The Arrogance of the Warmers

[asterism]

Access : Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era : Nature

Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era
Rosemarie E. Came1, John M. Eiler1, Ján Veizer2, Karem Azmy3, Uwe Brand4 & Christopher R. Weidman5

Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA
Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario KIN 6N5, Canada
Department of Earth Sciences, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, Newfoundland A1B 3X5, Canada
Department of Earth Sciences, Brock University, St Catharines, Ontario L2S 3A1, Canada
Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Waquoit, Massachusetts 02536, USA
Correspondence to: Rosemarie E. Came1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to R.E.C. (Email: [email protected]).


Top of pageAbstractAtmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations seem to have been several times modern levels during much of the Palaeozoic era (543–248 million years ago), but decreased during the Carboniferous period to concentrations similar to that of today1, 2, 3. Given that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it has been proposed that surface temperatures were significantly higher during the earlier portions of the Palaeozoic era1. A reconstruction of tropical sea surface temperatures based on the δ18O of carbonate fossils indicates, however, that the magnitude of temperature variability throughout this period was small4, suggesting that global climate may be independent of variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Here we present estimates of sea surface temperatures that were obtained from fossil brachiopod and mollusc shells using the ‘carbonate clumped isotope’ method5—an approach that, unlike the δ18O method, does not require independent estimates of the isotopic composition of the Palaeozoic ocean. Our results indicate that tropical sea surface temperatures were significantly higher than today during the Early Silurian period (443–423 Myr ago), when carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to have been relatively high, and were broadly similar to today during the Late Carboniferous period (314–300 Myr ago), when carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to have been similar to the present-day value. Our results are consistent with the proposal that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations drive or amplify increased global temperatures1, 6.

What was the source of that increased CO2 concentration?

 

[asterism]

Lordy, lordy, Fritz, you once again demonstrate your total ignorance of science. Yes, it is proven that we are the source of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. We know how much coal that we have produced and burned. Same for petroleum and natural gas. One ton of coal when burned creates over 3 tons of CO2.

Yes, definate proof of where the added CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans come from. And you are either powerfully ignorant or a liar to state that we do not.

No, it's not. It is just as likely that the CO2 now being observed is the result of the warming from the MWP which occurred 800 years ago. Amazingly enough corelating with observations from the Vostock Ice cores. Of course as a scientist I realise that correlation does NOT equal causation so I am not so bold as to ay it is the truth. Unlike you arrogant warmers.

Walleyes, you wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit you in the ass.

Ice cores, carbon dioxide concentration, and climate

The chart shows an increase in temperature followed by an increase in CO2, then a decrease in temperature followed by a decrease in CO2.

 

[asterism]

My entire point is that there is no real science in the "science" of global warming

And again, I don't consider you an authority to be making a statement like this. At least when you were talking about the inevitable uncertainty in science, with the recent experiments possibly invalidating special relativity as a background, you were on solid ground as far as that went.

I don't know that "settled science" is a phrase actually used in the scientific community. However, it may be used from an outsider's perspective to observe that, in the major peer-reviewed publication, the evidence for or against AGW is no longer even being discussed. Here's an experiment of mine that you can repeat to illustrate this.

Journal home : Nature

There is a link to Nature on line, the internet publication of arguably the most prestigious general-science peer-reviewed journal in the world. It has an onboard search engine. Put the words "climate change" into the search engine and do a search.

Read the abstracts of the first 100 articles that come up from the search. On the basis of the abstracts, divide the articles into three categories:

1) Those that either argue in favor of AGW, or accept it as a given and discuss something more specific under its rubric.
2) Those that argue against AGW, either claiming that the planet is not warming or positing some non-anthropogenic cause for the warming that is observed and claiming on that basis that AGW may be false.
3) Those that have nothing to do with AGW (e.g., studies of fossil records of prehistoric climate change).

Every time I have done that in recent years, category 2 has been empty. The number of articles seriously trying to refute AGW has been zero. That doesn't mean there hasn't been plenty of controversy, but it's been around the fine points, not the overall idea that the planet is warming and human activity is the primary culprit. It also doesn't mean that you can't find some discussion of natural causes of part of the warming that's observed. But while you should not find scientists using the phrase "settled science" in a professional context, we as laypersons may observe from the outside that yes, the science on this does appear to be settled. The only "scientists" (by which I mean persons who have earned a PhD in some science or other) remaining on the other side of the debate are not publishing real science in real peer-reviewed journals, but instead their views are given a platform by the fossil-fuel industry.

You're trying to recreate the premise of the non peer-reviewed Oreskes study (btw, why does one have to be a Climatologist to speak with authority about climate but no statistics credentials are required to speak with authority on statistical methods?), and one flaw is that you are lumping those papers that accept AGW as a given with those that argue in favor of it.

Also as demonstrated in the Climategate leaked emails, there was both an effort by Briffa and Jones to lay claim to being the authority on Climate Change for prestige as well as an active attempt to stifle dissenting research.

Lastly, where is the raw data?

Lost.

 

[code1211]

How nice...the best astoturfing big oil can buy is being parroted by Frank and other right wingers. But lobbyists and pseudo-scientists are getting paid...not so for parrots like Frank though...I guess that is what the 'free' in free enterprise really means...

The Global Climate Science Communications Plan (1998) was created by a small group of prominent industry, PR and "think tank" heads styled the "Global Climate Science Communications Team (GCSCT)", aka "Global Climate Science Team". Their plan for a campaign to confuse the public about the state of the science of global warming was laid out in a memo, which became public.

The material below contains a memo by the API from April 1998.

Global warming: The campaign by the American Petroleum Institute

Memo

Joe Walker
To: Global Climate Science Team
Cc: Michelle Ross; Susan Moya
Subject: Draft Global Climate Science Communications plan

As promised, attached is the draft Global Climate Science Communications Plan that we developed during our workshop Last Friday.

Global Climate Science Communications

Action Plan

Project Goal

A majority of the American public, including industry leadership, recognizes that significant uncertainties exist in climate science, and therefore raises questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on global climate change.

Progress will be measured toward the goal. A measurement of the public's perspective on climate science will be taken before the plan is launched, and the same measurement will be taken at one or more as-yet-to-be-determined intervals as the plan is implemented,

Victory Will Be Achieved When

* Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom"

* Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science

* Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"

* Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy

* Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent science appears to be out of touch with reality.

Current Reality

Unless "climate change" becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and strategic success.

Strategies and Tactics

I. National Media Relations Program: Develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science; to generate national, regional and local media coverage on the scientific uncertainties, and thereby educate and inform the public, stimulating them to raise questions with policy makers.

Tactics: These tactics will be undertaken between now and the next climate meeting in Buenos Aires/Argentina, in November 1998, and will be continued thereafter, as appropriate. Activities will be launched as soon as the plan is approved, funding obtained, and the necessary resources (e.g., public relations counsel) arranged and deployed. In all cases, tactical implementation will be fully integrated with other elements of this action plan, most especially Strategy II (National Climate Science Data Center).

Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who already are vocal.

* Develop a global climate science information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the "conventional wisdom"on climate science. This kit also will include understandable communications, including simple fact sheets that present scientific uncertainties in language that the media and public can understand.

* Conduct briefings by media-trained scientists for science writers in the top 20 media markets, using the information kits. Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers nationwide with offer of scientists to brief reporters at each paper. Develop, disseminate radio news releases featuring scientists nationwide, and offer scientists to appear on radio talk shows across the country.

* Produce, distribute a steady stream of climate science information via facsimile and e-mail to science writers around the country.

* Produce, distribute via syndicate and directly to newspapers nationwide a steady stream of op-ed columns and letters to the editor authored by scientists.

* Convince one of the major news national TV journalists (e.g., John Stossel ) to produce a report examining the scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty.

* Organize, promote and conduct through grassroots organizations a series of campus/community workshops/debates on climate science in 10 most important states during the period mid-August through October, 1998.

* Consider advertising the scientific uncertainties in select markets to support national, regional and local (e.g., workshops / debates), as appropriate.

From you link to illustrate why the group put this plan forth:

"The advocates of global warming have been successful on the basis of skillfully misrepresenting the science and the extent of agreement on the science, while industry and its partners ceded the science and fought on the economic issues. Yet if we can show that science does not support the Kyoto treaty - which most true climate scientists believe to be the case - this puts the United States in a stronger moral position and frees its negotiators from the need to make concessions as a defense against perceived selfish economic concerns."

They were in the 90's and are now, probably, concerned that the lion's share of the media coverage covers the parts of the story that fit the "If it bleeds it leads" tendencies of the mindless stenographers of the Fourth Estate.

Warmers wail about the "Predicted Ice Age" of the 70's media coverage, but that is exactly the approach of this century's media citing the sensationally imagined results of global warming and ignoring the evidence that these results simply are not happening. People don't care if it's warmer in Minneapolis. They kind of appreciate the change.

They are terrified that the world might end and that is the prediction put forth by warmers. Movies are made and the gullible quake with fear then swell with pride that they are on the right side of history.

The plan you condemn is a plan to publish truth. Liberals should fear this while thinking Americans should give thanks.

It is not a scientific memo, it does not present scientific facts, it is a Strategies and Tactics memo by big oil industries that make billions polluting our planet. It is a PR plan for a campaign to confuse the public about the state of the science of global warming. It is a plan to CREATE doubt for personal gain at the expense of the environment. And to create a team of paid deniers. "Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach"

The campaign strategy was based on the creation of uncertainty and doubt. It would “develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science”. This approach draws heavily on the methods used in the earlier campaign by the tobacco industry to sow doubt about the smoking-cancer link.

In fact, the same people were often involved in both the tobacco and climate disinformation campaigns. For example, Steve Milloy is listed as a member of the Global Climate Science Communications Team, and he is listed as a contributor to the API action plan. Steve Milloy and his Advancement of Sound Science Coalition were heavily involved in the tobacco campaign as well.

Who was paying? Who was getting paid? A few excerpts from the API memo provide several of the answers:

GCSCT members who contributed to the development of the plan are A. John Adams, John Adams Associates; Candace Crandall, Science and Environmental Policy Project; David Rothbard, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow; Jeffrey Salmon, The Marshall Institute; Lee Garrigan, environmental issues Council; Lynn Bouchey and Myron Ebell, Frontiers of Freedom; Peter Cleary, Americans for Tax Reform; Randy Randol, Exxon Corp.; Robert Gehri, The Southern Company; Sharon Kneiss, Chevron Corp; Steve Milloy, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition; and Joseph Walker, American Petroleum Institute.
[...]
Potential funding sources were identified as American Petroleum Institute (API) and its members; Business Round Table (BRT) and its members, Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and its members; Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and its members; and the National Mining Association (NMA) and its members.

Potential fund allocators were identified as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Competitive Enterprise Institute , Frontiers of Freedom and The Marshall Institute.

If a lie is being repeated and not being challenged, most will accept the lie as truth despite evidence that counters since they have not heard/seen that evidence.

This plan is not on its face "bad", although any opposition to the Truth proffessed by a Liberal is branded as being intrinsically "bad".

The good or the bad of anything is a philosophical argument. The accuracy or the inaccuraracy of anything is a scientific argument. The accuracy of AGW Science is suspect. Revealing the weakness of the argument is not in itself a philosophically bad thing to do.

Why do you think that it is?

Why WOULD you think that it is.

 

[Bfgrn]

From you link to illustrate why the group put this plan forth:

"The advocates of global warming have been successful on the basis of skillfully misrepresenting the science and the extent of agreement on the science, while industry and its partners ceded the science and fought on the economic issues. Yet if we can show that science does not support the Kyoto treaty - which most true climate scientists believe to be the case - this puts the United States in a stronger moral position and frees its negotiators from the need to make concessions as a defense against perceived selfish economic concerns."

They were in the 90's and are now, probably, concerned that the lion's share of the media coverage covers the parts of the story that fit the "If it bleeds it leads" tendencies of the mindless stenographers of the Fourth Estate.

Warmers wail about the "Predicted Ice Age" of the 70's media coverage, but that is exactly the approach of this century's media citing the sensationally imagined results of global warming and ignoring the evidence that these results simply are not happening. People don't care if it's warmer in Minneapolis. They kind of appreciate the change.

They are terrified that the world might end and that is the prediction put forth by warmers. Movies are made and the gullible quake with fear then swell with pride that they are on the right side of history.

The plan you condemn is a plan to publish truth. Liberals should fear this while thinking Americans should give thanks.

It is not a scientific memo, it does not present scientific facts, it is a Strategies and Tactics memo by big oil industries that make billions polluting our planet. It is a PR plan for a campaign to confuse the public about the state of the science of global warming. It is a plan to CREATE doubt for personal gain at the expense of the environment. And to create a team of paid deniers. "Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach"

The campaign strategy was based on the creation of uncertainty and doubt. It would “develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science”. This approach draws heavily on the methods used in the earlier campaign by the tobacco industry to sow doubt about the smoking-cancer link.

In fact, the same people were often involved in both the tobacco and climate disinformation campaigns. For example, Steve Milloy is listed as a member of the Global Climate Science Communications Team, and he is listed as a contributor to the API action plan. Steve Milloy and his Advancement of Sound Science Coalition were heavily involved in the tobacco campaign as well.

Who was paying? Who was getting paid? A few excerpts from the API memo provide several of the answers:

GCSCT members who contributed to the development of the plan are A. John Adams, John Adams Associates; Candace Crandall, Science and Environmental Policy Project; David Rothbard, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow; Jeffrey Salmon, The Marshall Institute; Lee Garrigan, environmental issues Council; Lynn Bouchey and Myron Ebell, Frontiers of Freedom; Peter Cleary, Americans for Tax Reform; Randy Randol, Exxon Corp.; Robert Gehri, The Southern Company; Sharon Kneiss, Chevron Corp; Steve Milloy, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition; and Joseph Walker, American Petroleum Institute.
[...]
Potential funding sources were identified as American Petroleum Institute (API) and its members; Business Round Table (BRT) and its members, Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and its members; Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and its members; and the National Mining Association (NMA) and its members.

Potential fund allocators were identified as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Competitive Enterprise Institute , Frontiers of Freedom and The Marshall Institute.

If a lie is being repeated and not being challenged, most will accept the lie as truth despite evidence that counters since they have not heard/seen that evidence.

This plan is not on its face "bad", although any opposition to the Truth proffessed by a Liberal is branded as being intrinsically "bad".

The good or the bad of anything is a philosophical argument. The accuracy or the inaccuraracy of anything is a scientific argument. The accuracy of AGW Science is suspect. Revealing the weakness of the argument is not in itself a philosophically bad thing to do.

Why do you think that it is?

Why WOULD you think that it is.

Is pollution and it's deadly effects 'a philosophical argument' too? Because the SAME abatement that addresses pollution is being fought by the same pseudo-scientists and the same big industries.

And an extremely well funded anti- science propaganda machine has helped create a whole culture of ignorant and dangerous ideologues who ignore ALL science.

We just ended the regime of the worst environmental president in history...Ronbo on steroids Bush...the war criminal and murderer. His attack on every environmental law and policy will lead to the premature deaths of thousands of Americans every year. He so severely disabled the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, it will be impossible to force polluters to EVER clean up their toxins and carcinogens. And polluters can dump any debris they want into our streams and tributaries by just filing for a permit from the Corp of Engineers. Something that can be done by mail. Killing human beings is a crime.

 

[daveman]

It's not a 'maybe,' it's a near-certainty. That's what you guys don't get, you think there's some sort of debate going on within the scientific community, and there really isn't. There's about as much debate as there is over the authenticity of the moon landing.

But let's say it was 'just a maybe.' Say a 50% chance.

If the rest of the world is wrong, we risk wasting money to try to fix a problem that isn't really there (not sure where you get the $76 trillion number). Of course that money isn't really 'wasted,' it's just furloughed and re-circulated throughout the world economy, but nonetheless spent in a way less efficient then you prefer.

If however American Republicans are wrong, what could we be facing then? Desertification, food shortages, displacement, inevitable wars that go along with that; disruption to oceanic eco-systems, potentially rising ocean levels, loss of land mass, displacement and the inevitable wars that go along with that...

So, world socialism is the only thing that can save us?

Ah, the polarized argument. ALL or NONE, BLACK or WHITE...

Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace.

To you, yes. Leftism is based solely on emotion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Frank, the essence of what you are saying above is intellectually nihilistic: "We can't possibly know anything and the universe is one big unknowable mystery, so there's no reason we should take action on overwhelming evidence and scientific arguments, because it could be wrong just like Einstein might be wrong."

Can you see any problems with that line of reasoning?

I never said any of that!

However, that is the logical extension of what you wrote. No way around it.

 

[daveman]

It is not a scientific memo, it does not present scientific facts, it is a Strategies and Tactics memo by big oil industries that make billions polluting our planet. It is a PR plan for a campaign to confuse the public about the state of the science of global warming. It is a plan to CREATE doubt for personal gain at the expense of the environment. And to create a team of paid deniers. "Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach"

The campaign strategy was based on the creation of uncertainty and doubt. It would “develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science”. This approach draws heavily on the methods used in the earlier campaign by the tobacco industry to sow doubt about the smoking-cancer link.

In fact, the same people were often involved in both the tobacco and climate disinformation campaigns. For example, Steve Milloy is listed as a member of the Global Climate Science Communications Team, and he is listed as a contributor to the API action plan. Steve Milloy and his Advancement of Sound Science Coalition were heavily involved in the tobacco campaign as well.

Who was paying? Who was getting paid? A few excerpts from the API memo provide several of the answers:

GCSCT members who contributed to the development of the plan are A. John Adams, John Adams Associates; Candace Crandall, Science and Environmental Policy Project; David Rothbard, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow; Jeffrey Salmon, The Marshall Institute; Lee Garrigan, environmental issues Council; Lynn Bouchey and Myron Ebell, Frontiers of Freedom; Peter Cleary, Americans for Tax Reform; Randy Randol, Exxon Corp.; Robert Gehri, The Southern Company; Sharon Kneiss, Chevron Corp; Steve Milloy, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition; and Joseph Walker, American Petroleum Institute.
[...]
Potential funding sources were identified as American Petroleum Institute (API) and its members; Business Round Table (BRT) and its members, Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and its members; Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and its members; and the National Mining Association (NMA) and its members.

Potential fund allocators were identified as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Competitive Enterprise Institute , Frontiers of Freedom and The Marshall Institute.

If a lie is being repeated and not being challenged, most will accept the lie as truth despite evidence that counters since they have not heard/seen that evidence.

This plan is not on its face "bad", although any opposition to the Truth proffessed by a Liberal is branded as being intrinsically "bad".

The good or the bad of anything is a philosophical argument. The accuracy or the inaccuraracy of anything is a scientific argument. The accuracy of AGW Science is suspect. Revealing the weakness of the argument is not in itself a philosophically bad thing to do.

Why do you think that it is?

Why WOULD you think that it is.

Is pollution and it's deadly effects 'a philosophical argument' too? Because the SAME abatement that addresses pollution is being fought by the same pseudo-scientists and the same big industries.

And an extremely well funded anti- science propaganda machine has helped create a whole culture of ignorant and dangerous ideologues who ignore ALL science.

We just ended the regime of the worst environmental president in history...Ronbo on steroids Bush...the war criminal and murderer. His attack on every environmental law and policy will lead to the premature deaths of thousands of Americans every year. He so severely disabled the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, it will be impossible to force polluters to EVER clean up their toxins and carcinogens. And polluters can dump any debris they want into our streams and tributaries by just filing for a permit from the Corp of Engineers. Something that can be done by mail. Killing human beings is a crime.

See? Emotionalism.

 

[Bfgrn]

If a lie is being repeated and not being challenged, most will accept the lie as truth despite evidence that counters since they have not heard/seen that evidence.

This plan is not on its face "bad", although any opposition to the Truth proffessed by a Liberal is branded as being intrinsically "bad".

The good or the bad of anything is a philosophical argument. The accuracy or the inaccuraracy of anything is a scientific argument. The accuracy of AGW Science is suspect. Revealing the weakness of the argument is not in itself a philosophically bad thing to do.

Why do you think that it is?

Why WOULD you think that it is.

Is pollution and it's deadly effects 'a philosophical argument' too? Because the SAME abatement that addresses pollution is being fought by the same pseudo-scientists and the same big industries.

And an extremely well funded anti- science propaganda machine has helped create a whole culture of ignorant and dangerous ideologues who ignore ALL science.

We just ended the regime of the worst environmental president in history...Ronbo on steroids Bush...the war criminal and murderer. His attack on every environmental law and policy will lead to the premature deaths of thousands of Americans every year. He so severely disabled the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, it will be impossible to force polluters to EVER clean up their toxins and carcinogens. And polluters can dump any debris they want into our streams and tributaries by just filing for a permit from the Corp of Engineers. Something that can be done by mail. Killing human beings is a crime.

See? Emotionalism.

Emotionalism? Oh that's right, pollution doesn't harm human beings, I forgot...

 

[Cuyo]

If a lie is being repeated and not being challenged, most will accept the lie as truth despite evidence that counters since they have not heard/seen that evidence.

This plan is not on its face "bad", although any opposition to the Truth proffessed by a Liberal is branded as being intrinsically "bad".

The good or the bad of anything is a philosophical argument. The accuracy or the inaccuraracy of anything is a scientific argument. The accuracy of AGW Science is suspect. Revealing the weakness of the argument is not in itself a philosophically bad thing to do.

Why do you think that it is?

Why WOULD you think that it is.

Is pollution and it's deadly effects 'a philosophical argument' too? Because the SAME abatement that addresses pollution is being fought by the same pseudo-scientists and the same big industries.

And an extremely well funded anti- science propaganda machine has helped create a whole culture of ignorant and dangerous ideologues who ignore ALL science.

We just ended the regime of the worst environmental president in history...Ronbo on steroids Bush...the war criminal and murderer. His attack on every environmental law and policy will lead to the premature deaths of thousands of Americans every year. He so severely disabled the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, it will be impossible to force polluters to EVER clean up their toxins and carcinogens. And polluters can dump any debris they want into our streams and tributaries by just filing for a permit from the Corp of Engineers. Something that can be done by mail. Killing human beings is a crime.

See? Emotionalism.

Emotionalism?

Well yes it's going tend to be an emotional argument. The possibility; probability even; that we're behaving in a fashion that could irreversibly reduce the QOL of the entire globe, coupled with a small fringe movement that says its all bullshit which is having undue influence on the discussion at large.

Who knew that was a liberal 'hot-button' issue.

Please refer back to my eating steak-dick falling off post.

Let me ask you this - Think of your favorite food; Let's say it's steak. Say 97% of urologists came out and said eating steak would make your dick fall off. Over the next couple decades, hundreds of cases were documented where avid steak eaters' dicks fell off. Would you let a handful of intellectuals and political pundits convince you that the correlation had nothing to do with eating steak? Even if you yourself were skeptical, would you continue eating steak until a definite, concrete answer was found? If you found anecdotal evidence that big wigs of the pork and chicken industries had helped along, maybe even exaggerated the claims - Would you rush to eat steak then?

 

[IanC]

correlation does imply causation but in a multi factor system with a large amount of unknown and poorly understood mechanisms it seems foolhardy to spend a dollar to get a penny's worth of results. advancement of technology is the only palatible solution to this problem of unknown outcome.

 

[Cuyo]

correlation does imply causation but in a multi factor system with a large amount of unknown and poorly understood mechanisms it seems foolhardy to spend a dollar to get a penny's worth of results. advancement of technology is the only palatible solution to this problem of unknown outcome.

It ain't 97% of statisticians telling you man's activities are the cause bud. It's 97% of climatologists.

And what makes the mounted defense so remarkable, is that there's really nobody saying they're wrong. You just have a narrow body saying they're not sure if they're right or wrong.

But unlike the steak analogy, the decisions we make affect all of us.

 

[IanC]

correlation does imply causation but in a multi factor system with a large amount of unknown and poorly understood mechanisms it seems foolhardy to spend a dollar to get a penny's worth of results. advancement of technology is the only palatible solution to this problem of unknown outcome.

It ain't 97% of statisticians telling you man's activities are the cause bud. It's 97% of climatologists.

And what makes the mounted defense so remarkable, is that there's really nobody saying they're wrong. You just have a narrow body saying they're not sure if they're right or wrong.

But unlike the steak analogy, the decisions we make affect all of us.

I believe you have hit the nail on the head. climate science doesnt work with competent statisticians who would point out their erroneous methodologies and inflated certainties concerning their papers but especially their conclusions drawn from said incorrectly done papers.

 

[Cuyo]

correlation does imply causation but in a multi factor system with a large amount of unknown and poorly understood mechanisms it seems foolhardy to spend a dollar to get a penny's worth of results. advancement of technology is the only palatible solution to this problem of unknown outcome.

It ain't 97% of statisticians telling you man's activities are the cause bud. It's 97% of climatologists.

And what makes the mounted defense so remarkable, is that there's really nobody saying they're wrong. You just have a narrow body saying they're not sure if they're right or wrong.

But unlike the steak analogy, the decisions we make affect all of us.

I believe you have hit the nail on the head. climate science doesnt work with competent statisticians who would point out their erroneous methodologies and inflated certainties concerning their papers but especially their conclusions drawn from said incorrectly done papers.

I'm... Not sure what you mean.

Are you suggesting that a statistician's opinion would supersede that of a climatologist? Because I'm rather certain that 100% of statisticians would find the correlations... And I'm also rather certain that most would agree a statistician is unqualified to determine whether or not a paper was done correctly.

 

[IanC]

It ain't 97% of statisticians telling you man's activities are the cause bud. It's 97% of climatologists.

And what makes the mounted defense so remarkable, is that there's really nobody saying they're wrong. You just have a narrow body saying they're not sure if they're right or wrong.

But unlike the steak analogy, the decisions we make affect all of us.

I believe you have hit the nail on the head. climate science doesnt work with competent statisticians who would point out their erroneous methodologies and inflated certainties concerning their papers but especially their conclusions drawn from said incorrectly done papers.

I'm... Not sure what you mean.

Are you suggesting that a statistician's opinion would supersede that of a climatologist? Because I'm rather certain that 100% of statisticians would find the correlations... And I'm also rather certain that most would agree a statistician is unqualified to determine whether or not a paper was done correctly.

expert statisticians are capable of showing whether methodologies are correct, or applicable to the situation. there are example of statisticians pointing out major flaws in climate science papers rendering them useless. the Hockey Stick graph being the most famous.

 

[code1211]

It is not a scientific memo, it does not present scientific facts, it is a Strategies and Tactics memo by big oil industries that make billions polluting our planet. It is a PR plan for a campaign to confuse the public about the state of the science of global warming. It is a plan to CREATE doubt for personal gain at the expense of the environment. And to create a team of paid deniers. "Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach"

The campaign strategy was based on the creation of uncertainty and doubt. It would “develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science”. This approach draws heavily on the methods used in the earlier campaign by the tobacco industry to sow doubt about the smoking-cancer link.

In fact, the same people were often involved in both the tobacco and climate disinformation campaigns. For example, Steve Milloy is listed as a member of the Global Climate Science Communications Team, and he is listed as a contributor to the API action plan. Steve Milloy and his Advancement of Sound Science Coalition were heavily involved in the tobacco campaign as well.

Who was paying? Who was getting paid? A few excerpts from the API memo provide several of the answers:

GCSCT members who contributed to the development of the plan are A. John Adams, John Adams Associates; Candace Crandall, Science and Environmental Policy Project; David Rothbard, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow; Jeffrey Salmon, The Marshall Institute; Lee Garrigan, environmental issues Council; Lynn Bouchey and Myron Ebell, Frontiers of Freedom; Peter Cleary, Americans for Tax Reform; Randy Randol, Exxon Corp.; Robert Gehri, The Southern Company; Sharon Kneiss, Chevron Corp; Steve Milloy, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition; and Joseph Walker, American Petroleum Institute.
[...]
Potential funding sources were identified as American Petroleum Institute (API) and its members; Business Round Table (BRT) and its members, Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and its members; Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and its members; and the National Mining Association (NMA) and its members.

Potential fund allocators were identified as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Competitive Enterprise Institute , Frontiers of Freedom and The Marshall Institute.

If a lie is being repeated and not being challenged, most will accept the lie as truth despite evidence that counters since they have not heard/seen that evidence.

This plan is not on its face "bad", although any opposition to the Truth proffessed by a Liberal is branded as being intrinsically "bad".

The good or the bad of anything is a philosophical argument. The accuracy or the inaccuraracy of anything is a scientific argument. The accuracy of AGW Science is suspect. Revealing the weakness of the argument is not in itself a philosophically bad thing to do.

Why do you think that it is?

Why WOULD you think that it is.

Is pollution and it's deadly effects 'a philosophical argument' too? Because the SAME abatement that addresses pollution is being fought by the same pseudo-scientists and the same big industries.

And an extremely well funded anti- science propaganda machine has helped create a whole culture of ignorant and dangerous ideologues who ignore ALL science.

We just ended the regime of the worst environmental president in history...Ronbo on steroids Bush...the war criminal and murderer. His attack on every environmental law and policy will lead to the premature deaths of thousands of Americans every year. He so severely disabled the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, it will be impossible to force polluters to EVER clean up their toxins and carcinogens. And polluters can dump any debris they want into our streams and tributaries by just filing for a permit from the Corp of Engineers. Something that can be done by mail. Killing human beings is a crime.

For my part, it was not the "well funded anti science" crowd that made me question the AGW Alarm Machine. It was the AGW Alarm Machine that made me question it. Too much hyperbole and too little actual results.

On one of the Sunday talk shows probably 10 years ago, one of the panelists stated that 0.7 degrees of warming in 2000 years was not cause for panic but was, rather, a record of astonishing stability. That made me think. Anyone thinking is the enemy of a zealot.

If there is a well funded anti science anything that is putting forth a propaganda program, it must be so subtle as to be unnoticable. Care to provide an example?

As far as the threat of the EPA not doing anything and being toothless due to Bush, will you never tire of this tired and pointless blame Bush routine. Please give examples of what you are talking about. An example from Indiana would be a good one so I could check it out.

 

[code1211]

correlation does imply causation but in a multi factor system with a large amount of unknown and poorly understood mechanisms it seems foolhardy to spend a dollar to get a penny's worth of results. advancement of technology is the only palatible solution to this problem of unknown outcome.

It ain't 97% of statisticians telling you man's activities are the cause bud. It's 97% of climatologists.

And what makes the mounted defense so remarkable, is that there's really nobody saying they're wrong. You just have a narrow body saying they're not sure if they're right or wrong.

But unlike the steak analogy, the decisions we make affect all of us.

And yet, with all of those experts saying what the cause is and knowing for certain what the cause is and citing the cause and blaming the cause and predicting outcomes based on the cause, all of the predictions are wrong.

Are these folks really experts? is the cause really the cause? Are the predictions really accurate? Is reality wrong since it won't conform to the predictions?

How many times do these jokers need to be wrong before you start to ask if they know what they're talking about?

 

[code1211]

It ain't 97% of statisticians telling you man's activities are the cause bud. It's 97% of climatologists.

And what makes the mounted defense so remarkable, is that there's really nobody saying they're wrong. You just have a narrow body saying they're not sure if they're right or wrong.

But unlike the steak analogy, the decisions we make affect all of us.

I believe you have hit the nail on the head. climate science doesnt work with competent statisticians who would point out their erroneous methodologies and inflated certainties concerning their papers but especially their conclusions drawn from said incorrectly done papers.

I'm... Not sure what you mean.

Are you suggesting that a statistician's opinion would supersede that of a climatologist? Because I'm rather certain that 100% of statisticians would find the correlations... And I'm also rather certain that most would agree a statistician is unqualified to determine whether or not a paper was done correctly.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but what would NOAA say?

 

[daveman]

Is pollution and it's deadly effects 'a philosophical argument' too? Because the SAME abatement that addresses pollution is being fought by the same pseudo-scientists and the same big industries.

And an extremely well funded anti- science propaganda machine has helped create a whole culture of ignorant and dangerous ideologues who ignore ALL science.

We just ended the regime of the worst environmental president in history...Ronbo on steroids Bush...the war criminal and murderer. His attack on every environmental law and policy will lead to the premature deaths of thousands of Americans every year. He so severely disabled the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, it will be impossible to force polluters to EVER clean up their toxins and carcinogens. And polluters can dump any debris they want into our streams and tributaries by just filing for a permit from the Corp of Engineers. Something that can be done by mail. Killing human beings is a crime.

See? Emotionalism.

Emotionalism? Oh that's right, pollution doesn't harm human beings, I forgot...

CO2 isn't a pollutant, dork.

 

[daveman]

Is pollution and it's deadly effects 'a philosophical argument' too? Because the SAME abatement that addresses pollution is being fought by the same pseudo-scientists and the same big industries.

And an extremely well funded anti- science propaganda machine has helped create a whole culture of ignorant and dangerous ideologues who ignore ALL science.

We just ended the regime of the worst environmental president in history...Ronbo on steroids Bush...the war criminal and murderer. His attack on every environmental law and policy will lead to the premature deaths of thousands of Americans every year. He so severely disabled the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, it will be impossible to force polluters to EVER clean up their toxins and carcinogens. And polluters can dump any debris they want into our streams and tributaries by just filing for a permit from the Corp of Engineers. Something that can be done by mail. Killing human beings is a crime.

See? Emotionalism.

Emotionalism?

Well yes it's going tend to be an emotional argument. The possibility; probability even; that we're behaving in a fashion that could irreversibly reduce the QOL of the entire globe, coupled with a small fringe movement that says its all bullshit which is having undue influence on the discussion at large.

Who knew that was a liberal 'hot-button' issue.

Please refer back to my eating steak-dick falling off post.

Let me ask you this - Think of your favorite food; Let's say it's steak. Say 97% of urologists came out and said eating steak would make your dick fall off. Over the next couple decades, hundreds of cases were documented where avid steak eaters' dicks fell off. Would you let a handful of intellectuals and political pundits convince you that the correlation had nothing to do with eating steak? Even if you yourself were skeptical, would you continue eating steak until a definite, concrete answer was found? If you found anecdotal evidence that big wigs of the pork and chicken industries had helped along, maybe even exaggerated the claims - Would you rush to eat steak then?

Poor analogy. The AGW cult is claiming steak eaters' dicks are falling off, even though there is no concrete evidence for it. Actually, the evidence is showing that steak eaters' dicks are getting bigger.

The only "evidence" you have are models written by people with no experience in statistics, cherry-picked data, and outright lies.

That's simply not enough to make it imperative that we cripple the economy.