Climate Denialism paid by Exxon

[rambot]

I think you mean Milankovitch cycles. And no one should ever question such an appeal to authority. Oh, wait....

Quote

"One of the fundamental tenets of palaeoclimate modeling, the Milankovitch theory, is called into doubt by isotope analysis of a calcite vein, just reported in Science by Winograd and colleagues. The theory, which is backed up by a compelling bank of evidence, suggests that the ice ages determined, with unprecedented accuracy, in the new record cannot be reconciled with the planetary cyclicity. . .

Winograd and colleagues' evidence also turns on oxygen isotope data, this time from vein calcite coating the hanging wall of an extensional fault at Devils Hole, an aquifer in southern Nevada. In 1988, the authors published a date, 145,000 years, based on 234U-230Th dating for the end of the penultimate ice age (Termination II), marked by an increase in the 18O to 16O ratio, a change taken to mirror an increase in local precipitation. Although the date was only 17,000 year earlier than the previously accepted date of 128,000 years, if correct, this change is enough to bring Milankovitch mechanism into serious doubt. . .

I remain confused. The geochemist in me says that Devils Hole chronology is the best we have. And the palaeoclimatologist in me says that correlation between accepted marine chronology and Milankovitch cycles is just too convincing to be put aside. . .

One side will have to give, and maybe - just to be safe - climate modellers should start preparing themselves for a world without Milankovitch."

Source Upset for Milankovitch theory

Also, if we are a few thousand years late into our next ice age, I can see where that would be a problem. How can the ignorant masses who dare to question science while still buying gas and fiddeling while Rome burns be responsible for that?

As I haven't read either of the articles, I'm not 100% certain this is, in fact, related, but here is a 5year old article from Nature:
Links between annual, Milankovitch and continuum temperature variability : Abstract : Nature

Panzerkampfwagen

You mean like James Hansen?

Nope. If you want to read how Hansen explains things:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2007/09/27/201916/james-hansen-ice-age-myth/

It's pretty simple really. Some other scientists did a paper on the effect of aerosols in the atmosphere (back when CFCs were a big worry). The study said that with a 4x increase in aerosols and all other things being equal, the earth would cool. Note: He was NOT involved in the publication of this work in any capacity.

He developed a modelling program that was used by the two scientists who ACTUALLY did the paper. It wasn't developed SPECIFICALLY for this research.
That is a VERY brief summary. Read the article for more detail.

But I am sure you now understand the facts of the matter and would not make the misguided implication (or statement) that Hansen was involved in the global cooling hooha again. I'm glad that's been put to bed.



Note: He didn't write his first climate based research paper until 5(!!) years after the WP reporter accused him of being pro-cool

 

[Gawron]

That article is pay for view according to the link. Do you have access to Nature? That article was from October 92. Did this upset stand or was it overthrown by subsequent data?

Yes.

However it appears the debate is ongoing. Here is another discussion:


A Causality Problem for Milankovitch

Link: http://www.muller.lbl.gov/papers/Causality.pdf

This is more recent:

Limitations and Failures of the Milankovitch Theory

Link: Limitations and Failures of the Milankovitch Theory

Of course I was addressing thaumaturgy's appeal to authority rather than trying to disprove Milankovitch.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Just as others don't like having their faith in science challenged, so they label all who question as ignorant rubes.

'Faith in science', really? Tell me, how much faith in science do you need to operate the computer you're using to read this? The issue here is not 'faith in science' (whatever that means; it could be an attack on scientific realism, scientism or something else altogether), it's the strategy of those who, denying the science, want to bring it down to the level of mere belief. The astronomers who discovered the 'diamond planet' wrote a piece shortly thereafter reflecting on all the praise and media attention they've received for the finding. But it would have been so very different for them they say... if they were climate scientists.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I was a skeptic for a while - I didn't know what to believe, so I read up on both sides. The agw side seems more likely to be true than the denier side, but it's not gospel.

You say you're a sciency guy. Have you looked at the other side with any seriousness?

"Sciency" isn't a word I'd use - engineer is more apt; but yes, I have delved into this. The Internet is replete with sources on both sides of the issue.

For some history of the development of the issue there's the American Institute of Physics' History, the "pro" version - and there are many others, but this is I think a decent one - history being history it's generally tame in that regard, but one can easily see the premise of global warming is wholly assumed by the author. Plus, you'll see all the names therein mentioned by Dr. Thaumaturgy and a few others - Arrhenius, Fourier, Tyndall, Chamberlain, Milokovitch, et. al.

For one of the many opposing views there is this site, which as you can read, premise is NOT accepted by the author.

I love the four bundled web sites arguing against AGW (all of which I'm sure will get pooh-poohed by many here, but who cares...):
Globalwarminghoax.com
CO2Science.org
JunkScience.com
NewsBusters.org
All four combine to not only provide a wealth of information, but serve as jumping off sites for a host of other sites and original documentation.

Of course, there are hosts of pro-AGW sites as well. Like I said, the Internet is replete with information and debate on both sides of the argument. I've been to NOAA, NASA, University of CO, and a host of other "sciency" sites for their data (not all of which agree, btw).

Understand, I don't question a lot of the disparate data and findings that suggest a variety of phenomenon is occuring. What I question is what people are doing with that data, how they use it, how they interpret it, the "absolute" conclusions they're drawing, and more importantly, the ridiculous and destructively wasteful "solutions" they're coming up with to stop whatever it is they think they know about the "problem."

I further question the veracity and integrity of some of the more "popular" groups forcing AGW and the "necessary" protocols we must take to stop AGW down our throats - groups like the IPCC, which in any other industry or realm of endeavor would be laughed out of the room for their absurd antics, fabrications, and fantastic (often idiotic) conclusions. Yet many look to them as the go-to authority on the topic.

The problem is that there is just enough data out there to glom together the "AGW crisis" for a few who really couldn't care about AGW, but see it as a perfect vehicle for their ulterior motives - mostly political, and a lot economic. And frankly, most of the figureheads behind the crisis are utter hypocrites when it comes to "walking the walk" that matches their talk.

Then I have a fundamental philosophical issue with global warming - that is based on basic, simple logic which I've shared often here on other threads. The conclusions drawn (and the courses of action proposed, based on those conclusions) simply don't make an iota of rational sense.

CO2 for example - the dire bellweather of AGW. Did you know it's a "trace" component of our atmosphere? "Trace" meaning there's scarcely any of it in the atmosphere to begin with.

Nitrogen - 78%
Oxygen - 21%
Argon - 0.9% = 99.964% of our atmosphere

CO2? - 0.039%

Water vapor on the other hand (another "greenhouse component"), comprises about 0.4% of our atmosphere - ten times the concentration of CO2.

And humans, the heinous culprits of AGW, for all our belching of industrial CO2, for all our exhaling, and what-not - no matter how hard we try, we haven't come remotely close to "dumping" as much CO2 into the atmosphere as a host of other sources.

Meh, that's just barely scratching the surface and there are so many arguments and so many rebuttals for and against it's easy to get lost in the minutae.

I would highly recommend the "Global Warming Primer" put out by the National Center for Policy Analysis - it's a simple and succinct addressing of the the various aspects of the "problem" and one with which I generally agree.

 

[bricklayer]

Climate change?
When was there climate stability?

Predicting that the climate will change doesn't seem very scientific, it seems obvious.

I don't believe that there is anywhere near enough understanding to make the predictions now being made.

In my opinion, anthropogenic global climate change is a political adulteration of an infant field of study.

 

[USincognito]

I don't have time to reply at length to Edwin's nonsense in this thread, but I will at a later point.

You mean like James Hansen?

James Hansen thinks, based on a Time cover story in the 70s that the Earth is due for an impending Ice Age? Otherwise your comment makes no sense contextually.

 

[USincognito]

I love the four bundled web sites arguing against AGW (all of which I'm sure will get pooh-poohed by many here, but who cares...):
Globalwarminghoax.com
CO2Science.org
JunkScience.com
NewsBusters.org
All four combine to not only provide a wealth of information, but serve as jumping off sites for a host of other sites and original documentation.

Poo-poo'd? Really, just because the bias is right there in the domain name? "Glogbalwarminghoax.com"? Yeah, I'm sure they're unbiased reporters of the findings and not some advocacy group. Newsbusters? Seriously? It's not even a denier site posing as a science site. It's a Conservative blog/aggregator site that poses as a "news" site.

And JunkScience... kudos to you sir for having the cajones to even mention it.

 

[eclipsenow]

EdwinMillers basically quotes 2 Denialist myths.

Myth 1: "there's debate".

I love the four bundled web sites arguing against AGW (all of which I'm sure will get pooh-poohed by many here, but who cares...):
Globalwarminghoax.com
CO2Science.org
JunkScience.com
NewsBusters.org
All four combine to not only provide a wealth of information, but serve as jumping off sites for a host of other sites and original documentation.

Blah blah blah...

I could show you countless websites that say "The Moon Landing was FAKED!"
Or "Aliens are at Area51"
Or "Androids are at Area51"
Or "JFK was killed by a CIA conspiracy"
Or "Elvis lives"
Or even "The moon landing was faked to distract from the fact that Elvis was dead but the aliens resurrected him as an android to go back in time and kill JFK with the CIA conspiracy".

Appeal to the authority of the... lay-person you are talking to?
Every one of these websites will appeal to your own common sense, show photos', and give 'evidence' of a sort. And, just like "9/11 troofers", they'll all appeal to YOU — yes YOU dear reader —[bless and do not curse]as a person of common sense who can make an informed decision. And if you believe them at that point, you're gone.

Unless you've studied climatology you're NOT qualified to have a real opinion on climate change. Unless you've studied and published in peer-reviewed journals, you are NOT an authority on climate change, period. The peer-review process weeds out the nutters. It's science in action. I'd just love EdwinWillers to try and show us a peer reviewed paper that disproves anthropogenic global warming, not just refer us to a crazy bunch of internet crazies half-crazed with the crazy power of the internet. A few guys with a catchy website name quoting other guys with catchy website names is not SCIENCE, it's propaganda. It's a movement. But it's not science.

The peer reviewed REAL science is in agreement.
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

Myth 2: Size matters

Nitrogen - 78%
Oxygen - 21%
Argon - 0.9% = 99.964% of our atmosphere

CO2? - 0.039%

;-) If I gave you an injection of Red-Belly Blake snake venom so it made up 0.039% of your bloodstream would you be a happy camper? What about an injection of the ebola virus at that volume?

But on the other hand, maybe a few drinks might get me to 0.039% blood alcohol level, in which case I WOULD be happy. 0.05% would make it illegal for me to drive home.

What I'm saying is that it is obviously not the quantity that matters, but the quality. What counts is what the stuff is made of, and how it interacts with the surroundings. What does 0.039% Co2 DO? That's the question. And if you know the absorption spectrum of Co2 and can do the math, it's what freaks out the climatologists.

But you? By quoting this 'factoid' out of context of the properties of Co2, you're not doing science are you? You're appealing to the layman's pride and asking us to sit with you in judgement against those people who are experts. "Stupid climatologists ... only 0.039%? How on earth can THAT be a problem!"

Ask anyone who's ever died of snake bite.

Our Co2 emissions matter!
How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

 

[eclipsenow]

Climate change?
When was there climate stability?

Predicting that the climate will change doesn't seem very scientific, it seems obvious.

I don't believe that there is anywhere near enough understanding to make the predictions now being made.

In my opinion, anthropogenic global climate change is a political adulteration of an infant field of study.

Don't be rude — it was the right-wing and Denialist Bush regime that coined the term "Climate change". A political attitudes expert and PR machine decided the term 'global warming' was too alarming, and so tried to domesticate the science by introducing climate change everywhere they could. So don't you dare turn around and play silly semantic games with a term your side invented, because the egg is on your face OK?
Global Warming Debate : The Denial Machine : the fifth estate : CBC News

If you're going to comment in a thread all about 2 video's, at least have the decency to watch them.

Also, Climatologists know that the climate changes 'frequently'. They've mapped out the last 800 000 years of glacial to interglacial periods and correlated it with the Co2 in ice core samples and the mathematics of Milancovitch cycles. It all works. They know this. The planet has 'wobbles', Milancovitch cycles, that sometimes accumulate in just the right way to reduce the incoming sunlight and bring on an 'ice age'. (Well, glacial period really. We are currently in an 'Ice Age' because there is ice on the earth somewhere! But who wants to play semantic games? I'll use the common term 'Ice Age' if you'll use the common, pre-Bush term 'Global Warming'. OK?)

So anyway, the point is the Earth has been drifting into Ice Ages and out of them for a long time, and climatologists know all this. They also know about the earth's funky super-greenhouse periods in the dinosaur period, way back when the sun was 2% cooler! With a 2% hotter sun, do you really want to play games and roll the dice with our climate?

Basically,
'Cold' = bad.
'Warm' = good.
'Hot' = bad.

Get it?

 

[EdwinWillers]

First post.

Poo-poo'd? Really, just because the bias is right there in the domain name? "Glogbalwarminghoax.com"? Yeah, I'm sure they're unbiased reporters of the findings and not some advocacy group. Newsbusters? Seriously? It's not even a denier site posing as a science site. It's a Conservative blog/aggregator site that poses as a "news" site.

And JunkScience... kudos to you sir for having the cajones to even mention it.

Second post.

EdwinMillers basically quotes 2 Denialist myths.

Myth 1: "there's debate".

I love the four bundled web sites arguing against AGW (all of which I'm sure will get pooh-poohed by many here, but who cares...):
Globalwarminghoax.com
CO2Science.org
JunkScience.com
NewsBusters.org
All four combine to not only provide a wealth of information, but serve as jumping off sites for a host of other sites and original documentation.
​

Blah blah blah...

I could show you countless websites that say "The Moon Landing was FAKED!"
Or "Aliens are at Area51"
Or "Androids are at Area51"
Or "JFK was killed by a CIA conspiracy"
Or "Elvis lives"
Or even "The moon landing was faked to distract from the fact that Elvis was dead but the aliens resurrected him as an android to go back in time and kill JFK with the CIA conspiracy".

I'll have to take your word on your websites - I've never visited them, nor do I have nearly the level of interest in those topics you apparently do.

"Androids are at Area51?" Who'da thunk? I thought, and this is just me, but I would've thought the government would prohibit Androids at such a secure site - or any personal communication devices there for that matter.


There are certainly some things that are nearly impossible NOT to predict accurately.

• The cyclic mood swings of the female of the species
• The rising and setting of the sun
• The mocking and scoffing by your opponent

Blah blah blah...

I have a question for you - seeing as how you are the one promoting the free and prolific use of the intentional pejorative "denialist."

Isn't "denialism" a matter of perspective, a function of who is denying what?

Given you deny the arguments of those who disagree with you - aren't you too a denialist?

And since you coined the cutesy phrase - "climate denialism" - perhaps you could give us some insight on how that actually works.

How *does* one deny the climate?

 

[EdwinWillers]

P.S. Who is EdwinMillers? Or did someone get something upside down?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have a question for you - seeing as how you are the one promoting the free and prolific use of the intentional pejorative "denialist."

Isn't "denialism" a matter of perspective, a function of who is denying what?

Given you deny the arguments of those who disagree with you - aren't you too a denialist?

And since you coined the cutesy phrase - "climate denialism" - perhaps you could give us some insight on how that actually works.

How *does* one deny the climate?

You got us Edwin... we're denialists. Denialists of BS.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I love the four bundled web sites arguing against AGW (all of which I'm sure will get pooh-poohed by many here, but who cares...):
Globalwarminghoax.com
CO2Science.org
JunkScience.com
NewsBusters.org
All four combine to not only provide a wealth of information, but serve as jumping off sites for a host of other sites and original documentation.

I see little wrong with starting at a blog so long as there are actual references attached to the data and interpretation.

Of course, there are hosts of pro-AGW sites as well. Like I said, the Internet is replete with information and debate on both sides of the argument.

Unfortunately the fact that there are a lot of sites repeating the same disproven or debunked "cannard" doesn't equate to a lot of information.

I further question the veracity and integrity of some of the more "popular" groups forcing AGW and the "necessary" protocols we must take to stop AGW down our throats - groups like the IPCC, which in any other industry or realm of endeavor would be laughed out of the room for their absurd antics, fabrications, and fantastic (often idiotic) conclusions.

The only reason the IPCC is even marginally considered "controversial" as a group is because of a lot of "chatter" on the denialist and "skeptoid" sites.

The IPCC does not, itself, do any actual research. They merely gather data and summarize. There are some climate scientists who feel that IPCC has, in some cases, actually been somewhat too conservative on estimates of the changes.

Yet many look to them as the go-to authority on the topic.

They are a go-to authority because they:

1. Aggregate the actual science (regardless of the few little stories about Himalayan glaciers, for the most part they utilize peer reviewed literature for the vast majority of their findings)

2. "They" are only a few administrators along with the volunteer efforts of thousands of professional scientists across the globe who do the actual interpretative work and analysis

3. They provide a good summary of the state of the knowledge along with references and most importantly descriptions of how the data is treated and processed.

The problem is that there is just enough data out there to glom together the "AGW crisis" for a few who really couldn't care about AGW, but see it as a perfect vehicle for their ulterior motives - mostly political,

Remember, AGW as an hypothesis existed for decades before anyone tried hooking "politics" up to it in any way. It wasn't until the 1960's when Roger Revelle took it to the politicians and public in order to get some movement on what looked like a serious topic.

AND, again, politics will play a role in how we address these issues. There is no other way. Because it will require rather strenuous work on energy and fiscal policy around usage and pricing.

and a lot economic. And frankly, most of the figureheads behind the crisis are utter hypocrites when it comes to "walking the walk" that matches their talk.

The "figureheads" (Al Gore, etc.) don't matter much to those of us who actually care about the science. I couldn't care less what Al Gore does or doesn't do. What he talks or doesn't talk. Al Gore isn't a scientist so his actions and his decrees mean almost nothing to me.

Then I have a fundamental philosophical issue with global warming - that is based on basic, simple logic which I've shared often here on other threads. The conclusions drawn (and the courses of action proposed, based on those conclusions) simply don't make an iota of rational sense.

CO2 for example - the dire bellweather of AGW. Did you know it's a "trace" component of our atmosphere? "Trace" meaning there's scarcely any of it in the atmosphere to begin with.

And as you no doubt also know from the Stefan Boltzmann equation the "blackbody radiation" temperature of the earth without greenhouse gases would likely be around -19degC but due to greenhouse gases it is an average balmy +14deg C. Oxygen and Nitrogen are of minimal if any IR absorptive IR activity.

So you mention H2O vapor. Indeed that is a major greenhouse gas. So you are aware that when H2O levels get too high they can moderate and re-equilibrate down to a lower level quite quickly, correct? I assume where you live there is "rain" and/or "snow"? These are precipitation.

The real issue with CO2 is that it is limited in how it comes back out of the atmosphere when an excess is placed into the atmosphere.

The carbon cycle is rather much slower than the hydrologic cycle.

While a molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere itself may only stay there a short while, it will likely simply exchange with another molecule of CO2.

That means that when you put in excess CO2 it takes a long time for it to moderate back down.

You mention "trace". Isn't it interesting that in the brief bit of time since the middle 19th century the stable carbon isotope signature of CO2 in the atmosphere has altered almost exactly as one would expect by pumping billions of tons of fossil fuel-sourced CO2 into the atmosphere?

While CO2 is a small component of the atmosphere, we have somehow been able to alter the relative amount of 13-C/12-C of our atmosphere.

This is clear evidence not only of the obvious increase in CO2 in our atmosphere but that likely it comes directly from US, humans.

Nitrogen - 78%
Oxygen - 21%
Argon - 0.9% = 99.964% of our atmosphere

CO2? - 0.039%

That doesn't mean as much as you might hope it means. Small amounts don't automatically mean "small effects". THe history of the earth's paleoclimate has given us a great deal of information about how sensitive the climate is to changes in things like CO2. These paleoclimatic observations have found that CO2 has a "climate sensitivity" in line with the current estimates from numerous climate change sources.

Which means that that "trace" mathematically can (and clearly probably does) have a measurable impact on our global temperature.

And humans, the heinous culprits of AGW, for all our belching of industrial CO2, for all our exhaling, and what-not - no matter how hard we try, we haven't come remotely close to "dumping" as much CO2 into the atmosphere as a host of other sources.

So why does the stable isotopic signature show a clear human influence?

Meh, that's just barely scratching the surface and there are so many arguments and so many rebuttals for and against it's easy to get lost in the minutae.

No, the minutae are the science. Pile enough minutae up and suddenly you have a mountain of data. In fact so much data that almost no climate professional on earth doesn't believe in agw. There's less than 5% of the worlds climate professionals who are skeptical of the agw hypothesis.

I would highly recommend the "Global Warming Primer" put out by the National Center for Policy Analysis - it's a simple and succinct addressing of the the various aspects of the "problem" and one with which I generally agree.

Were'nt you the guy who just a couple paragraphs ago was complaining about the political use of agw? And you now recommend a conservative think tank primer on the topic?

That seems odd.

 

[Gawron]

Unless you've studied climatology you're NOT qualified to have a real opinion on climate change.

Accept this at face value, and you have just ceded control of you life over to others.

 

[questftbest]

haha...remember when all those quacks falsified all the "scientific" documents? Man-made global warning is not science it is a religion.

 

[Gawron]

I see little wrong with starting at a blog so long as there are actual references attached to the data and interpretation.

Right. Try these:

WUWT: Widget | Watts Up With That?

DebunkHouse: Debunk House

As for IPCC, this sums it up:

 

[Saving Hawaii]

Right. Try these...

In other words you want us to play Whack-a-mole and will continue to declare victory so long as you can find another mole to shove out a hole.

I don't even feel like playing this silly game anymore.

As for IPCC, this sums it up:

Funny cartoon but it illustrates the cartoonist's ignorance. Less total rain, stronger storms. That's not some bizarre prediction based on computer modeling either. It's something we've watched again and again and again happen in the real world.

In some parts of the world (including areas in the US, notably those subject to hurricanes) you're going to see fewer storms providing less annual rainfall, but the storms you do see will be packing a lot more energy. They'll dump more rain, have stronger winds, and cause more issues with flooding. But they won't be as common and annual rainfall drops.

 

[Gawron]

Speaking of getting paid.

1. Michael Mann's Climate Stimulus

Quote:

As for stimulus jobs—whether "saved" or "created"—we thought readers might be interested to know whose employment they are sustaining. More than $2.4 million is stimulating the career of none other than Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann.

Mr. Mann is the creator of the famous hockey stick graph, which purported to show some 900 years of minor temperature fluctuations, followed by a spike in temperatures over the past century. His work, which became a short-term sensation when seized upon by Al Gore, was later discredited.

He received another grant worth nearly $1.9 million to investigate the role of "environmental temperature on the transmission of vector-borne diseases." Mr. Mann is listed as a "co-principal investigator" on that project. Both grants say they were "funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009."

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575010931344004278.html

2. Hansen rakes it in

Quote:

Disclosure Obtained by ATI Environmental Law Center Shows the Wealth Keeps Flowing for Dr. James Hansen

ATI obtained Dr. Hansen’s Form SF 278, which is required to be filed annually, also under the Freedom of Information Act. The disclosure revealed that Dr. Hansen received between $236,000 and $1,232,500 in outside income in 2010 relating to his taxpayer-funded employment, which included:

• Between $26,008 and $72,500 in honoraria for speeches;

• Between $150,001 and $1.1 million in prizes;

• Just under $60,000 in the form of in-kind income for travel to his many outside-income generating activities.

“Now that Dr. Hansen’s outside income has come under scrutiny, we see a newfound attention to detail on forms where he reports about these sources,” said Christopher Horner, ATI’s director of litigation. “It also shows that Dr. Hansen continues to enjoy a healthy level of earnings that supplement – and for his curious exploitation of – the taxpayer-funded position he holds.”

Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/03/hansen-rakes-it-in/

3. The Global Warming Money Trail

Quote:

Actually, the shills are on the other side. The global warming hoax may put the screws to the poor and middle class, but its perpetrators are making a mint. The reason unscrupulous scientists are willing to play along is that by hyping it into a crisis, they guarantee themselves fortunes in grant money.

NASA's wild-eyed James Hansen, for example, won a $250,000 Heinz Award in 2001, and last month was co-winner of the $1 million Dan David Prize. As Jacoby notes:

Other awards have gone to other prophets of doom. And the potential rewards don't stop there. For those who toe the politically correct line on global warming, there have been big book contracts, hefty speaking fees, worshipful magazine profiles, softball TV interviews. Should any of that call their objectivity into question?

Source: http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/04/the_global_warm.html

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]4. Officials Urged to Grill Al Gore About His Rich-Get-Warmer, Poor-Get-Colder Global Warming Offset Proposals at House and Senate Hearings Wednesday[/SIZE][/FONT]

Quote:

Members of the black leadership network Project 21 urge elected representatives to use Al Gore's appearances today before the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to ask the former Vice President about his own lavish energy consumption -- and his advocacy of a society in which only the wealthy could enjoy amenities most Americans currently take for granted, like home heating.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Gore's proposals would result in a society in which the rich get warmer and the poor get colder.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]While Gore is a long-time proponent of personal energy conservation and draconian regulations to mandate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research revealed that Gore's mansion in the exclusive Belle Meade neighborhood of Nashville uses more than 20 times the national household average of electricity.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Source: Officials Urged to Grill Al Gore About His Rich-Get-Warmer, Poor-Get-Colder Global Warming Offset Proposals at House and Senate Hearings Wednesday

 

[rambot]

"Sciency" isn't a word I'd use - engineer is more apt; but yes, I have delved into this. The Internet is replete with sources on both sides of the issue.

For some history of the development of the issue there's the American Institute of Physics' History, the "pro" version - and there are many others, but this is I think a decent one - history being history it's generally tame in that regard, but one can easily see the premise of global warming is wholly assumed by the author. Plus, you'll see all the names therein mentioned by Dr. Thaumaturgy and a few others - Arrhenius, Fourier, Tyndall, Chamberlain, Milokovitch, et. al.

For one of the many opposing views there is this site, which as you can read, premise is NOT accepted by the author.

I love the four bundled web sites arguing against AGW (all of which I'm sure will get pooh-poohed by many here, but who cares...):
Globalwarminghoax.com
CO2Science.org
JunkScience.com
NewsBusters.org
All four combine to not only provide a wealth of information, but serve as jumping off sites for a host of other sites and original documentation.

Of course, there are hosts of pro-AGW sites as well. Like I said, the Internet is replete with information and debate on both sides of the argument. I've been to NOAA, NASA, University of CO, and a host of other "sciency" sites for their data (not all of which agree, btw).

Understand, I don't question a lot of the disparate data and findings that suggest a variety of phenomenon is occuring. What I question is what people are doing with that data, how they use it, how they interpret it, the "absolute" conclusions they're drawing, and more importantly, the ridiculous and destructively wasteful "solutions" they're coming up with to stop whatever it is they think they know about the "problem."

I further question the veracity and integrity of some of the more "popular" groups forcing AGW and the "necessary" protocols we must take to stop AGW down our throats - groups like the IPCC, which in any other industry or realm of endeavor would be laughed out of the room for their absurd antics, fabrications, and fantastic (often idiotic) conclusions. Yet many look to them as the go-to authority on the topic.

The problem is that there is just enough data out there to glom together the "AGW crisis" for a few who really couldn't care about AGW, but see it as a perfect vehicle for their ulterior motives - mostly political, and a lot economic. And frankly, most of the figureheads behind the crisis are utter hypocrites when it comes to "walking the walk" that matches their talk.

Then I have a fundamental philosophical issue with global warming - that is based on basic, simple logic which I've shared often here on other threads. The conclusions drawn (and the courses of action proposed, based on those conclusions) simply don't make an iota of rational sense.

CO2 for example - the dire bellweather of AGW. Did you know it's a "trace" component of our atmosphere? "Trace" meaning there's scarcely any of it in the atmosphere to begin with.

Nitrogen - 78%
Oxygen - 21%
Argon - 0.9% = 99.964% of our atmosphere

CO2? - 0.039%

Water vapor on the other hand (another "greenhouse component"), comprises about 0.4% of our atmosphere - ten times the concentration of CO2.

And humans, the heinous culprits of AGW, for all our belching of industrial CO2, for all our exhaling, and what-not - no matter how hard we try, we haven't come remotely close to "dumping" as much CO2 into the atmosphere as a host of other sources.

Meh, that's just barely scratching the surface and there are so many arguments and so many rebuttals for and against it's easy to get lost in the minutae.

I would highly recommend the "Global Warming Primer" put out by the National Center for Policy Analysis - it's a simple and succinct addressing of the the various aspects of the "problem" and one with which I generally agree.

Volume/Size/Quantity relative means ABSOLUTELY nothing.

There are poisons that would be LESS than 0.1% of a person's mass that can make a person drop dead.
So what's your point with that line of though?

 

[Saving Hawaii]

Volume/Size/Quantity relative means ABSOLUTELY nothing.

There are poisons that would be LESS than 0.1% of a person's mass that can make a person drop dead.
So what's your point with that line of though?

Succs administered IV will probably kill you if nobody sustains your basic body functions. It paralyzes you with just trace amounts of the compound. You can't move your arms, your legs. You can't move. Your lungs can't move. That's the part that kills you. Just a trace amount can do that.

Paramedics are taught to always administer a knockout drug before they provide Succs. The knockout drug has no value to them. It causes you to lose consciousness. Succs allows them to perform some medical procedures that would be very difficult otherwise (they're hard enough even with Succs). From what I've learned though, the administration of Succs without a knockout is enough to cause PTSD. You will permanently scar anybody you only give Succs to. It's a horrific experience. You already feel like you are dying and you are scared. All of the sudden you're paralyzed, can't breath, are suffocating, and you're definitely dying. Succs has saved a lot of lives and it's a tremendously useful drug, but my point is: Trace amounts can have huge effects.