Meet the green who doubts ‘The Science’

[RollingThunder]

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.

The material I quoted there was not copyrighted. Idiot.

 

[Oddball]

The forum policy is HERE.

I see no expressed permission given to freely distribute the material, so the default presumption is that it is the sole property of the author.

 

[RollingThunder]

The forum policy is HERE.

I see no expressed permission given to freely distribute the material, so the default presumption is that it is the sole property of the author.

Bravo, doodles. You couldn't handle having any factual information appear that demolishes your source (in his own words) so you managed to get it removed. That is so typical of you denier cultist and righwingretards in general. Can't handle the facts so cover them up and go on denying reality. LOLOLOLOLOL. I notice the editing you or your mod friend did managed to only excerpt the fairly irrelevant bits and removed the damning parts including everything about the guy's second book on global warming. You are such a flaming retard, doodles, and an intellectual coward to boot.

I guess I'll have to keep posting the link so people don't forget what an incompetent fool your source is.

Reviews of Peter Taylor’s “Shiva’s Rainbow” and “Chill”

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Doooodeeee...... does not take kindly to being shown for the fool that he is.

 

[Oddball]

Uh-huh...

One dweeb posts the copy-n-pasted opinion from the blog of another dweeb, who freely admits that he doesn't have the credentials of the author of the book he's "reviewing", subsequently is resorting to an appeal to authority to feebly attempt to fill in the blanks of his lack of both knowledge and common sense, and I'm the fool.

Whatever!

 

[westwall]

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.

Old Rocks,

Virtually anyone who disagree's with you or any of your ilk is referred to as retard, f***ing idiot, moron, etc. To believe that you and yours are not intolerant is laughable.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

And to take it just a wee bit further, if there is record heat anywhere---global warming.
Record cold--global warming.

Unusual drought--global warming.

Above average rainfall--global warming.

If it snows--global warming.

If it doesn't snow--global warming.

If there are hurricanes--global warming.

No hurricanes--global warming.

Lots of sunspots--the sun is not a factor in global warming.

Few sunspots--that explains why global warming is currently stalled.

A gazillion scientists support global warming despite the fact that the closest some are to being a scientist is they once typed up a weather report.

Thousands of scientists who doubt significant or catastophic global warming--all work for oil companies or are otherwise irrelevant.

Somebody who once plugged some data into a computer to product a pretty graph is a climate scientist.

A physicist or geologist who notes certain Earth phenomena are unqualified to comment.

Any source supporting any reason to dispute catastrophic global warming, most especailly anthropological global warming is bogus, biased, or otherwise unsuitable as a source.

All sources supporting anthropological global warming are the real deal, perfectly competent, and beyond any refutation or contestation.

Outbreak of tornados--global warming.

Unusually calm weather--global warming.

Climate models unable to arrive at current conditions using data that we have are perfectly capable to produce accurate projections based on data we can only guess about.

All climate models unable to produce 'evidence' of catastrophic global warming are bogus.

All advocates of anthropological global warming are dedicated environmentalist and have only the welfare and preservation of humankind in mind.

Anybody who challenges such advocates are selfish, greedy bastards interested only in the profit motive.

Etc.

 

[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?

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

Who said it's too complicated? You're taking what should be a conclusion and making it your premise. The complications sometimes mean scientists have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and parse out the contribution of man. Of course, the deniers see this as "fudging the data" and created a Climategate Hoax out of that alone, knowing they'd be able to fool the unsophisticated.

 

[konradv]

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.

And to take it just a wee bit further, if there is record heat anywhere---global warming.
Record cold--global warming.

Unusual drought--global warming.

Above average rainfall--global warming.

If it snows--global warming.

If it doesn't snow--global warming.

If there are hurricanes--global warming.

No hurricanes--global warming.

Lots of sunspots--the sun is not a factor in global warming.

Few sunspots--that explains why global warming is currently stalled.

A gazillion scientists support global warming despite the fact that the closest some are to being a scientist is they once typed up a weather report.

Thousands of scientists who doubt significant or catastophic global warming--all work for oil companies or are otherwise irrelevant.

Somebody who once plugged some data into a computer to product a pretty graph is a climate scientist.

A physicist or geologist who notes certain Earth phenomena are unqualified to comment.

Any source supporting any reason to dispute catastrophic global warming, most especailly anthropological global warming is bogus, biased, or otherwise unsuitable as a source.

All sources supporting anthropological global warming are the real deal, perfectly competent, and beyond any refutation or contestation.

Outbreak of tornados--global warming.

Unusually calm weather--global warming.

Climate models unable to arrive at current conditions using data that we have are perfectly capable to produce accurate projections based on data we can only guess about.

All climate models unable to produce 'evidence' of catastrophic global warming are bogus.

All advocates of anthropological global warming are dedicated environmentalist and have only the welfare and preservation of humankind in mind.

Anybody who challenges such advocates are selfish, greedy bastards interested only in the profit motive.

Etc.

Got some cites for this? It looks like a few facts mixed in with a bunch of made up shit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

Who said it's too complicated? You're taking what should be a conclusion and making it your premise. The complications sometimes mean scientists have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and parse out the contribution of man. Of course, the deniers see this as "fudging the data" and created a Climategate Hoax out of that alone, knowing they'd be able to fool the unsophisticated.

Pretend I'm unsophisticated.

Also pretend for a moment that we're talking about real science here. How would you state your hypothesis? I'll even forget that you've avoided stating it ever other time I asked you to do so (I'm unsophisticated, remember?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

And to take it just a wee bit further, if there is record heat anywhere---global warming.
Record cold--global warming.

Unusual drought--global warming.

Above average rainfall--global warming.

If it snows--global warming.

If it doesn't snow--global warming.

If there are hurricanes--global warming.

No hurricanes--global warming.

Lots of sunspots--the sun is not a factor in global warming.

Few sunspots--that explains why global warming is currently stalled.

A gazillion scientists support global warming despite the fact that the closest some are to being a scientist is they once typed up a weather report.

Thousands of scientists who doubt significant or catastophic global warming--all work for oil companies or are otherwise irrelevant.

Somebody who once plugged some data into a computer to product a pretty graph is a climate scientist.

A physicist or geologist who notes certain Earth phenomena are unqualified to comment.

Any source supporting any reason to dispute catastrophic global warming, most especailly anthropological global warming is bogus, biased, or otherwise unsuitable as a source.

All sources supporting anthropological global warming are the real deal, perfectly competent, and beyond any refutation or contestation.

Outbreak of tornados--global warming.

Unusually calm weather--global warming.

Climate models unable to arrive at current conditions using data that we have are perfectly capable to produce accurate projections based on data we can only guess about.

All climate models unable to produce 'evidence' of catastrophic global warming are bogus.

All advocates of anthropological global warming are dedicated environmentalist and have only the welfare and preservation of humankind in mind.

Anybody who challenges such advocates are selfish, greedy bastards interested only in the profit motive.

Etc.

Got some cites for this? It looks like a few facts mixed in with a bunch of made up shit.

Yeah. I'll just refer you to all the dozens of global warming threads on USMB and you'll find it all there.

Oh and I left out the El Ninos and especially La Ninas that are often cited by the warmers as the reason the cycle isn't fitting the projections.

And never mind that almost nothing they have projected thus far has come to pass despite the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise. The warmers are adament that this is just a blip and anthropological global warming will resume any time with disatrous results if we don't hand over our choices, options, opportunities, and freedoms to the government to manage for us.

 

[konradv]

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

Who said it's too complicated? You're taking what should be a conclusion and making it your premise. The complications sometimes mean scientists have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and parse out the contribution of man. Of course, the deniers see this as "fudging the data" and created a Climategate Hoax out of that alone, knowing they'd be able to fool the unsophisticated.

Pretend I'm unsophisticated.

Also pretend for a moment that we're talking about real science here. How would you state your hypothesis? I'll even forget that you've avoided stating it ever other time I asked you to do so (I'm unsophisticated, remember?

You're lying. I've stated it repeatedly. I guess you like to pretend it's not out there, since you or anyone else have been unable to refute it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Who said it's too complicated? You're taking what should be a conclusion and making it your premise. The complications sometimes mean scientists have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and parse out the contribution of man. Of course, the deniers see this as "fudging the data" and created a Climategate Hoax out of that alone, knowing they'd be able to fool the unsophisticated.

Pretend I'm unsophisticated.

Also pretend for a moment that we're talking about real science here. How would you state your hypothesis? I'll even forget that you've avoided stating it ever other time I asked you to do so (I'm unsophisticated, remember?

You're lying. I've stated it repeatedly. I guess you like to pretend it's not out there, since you or anyone else have been unable to refute it.

Repeatedly? So why can't you just post it up here for me?

 

[Bfgrn]

From Jethro DUD's article...

The role of water vapour in planetary warming is also open to questioning. While it is presented as being a heat amplifier, in fact because it can turn into cloud it could actually regulate temperature instead. As it turned out, at the very beginning of the UN discussions, Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, and a leading expert appointed to the committee because of his meteorological expertise, was saying precisely that: the amplification effect asserted cannot be relied upon to increase warming because the vapour could turn into cloud. This needed to be proved before basing assumptions on it. But Lindzen was overruled. Despite still being a key part of the IPPC process, he is now vilified by the press and by the environmental movement. So even on the most basic science of the atmospherics, there is doubt.

Bullshit!

Lindzen's Discarded Global Warming Arguments
An internal document (pdf) of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) -- an industry front group that disbanded in 2002 -- reviewed some of the "contrarian" arguments used by Lindzen and other climate change skeptics that they later discarded. The document, which was obtained as part of a court action against the automobile industry[13].

In a section on the "Role of Water Vapor", the GCC's Science and Technical Advisory Committee wrote that "In 1990, Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT argued that the models which were being used to predict greenhouse warming were incorrect because they predicted an increase in water vapor at all levels of the troposphere. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the models predict warming at all levels of the troposphere. However, warming should create convective turbulence, which would lead to more condensation of water vapor (i.e. more rain) and both drying and cooling of the troposphere above 5 km. This negative feedback would act as, a "thermostat" keeping temperatures from rising significantly."

However, the GCC's science advisers noted that this argument had been disproven to the point that Lindzen himself had ceased to use it. "Lindzen's 1990 theory predicted that warmer conditions at.the surface would lead to cooler, drier conditions at the top ofthe troposphere. Studies of the behavior of the troposphere in the tropics fail to find the cooling and drying Lindzen predicted. More recent publications have indicated the possibility that Lindzen's hypothesis may be correct, but the evidence is still weak. While Lindzen remains a critic of climate modeling efforts, his latest publications do not include the convective turbulence argument."[14]

In conclusion the GCC's science advisers was that "Lindzen's hypothesis that any warming would create more rain which would cool and dry the upper troposphere did offer a mechanism for balancing the effect of increased greenhouse gases. However, the data supporting this hypothesis is weak, and even Lindzen has stopped presenting it as an alternative to the conventional model of climate change."

 

[Oddball]

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?

Who said it's too complicated? You're taking what should be a conclusion and making it your premise. The complications sometimes mean scientists have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and parse out the contribution of man. Of course, the deniers see this as "fudging the data" and created a Climategate Hoax out of that alone, knowing they'd be able to fool the unsophisticated.

...then, of course, they have to "redefin(ing) the meaning of peer-reviewed literature" and wonder whether “Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?”, to browbeat and silence any voice which questions the anthropogenic gullible warming orthodoxy.

Hoax indeed.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

Who said it's too complicated? You're taking what should be a conclusion and making it your premise. The complications sometimes mean scientists have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and parse out the contribution of man. Of course, the deniers see this as "fudging the data" and created a Climategate Hoax out of that alone, knowing they'd be able to fool the unsophisticated.

...then, of course, they have to "redefin(ing) the meaning of peer-reviewed literature" and wonder whether “Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?”, to browbeat and silence any voice which questions the anthropogenic gullible warming orthodoxy.

Hoax indeed.

A half century ago, 'peer review' was honorable and held an integral role in the advancement of science. These days it has become so corrupted as to be laughable and worthy of suspicion every time it is brought up. These days 'peer review' too often means nothing more than that it has been handed to two or three others that can be expected to agree with it. Even the IPCC limits their reports to those who will beat their drum while disingenuously citing a much larger body, and the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is even more dishonest.

 

[Oddball]

More about "settled science".



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.

Old Rocks,

Virtually anyone who disagree's with you or any of your ilk is referred to as retard, f***ing idiot, moron, etc. To believe that you and yours are not intolerant is laughable.

What do you want from someone who has already admitted that there is no evidence, short of the AGW fundamentalists coming out and admitting it's all a hoax (and I doubt that even that would be enough), which he would accept to disprove that man is to blame?

Check out this gem:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1365297-post56.html

 

[Bfgrn]

Who said it's too complicated? You're taking what should be a conclusion and making it your premise. The complications sometimes mean scientists have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and parse out the contribution of man. Of course, the deniers see this as "fudging the data" and created a Climategate Hoax out of that alone, knowing they'd be able to fool the unsophisticated.

...then, of course, they have to "redefin(ing) the meaning of peer-reviewed literature" and wonder whether “Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?”, to browbeat and silence any voice which questions the anthropogenic gullible warming orthodoxy.

Hoax indeed.

A half century ago, 'peer review' was honorable and held an integral role in the advancement of science. These days it has become so corrupted as to be laughable and worthy of suspicion every time it is brought up. These days 'peer review' too often means nothing more than that it has been handed to two or three others that can be expected to agree with it. Even the IPCC limits their reports to those who will beat their drum while disingenuously citing a much larger body, and the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is even more dishonest.

WHERE do you come up with this shit? Is this residual balls of toilet paper you ingested licking rodeo clown Glenn Beck's ass?

Here is Glenn Beck's 'resurch' teem...

 

[westwall]

...then, of course, they have to "redefin(ing) the meaning of peer-reviewed literature" and wonder whether “Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?”, to browbeat and silence any voice which questions the anthropogenic gullible warming orthodoxy.

Hoax indeed.

A half century ago, 'peer review' was honorable and held an integral role in the advancement of science. These days it has become so corrupted as to be laughable and worthy of suspicion every time it is brought up. These days 'peer review' too often means nothing more than that it has been handed to two or three others that can be expected to agree with it. Even the IPCC limits their reports to those who will beat their drum while disingenuously citing a much larger body, and the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is even more dishonest.

WHERE do you come up with this shit? Is this residual balls of toilet paper you ingested licking rodeo clown Glenn Beck's ass?

Here is Glenn Beck's 'resurch' teem...

Yep that looks like them!

Here's Al Gores research team...Doing what they normally do...

 

[Foxfyre]

...then, of course, they have to "redefin(ing) the meaning of peer-reviewed literature" and wonder whether “Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?”, to browbeat and silence any voice which questions the anthropogenic gullible warming orthodoxy.

Hoax indeed.

A half century ago, 'peer review' was honorable and held an integral role in the advancement of science. These days it has become so corrupted as to be laughable and worthy of suspicion every time it is brought up. These days 'peer review' too often means nothing more than that it has been handed to two or three others that can be expected to agree with it. Even the IPCC limits their reports to those who will beat their drum while disingenuously citing a much larger body, and the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is even more dishonest.

WHERE do you come up with this shit? Is this residual balls of toilet paper you ingested licking rodeo clown Glenn Beck's ass?

Here is Glenn Beck's 'resurch' teem...

I get 'this shit' from those who are doing serious analysis of the stuff being put out there. I have posted quite a bit of it, but since you didn't read it then, I'm not going to waste my time posting any of it again. But those of us who actually read all the 'shit' available, and there is a LOT available, aren't coming up with the conclusions you seem to be reaching.

When you complete your remedial reading course, you'll probably understand a lot more than you understand now.