.
There is no discussion with such person.
I’ll compare my lifestyle to the econuts any day, the thing is those zealots don’t live green lives they just want to make the rest of us freeze in the dark whilst sleeping on recycled cardboard.
Greenhouses work by blocking convention, the greenhouse effect works by absorbing and re-radiating thermal radiation. The Beer-Lambert law in no way contradicts anything I’ve stated. Since you claim to be educated enough to understand the difference, I’ll have to conclude that you’re intentionally lying. And since you think this is a game, you can play with yourself from now on.
Life is a game, Alex; I’m not lying. And now we’ve both had our say. Perhaps, then, it would be wise of us to heed Kate’s request under the “Post a Comment” line below that we “Take [our] extended debates […] to private email”. As always, Kate, thank you for your generous hosting of our discussions here, and as always, folks, please don’t forget to tip your bar-tender on your way out.
Already being massaged by the ususal suspects —
George Gilder
// Scientific American … recently discovered to its horror that some 80 percent of its subscribers, mostly American scientists, reject man-made global warming catastrophe fears.” //
Scientific American [actually, German-owned] is just trying to tart up its website, which people who don’t get the magazine arrive at via some link to a news story.
Besides the obvious mistake that the poll was of its subscribers [most wouldn’t even be readers], its subscribers have traditionally been business types with some technical interests, or people trained in one area who want to read interesting articles with great graphics about areas that they don’t know much about.
Its subscription list was an extremely lucrative market for advertisers and, while no scientist would go to the mag for information about his own field, it was considered a coup to have written an article and gained some more general recognition.
But, since the internet has allowed people to read interesting sci-tech stuff at will, it no longer has the cachet it had. And it has changed, with lots more “People” type boxes & sidebars. And it has shrunk — most of the issues have 90+ pages, ad pages included. The latest September theme issue is up to 104 pages, versus 272 for an earlier one I have at hand.
But I suppose it means SCIENCE to George Gilder
Vitruvius:
If what you say is correct, how do you account for planet Venus? Its atmosphere is nearly all CO2 and its temperature is 500 degrees.
I’m not trying to troll you, I’m really interested to know your answer.
So, in a way, strangely, it was a valid poll. Those motivated voted. One might call those motivated to vote MOTIVOTERS
Sorry Alex, I didn’t watch Expelled. I have taught at universities for 14 years, so I understand how they operate. I do all my own thinking.
Your belief in AGW is absolute. That is clear by the manner in which you refer to people who disagree as “deniers” and comparing us to 9/11 truthers. I’ve blown up buildings in the Army, and I’m quite sure people would have noticed tons of explosives and tens of thousands of feet of primaline. There is no such certainty about the reaction of manmade gasses in the 4.2 billion cubic kilometers of atmospheric gasses, (5 x 10E18 kg)
By boiling down the entire debate to 2+2=4 you expose your absolutist attitude. Thanks for making it crystal clear what type of person you are.
And although you haven’t mentioned policy prescriptions, I’m quite sure I know where you stand on those.
The fact that you might accept some minor criticisms to some published research does not mean you will ever waver from your preconceived conclusion.
While waiting for Vit, here is an alternative theory about Venus’s temp.
Conclusions : It isn’t the large amount of CO2 which makes Venus hot, rather it is the thick atmosphere being continuously heated by external sources. It isn’t the lack of CO2 on Earth which keeps Earth relatively cool, rather it is the thin atmosphere. Mars is even colder than earth despite having a 95% CO2 atmosphere, because it’s atmosphere is very thin. If greenhouse gases were responsible for the high temperatures on Venus (rather than atmospheric thickness) we would mathematically have to see a much higher lapse rate than on Earth – but we don’t.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/
I predict Alex will be along with a list of refutations soon.
Greenneck, some facts:
Mars has more CO2 in its atmosphere than Earth (partial pressure old boy: 0.087 versus 0.005 psi). Venus has much more atmosphere than Earth’s, mostly CO2 and sulphuric acid rain.
Mars is colder, Venus hotter. One is closer to the Sun with a very massive, dense, heavy atmosphere, the other further from the Sun with almost no atmosphere.