It’s the 2008 Global Warming Top Ten List!
“In Somalia back in 1993, climate change, according to 11 three- and four-star generals, resulted in a drought which led to famine,” Rep. Edward Markey told a group of students who had come to the Capitol to discuss global warming, according to CNSNews.com. “That famine translated to international aid we sent in to Somalia, which then led to the U.S. having to send in forces to separate all the groups that were fighting over the aid, which led to Black Hawk Down.”
(BTW – this is an excellent item to have handy when the Cultists Of Gore resort to holocaust terminology in response to those who mention the “face blistering cold”.)
OK, sport. MAZ2 asked Hans about 2 German words in the Readers tips (todays). The word used in a blog was freigeshprochene … spelled incorrectly … should have been freigesprochene. The word has no meaning in any dictionary. Split it’s frei gesprochene, or freely spoken according to translations (babelfish).
Because my German is rusty, and I don’t know what the connotations are, I said “freely spoken”. I suspect the author meant freespeak … which is how that I would translate it in our NA context.
I do know what “denier” means in our NA context. But your a gay ol’ fella, BTW … what’s another word for a “bundle of sticks”?
Illustration only, sport.
“You are, in short, blinkered ideologues — the mirror image of the “leftards” you so despise”.
“Bill’s [O’Reilly] not all bad, though. In his very person, he has provided a useful litmus test for quickly and easily distinguishing between rational, civil, principled conservatives and the surly knucklehead variety: Simply mention his name and if anything positive is said in response, you are almost certainly in the presence of a surly knucklehead”.
Now that’s funny.
Gardner
What you are conveniently ignoring, perhaps on purpose to stir the sh!te here, is that in today’s political climate, the use of the word ‘denier’, is accepted and used to slag anybody with the same brush as a Holocaust denier, due to the frequent referral to that subject, yet the two remain completely independent ideas.
You won’t find anybody here denying the Holocaust, or splitting hairs over it, you will have to visit an Islamist website for their hairbrained ideas. The evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible.
On the other hand, AGW has yet to be unequivocally proven, it has only been a ‘consensus’, not absolute. As many scientists doubt it, as those who promote it. The IPCC is a panel of leftist UN politicians and indentured ‘scientists’. Hardly an unbiased group. And, a group that refuses to have any rational discussion in regards to AGW, but invests, at will, in ad hominem attacks at the first sign of trouble.
It is hard to deny that there has been some warming over time, as the receding of glaciers, for example, over the last 12,000 years is undeniable. Yet, the ice masses of our poles have retreated and progressed over time, as has the icesheet of Greenland. The earth has cooled over the last 10 years,(in 3 independent measurement mediums) despite CO2 continuing to rise. Poor correlation, to be sure.
There are two many inconsistencies, and too many of the usual suspects involved, for those of us of free minds and wills, to fall into line with the sheep in the crowd. Good science and thought needs to question the accepted norm: at one time, the earth was thought to be flat. Is it not out of the realm that perhaps the sun is the true climate engine of our home planet? No doubt it’s current sunspot cycle correlates well with the current cooling trend, and correlates well over the past few decades.
But it doesn’t fit into the radical enviro plan of the radical left, funny, eh? Therefore, the old sol is never uttered, it doesn’t fit the dogma of the faithful.
Many of us here would accept the theory if the science was sound, despite the usual suspects. The problem, is the science is as solid as a hunk of swiss cheese. That, and, the fact that the Goracle, to this day, refuses to stand up to hard questions and debate over his half-baked theory. perhaps too many embarassing questions to answer in regards to his holding companies and investments in carbon schemes? Nah……
Each passing day reinforces the doubt in this weak theory, as our climate goes in the opposite direction of the AGW faithful
AhHah.Went back to Dan’s blog and just figured it out. Ottawa Citizen!!! As said before,any newspaper/organization with “people’s,citizen,democratic,star,etc” in its name is just a commie/socialist cover.”Deny” that,Danny boy!!
Oh,and Happy New Year
I loathe television evangelists with their offer to purge people of their sins with a donation to a cause which will benefit themselves financially(Falwell Bakker). It’s unfortunate that people don’t see Gore and theSuzuki foundation for what they are. Scientiifically qualified skeptics are called deniers , the MSM and politicians follow the illogical, but fanatic view that we are heretics of our era (see spanish inquisition). I hope I’m not in financial ruin by the time we’re proven right.
OK, in the (almost certainly deluded) belief that constructive engagement with this blog is possible, I’d like to ask a question.
If those who deny anthropogenic climate change is true must never, never, never be called “deniers” — even though that’s precisely what the dictionary calls for — what would you consider an accurate and non-pejorative term?
I don’t think “skeptic” fits because most the essence of skepticism is doubt. It says “you haven’t convinced me yet but I’m listening…” But most opponents (for lack of a better term) of climate change theory don’t “doubt” that it’s true. They’re sure it’s not. Some deny (there’s that word again) that it’s happening. Some advocate other explanations (solar activity). And plenty (especially here) go even further, arguing that those who advocate climate change theory do so in bad faith for selfish or nefarious purposes.
This is all opposition that goes well beyond skepticism.
So I ask you: If “denier” is unacceptable no matter what the dictionary says, what is an acceptable term?
(And an aside: Bernie, I was distinguishing between reasoning conservatives and the sort of angry, unreasoning, conservative who is only interested in denouncing. In my larger political view, that’s a sub-set of a sub-set of a sub-set …. etc. That you see it as similar to the way blinkered ideologues divide all the world between the smart people who get it (them) and the idiots who don’t (everyone else) is indeed funny.)
OK, in the (almost certainly deluded) belief that constructive engagement with this blog is possible, I’d like to ask a question.
That’s not a good start,
So I ask you: If “denier” is unacceptable no matter what the dictionary says, what is an acceptable term?
How about we go back to the start, you compared Kate with Lizzie calling both hypocrites? Now you want to change the discussion to the meaning of “denier”, why can’t you give a sincere apology and move on?
Gord.
EPILOGUE ( R. N. Hall) (presumably written in 1968)
Flying Saucers are still very much with us. As Langmuir said, “Of course, the newspapers wouldn’t let a thing like that die.”
Langmuir’s talk on Pathological Science (December 18, 1953)
http://tinyurl.com/64sb3n
The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science By ROBERT L. PARK
http://tinyurl.com/70se
Having presented the science a number of times, I would say that for some the term “denier” is correct. From those who deny that quantum mechanics exists to those who deny that statistical methodologies yield useful results, I have experienced a wide range of attitudes that I would have to describe as denial.
However here is my standard test. Here are three fundamental statements which are true (as far as our testing and understanding allows us to consider something true).
1) We are responsible for the current increase in CO2.
2) CO2 will absorb and then re-emit longwave radiation.
3) If you shine longwave radiation on something it will warm (or cool less quickly).
Now, do you accept these, or which do you deny and why?
Regards,
John
Just for fun – a modern look at a dish served up by MSM 40-50 years ago:
http://tinyurl.com/83co6r
What time do the Persecutions begin?
I really don’t want to miss them.
John Cross:
Back to your golden three again are we?
Its 2009 and the answers don’t change:
1) We are responsible for the current increase in CO2.
No, this hasn’t been proven!! Please don’t try to tell us this crap again. We don’t yet have complete understanding of most, or even “a good chunk”, of all the processes happening on this planet. Until then, you are simply playing the correlation causation game, no matter how you want to dress it up!
2) CO2 will absorb and then re-emit longwave radiation.
In some conditions and also along with a myriad of other molecules. What about them?
3) If you shine longwave radiation on something it will warm (or cool less quickly).
Not always, perhaps there is a phase transition happening or othewrise endothermic reactions that absorbs energy (such as drying paint on my house!) Or maybe there is a whole combination of things happening that we haven’t yet “modelled”.
NOTE: why don’t you ever answer question/problems posed back to you?
Try:
1) what’s been happening with temp for the last 10 years, and how can models that don’t account for this still be considered accurate for 100 years hence.
2)If the world is warming, is that really bad, and if so, for whom
3) if we try to stop this warming, what will it take and is this worse than simply adapting.
4) take a cruise through Climate audit and point out where Steve is a shmuck on all the problems he’s noticed with the various data sets being used to promote AGW
4) etc, etc ad nauseam
but I know you won’t, you’ll obfuscate, mask, BS, etc but will never admit that your 3 questions miss the point and you are simply an AGW apostle.
Frenchie, lets add a few things to this critique of John’s points.
1. “We are responsible for the current increase in CO2.”
Indeed it is not established. Historically, CO2 rise has always followed, not preceded temperature change. It is entirely unclear that the reverse is the case this time. Also, the claimed CO2 concentration and claimed rise does not match with the long series direct chemical measurements of CO2 atmospheric concentration. Moreover, the increases from human contribution are trivial compared to the natural changes in CO2 concentration, particularly the ocean-atmosphere exchanges.
2. “CO2 will absorb and then re-emit longwave radiation.”
You know as well as we do that this effect is essentially close to saturation. The saturation effect means that each additional increment of CO2 concentration has less effect, not more, than the previous increment. Hence, even if your model was true, the effect diminishes, not increases, over time.
A note to Dan Gardner @ 9:25. There is a very good reason for the deep skepticism on the part of many with respect to climate change theory. Discussing strictly the science of it, not the environmentalist advocates, the science has consistently been presented in bad faith and without recourse to the scientific method. The handling of IPCC documentation along through reports 2, 3 and 4 clearly demonstrates this.
The principal scientific authorities, I am referring here in particular to Hansen, Jones, Mann and Ammann who have provided the bulk of the scientific data and modeling, have persistently refused to disclose both their methodology and where possible their raw data. This is in complete defiance of the scientific method in which any scientist discloses everything.
Even worse, there is a persistent pattern of, when these evasions are pointed out, all resort to ad hominem arguments against any and all critics. This is not science, Dan. This is propaganda. The pro side of the debate long abandoned any learned scientific discourse on the matter more than a decade ago.
Now, let me put it for you very simply. The IPCC has claimed that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the most powerful driver in increasing atmospheric temperature even though the absorption effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is trivial. By their own admission this is based on a rise in world temperatures over a 10 year trend. If that is true, then why is it that we now have a 10 year trend of stable and declining temperatures?
A second key point: if the theory of AGW is true, then it MUST be reflected in a warming of the upper atmosphere. No such warming has occurred.
O teh ironing.
Hi Frenchie: A happy new year’s to you.
Unfortunately, 2009 has not brought any new arguments. Referring to your points as listed.
1) As has been pointed out by me and others many times, we are producing more than shows up in the atmosphere. As long as this is true then the only possible conclusion is that either there are magical sources and sinks or we are responsible.
I find it very ironic that you accuse me of not answering questions when you have not answered the question that I have posed to you many times. Let me put it to you again! There is a common bank account that various people can put money into and take money out of and it starts with a balance of $100. Over the year you put in $7. At the end of the year the balance is $103. What would the balance be if you did not add your $7.
2) It is true there are a number of molecules that will absorb longwave radiation, but almost all of them are not found in the atmosphere. In any significant amount. The only ones found in significant amounts are H2O, CO2 and CH4.
3) In regards to phase changes, sure, but any interruption is only a delay in temperature change and heat is still being added to the system. There is no such thing as an infinite phase change!
Now, can you please refer to a place where I did not answer your questions? I mean it, please post a link!
However in regards to your new set, lets see:
1) what’s been happening with temp for the last 10 years, and ….
Well, it depends on what we are trying to model. Climate is generally taken to be the average temperature over a 30 year period, so we need to look at multiple year averages. You mention 10 year averages and Tamino have a post where he looks at 10 year averages, so please review it and let me know what is not being modeled.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/stupid-is-as-stupid-does/#more-1354
2)If the world is warming, is that really bad, and if so, for whom
One example: Long-Term Aridity Changes in the Western United States by Edward R. Cook (Science 306-1015).
3) if we try to stop this warming, what will it take and is this worse than simply adapting.
Don’t know.
4)take a cruise through Climate audit and point out where Steve is a shmuck on all the problems he’s noticed with the various data sets being used to promote AGW.
I don’t agree with you that Steve is a shmuck. I have exchanged a couple of e-mails with him in the past and while we disagree on some things he has always been courteous. However his work is pretty specialized on paleoclimate data sets and I don’t think these are the foundation of AGW. In fact when I called one of his co-authors on a physics issue (his interpretation of entropy) Steve very quickly called a close to the topic and told us he didn’t want it discussed on his site.
Hope this helps,
John
CGH: are you familiar with the argument that I have made here about why we are responsible for the increase in CO2? I ask because your response did not address it.
In regards to saturation, no, the spectrum is not saturated (parts of it are, but not all of it). However even if it was, adding more CO2 would still cause warming. I can explain that in more detail if you wish.
Also, while your comment was addressed to Dan and not me, I will note that the upper atmosphere is actually cooling as is expected from greenhouse theory.
Regards,
John
For all the deniers of our ability to alter the climate lets make this real simple.
Are we responsible for increases in CO2?
OBVIOUSLY YES. Hmm..lets see…we dig up carbon out of the ground (oil) and burn it off into the atmosphere…while destroying forests and other ecosystems that fix carbon. Doesn’t seem to me like a whole lot of math and measurements are needed to come to the logical conclusion that those processes would increase the atmospheric concentrations of carbon.
There have been historical extinction events caused by high CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere halting the global energy cycle, only to be reversed by the sequestering of carbon. Hmmmmm…don’t need a rocked scientist to see some similarities.
As for the “unstable” climate lately…and this statement itself is questionable since the vast majority of humans are concentrated in a small portion of the earth and so only concerned with their “backyards”. One result of screwing with the earth’s systems is a state of instability…so snow and cold don’t negate anything…they support the theory that we’re affecting the earth’s energy systems.
Regardless of climate change we’re are still in the midst of a massive extinction event at an exponentially increasing rate. I’m sure some think we can live without the rest of life on earth but truth is we wouldn’t have a chance.
Deeznuts, John Cross et al;
Waiting for their ship to come in while watching bus after bus go by.
G:
Huh? If you’re implying that climate change and our effects on the planet aren’t yet blatantly obvious…then you need to wake up and do some REAL RESEARCH.