Remember, folks, the science is settled:
More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that human activity is responsible for major climate change. The petition, now under the auspices of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, asserts: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of … greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments.”
Do read the entire editorial, “The phony ‘consensus’ on climate change”, in Utah’s Daily Herald. Superb.
“More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that human activity is responsible for major climate change. The petition, now under the auspices of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, asserts…”
Um, you do realize that this “petition” has been bouncing around the Internet since 1998, right? And that its credibility has been shown to be, shall we say, a little bit questionable? And that the OISM’s other claim to fame is a series of mail-order resources that teaches people how to build underground safety bunkers and survive a nuclear war?
couch
“Um, you do realize that this “petition” has been bouncing around the Internet since 1998, right? ”
Wrong! You are referring to an earlier 3000 signature petition…..it’s critics questioned the qualifications of the petitioners while ignoring that the IPCC’s alleged 2500 “climate scientists” were mostly computer programmers, socialogists, geographers and un-credentialed bureaucrats/activists.
T\Like the ponographer, railway engineer who heads the IPCC.
Back to yer bridge…..
Davenport is correct that this is the same petition that has been circulating since 1998.
Also, it is a bit questionable.
Just a very tiny bit, not a lot, and it is science so questions are welcome.
Little questions, however, are not at all proof of a spurious character to the petition as a whole.
It’s natural that Leftist environmenterrorists have attempted to damage the credibility of the petition by requesting signature cards and filling out obviously bogus names.
We see similar vile behaviour from them all the time regarding all issues.
In closing, I’ll point out that Davenport’s link on those little questions has the institute which circulates the petition answering the questions and those questions were only asked during a 2 year or less period spanning somewhere in 1998-2001 while the petition has been growing for at least another 6+ years, maybe more.
I don’t make it a habit to grant points to Leftist trolls because then never have the same courtesy or honesty, but I had to set the record straight
Since imposing a hefty tax on nothing (carbon) is every politicians wet dream, it is not in their best interest shine a spotlight on this scam. Easier to go with the flow and keep sucking in those billions. Who cares about facts if people continue to pay this tax.
If ‘consensus’ has scientific meaning, well then let’s call ourselves scientists and vote to repeal one half the law of gravity – it would be nice to lose a few pounds without exercise…
Davenport: You can question the validity of any one particular petition – you can toss that one out – or any one particular scientist’s analysis, but it’s beyond dispute that there are scores of eminent scientists who strenuously disagree with the Warmist model. In other words, the science is not “settled.”
From the editorial, which I trust you read:
The question is, why should anyone take the word of indoctrinated, paint-by-numbers progressives who, like yourself, volubly and tirelessly spout the officially prescribed leftist position on *everything*, while ignoring the views of thousands of legitimate physicists and climate scientists?
Remember, Davenport, that only one side is insisting that “the science is settled.” These people are, by definition, liars.
It is the brain disorders of so many fools that cleaved to this SCAM that is far more worrisome. The global warming idiot followers are to stupid to turn down the thermostat in a hot house, oh yes followers of gaia, it is the SUN, that determines the heat on earth, “can you believe it”. Think of the trillions wasted on a SCAM, money that could have built cancer hospitals, funded research, built schools, funded food banks, built homes for the homeless, but no, stupid gullible politicians pissed money into this toilet, so sad there so many Algore Suzuki followers.
Yes, the wording is exactly the same as the petition I read years ago. What struck me about the petition was the first signature on it; Edward Teller. Maybe not as smart as Al Gore, but he did know a thing or two about physics. It is a physics problem, after all, and a lot of physicists can’t get their heads around the AGW theory.
At one time “MP” Harper stated the global warming scam was nothing but a money transfer. Now “PM” Harper seems to be leaning the other way and dumping money (our tax dollars) into it. Was he BSing as “MP” or now as “PM”
couch
in that thee petition exists, and if ONLY one scientist signed it, it then stands as a fact that “consenses” does NOT exist, kapeech???
so quit being trivial and stick to the point in question
It always comes down to one thing. Money. Ok, maybe two. Money & power.
Posted by: Davenport at October 10, 2011 1:03 AM
Healthy debate on this topic is long overdue, and it’d be great to see representatives from the 30,000 Climate Skeptics debate davenport’s 52+plus signatories from the Climate Scientologist ranks.
Davenport & Co are pro-credentials and funding-cynical when it comes to questioning those who oppose this trillion dollar scam, yet they have zero curiosity when it comes to throwing even a passing thought to the creds of the current AGW accolytes: suzuki, gore, et al.
Ditto for the funding: oh yeah, BIG OIL is evil for wanting to fund anti-AGW research, and those scientists who do same are sellouts, but there’s no conflict of interest in governments (who have the potential of levying $bazillions in industry-destroying carbon taxes) throwing billions at phony research (East Anglia U), nor of the “scientists” who swallow that dough and produce fraudulent results.
Ahh, well. Who ever said consistency and rational thinking were the hallmarks of the Left?
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
Both links are pointing to the same story (at least in my case). Was it intentional?
Tom B.
EBD: “In other words, the science is not “settled.””
I agree — science is never “settled” — though I will point out two things:
1.) “The science is settled” is a political statement, not a scientific one. To the extent that its sentiment is espoused — in fact, the phrase itself is used almost exclusively by AGW opponents as a rhetorical device — it is typically done so by AGW advocates in a political context; I suspect few if any credible climate researchers have ever even uttered those words in a scientific setting. Pointing out that the phrase itself is unscientific serves only to undermine the political argument that a response is needed, not the underlying scientific one.
2.) Half the folks here, when asked about whether AGW is real or not, declare straight-out, “Hell, no! Look at all the evidence that SDA points to that debunk AGW. The whole thing is a scam. We don’t need your stinkin’ giant fans…” In their minds, the science is just as “settled”, only in the opposite direction — AGW is clearly a wealth redistribution scheme by leftist globalists seeking to destroy capitalism…”, etc.
Why isn’t their position ever critiqued around here? After all, shouldn’t the appropriately rational response to the statement, “The science is NOT settled” be “Therefore, I will keep an open mind, and be honest and humble about the limits of my expertise,” not “Therefore, my diametrically opposite, ideologically motivated, equally rigid, and equally unscientific stance — that the science is bunk — must be right”?
“it’s beyond dispute that there are scores of eminent scientists who strenuously disagree with the Warmist model…The question is, why should anyone take the word of indoctrinated, paint-by-numbers progressives who, like yourself, volubly and tirelessly spout the officially prescribed leftist position on *everything*, while ignoring the views of thousands of legitimate physicists and climate scientists?”
No one should ignore the views of “thousands of legitimate physicists and climate scientists” — actual climate researchers certainly don’t (you should attend a conference some time — there’s plenty of debate going on).
In that same spirit, though, you should given an honest hearing to the many more “thousands of legitimate physicists and climate scientists” who every day publish and discuss new evidence that supports the AGW theory. Certainly you shouldn’t listen to me — I happily admit I’m no expert in this area — though you should listen to ALL the true experts, not just the ones whose views fit your pre-conceived narratives. Science is not settled or unsettled, it’s about relative uncertainties — and in order to get a true reading of where those uncertainties lie, your scope has to be of the entire field, not just the anti-AGW segment.
coach – one little quibble, “can’t get their heads around…” can be taken to mean that they can’t understand it. If, instead, they find that CAGW is contrary to experimental evidence and physical theories in their area of expertise, then would a better phrasing be “consider that it has been falsified”?
The problem, davenport, with your comments is that you are ignoring that despite the ‘science about AGW not being settled’ the political agenda about dealing with AGW IS far more settled. This political agenda is ‘all about money’and of course, power. You ignore this merger of science and politics.
The political agenda uses our taxpayer money to fund not simply research, but commercial enterprises, focused around alternative energies,(eg Solyndra), windmills, ethanol, and, of course, that ultimate in political cynical opportunism, cap-and-trade.
Most of these are nowhere, scientifically and economically, near valid sustainability and certainly without the capacity to produce sufficient energy.
Equally, the ignorance about CO2 and its role on the planet, the merger of CO2 emissions with pollution (the two are totally different) has led to popular opinions that reject oil drilling.
And we can’t ignore the basic research on AGW, where taxpayer money goes to politically correct submissions rather than to those that debunk and dissent from the mantra.
Therefore, your rather hypocritical claim that ‘All science is not settled’ ignores that in this issue, it’s not about science, it’s about political and economic agendas.
Couch never tires of being on the wrong side of history.
That’s because him and his ilk are always on the right side of fantasy.
Does Soros pay people like Couch-troll to post here everytime something apparently proves the warmists wrong. Hey look. Just be honest and admit you want a Marxist takeover of the global economy and Move On, will ya?
couch (gads, now I’m feeding the troll) –
I work with geological computer models every day. Models are not reality, they are attempts to simulate reality for a given set of starting rules. My “quibble” with catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is the first two terms:
– the geologic record (as taught in first year geology classes) has shown that plus or minus 5 degrees C is the “normal” range over the last few hundred million years. It was hotter globally 1000 years ago at the height of the medieval warm period than it is today (despite CAGW followers attempts to limit the proxies used to estimate the global “average”, and whether an “average” temperature really exists is a topic for a different time). As the worst case posited is approximately half of the natural variation, it cannot be said to be catastrophic.
– anthropogenic means that the current temperatures are mostly driven by human activities. The current warming trend has been going on for over 200 years, since before the industrial revolution. If the trend is longer than the supposed trigger, then there must be a different trigger than the one postulated.
The anti-scientific methods shown by the IPCC favoured scientists, as shown in the climategate emails, was the final nail in the coffin for me. The company I work for is publicly traded. If we engaged in practices like hiding our data and modeling methods, and trying to re-define peer review to disallow any contrarian views (indeed, actively working to get negative reviewers fired) then some of our company officials would likely be going to jail. There are billions of dollars annually going to research AGW and it is being used to ram legislation down the throats of the free peoples or the world when there is little evidence that anything is going wrong (there are always things going wrong somewhere, there is little evidence that there is enough to CAGW to cause these kinds of issues) is why we refer to it as a scam. The draconian legislation and oversight provisions that are “needed” are why there is a reflexive negative response.
I apply Occam razor to the current climate and find that there’s nothing out of the ordinary going on, so no need to panic. So keep your hands out of my pockets.
Anti-science folks sure do like their petitions. How’s the anti-evolution one working out these days?
I find people who apparently have brains, but yet find ways to dumb themselves down in order to accept a political agenda at least, interesting.
Davenport, you sound smart and educated, but misguided. I suggest you hang around here as long as possible and you might muster the courage to break out of your social ring of leftist sycophants and become true member of the SDA family of individuals …. not a collective. Few here agree on everything, but we all come together on matters of truth and reality.
To quote an old friend of mine … “The truth needs no crutch. If it limps, it’s a lie!”
Nothing limps more than the AGW theory.
Meanwhile …. “NO GREEN TAXATION WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE POPULATION”
I don’t know anyone who has agreed to be robbed to pay for a innocuous element in our atmosphere. Especially one that we exhale and that plant life inhales … in order to stay alive!
Further … I believe global warming (if true) would be good for out planet. How about them apples?
Davenport,
Instead of constantly appealing to higher authority perhaps you should look at the claims of these authorities. They have made some principal claims with regards to AGW via the IPCC:
1) temperatures will steadily increase by x rate
2) sea level rise will accelerate
3) a ‘hot spot’ will develop in the troposphere
All have been wrong. In other words, the computer models on which this grand edifice is based, have been undermined by the EMPIRICAL evidence.
This is not to say that the AGW theory is wrong. But it has serious shortcomings, and anyone who refuses to be skeptical about this issue is simply an ideologue.
Pure science, in the form of search for the truth, always wins.
Darwin’s theory remains a theory, for the pure scientific fact that there has never been proof that one species ‘evolves’ into another species, which is the premise of the theory.
Faced with a series of proofs that contradict the arrogant and self-serving ‘science is settled’ statement, AGW proponents fall further and further into denial.
1) Anglia e-mails that give proof research results are overstated.
2) NASA’s statement that the effects of the sun are understated.
3) An ever-growing body of those familiar with the scientific method who are stating that there is not enough scientific proof for the AGW assertions.
Deny, deny, deny.
How do you know AGW proponents are lying? Their lips are moving.
“Anti-science folks sure do like their petitions. How’s the anti-evolution one working out these days?”
Alex = poopy-pants
There, now we are both on the same level…..
“Anti-science folks sure do like their petitions. How’s the anti-evolution one working out these days?”
How odd. I hadn’t realized that “The Theory of Evolution” had changed into “The Undisputed Fact of Evolution”.
Trollex must have advanced warning of that headline, eh?
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
The climate debate was hijacked by groups who felt that if they created a “climate of hysteria”, they would be better positioned to profit. It was no longer about dealing with emissions, it became a funnel directing every environmental concern towards just one thing: global warming (morphed into climate change in order to account for certain inconvenient facts.)
Instead of being transparent about their methods, the IPCC researchers began tweaking their results to indicate a degree of certainty that has never been achieved in scientific debate. If they can discuss the possibility that some particles can travel faster than the speed of light, surely these scientists might have conceded a degree of uncertainty about their findings. I suspect that many of them did, but when the UN saw how the issue could be manipulated to serve its interests, it began steering not just the research, but the conclusions towards its ends. The IPCC reports were skewed, error-ridden, with large parts written by interest groups like the WWF (none of which was reviewed by scientists) and based on interviews and anecdotal evidence. The actual scientists who contributed, were bought and paid for by those who had an interest in their findings. So what I believe began as legitimate inquiry became corrupted.
Even the argument that big oil is funding the “anti-climate” groups doesn’t hold, because if you look at lists of donors to climate research agencies, you will find many of the oil companies on it. They are poised to reap whatever the wind blows their way. You can be sure that if oil shuts down, you will find some of them building windmills somewhere.
When people are being scammed, they resist. The fact that those on the warmist side have tried so hard to stifle debate is in itself a red flag.
Many people allow that climate is changing. That’s one aspect of the debate that is seldom acknowledged by the warmist side. It suits their purpose to pretend that those on the “other” side of the issue are implacable in their denial of every concern and question relating to our environment. What many people disagree about (including some on the other side) is whether this is a situation that needs to be addressed in the manner proposed by the various political groups who have co-opted the issue.
When the debate was about pollution, management of forests and water, proper management of arable land, and projects to preserve habitat for endangered species, you would have found me in the environmentalist camp. In fact I’m still there. But when all of these concerns were appropriated by the climate religion, I became very skeptical indeed. And when I saw that my donations, instead of preserving more bamboo for the panda bear or saving bits of forest for recreational purposes, were going to fund dubious research that had nothing to do with their stated purposes, I quit giving. I consider these groups just as corrupt as the IPCC–people by credulous fools and opportunists.
To distill my views down to a simple example: They should shut down Nanticoke (as Ontario has been promising for decades). In order to do that, they will need to build nuclear plants. Nothing else will replace the power-generating ability of that plant. Every wind-mill represents money that should have been devoted towards delivering nuclear power and solving the problems associated with it. Instead, we have been led down a very expensive detour that has not only cost incalculable amounts of money, but has also retarded the progress of acquiring useful power generation for decades.
Also, as Dope-Ex brought up the comment on petitions, do the Left ever petition anything? Anything at all?
How are your brethren, those pampered worthless snots camped out on Wall Street, faring, Alex?
Half of them are so stupid they don’t even know why they are even there. All they know is it’s important to broadcast their idiotic message on cell phones/Iphones designed and manufactured by Big Business, wearing clothing made by Big Business, and probably having arrived there via transportation made by Big Business.
The Idiotic Left: whether publicly protesting without a clue, or posting mindless tripe on SDA, they’re just different strains of the same virus.
mhb23re
Meanwhile, one of the main proponents and propagandists for Glo-Bull Warming, the UK’s MET Office, starts the long painful climb back down the hill;
http://img.ibtimes.com/www/articles/20111010/228181_recurring-drop-in-solar-radiation-possible-reason-for-chilled-weather-solar-activity-possible-reason.htm
Just for fun, let’s assume that the IPCC projections are correct. How much impact does Canada have on Global Warming?
Matthews, et al article in Nature Magazine, April 14, 2009, claims that each tonne of carbon dioxide emissions will lead to a global temperature change of 0.0000000000015 degrees Celsius. (1.5E-12)
http://news.concordia.ca/main_story/014941.shtml
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/abs/nature08047.html
This gives us a very useful way to measure the relative importance of various climate change initiatives. Were Canadians to achieve the following carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets, here would be the immediate annual impacts on global temperatures:
One tonne challenge – every Canadian reduces personal emissions by one tonne per year (remember Rick Mercer selling this?) – global temperature increase would be averted by 0.0000514 degrees C.
Canada meets current target of a 17 per cent reduction from 2005 levels – global temperature increase would be averted by 0.000186 degrees C.
Had Canada met its Kyoto target by 2008 – global temperature increase would have been averted by 0.000243 degrees C.
Had Canada gone to ZERO emissions in 2008 – global temperature increase would have been averted by 0.0011 degrees C.
Does anyone wish to challenge this?
Half the folks here, when asked about whether AGW is real or not, declare straight-out, “Hell, no! Look at all the evidence that SDA points to that debunk AGW. The whole thing is a scam. We don’t need your stinkin’ giant fans…” In their minds, the science is just as “settled”, only in the opposite direction — AGW is clearly a wealth redistribution scheme by leftist globalists seeking to destroy capitalism…”, etc.
Why isn’t their position ever critiqued around here?
~Davenport at October 10, 2011 10:14 AM
Because we represent the status quo, that’s why.
Our position is that climate change is NATURAL, that’s the default position.
The position of the CAGW environmental alarmists is a radical attack on the status quo that puts the entire burden of proof for their theory on their heads and they have not only proved nothing they have refused to provide their raw data and only offered the conclusions they say are drawn from the data that they have kept concealed.
Again: Skeptics don’t have to prove their position because our position is that humans are not the agent of climate change.
The entire burden to prove that humans are the agent of climate change is on the CAGW supporters to prove.
In November 2009 we get e-mail evidence that Phil Jones has said that he will destroy the raw data his conclusions are based on rather that provide it for scrutiny and urges the other CAGW pushers to do the same in case the skeptics poke holes his conclusions.
Neither you, Davenport, nor Phil Jones understands that if you don’t prove your position then you have lost the debate because the default position, if warmists don’t prove their theory, is that there is no AGW.
Chip says: “All [predictions] have been wrong. In other words, the computer models on which this grand edifice is based, have been undermined by the EMPIRICAL evidence.”
Exactly.
Using similar computer “predictions” my local weather forcast can’t get it right 4 days from now, let alone 300 years ago.
Does this mean I can leave every single light, in my house, on during earth hour this year?
You betcha!
Posted by: Bruce at October 10, 2011 12:09 PM
Sunspot activity decreases. It gets colder in Britain.
Who’d a thunk it?
How much money are these people stealing to provide everybody with useless information?
How many of these parasites do we have in Canada?
@Alex
‘Anti-science folks sure do like their petitions. How’s the anti-evolution one working out these days?’
The opposite of evolution is stasis i.e. little or no evolutionary change in a species. There is overwhelming evidence of stasis in nature as against evidence for evolution.
This is a bit off topic but an environmental story none the less. The CBC news is reporting on a “TANKER” stuck on a reef off New Zeland. The pictures clearly show stacks of TEUs on the ship, it’s a cargo ship for heaven’s sake. 30 tons of oil have leaked and 1,200 more tons are still on board and our idiotic CBC are calling it a “TANKER”.
Let us see now,
By now, most of the sensible people would gather that the AGW is a scam, a new religion. The politicos, the media and the scientologists that are in favour of AGW still own the mouthpiece.
The media, every day will publish a story that they really, really, really want to link to the climate, somehow.
On Sunday the Calgary Herald published a story about some small islands in the Pacific around New Zealand. Apparently these islands rise no more than 5 meters above the ocean level. There are actually people living there and have been for some generations. The reason they are in the news is that they have fires going on, New Zealand is helping them out.
The thing is that either the Calgary Herald or an agency they picked the story from, is making it sound as though it is the AWG that has a hand in it. They mention it as though in passing, however it is another bit, or as more popular of late, another drip in the dripping of nonsense that has accumulated since the warmmongers propaganda started.
The worst and major problem is with the politicians. Those people are most useless bunch of idiots blowing in the winds.
Instead of stopping the money game that the AGW is, they, in spite of knowing better, will play along with the media.
As most people would know, the politicians and the “journalists” are in mutual intercourse, taking turns in making one another feeling good.
They, of course are in the money so the taxes that the plebeians are involuntarily supplying does not touch them.
The first thing now should be for the politicians to stop the money transfer. There will be those that get, instead of pay, that will be against. That is understandable, if you are sucking on the free money teat, it is hard to remove your mouth.
Can you count on ten fingers, the politicians that you have heard, would stop it?
Lev:
Politicians are the root of all evil?
Pretty much.
From pandering to the AGW scam perpetrated by the unelected body of the UN, which was a social justice vehicle by which the rich western nations would transfer their wealth to African nations.
How about the financial crisis? In the interests of social justice, a regulatory system of overcompensation for injustices done in the past (Red Lining), which denied mortgages to qualified black borrower was set up.
The solution was to abandon rules (repeal Glass-Steagall) so that every American would have the pride of home ownership.
Since Canadian banks did not have to abide by the same lack of rules, they remain solid.
US politicians, meanwhile, shift blame for their negligence on ‘greedy bankers.’
Yep, the road to hell is always paved with good intentions.
Does anyone wish to propose a number, in Degrees C, that represents Canada’s contribution to Global Warming?
If not, I’d be shocked to hear that folks are proposing policies with enormous impact on our economy and our lives with no concept of what the quantifiable benefit might be!
Then again, maybe not. Our policy in Ontario is to drive up energy costs and ship our manufacturing jobs to China where our goods will be manufactured by using electricity from coal fired plants that China is building at the rate of one per week.
What’s the impact on greenhouse gas emissions?
They have gone up. On top of less energy efficient production in China, we are also paying the emissions cost of hauling the goods half-way around the world back to our stores. All of this is happening while we have exported our jobs and tax revenues from the manufacturing sector to overseas suppliers.
…..and then we have the new mini-ice-age about to hit Britain.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/276516
Antenor:
Bruce at 12:09 beat you to it.
While I’m not ready to shut out the AGW theory, I am done with the catastrophist version of it (CAGW). Isn’t it odd that so much anti-AGW research ‘n stuff comes out of Statist Hellhole Europe? I can’t explain it.
Honest question: if the sun is entering a minimum, shouldn’t temperatures be falling quite a bit?
if the sun is entering a minimum, shouldn’t temperatures be falling quite a bit?
~libertariansaresmarter
71% of the surface of the earth is covered by oceans.
The natural cycle takes on the order of 1500 years give or take 50 years.
‘Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years’ is a book about natural climate change, written by Siegfried Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery.
Get it, read it.
Again, the arrogance of the Warmists (Davenport, Alexi, et al) knows no bounds.
One of the latest strategies, is to say they are on the side of science…..a science that has been bastardized and molded to fit a narrowminded agenda, to re-distribute wealth to the third world.
What is lost/ignored by the Chicken Little crowd, is the fact that scientists from a wide cross-section of the scientific world, including climate, geography, atmospheric, physics, and related disciplines, are using SCIENCE to back up their opposition to the dogma of AGW religion.
But since they are not true believers, their opinions don’t count.
The most stinging indictment, that the AGW crowd are a bunch of charlatans, is the fact that fanatics like Suzuki and Gore REFUSE, at every opportunity, to debate ANYBODY, ANYWHERE, to their new found religion.
It speaks volumes of their hypocrisy
The problem many people have is that they view ‘science’ as being theorizing when in fact Science is about, as objectively as possible, observing. If we were observing global temperature rising then we would be justified in theorizing as to why the temperature is on the rise. As it is the ‘science’ of AGW is best described as rent seeking on the part of the ‘scientists’ and power/wealth seeking on the part of the propagandists who incessantly promote the panic of AGW.
“The only honorable and useful course is for global-warming advocates to stop browbeating critics into silence while pretending that consensus exists. Instead it’s time to engage in an honest review of all the complex theory and data. Then and only then will rational progress be possible.”
Regardless of one’s opinion on AGW,that sentence sums up the debate quite well,especially this;”STOP BROWBEATING CRITICS INTO SILENCE WHILE PRETENDING THAT CONSENSUS EXISTS”.
And for those that claim “Big Oil” is behind the “deniers”, Al Gore owes everything he is to Big Oil,namely his mentor Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum.
Regarding the latest climate science news from Provo, Utah —
// Murry Salby, […] asserted that natural sources account for 96 percent of overall CO2 emissions. //
Murry Salby – Confused About The Carbon Cycle
// Last year, scientists involved in a key study claiming ocean levels were rising had to retract their research //
Lest anyone think this means they think that sea levels are NOT rising, see the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for “bringing these issues to our attention”.
Siddall’s paper supported the IPCC estimate of 18cm-59cm by 2100, Vermeer & Rahmstorf ‘s latest estimate is 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.
Ah, Nils-Axel Mörner.
His decades of research into sea level doesn’t apparently involve anything as mundane as direct measurement. He IS a dab hand with a dowsing rod — Randi has a standing monetary offer to him for proof of his talents at finding, not just water, but various ores.
The Maldives was mentioned. Here’s a Nils-Axel Mörner quote from a Lyndon Larouche interview — [A picture of a tree] —
A famous tree in the Maldives shows no evidence of having been swept away by rising sea levels, as would be predicted by the global warming swindlers. A group of Australian global-warming advocates came along and pulled the tree down, destroying the evidence that their “theory” was false.
It’s not superb, EBD, it’s pitiful.
Oz @ 12:28 – sorry, but I have to quibble. One cannot prove a scientific theory through experiment, one can only dis-prove it. That is supposed to be part of a theory, listing what will disprove it. When Einstein said (paraphrased) “I posit that the theory of universal gravitation is wrong because of XYZ, and if I arm right then ABC”. ABC included the bending of light around stars, and was tested at at a solar eclipse. If the light had not bent, then the theory of relativity was falsified (that is, proven to be false). CAGW proponents will not provide falsification criteria for their theory, another clue that it is religious and not scientific in origin.
Hmmm. Let’s see, a petition that includes names such as “Dr. I.P. Freely, or a list with links to EVERY SINGLE MAJOR SCIENTIFIC BODY ON THE PLANET, all of which concur that climate change is real, and most likely due largely to human activity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
But why waste my time with you guys yet again? You’re like the knight in the Holy Grail who keeps on fighting, despite having his limbs chopped off. You simply refuse to even accept that the climate is changing, let alone that humans are behind it, and this is just plain stupid. Again:
Huge amount of documentation on species migrating north.
Permafrost is melting
The fabled Northwest Passage will soon be open in summers, and Arctic powers are scrambling to prepare for what this means.
Sea ice is shrinking every year.
But hey… this can’t possibly be happening, because you don’t BELIEVE it. Of course, significant numbers of you also believe in such crazy stuff as Noah’s Ark and cavemen living with dinosaurs, so aside from the fact that your ignorance and stupidity endangers us all, I wouldn’t care what you guys think.
Carry on.
Fed mine and my neighbors plants last night via firepit. Quite a feast!
I swear thought I heard a mayday tree burp in the middle of the night.
John,you try so hard,yet….
An opinion is an opinion. Labelling it as a scientific opinion does not change the fact that it is an opinion,and therefore worth it’s weight in…
The ‘fabled’ NorthWest passage will soon be open in summers.
Oh really,and which summer would that be. Next summer,or the summer that the modern fossil fuel world sends the best ,yet to be developed,icebreakers to keep it open year round.
Sea ice is shrinking,and sea ice is also increasing. But what about the polar bears?
Don’t run away John,Come back,I’ll bite you in the kneecap.
John,boy I overlooked the fact that you capitalized ” EVERY SINGLE MAJOR SCIENTIFIC BODY ON THE PLANET “.
Sorry,I know now that you are right. ( Are you sure that it’s EVERY one of them?)