Climate Denialism paid by Exxon

[EdwinWillers]

< sarcasm >

Another fact filled and enlightening post, full of the relevant data and arguments and counter-arguments and rebuttals to those counter-arguments, respecting the peer-reviewed literature and one of the pinnacles of the modern scientific enterprise. Well done!

< / sarcasm >

As was yours.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Yet, as with so many other categories, the U.S. tends to perform the worst. Are we really going to fault under-developed nations for being less aware and capable? Do you know what under-developed means? It means they don't have the money, technology, or stability to do anything about it. First world countries should be doing better since they do, yet the U.S. is still behind.

And it's because of the attitude that "we aren't doing harm" or "who cares that we're doing harm". It's not an attitude you find in other first world countries.

For nations to be wealthy enough to afford to clean up the environment, they need to be free.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Are you serious? Between pumping toxins into the atmosphere, paving over forests for meat farms and factories, and systematically speeding up the extinction of animals by overtaking their habitats, there is absolutely no debate to the impact of human beings on nature.

I don't care if you don't care, but don't have the audacity to deny that we have no effect on nature.

Meh - but then the context, i.e. what we're talking about, is climate change - so-called anthropogenic global warming - not ecology. So before you go off proclaiming that you don't care if I don't care (which makes one wonder why you responded at all... but I digress), maybe take a moment and take a gander at the context of the discussion first.

Context does matter after all...

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

No, the policies are the result of politicians trying to appeal to the green vote, the science isn't. While the science of it is sound with next to every scientist agrees with the general consensus that the theoretical models and experimental data agree, the actual act of determining how bad it will be in a given year and what to do to change this along with the costs associated with that action has largely not been pursued.

Would we have these policies if we did not have people fear mongering about global warming? I doubt it.

When there is a factor of 100 difference between the revenues, there's no point. Renewable companies could be outspending oil companies relative to the money earned, and I wouldn't be surprised if indeed they are, but a factor of 100 might as well be considered impossible since the operating costs increase when this action is taken and they're already on the high end relative to oil so there's less room to expand in that direction without being completely taken out of the market.

Maybe it's because renewable energy sucks. I can't run my lights with solar power with no sun. Wind doesn't work with no wind. Tide doesn't work with no tide.

Here's an example of some of the scientific consensus:
Global warming is going to cause and end to snow in the UK, but yet, climate change/global warming/whatever causes record British winters.

When there is a factor of 100 difference between the revenues, there's no point. Renewable companies could be outspending oil companies relative to the money earned, and I wouldn't be surprised if indeed they are, but a factor of 100 might as well be considered impossible since the operating costs increase when this action is taken and they're already on the high end relative to oil so there's less room to expand in that direction without being completely taken out of the market.

Why? Isn't a bit of an issue if Solyndra spends more money on lobbyists than on making solar panels?

 

[eclipsenow]

Faith.Man contributes this article which typifies so much of what I'm talking about with the Christian right in America. It's an amazing and audacious piece of agit prop from the right, and smuggles in all manner of logical error and slander.

Articles: Science, Lies, and Videotape

It's hard to know where to begin with this piece of agit prop, and that's the whole point. Run roughshod over dozens of scientific claims at once with nothing more than a 'vibe' that it is all silly left-ist propaganda, and you'll have your target audience —[bless and do not curse]tobacco chewing gun toting rednecks —[bless and do not curse]hollering with you at the stupidity of the enemy. And coming back for more next week, which is what this game is all about.

Internet ratings.

The truth is a irrelevant casualty, like so much road-kill. But who cares about road-kill anyway? That's just greenie leftists out to take away your freeeedoooom, you good old boys, don't give up your guns.

I'm sure you could add to their list. Generally, the "dangers" the left invents or exaggerates involve modern technology, existing energy sources, and large-scale production. They represent a strange amalgam of Rousseau and Luddite notions and hark back to an ideal, never-existing "state of nature."

Sure, right, yeah, every climatologist I've ever read has recommended reversing the industrial revolution! No, it's true, this blogger said so!

This is just some of the stupidity we're confronted with from the American right, and it is as unthinking as always. But the good old boys will be laughing in their ezy-chairs as they read this, scratch themselves, spit tobacco and head out to shoot some Moose. Oh, did I mention we're all allowed to speak in cliche's now and this somehow qualifies as argument?

 

[Wayte]

Faith.Man contributes this article which typifies so much of what I'm talking about with the Christian right in America. It's an amazing and audacious piece of agit prop from the right, and smuggles in all manner of logical error and slander.

Articles: Science, Lies, and Videotape

It's hard to know where to begin with this piece of agit prop, and that's the whole point. Run roughshod over dozens of scientific claims at once with nothing more than a 'vibe' that it is all silly left-ist propaganda, and you'll have your target audience —[bless and do not curse]tobacco chewing gun toting rednecks —[bless and do not curse]hollering with you at the stupidity of the enemy. And coming back for more next week, which is what this game is all about.

Internet ratings.

The truth is a irrelevant casualty, like so much road-kill. But who cares about road-kill anyway? That's just greenie leftists out to take away your freeeedoooom, you good old boys, don't give up your guns.


Sure, right, yeah, every climatologist I've ever read has recommended reversing the industrial revolution! No, it's true, this blogger said so!

This is just some of the stupidity we're confronted with from the American right, and it is as unthinking as always. But the good old boys will be laughing in their ezy-chairs as they read this, scratch themselves, spit tobacco and head out to shoot some Moose. Oh, did I mention we're all allowed to speak in cliche's now and this somehow qualifies as argument?

Hey hey hey you leave tobacco out of this, I love dip and I will not have it associated with the "good ol' boys."

 

[rambot]

No - check your own sources - honestly. The "data" and "evidence" have been repeatedly debunked, which is why the faith, the religion of AGW is the hoax it is. And the irony of a group of people, driven by greed and lust for power, who have created the hoax of AGW as a vehicle to enlarge both... the irony that these very same people seek to separate religion from anything political is utterly fascinating - and utterly hypocritical.

You "believe" AGW is the "truth." That's all. You "believe" the "data" and "science" which are put forth apologetically as evidence the theories (and there are many of those) are true. But the underlying premise is so utterly fantastic that even a modicum of honest reasoning would otherwise trash it. That it hasn't only proves the modicum of honest reasoning has been replaced by a faith in the science - a faith bolstered by a need for it to be somehow true. And that is why we're persistently assailed with this nonsense, and why this nonsense is so potentially dangerous...

And yet when given the chance we hear little more than "Butkiss" from the denialist crowd. They keep telling us "it's been debunked" and yet cannot offer even the leanest bit of evidence that it actually HAS been "debunked" (however they are choosing to use the word "debunked" I guess).
We are viewed as idiot "sheeple" who blindly follow the NWO scientists all the way to the koolaid jug.

I must say, I like the imagery... it's like a Brother's Grimm story. I mean, it IS about as real as one of their stories.




As a sidenote, I just want to reiterate my happiness about the differentiation between the SCIENCE and the policies. I agree it would be better if the media was MUCH more responsible in how they presented science (all kinds of science but, germaine to the topic at hand, the climate science).
I personally DO believe we need some smart, intelligent policies that can lead us to a cleaner future, but who is going to make those? Bought and paid for politicians? Be they bought from GE or Exxon? I also believe that we need policies that will help us manage the changing climate; where are new agricultural centres going to be? How is the infrastructure going to be affected? How are umpteenth generation farmers going to feel about their land and locality no longer being fit for growing? Where are they going to be moveD? How?

 

[eclipsenow]

Would we have these policies if we did not have people fear mongering about global warming? I doubt it.

Maybe it's because renewable energy sucks. I can't run my lights with solar power with no sun. Wind doesn't work with no wind. Tide doesn't work with no tide.

I've been reading Dr Barry Brook, head of the climate department of Adelaide University. While he is not a climatologist, he is an environmental scientist and is convinced there is reason for immediate action on climate change.

But he agrees with you on renewable energy!

Fortunately the Integral Fast Reactor eats nuclear waste and effectively makes concerns over peak uranium vanish. Today's nuclear waste could run the world for 500 years, and conservative estimates of easily mined uranium could run the world for 50,000 years. Now by then who knows what energy sources we might have? Space based solar power that's 24/7? Cold fusion? Hot fusion? Super-powerful quantum dot batteries that are super-cheap and make renewables viable?

However, the point is that with today's super-safe AP1000 Gen3 reactors and tomorrow's Integral Fast Reactors (like GE's S-PRISM that they are trying to commercialize), we HAVE the answer for our long term energy security. There's no need to fight climate activists on the grounds that we don't have any alternative. We do. Which is why I moved from being one of those peak oil doomers to an enviro-optimist. We can do this!

And none of the anti-climate links you've quoted diminish the fact that every National Academy of Science on the planet agrees with AGW.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Fortunately the Integral Fast Reactor eats nuclear waste and effectively makes concerns over peak uranium vanish. Today's nuclear waste could run the world for 500 years, and conservative estimates of easily mined uranium could run the world for 50,000 years. Now by then who knows what energy sources we might have? Space based solar power that's 24/7? Cold fusion? Hot fusion? Super-powerful quantum dot batteries that are super-cheap and make renewables viable?

Well then why aren't more environmentalists in favor of nuclear power?

It seems like too many people learned about nuclear power from The China Syndrome.

However, the point is that with today's super-safe AP1000 Gen3 reactors and tomorrow's Integral Fast Reactors (like GE's S-PRISM that they are trying to commercialize), we HAVE the answer for our long term energy security. There's no need to fight climate activists on the grounds that we don't have any alternative. We do. Which is why I moved from being one of those peak oil doomers to an enviro-optimist. We can do this!

But from what I've seen many greenies oppose nuclear power, too.

 

[rambot]

I've been reading Dr Barry Brook, head of the climate department of Adelaide University. While he is not a climatologist, he is an environmental scientist and is convinced there is reason for immediate action on climate change.

But he agrees with you on renewable energy!

Fortunately the Integral Fast Reactor eats nuclear waste and effectively makes concerns over peak uranium vanish. Today's nuclear waste could run the world for 500 years, and conservative estimates of easily mined uranium could run the world for 50,000 years. Now by then who knows what energy sources we might have? Space based solar power that's 24/7? Cold fusion? Hot fusion? Super-powerful quantum dot batteries that are super-cheap and make renewables viable?

However, the point is that with today's super-safe AP1000 Gen3 reactors and tomorrow's Integral Fast Reactors (like GE's S-PRISM that they are trying to commercialize), we HAVE the answer for our long term energy security. There's no need to fight climate activists on the grounds that we don't have any alternative. We do. Which is why I moved from being one of those peak oil doomers to an enviro-optimist. We can do this!

And none of the anti-climate links you've quoted diminish the fact that every National Academy of Science on the planet agrees with AGW.

oh but space based power leaves you vulnerable from alien/martian attack.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No - check your own sources - honestly. The "data" and "evidence" have been repeatedly debunked, which is why the faith, the religion of AGW is the hoax it is. And the irony of a group of people, driven by greed and lust for power, who have created the hoax of AGW as a vehicle to enlarge both... the irony that these very same people seek to separate religion from anything political is utterly fascinating - and utterly hypocritical.

You "believe" AGW is the "truth." That's all. You "believe" the "data" and "science" which are put forth apologetically as evidence the theories (and there are many of those) are true. But the underlying premise is so utterly fantastic that even a modicum of honest reasoning would otherwise trash it. That it hasn't only proves the modicum of honest reasoning has been replaced by a faith in the science - a faith bolstered by a need for it to be somehow true. And that is why we're persistently assailed with this nonsense, and why this nonsense is so potentially dangerous...

Notice how Edwin uses the words 'faith', 'religion' and 'hoax' repeatedly. He wants to bring the science down to the level of superstition, so that he can say 'Well, you believe that'. This is a strategy employed by Creationists too. In the face of overwhelming evidence all they can say is 'That's your opinion. Your religious opinion, and I have my own religious opinion. And because they are both religious opinions, I can blindly stick to my own and safely ignore yours because I have faith.' The strategy is not one of scientifically dismantling AGW theories, but of pretending that the vast corpus of work is nothing more than an elaboration of a religious conviction. And not just any religious conviction, but one apparently driven by a political agenda of greed and lust for power. (Of course, only the denialists are driven by pure intentions - truth, humanity, civilisation, and so on). 'This nonsense is so potentially dangerous', says Edwin. He really has no idea how dangerous it is -- the costs of remaining complacent with regard to this issue are indeed great. And yet it is complacency that ideologically driven denialists like Edwin are so desperate to encourage.

 

[eclipsenow]

A quick note on climate policy; this is how James Hansen (the grandfather of modern climate science) sums up the clean energy challenge.

Can renewable energies provide all of society&#8217;s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.

Hansen warns not to drink sustainable energy Kool-Aid « BraveNewClimate

Here is a good summary of the particular kind of nuke James Hansen supports; the Integral Fast Reactor; the nuke that feeds on nuclear waste! Why not solve our nuclear waste problem AND climate change problem AND energy security problem by having our nukes feed off today's waste for the next 500 years! That's how long it will take to burn it all up!

The Integral Fast Reactor

 

[Fantine]

I think that most people are becoming more comfortable with nuclear power.

They are uncomfortable with the fact that many plants in the US were recertified and licensed after their 40 year expiration period without making improvements that brought their technology up to current safety standards--plants being built today are much safer, and nuclear power isn't something we want to treat cavalierly.

The idea of a plant that uses nuclear waste is just awesome.

Since the tsunami in Japan, we also now know that it is dangerous to build plants near the ocean (even though they must be near a water supply.) After the floods in Nebraska, there is some concern about plants built near rivers (when plants near Omaha were potentially endangered.)

Floods are more predictable...plants can be temporarily shut down if floods loom. Levees can be opened upstream, hopefully in areas with minimal population.

Tsunamis are unpredictable.

The cost of nuclear energy compares favorably with the "cleanest coal" (the ony kind we should use.) The only two we should use that are cheaper are hydroelectric and natural gas-fired.

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[thaumaturgy]

No - check your own sources - honestly. The "data" and "evidence" have been repeatedly debunked,

This is not true. The data has not been "debunked", certainly not "repeatedly".

Data and hypotheses drawn from these have obviously been evolving as all scientific knowledge does, but it has not been "debunked".

which is why the faith, the religion of AGW is the hoax it is.

So why are you so much smarter and more insightful than about 97% of the world's climate professionals?

They apparently "bought into" the "hoax". And I bet they have forgotten more about climate science than you have ever known.

You "believe" AGW is the "truth." That's all. You "believe" the "data" and "science" which are put forth apologetically as evidence the theories (and there are many of those) are true.

Personally I believe it not because I'm a climate scientist (I'm not) but because I got a doctorate in earth science and when I read the actual science (not just blogs) the data and interpretations make sense in the areas of science that I do have a signficant background in.

I don't just "believe".

But then I've put in a lot of work to get to this level of scientific understanding. It's not just a "night school kind of thing". I spent 11 years in undergraduate and graduate school followed by 5 years of postdoctoral study and the last 11 years as a research scientist.

So when I read science I at least have an understanding of how science works and what the scientists are saying and how they are saying it.

But the underlying premise is so utterly fantastic that even a modicum of honest reasoning would otherwise trash it.

"underlying premise"? Interesting. Because that underlying premise was initially developed in the mid-1800's and the idea of agw was first proffered in 1898 by the "father of physical chemistry".

And in the intervening 113 years the underlying premise has not really been shown to be lacking. The main events have actually been in firming up the real extent of the effect.

That it hasn't only proves the modicum of honest reasoning

No, what this indicates is that you and your fellow "Skeptoids" have almost no real understanding of the underlying principle or the history of the development of the hypothesis over the past 113 years.

Just curious: when you read Tyndall's work from the 1850's, what part of the ir-absorbing ability of the CO2 molecule do you find most "controversial"? When you run your FTIR and you see the CO2 absorption peak, what do you think about that? When you look at the countless paleoenvironmental studies that outline the relative "climate sensitivity" of many greenhouse gases, especially CO2, what, specifically, do you find to "Debunk" there?

Just curious. I mean, you talk largely and expansively about how wrong the science is, perhaps you can fill us in with your insights.

Ya know, when it comes to believing the work of Svante Arrhenius or Edwin Willers I'm probably going to go with the guy whose name is on several chemical concepts that underlie the foundations of physical chemistry before I go with the other name. Just an fyi.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Meh - that a small proportion of people disagree with the prevailing public opinion - particularly on PURELY religious matters such as AGW, is NEVER a valid argument that they're wrong - indeed the "appeal to the masses" logical fallacy is quite apropos in this case.

The reason I like to mention this, Dr. WIllers, is that according to two independent studies using different methodologies, it appears that the vast majority (about 97% ) of people who study this sort of thing for a living and understand the data more than the sum of all of us on this board seem to feel it is a reasonable hypothesis.

That actually does count for something. It isn't "religion" that drives that, it's data.

None of what you assert above is remotely a "given." None.

Interesting claim. So what specificallyl do you find at fault with regards to, say, the stable isotope data on 13-C/12-C ratios of carbon in the atmosphere?

I assume of course you know what I'm talking about here, so I'd be interested in learning your insights and your rebuttals to that. (NOAA explanation of the effect)

Can you explain why the 13-C/12-C ratio is dropping almost exactly as one would predict from dumping billions of tons of fossil fuel-derived CO2 into the atmosphere?

Also, which specific paleoenvironmental or even recent analysis of climate sensitivity due to CO2 do you find most controversial?

Here's an illustration from Knutti and Hegerl, 2008

Of course, you no doubt, understand the implications of such a sensitivity in regards to humankind's impact, so I'd be interested in your "insights"

(Don't worry, I don't actually expect you to provide anything like "science" in defense of your points in any way whatsoever. If I expected that I wouldn't be on this board, I just like presenting data and hearing the crickets in response from the skeptoids.)

 

[USincognito]

No - check your own sources - honestly. The "data" and "evidence" have been repeatedly debunked, which is why the faith, the religion of AGW is the hoax it is. And the irony of a group of people, driven by greed and lust for power, who have created the hoax of AGW as a vehicle to enlarge both... the irony that these very same people seek to separate religion from anything political is utterly fascinating - and utterly hypocritical.

You "believe" AGW is the "truth." That's all. You "believe" the "data" and "science" which are put forth apologetically as evidence the theories (and there are many of those) are true. But the underlying premise is so utterly fantastic that even a modicum of honest reasoning would otherwise trash it. That it hasn't only proves the modicum of honest reasoning has been replaced by a faith in the science - a faith bolstered by a need for it to be somehow true. And that is why we're persistently assailed with this nonsense, and why this nonsense is so potentially dangerous...

Wow, that is two paragraphs full of hyperbole, equivocation and not much else.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Wow, that is two paragraphs full of hyperbole, equivocation and not much else.

"Hyperbole?" - sure, so what - nothing wrong with that - just fighting bubbles with bubbles.

"Equivocation?" Hardly. But if you didn't get the point, I can repeat it...

"Not much else?" Seriously, what else needs be said? It's a hoax. I admit it's a wonderful chicken little story where many of the faith are running around whining "we're destroying the planet" - where its leaders and major proponents are making truckloads of money in the process - not to mention doing arguably irreparable damage to the world's economy - and systems of government...

On the other hand -
If you're truly that concerned about posts using exaggeration for effect, being somehow ambiguous, or otherwise lacking in content, one would have thought the FIRST post you'd attack would have been the OP's - the title alone is worthy of such attention.

"Climate denialism?"

Seriously??? - That's not hyperbole, equivocation, or lacking in content? Or do you truly believe anybody is so stupid as to "deny climate?" Or better yet, that Exxon is out there paying people to do it?

"Yo dude, c'mere - I got's ten bucks if yooz sez der's no climate."
"Wow! Ten bucks! Cool! Sure!
--- Thanks Exxon!!"

(Though I have to admit, such hyperbole, equivocation, and content as that would make that a great infomercial - especially if they offer some sort of two-fer deal...)

 

[lordbt]

In the absence of humans, what would the earths temperature be doing right now, rising or falling?

 

[eclipsenow]

Seriously??? - That's not hyperbole, equivocation, or lacking in content? Or do you truly believe anybody is so stupid as to "deny climate?" Or better yet, that Exxon is out there paying people to do it?

You're not really good at handling these things the rest of us like to call 'facts', are you? Exxon's behaviour in funding anti-science climate denial is well documented. Did you even try to look up the wiki for climate denialism? I know, one has to be careful using Wikipedia. You should always check the references! In this case, be my guest!

ExxonMobil
ExxonMobil has been a leading figure in the business world's position on climate change, providing substantial funding to a range of global-warming-skeptical organizations. Mother Jones counted some 40 ExxonMobil-funded organizations that "either have sought to undermine mainstream scientific findings on global climate change or have maintained affiliations with a small group of "skeptic" scientists who continue to do so." Between 2000 and 2003 these organizations received more than $8m in funding.[3]

It has also had a key influence in the Bush administration's energy policy, including on the Kyoto Protocol,[8] supported by both $55m spent on lobbying since 1999,[3] and direct contacts between the company and leading politicians. It was a leading member of the Global Climate Coalition. It encouraged (and may have been instrumental in) the replacement in 2002 of the head of the IPCC, Robert Watson.

At the same time, it has for internal business reasons invested in some energy conservation measures.[9] It has also invested $100m into the Global Climate and Energy Project, with Stanford University, and other programs at institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Carnegie Mellon University and the International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas Research and Development Program.

Some of Exxon's activities on climate change produced strong criticism from environmental groups, including reactions such as a leaflet produced by the Stop Esso campaign, saying 'Don't buy E$$o', and featuring a tiger hand setting fire to the Earth. The company's carbon dioxide emissions are more than 50% higher than those of British rival BP, despite the US firm's oil and gas production being only slightly larger.[10]

According to a 2004 study commissioned by Friends of the Earth, ExxonMobil and its predecessors caused 4.7 to 5.3 percent of the world's man-made carbon dioxide emissions between 1882 and 2002. The group suggested that such studies could form the basis for eventual legal action.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_action_on_climate_change#ExxonMobil

You only get to call the above 'hyperbole' if you can so overwhelmingly disprove my assertions with raw data &#8212; these things we call FACTS &#8212; that I look silly. If you just stand there shouting "hyperbole, hyperbole" while a river of raw data flows against you, you'll not only get drowned out by the truth, but look a bit foolish in the meantime hey? Here's just one of the first facts flowing past you, out of your reach, untouchable ... yet drowning your position.

Exxon Mobile = at least $8 million to fund anti-science groups.

Want to at least try contributing some counter-arguments, or even... facts?

 

[EdwinWillers]

This is not true. The data has not been "debunked", certainly not "repeatedly".

Uh huh - "not" - er, at least "not repeatedly."

Data and hypotheses drawn from these have obviously been evolving as all scientific knowledge does, but it has not been "debunked".

Uh huh - "evolution." Sure.

So why are you so much smarter and more insightful than about 97% of the world's climate professionals?

97%? Wow - who'da thunk. Is that a lot?

They apparently "bought into" the "hoax". And I bet they have forgotten more about climate science than you have ever known.

"Forgotten.." sure... uh huh... I guess that which they forgot didn't make it through their evolutionary process.

Personally I believe it not because I'm a climate scientist (I'm not) but because I got a doctorate in earth science and when I read the actual science (not just blogs) the data and interpretations make sense in the areas of science that I do have a signficant background in.

"Doctorate?" Phd - congratulations. "Doctor Thaumaturgy." Impressive.

I don't just "believe".

...But, you just said... Oh wait, you don't just believe. Gotcha. You actually know.

But then I've put in a lot of work to get to this level of scientific understanding. It's not just a "night school kind of thing". I spent 11 years in undergraduate and graduate school followed by 5 years of postdoctoral study and the last 11 years as a research scientist.

Wow - post doctoral study too - and a research scientist to boot. Very impressive.

So when I read science I at least have an understanding of how science works and what the scientists are saying and how they are saying it.

Uh huh. That's good - very good...

C'mon admit it - you're a conservative, right? You vote conservative, right? You didn't vote for Obama - go ahead, it's ok, you can admit it... I'm right, aren't I?

"underlying premise"? Interesting. Because that underlying premise was initially developed in the mid-1800's and the idea of agw was first proffered in 1898 by the "father of physical chemistry".

1880's - wow, and by the founder of physical chemistry, very impressive - I did not know that about chemistry (just a dumb engineer myself).

And in the intervening 113 years the underlying premise has not really been shown to be lacking. The main events have actually been in firming up the real extent of the effect.

"Main events" - sure...

No, what this indicates is that you and your fellow "Skeptoids" have almost no real understanding of the underlying principle or the history of the development of the hypothesis over the past 113 years.

"Skeptoids" - thank you, doctor. Maybe we should pay more attention to the evolution of chemist's premise and all the main events it predicted...

Just curious: when you read Tyndall's work from the 1850's, what part of the ir-absorbing ability of the CO2 molecule do you find most "controversial"? When you run your FTIR and you see the CO2 absorption peak, what do you think about that? When you look at the countless paleoenvironmental studies that outline the relative "climate sensitivity" of many greenhouse gases, especially CO2, what, specifically, do you find to "Debunk" there?

Who me? Tyndall? Nah, I like Cussler better. Dirk Pitt's pretty cool...

Just curious. I mean, you talk largely and expansively about how wrong the science is, perhaps you can fill us in with your insights.

"Expansively?" Thank you. Good to know I'm not too narrow...

Ya know, when it comes to believing the work of Svante Arrhenius or Edwin Willers I'm probably going to go with the guy whose name is on several chemical concepts that underlie the foundations of physical chemistry before I go with the other name. Just an fyi.

Back to believing, are we?

The reason I like to mention this, Dr. WIllers, is that according to two independent studies using different methodologies, it appears that the vast majority (about 97% ) of people who study this sort of thing for a living and understand the data more than the sum of all of us on this board seem to feel it is a reasonable hypothesis.

"Dr. Willers?" Aw, go on now...

That actually does count for something. It isn't "religion" that drives that, it's data.

No, just... (as you said) belief, and evolution, and 2 "independent" studies suggesting a majority opinion...

Interesting claim. So what specificallyl do you find at fault with regards to, say, the stable isotope data on 13-C/12-C ratios of carbon in the atmosphere?

Oh golly professor, "stable isotope data," "ratios" - I'm sure you believe way more about than I ever will...

I assume of course you know what I'm talking about here, so I'd be interested in learning your insights and your rebuttals to that. (NOAA explanation of the effect)

Ah, mmmm....

Can you explain why the 13-C/12-C ratio is dropping almost exactly as one would predict from dumping billions of tons of fossil fuel-derived CO2 into the atmosphere?

Dropping is it? Wow - is that good?

Also, which specific paleoenvironmental or even recent analysis of climate sensitivity due to CO2 do you find most controversial?

"Climate sensitivity."

Here's an illustration from Knutti and Hegerl, 2008

Boy, you gotta love Knutti and Hegerl... what a great pair.

Of course, you no doubt, understand the implications of such a sensitivity in regards to humankind's impact, so I'd be interested in your "insights"

Oh, I'm a sensitive sort of guy myself, so I do empathize, I really do...

(Don't worry, I don't actually expect you to provide anything like "science" in defense of your points in any way whatsoever. If I expected that I wouldn't be on this board, I just like presenting data and hearing the crickets in response from the skeptoids.)

Belief, evolution, climate sensitivity, 2 independent studies, a majority opinion, ratios, Knutti and Hegerl... crickets...

...and "skeptoids"

I think I'll get a second opinion... doctor.