Meet the green who doubts ‘The Science’

[Oddball]

More about "settled science".

The author of Chill explains why he’s sceptical about manmade global warming — and why greens are so intolerant.

The science around climate change is not as settled as it’s presented as being. I used to think it was, until about 2003 – and then, feeling that the remedies being proposed for climate change would be more damaging to the environment than climate change itself, I took it upon myself to look at the science.

In my book on biodiversity, Beyond Conservation, I had mentioned in one of the chapters that perhaps the man-made global warming theory was not all it was being cracked up to be. The changes we are seeing now, I wrote, suggested that some other processes were at work. I then took time out, visited the science libraries, and checked the original science upon which today’s models are based.

I was shocked by what I found. Firstly, there’s no real consensus among the scientists in the UN working groups, especially around oceanography and atmospheric physics. The atmospheric physics of carbon dioxide for example is presented as being pretty straightforward: it is a greenhouse gas, therefore it warms up the planet. But even that isn’t settled. There’s a huge amount of scientific disagreement on how much extra heating in the atmosphere you will get from carbon dioxide. It is even broadly accepted that carbon dioxide on its own is not a problem. So, you can double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and get half to one degree warming, which is within the natural variability range over a period of 50 years from now at the current rate of emissions.

<snip>

We’re seeing the dangerous development here of a very intolerant political ideology. It is a very strange political and scientific situation, in which vast sums of money are underwriting a bureaucracy of climate accountants and auditors, and in which academic funding is easier to obtain if you put man-made climate change at the top of your research proposal. I have never seen anything like it in the 40 years of my scientific and environmental career.

spiked debate: Meet the green who doubts &#8216;The Science&#8217; by Peter Taylor

 

[del]

heresy!

where's the ducking stool?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hypothesis: deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 causes instantaneous, cataclysmic and irreversible changes in Earth's atmosphere
_____
|___| Fishtank #1: Earths atmosphere

_____
|___| Fishtank #2: Earth's atmosphere plus 1/4 spoon of dry ice (CO2)

Monitor results.

 

[Big Fitz]

that's dunking chair... and it's underwater now thanks to a rise in the sea level.

 

[Big Fitz]

Hypothesis: deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 causes instantaneous, cataclysmic and irreversible changes in Earth's atmosphere
_____
|___| Fishtank #1: Earths atmosphere

_____
|___| Fishtank #2: Earth's atmosphere plus 1/4 spoon of dry ice (CO2)

Monitor results.

mmmmmmm carbonated atmosphere.

step three. add italian soda flavoring.

step four. drink.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

that's dunking chair... and it's underwater now thanks to a rise in the sea level.

Well, we can't actually point to a place on Earth, especially one of the threatened Pacific Islands that are underwater but I can give you graphs and charts that show the sea is rising -- on average. Maybe. If you adjust the scale a tiny bit

 

[Big Fitz]

that's dunking chair... and it's underwater now thanks to a rise in the sea level.

Well, we can't actually point to a place on Earth, especially one of the threatened Pacific Islands that are underwater but I can give you graphs and charts that show the sea is rising -- on average. Maybe. If you adjust the scale a tiny bit

oops... my bad.

 

[boedicca]

This is hardly surprising news to anyone who has actually read about the "concensus" process overseen by the UN; but it's good to see cracks in the greenie facade.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How Warmers operate:

1. Find a place where, it's "Warmer"
2. Say, "Looky! Global Warming!"
3. Say, the Ice is melting!
4. The sea is rising!
5. Show graphs and charts demonstrating 4 and 5.

So, you see, they point to places where it's warmer, to demonstrate Global Warming but cannot point to places that are actually underwater as a result of this recent "warming", instead they give you a chart.

 

[Old Rocks]

More about "settled science".

The author of Chill explains why he’s sceptical about manmade global warming — and why greens are so intolerant.

The science around climate change is not as settled as it’s presented as being. I used to think it was, until about 2003 – and then, feeling that the remedies being proposed for climate change would be more damaging to the environment than climate change itself, I took it upon myself to look at the science.

In my book on biodiversity, Beyond Conservation, I had mentioned in one of the chapters that perhaps the man-made global warming theory was not all it was being cracked up to be. The changes we are seeing now, I wrote, suggested that some other processes were at work. I then took time out, visited the science libraries, and checked the original science upon which today’s models are based.

I was shocked by what I found. Firstly, there’s no real consensus among the scientists in the UN working groups, especially around oceanography and atmospheric physics. The atmospheric physics of carbon dioxide for example is presented as being pretty straightforward: it is a greenhouse gas, therefore it warms up the planet. But even that isn’t settled. There’s a huge amount of scientific disagreement on how much extra heating in the atmosphere you will get from carbon dioxide. It is even broadly accepted that carbon dioxide on its own is not a problem. So, you can double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and get half to one degree warming, which is within the natural variability range over a period of 50 years from now at the current rate of emissions.

OK, and which of the scientific societies in these sciences have changed their policy statements?

<snip>

We’re seeing the dangerous development here of a very intolerant political ideology. It is a very strange political and scientific situation, in which vast sums of money are underwriting a bureaucracy of climate accountants and auditors, and in which academic funding is easier to obtain if you put man-made climate change at the top of your research proposal. I have never seen anything like it in the 40 years of my scientific and environmental career.

spiked debate: Meet the green who doubts ‘The Science’ by Peter Taylor

Well, Peter's career is close to it's natural end. And a good thing, too. There were a goodly number of Geologists that just could not accept the Theory of Plate Tectonics. Most were like Peter, older gents that were intellectually over the hill.

As far as the intolerance goes, when people, scientists and policy makers alike, can plainly see a clear and present danger, but we have idiots that want the name of the engineers first grandchild, before they will accept that they are about to be hit by a train, you bet there is intollerance. Intelligent people do not suffer fools gladly.

 

[Oddball]

blahblahblahblah....

Way to refute his findings with something other than the usual ad homs....NOT!

 

[konradv]

Hypothesis: deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 causes instantaneous, cataclysmic and irreversible changes in Earth's atmosphere
_____
|___| Fishtank #1: Earths atmosphere

_____
|___| Fishtank #2: Earth's atmosphere plus 1/4 spoon of dry ice (CO2)

Monitor results.

You're going overboard on that hypothesis. That's why the deniers have any traction at all. Dumb people making dumb predictions, when the science is pretty straight forward. Are you denying that there are other factors at play?

 

[Oddball]

How is the most simplified demonstration "going overboard"?

 

[RollingThunder]

More about "settled science".

The author of Chill explains why he&#8217;s sceptical about manmade global warming &#8212; and why greens are so intolerant.

The science around climate change is not as settled as it&#8217;s presented as being. I used to think it was, until about 2003 &#8211; and then, feeling that the remedies being proposed for climate change would be more damaging to the environment than climate change itself, I took it upon myself to look at the science.

In my book on biodiversity, Beyond Conservation, I had mentioned in one of the chapters that perhaps the man-made global warming theory was not all it was being cracked up to be. The changes we are seeing now, I wrote, suggested that some other processes were at work. I then took time out, visited the science libraries, and checked the original science upon which today&#8217;s models are based.

I was shocked by what I found. Firstly, there&#8217;s no real consensus among the scientists in the UN working groups, especially around oceanography and atmospheric physics. The atmospheric physics of carbon dioxide for example is presented as being pretty straightforward: it is a greenhouse gas, therefore it warms up the planet. But even that isn&#8217;t settled. There&#8217;s a huge amount of scientific disagreement on how much extra heating in the atmosphere you will get from carbon dioxide. It is even broadly accepted that carbon dioxide on its own is not a problem. So, you can double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and get half to one degree warming, which is within the natural variability range over a period of 50 years from now at the current rate of emissions.

<snip>

We&#8217;re seeing the dangerous development here of a very intolerant political ideology. It is a very strange political and scientific situation, in which vast sums of money are underwriting a bureaucracy of climate accountants and auditors, and in which academic funding is easier to obtain if you put man-made climate change at the top of your research proposal. I have never seen anything like it in the 40 years of my scientific and environmental career.

spiked debate: Meet the green who doubts &#8216;The Science&#8217; by Peter Taylor

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. I guess nutjobs will always be drawn to the deranged fantasies of other nutjobs. Birds of a feather and all that.

Reviews of Peter Taylor&#8217;s &#8220;Shiva&#8217;s Rainbow&#8221; and &#8220;Chill&#8221;

by Alastair McIntosh

These 2 reviews were published to Amazon.co.uk, 30-1-10 - click on Amazon's links below where they can also be responded to using "Comment". Further to an invitation by the editor of ECOS: Journal of the British Association of Nature Conservationists, Peter Taylor and I have agreed to debate these issues once the ECOS website is upgraded - probably in April 2010. We have both published in this journal, making it a fitting place for such a debate. I have made it clear that I do not consider myself to be a "climate scientist", and will therefore be confining my remarks on the science to what is published in the mainstream scientific consensus. As such, the debate will probably focus on how non-scientists and scientists interact over issues of potentially pressing public concern.

Shiva&#8217;s Rainbow

Peter Taylor is the author of "Chill, A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory: Does Climate Change Mean the World is Cooling, and If So What Should We Do About It?", currently Amazon UK's no. 3 bestseller on climate change contrarianism. Much of what Taylor aspires towards for a better world in "Chill" - principles such as community and resilience - I strongly agree with, and he says it well. My problem in that book, as I have explored in my separate Amazon review of it, is with his trenchant bottom line that "Man-made global warming is exactly what it says on the label - a fabrication! It is an illusion borne of a particular way of looking at the world" (p. 360).


Please keep 'snips' to brief excerpts from the linked article. Thanks.

5 February 2010

Alastair McIntosh's Home Page

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hypothesis: deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 causes instantaneous, cataclysmic and irreversible changes in Earth's atmosphere
_____
|___| Fishtank #1: Earths atmosphere

_____
|___| Fishtank #2: Earth's atmosphere plus 1/4 spoon of dry ice (CO2)

Monitor results.

You're going overboard on that hypothesis. That's why the deniers have any traction at all. Dumb people making dumb predictions, when the science is pretty straight forward. Are you denying that there are other factors at play?

I think I understated the hysteria from the Warmers.

In a few short years, you claim that we're melting the polar ice caps, raising sea level and causing mass extinctions. That's YOUR hypothesis.

It's not that: oh, in 50,000 years we might see some changes. YOU'RE saying the effects are instantaneous and cataclysmic.

I asked you once before to state your hypotheses and you drooled on yourself, so either state it or drink a tall glass of shut the fuck up juice.

 

[Oddball]

More about "settled science".

The author of Chill explains why he&#8217;s sceptical about manmade global warming &#8212; and why greens are so intolerant.

The science around climate change is not as settled as it&#8217;s presented as being. I used to think it was, until about 2003 &#8211; and then, feeling that the remedies being proposed for climate change would be more damaging to the environment than climate change itself, I took it upon myself to look at the science.

In my book on biodiversity, Beyond Conservation, I had mentioned in one of the chapters that perhaps the man-made global warming theory was not all it was being cracked up to be. The changes we are seeing now, I wrote, suggested that some other processes were at work. I then took time out, visited the science libraries, and checked the original science upon which today&#8217;s models are based.

I was shocked by what I found. Firstly, there&#8217;s no real consensus among the scientists in the UN working groups, especially around oceanography and atmospheric physics. The atmospheric physics of carbon dioxide for example is presented as being pretty straightforward: it is a greenhouse gas, therefore it warms up the planet. But even that isn&#8217;t settled. There&#8217;s a huge amount of scientific disagreement on how much extra heating in the atmosphere you will get from carbon dioxide. It is even broadly accepted that carbon dioxide on its own is not a problem. So, you can double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and get half to one degree warming, which is within the natural variability range over a period of 50 years from now at the current rate of emissions.

<snip>

We&#8217;re seeing the dangerous development here of a very intolerant political ideology. It is a very strange political and scientific situation, in which vast sums of money are underwriting a bureaucracy of climate accountants and auditors, and in which academic funding is easier to obtain if you put man-made climate change at the top of your research proposal. I have never seen anything like it in the 40 years of my scientific and environmental career.

spiked debate: Meet the green who doubts &#8216;The Science&#8217; by Peter Taylor

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. I guess nutjobs will always be drawn to the deranged fantasies of other nutjobs. Birds of a feather and all that.

See :Freudian projection.

2a. Freudian Projection

The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called Freudian Projection.

* "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."

* "The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual."

* "Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."

* "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."

* "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."

* "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."

Basic Human Psychology 1: Neurosis, Projection and Freudian Projection

Now, edit that POS copy-n-paste post before I do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hypothesis: deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 causes instantaneous, cataclysmic and irreversible changes in Earth's atmosphere
_____
|___| Fishtank #1: Earths atmosphere

_____
|___| Fishtank #2: Earth's atmosphere plus 1/4 spoon of dry ice (CO2)

Monitor results.

You're going overboard on that hypothesis. That's why the deniers have any traction at all. Dumb people making dumb predictions, when the science is pretty straight forward. Are you denying that there are other factors at play?

So, if it's too complicated and there are too many variables how can you say AGW is for real?

 

[RollingThunder]

More about "settled science".



spiked debate: Meet the green who doubts &#8216;The Science&#8217; by Peter Taylor

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. I guess nutjobs will always be drawn to the deranged fantasies of other nutjobs. Birds of a feather and all that.

See :Freudian projection.

Basic Human Psychology 1: Neurosis, Projection and Freudian Projection

Now, edit that POS copy-n-paste post before I do.

I see you can't handle the exposure of your source as a phony and a flaming nutjob who gets his evidence from psychics, as he himself says in his books.

Are you actually threatening to "edit" my post because you don't have any real response to the destruction of your moronic thread? LOLOLOLOLOL.

 

[Oddball]

Actually, I'm handing the dispensation of your violation of forum copyright policy off to someone else.

You can either abide by the rules here or go troll elsewhere.

 

[Oddball]

From the link:

I have made it clear that I do not consider myself to be a "climate scientist", and will therefore be confining my remarks on the science to what is published in the mainstream scientific consensus.

IOW, he's going to resort to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority