An Inconvenient Inconsistency

[ChristianCenturion]

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Granted, I believe we have a moral obligation to use care with our natural resources, but the whole propaganda program and poor logic with a 'science' label slapped on it was becoming a bit annoying after a couple of years.

In contrasting opinion...

 

[Voegelin]

They've turned science on its head. The burden of proof lies on the skeptics. The debate is over according to Al Gore and his supporters.

Did you catch Vicount Monckton's report from the Bali conference?

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=178&Itemid=1

Spooky

 

[KomissarSteve]

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Well, first things first, this isn't an official Senate release or statement, despite what it says; this is completely Inhofe's doing (notice it says "Inhofe Press Blog" above it), who gets paid millions by oil and chemical companies to say climate change is false and compare people who believe in climate change to Nazis.

Secondly, I think you're reading way too much into this. If you have a look at this article again, you'll see that a lot of those quoted scholars aren't saying that anthropogenic global warming isn't a fact; a lot of them are saying, "Nobody can be 100% sure." Look at Dr. John Maunder's quotes: he states no conclusions regarding mankind's impact on global warming but merely states that some climates may be beneficially impacted by it (while also acknowledging that others will be negatively impacted).

Overall, however, the underlying problem with this latest batch of silliness, is really the same as the problem with every other global warming denier argument: it offers no compelling alternative explanation for what is happening. Today it's intelligent design and global warming; yesterday it was smoking and cancer; go back further, and it was germ theory of disease or doubters of the Copernican model. It's all the same: the deniers either have nothing, or a really obviously bogus "explanation" for what is observed. I know skeptics take umbrage at being grouped with such groups, but I'm afraid that's not my fault. These really are the historically comparable "debates" and this is how the climate skeptics will be viewed by history.

So for climate change, if man isn't causing it, what is? We have ruled out volcanoes, sun cycles, and other non-anthropogenic sources of GHGs (cows count as man-made here, considering the manner in which we've mass-produced them). Saying "it's natural cycles" is just punting the question. Natural cycles don't happen in a vacuum either and have proximate and measurable causes. A meteor strike killing the dinosaurs is "natural" but also it is not mysterious. So if the earth is warming for non-human caused reasons, what are they? Scientists have looked, and they're not finding them. The glaciers didn't just decide to melt a couple years ago. The ocean currents didn't mysteriously change and pump warm water into the northwest passage.

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

Overall, however, the underlying problem with this latest batch of silliness, is really the same as the problem with every other global warming denier argument: it offers no compelling alternative explanation for what is happening. Today it's intelligent design and global warming; yesterday it was smoking and cancer; go back further, and it was germ theory of disease or doubters of the Copernican model. It's all the same: the deniers either have nothing, or a really obviously bogus "explanation" for what is observed. I know skeptics take umbrage at being grouped with such groups, but I'm afraid that's not my fault. These really are the historically comparable "debates" and this is how the climate skeptics will be viewed by history.

It's rather disingenuous to group the climate change infidels with those people since at some point in history, every single one of those beliefs was the consensus of the scientific community.

Good track record that peer pressure science has.

What's even funnier is that Copernicus' models ultimately proved incorrect. I guess the guy who proved him wrong was a "Copernican model denier."

So for climate change, if man isn't causing it, what is? We have ruled out volcanoes, sun cycles, and other non-anthropogenic sources of GHGs (cows count as man-made here, considering the manner in which we've mass-produced them). Saying "it's natural cycles" is just punting the question. Natural cycles don't happen in a vacuum either and have proximate and measurable causes. A meteor strike killing the dinosaurs is "natural" but also it is not mysterious. So if the earth is warming for non-human caused reasons, what are they? Scientists have looked, and they're not finding them. The glaciers didn't just decide to melt a couple years ago. The ocean currents didn't mysteriously change and pump warm water into the northwest passage.

Herer is an alternative explanation. Give this guy a couple years to see if it plays out.

Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

I guess NASA is made up of climate change deniers.

The Northwest Passage thing is bunk too.

The Northwest Passage has been open since the the Second World War.

First vessel to complete the Northwest Passage in one season (1944), also making it the first to use the more northerly, deeper route and to complete the Passage in both directions

 

[Voegelin]

It's politics disguised as science. Thinly disguised. By saying that I'm conceding the segement of the movement which is religion disguised as science is not driving this (not that the gaia side is not important, its just not the people at Bali).

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

It's politics disguised as science. Thinly disguised. By saying that I'm conceding the segement of the movement which is religion disguised as science is not driving this (not that the gaia side is not important, its just not the people at Bali).

What's even more amusing is the guy used as an example to pillory the climate change infidels wasn't even correct, and that people trust stories about the northwest passage from the BBC when they get the details wrong and don't even fact check their own stories against their own stories.

Screaming, "the end is near," will only get you so far. They've probably learned from 1980 though, and won't predict a date.

 

[Voegelin]

What's even more amusing is the guy used as an example to pillory the climate change infidels wasn't even correct . . .

The amazing thing is...it doesn't matter!

They toss one thing out after the next, they're debunked and then next week they're on to another scenerio which doesn't hold up. I don't even bother posting the refutations anymore because a day later they are demanding the same proof be shown while, at the same time, making more claims they can't back up.

Only thing to do is wait them out. This will burn itself out as all millennial movements do. What is keeping this one going a little longer than most is ideological proponents have found allies in the business community.

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

I just found this on the IPCC's about homepage:

The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change.[...]relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change

Heh.

 

[KomissarSteve]

It's rather disingenuous to group the climate change infidels with those people since at some point in history, every single one of those beliefs was the consensus of the scientific community.

Uh, no it's not.

Know why?

Because those previously-held consensus views didn't use science to come to those conclusions.

And don't talk to me about disingenuousness when you're going to use this "LOL CLIMATE CHANGE INFIDELS!!!" nonsense. Keep in mind - those of us who believe the science are the ones who are using verifiable evidence; you folks are the ones whose mutual point of view is based on faith alone.

 

[KomissarSteve]

I just found this on the IPCC's about homepage:



Heh.

And what, pray tell, do you think this tells you about the IPCC?

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

And what, pray tell, do you think this tells you about the IPCC?

I believe that the concept is called doublethink.

 

[DieHappy]

Today it's intelligent design and global warming; yesterday it was smoking and cancer; go back further, and it was germ theory of disease or doubters of the Copernican model. It's all the same: the deniers either have nothing, or a really obviously bogus "explanation" for what is observed. I know skeptics take umbrage at being grouped with such groups, but I'm afraid that's not my fault. These really are the historically comparable "debates" and this is how the climate skeptics will be viewed by history.

Smoking and cancer is simple. There is the ability to do scientific, blinded research and look at the results. As soon as a link was postulated, studies began. Second hand smoking might be similar to what your point is, in that there is a mountain of evidence that fails to prove a link while the pundits scream about the obvious connection. Consensus doesn't match up to evidence, but there few of us who actually understand or care about that.

Germ theory doesn't really fit. There were never germ theory deniers. As soon as germs were discovered there began an argument about how host immunity plays into it. And guess what? The people who questioned consensus were right. Just like flower seeds tossed into a hallway won't grow, the germ needs the proper condition to flourish. The medical establishment is finally advising rest, water, and supplements so that the myriad germs around us don't affect us as strongly. They used to hold the consensus view that germ exposure meant getting sick.

I think you need to try again. Consensus deniers 2, establishment 0.

 

[KomissarSteve]

I believe that the concept is called doublethink.

It sounds to me like you're reading things into that blurb that aren't actually there. What part of that paragraph indicates doublethink, in your mind?

 

[KomissarSteve]

Smoking and cancer is simple. There is the ability to do scientific, blinded research and look at the results. As soon as a link was postulated, studies began.

And yet, proven though the link was, action was not taken because powerful lobbies paid off politicians to take obstructionist policies. Nowadays, one doesn't need to look any further than Jim Inhofe to see the contemporary example of that phenomenon.

Germ theory doesn't really fit. There were never germ theory deniers.

Sure there were; there was consistent

Consensus deniers 2, establishment 0.

Uh, no. The fact that you and your ilk have thus far failed to come up with strong scientific evidence that undermines or disproves anthropogenic climate shift means you get no points.

Sorry, but things like science and reality aren't faith-based initiatives.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Oops - looks like a few people have already pretty soundly debunked this nonsense:

http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/inhofian-reporting-peerless-work/
http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/...de-global-warming-claims-in-2007-andy-revkin/
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/21/112933/48
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=12&year=2007&base_name=stuck_in_denial_mode

 

[DieHappy]

http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4530

From the early days of Marxism until its collapse, the Left pretended that socialist central planning would lead to greater productivity and advanced technological progress. No one seriously entertains that illusion any more. So how is it that so many Marxist ideas still hold such influFrom the early days of Marxism until its collapse, the Left pretended that socialist central planning would lead to greater productivity and advanced technological progress. No one seriously entertains that illusion any more. So how is it that so many Marxist ideas still hold such influence? Certainly the modern "Green" movement is filled with Marxists of one stripe or another.
ence? Certainly the modern "Green" movement is filled with Marxists of one stripe or another.
...
This Green logic, however, is necessary to achieve the real agenda: the eradication of wealth. If you accept that wealth created poverty, then the destruction of wealth will destroy poverty. In the Memo, the authors merely say they want to "reform" wealth. But they do become more explicit.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

The amazing thing is...it doesn't matter!

They toss one thing out after the next, they're debunked and then next week they're on to another scenerio which doesn't hold up. I don't even bother posting the refutations anymore because a day later they are demanding the same proof be shown while, at the same time, making more claims they can't back up.

Only thing to do is wait them out. This will burn itself out as all millennial movements do. What is keeping this one going a little longer than most is ideological proponents have found allies in the business community.

Well said.

Kind of has that simple "Don't feed the trolls" flavor to it.

or

Proverbs 15:14
The discerning heart seeks knowledge, but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

Here's one of my favorite global warming stories.

The United States and Saudi Arabia are the world's worst "climate sinners," environmental groups said Friday, citing their high and mounting greenhouse gas emissions and inadequate government policies to combat global warming.

You have not set yourself on the path to righteousness...err...limiting global warming.

 

[[serious]]

400 scientists? how many are named steve?

 

[KomissarSteve]

Here's one of my favorite global warming stories.



You have not set yourself on the path to righteousness...err...limiting global warming.

Way to avoid addressing the issue by focusing on the particulars of the rhetoric.