Handbook for AGW sceptics

[billvon 2,991]

>Was I the only one who read about the polar bear expert not being
>invited to a conference because his views were "unhelpful"?

I was not invited to speak at a conference (Nanopower 2007) because they didn't like my paper enough. Is research into low power technologies being stifled for political reasons?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Let me know when dropping an object will ALWAYS cause it to accelerate at 9.81m/s^2, and you will have a point.

When I'm standing still on the Earth's surface. And when your alter-ego hasn't filled it with helium.

So you admit that ALWAYS is a silly descriptor for a phenomenon. Kind of destroys your last argument, doesn't it?

You should stick to discussing guns, you seem to know something about them. (Since not one thing that you've posted indicates that you know what Newton proposed as "the law of gravity", and you certainly know as much about the concept of proof as you know about statistics, the definition of hypocrisy and straw-man fallacies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

In February 2007, The Guardian (UK) reported that American Enterprise Institute (AEI) was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each, "to undermine a major climate change report" from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). AEI asked for "articles that emphasise the shortcomings" of the IPCC report, which "is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science." AEI visiting scholar Kenneth Green made the $10,000 offer "to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere," in a letter describing the IPCC as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent."

The Guardian reported further that AEI "has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil, and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees," added The Guardian.

Sources:
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute

How much is the Kyoto treaty going to make for some certain (*cough*Algore*cough*) companies, professor?

Much much much much less than ignoring it will make for Exxon-Mobil and the coal companies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,991]

>Einstein's equations say it's waves . . .

NOW WAIT A MINUTE! You just said (and I will quote directly so you don't accuse me of distorting your words):

"Newton proved the law of gravity how many hundreds of years ago?"

Now you're saying that it's invalid, and Newton's "law" has been disproven?

And Einstein says it's waves? Where do you get that? What sort of waves? Are we in a bunch of waves right now, emanating from the sun? What frequency are they? What's their amplitude? How fast do they propagate? EM waves propagate via photons; what is the equivalent particle for gravity?

Sounds like you're not really sure how gravity works, or how fast it propagates. Don't worry; you're in good company. It's a question that is vexing physicists worldwide. Newton's equations actually do not adequately explain the universe we live in, although they are a reasonable approximation to what we see here on earth.

So we have a phenomenon you do not really understand (gravity) that you place so much trust in that you speak about it as a given. Why? Because you see it work; your examples about apples indicate that since you can see it you believe it, even if there are lots of questions remaining.

We can see climate change happening, and we understand how it works a lot better than we understand how gravity works. But no one stands to lose trillions of dollars if we understand gravity better, so no one is out there trying to convince people that gravity really doesn't happen.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>Was I the only one who read about the polar bear expert not being
>invited to a conference because his views were "unhelpful"?

I was not invited to speak at a conference (Nanopower 2007) because they didn't like my paper enough. Is research into low power technologies being stifled for political reasons?

Did they tell you that the reason was because your views on nanopower were "not helpful"?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Let me know when dropping an object will ALWAYS cause it to accelerate at 9.81m/s^2, and you will have a point.

When I'm standing still on the Earth's surface. And when your alter-ego hasn't filled it with helium.

So you admit that ALWAYS is a silly descriptor for a phenomenon. Kind of destroys your last argument, doesn't it?

Let me know when the GW alarmists quit squawking about the CO2 increases, then.

Quote

You should stick to discussing guns, you seem to know something about them.

Why, THANK you for the attack, professor - ALWAYS a pleasure to have someone of your.... stature.... insult me.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>Indeed - lawyers are not paid to reveal the truth, they are paid to make sure their side wins regardless. As are oil company (and tobacco) executives

Yep. Why do we have reason to suspect that they would do such a thing? Because there is clearly a benefit they would receive from having their view accepted.

Of course. This is, of course, the genetic fallacy.

I ask, however, who benefits from having their viewpoints discredited by evidence? "He's a helluva nice guy. A good Joe. A brilliant mind. And a fantastic theoretician. Working for the good of mankind and the earth. But he's been proven incorrect. I think we should provide more research."

Quote

If the tobacco or oil executives can convince others that cigarettes or petroleum products are not harmful to your health or the planet, then they will have more business (thus, wealth).

They may only do so with scientists, right? "This study paid for by Exxon/Mobil" is equally as suspect as "This study funded by Greenpeace."

Quote

We have reason to suspect their position is jaded in that case.

Absolutely. So instead of viewing the evidence, it is discounted because of the speaker.

Hmmm. I didn't think science was about whom is speaking. I thought science was about the methodology and results and analysis of same. "No debate. It will be ignored because Joe Schmo is the researcher. No, don't even peer review it."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

But no one stands to lose trillions of dollars if we understand gravity better, so no one is out there trying to convince people that gravity really doesn't happen.

Shall we compare Hansen's (or Mann's) salary to Watts?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[StreetScooby 5]

You two cut it out.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,991]

>Did they tell you that the reason was because your views on nanopower
>were "not helpful"?

Worse - they said "not applicable!"

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Let me know when dropping an object will ALWAYS cause it to accelerate at 9.81m/s^2, and you will have a point.

When I'm standing still on the Earth's surface. And when your alter-ego hasn't filled it with helium.

So you admit that ALWAYS is a silly descriptor for a phenomenon. Kind of destroys your last argument, doesn't it?

Let me know when the GW alarmists quit squawking about the CO2 increases, then.

.

So "non-sequitur" is up there with "straw-man", "hypocrisy" and statistics among life's mysteries.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Let me know when dropping an object will ALWAYS cause it to accelerate at 9.81m/s^2, and you will have a point.

When I'm standing still on the Earth's surface. And when your alter-ego hasn't filled it with helium.

So you admit that ALWAYS is a silly descriptor for a phenomenon. Kind of destroys your last argument, doesn't it?

Let me know when the GW alarmists quit squawking about the CO2 increases, then.

.

So "non-sequitur" is up there with "straw-man", "hypocrisy" and statistics among life's mysteries.

I'm sorry...weren't you and Jack arguing that adding CO2 always causes an increase in heat in a system?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JackC 0]

Quote

Where, pray tell, did I say that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas?

Try another strawman, Jack...that one isn't working.

1 down.

Since you now agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, I assume you must deny that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing?

View the data here.

[JackC 0]

Quote

I'm sorry...weren't you and Jack arguing that adding CO2 always causes an increase in heat in a system?

Now who's the one playing with strawmen?

No. An increase in CO2 is effectively an increase in atmospheric insulation. CO2 does not cause a rise in heat, the sun supplies the heat, not the CO2. If you don't understand the science here, just ask and I'm sure someone will explain it to you.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Where, pray tell, did I say that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas?

Try another strawman, Jack...that one isn't working.

1 down.

Yup, 1 strawman down, 2 to go.

Quote

Since you now agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,

I never said it WASN'T a greenhouse gas, Jack.

Quote

I assume you must deny that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing?

You ASSume incorrectly.

It really would be easier for you to just admit that your examples don't have anything to do with what I asked.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm sorry...weren't you and Jack arguing that adding CO2 always causes an increase in heat in a system?

Now who's the one playing with strawmen?

No. An increase in CO2 is effectively an increase in atmospheric insulation. If you don't understand the science here, all you have to do is ask.

Isn't that exactly what the 'experiment' you linked to proved, Jack? If that wasn't the point you wanted to make, then why link to it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

I assume you must deny that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing?

You ASSume incorrectly.

2 down.

So you deny thermodynamics?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Let me know when dropping an object will ALWAYS cause it to accelerate at 9.81m/s^2, and you will have a point.

When I'm standing still on the Earth's surface. And when your alter-ego hasn't filled it with helium.

So you admit that ALWAYS is a silly descriptor for a phenomenon. Kind of destroys your last argument, doesn't it?

Let me know when the GW alarmists quit squawking about the CO2 increases, then.

.

So "non-sequitur" is up there with "straw-man", "hypocrisy" and statistics among life's mysteries.

I'm sorry...weren't you and Jack arguing that adding CO2 always causes an increase in heat in a system?

No, we didn't.

But YOU asked (HERE) the "ALWAYS" question and I pointed out how fatuous it is.

The evidence of your posts in this thread suggest that:

You don't understand Newtonian gravity (you couldn't even describe the "law" correctly),
you don't understand heat and mass transfer,
you don't understand thermodynamics,
you don't understand the concept of "proof",
you don't understand the concept of a closed system.

But other than that, you're doing fine.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[chasteh 0]

>I ask, however, who benefits from having their viewpoints discredited by evidence? "He's a helluva nice guy. A good Joe. A brilliant mind. And a fantastic theoretician. Working for the good of mankind and the earth. But he's been proven incorrect. I think we should provide more research."

Like the kind of reseach that kallend is qualified to perform?

>They may only do so with scientists, right? "This study paid for by Exxon/Mobil" is equally as suspect as "This study funded by Greenpeace."

Well, it sure makes a difference of those scientists are actually in the field we are discussing. Someone with a physics, meteorology, or other relevant research background would do. (Not typically a communications specialist... but what the hell)

That is right, a study funded by Greenpeace would be equally suspect. Unfortunately, Greenpeace doesn't have nearly as much to gain as Exxon/Mobil does. Of course, you might say that Greenpeace is out to gain control of the US presidency or Congress, in which case I would laugh. The green party doesn't even come close to having control of the U.S. government. However, if it were interested in influencing U.S. policy for the purposes of protecting the planet from Industrial emissions, they could do so by lobbying a congressman or senator, right? I'm still much more suspicious of the guys working for Exxon/Mobil.

>Hmmm. I didn't think science was about whom is speaking

It isn't supposed to be. However, after reading so many of Mnealtx's posts I can't help but take what he (sorry- It) says less and less seriously.

>I thought science was about the methodology and results and analysis of same.

It is supposed to be that way. And I will agree with you here, it is far more likely that a well-tenured professor or researcher will be heard than some random Joe (Mnealtx) even if he were correct on the issue. (Of course, "if you were correct" here is not the same as "You are correct on the issue" Mnealtx)

>No debate. It will be ignored because Joe Schmo is the researcher. No, don't even peer review it."

The trouble is that whenever Joe Schmo actually has something useful to say, he ends up getting large amounts of attention or even business. Sort of like Thomas Edison:

"Thomas Edison began his career as an inventor in Newark, New Jersey, with the automatic repeater and his other improved telegraphic devices, but the invention which first gained him fame was the phonograph in 1877. This accomplishment was so unexpected by the public at large as to appear almost magical. Edison became known as "The Wizard of Menlo Park," New Jersey, where he lived"

Joe Schmoe won't be ignored forever. The trouble for you is that everyone here has been reading what mnealtx posts, and it turns out that most here aren't interested in listening anymore. If there really is more information to be added on his side, society will eventually be forced to accept the "truth" of his words. This will occur if Co2 is dumped for the next couple of decades without a significant climate change. On the other hand, if there is a major change, Mnealtx's sources will be discounted.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

They may only do so with scientists, right? "This study paid for by Exxon/Mobil" is equally as suspect as "This study funded by Greenpeace."

We KNOW that Exxon-Mobil has been paying (through AEI) for the IPCC to be discredited. Not for unbiased research, but for a specific outcome. Can you provide evidence that Greenpeace has been paying for biased research, or are you just blowing smoke?

How does Greenpeace's PR budget compare with Exxon-Mobil's?

Is Greenpeace paying NOAA scientists' salaries? NASA's?

www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090126_climate.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JackC 0]

Quote

I'm sure there are more questions. Things like:

What factors contribute to global warming?
Are those factors under our control?
Can they be changed?
Is global warming undesirable?
Will the system stabilize itself, or become unstable in the long term?

The list goes on....

None of these questions have any bearing on atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the greenhouse effect leading to global warming. The three questions I posed are the only relevant ones to deciding if GW is real and happening. Everything else is an extra.

You are quite right that we might want to know about that stuff to decide how quickly GW is taking effect and what other factors besides atmospheric CO2 will affect the earth's climate. But to answer the question "is the atmospheric CO2 GW mechanism in effect" we don't need to know any of that stuff.

Quote

It seems to me that this is a massively complex topic, and that both sides are trying to make it seem simple

The basic science is that simple. Really it is. Now if you want to know how fast GW is happening, when sea levels will rise, what feedback mechanisms are in effect and all the other extras, then it gets complicated really fucking fast.

Quote

In science, it would help if there was a bit less political posturing, and a bit more critical thinking.

Then get your science from science sources, not from new papers, TV shows, and for gods sake not this fucked up shite storm of a website.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Then get your science from science sources...

I'd like to. My concern is that "science" sources have been shown to have, in some instances, suppressed scientific research that might lead in directions opposite the dominant political belief. That's not very scientific.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,991]

>My concern is that "science" sources have been shown to have, in
>some instances, suppressed scientific research that might lead in
>directions opposite the dominant political belief.


True to some degree:

=====================
Bush administration in hot seat over warming
Lawmakers get survey of scientists, half of whom report political pressure

updated 4:59 p.m. PT, Tues., Jan. 30, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled Congress on Tuesday stepped up its pressure on President Bush’s global warming strategy, hearing allegations of new political pressure on government scientists to downplay the threat of global warming.

Lawmakers received survey results of federal scientists that showed 46 percent felt pressure to eliminate the words “climate change,” “global warming” or similar terms from communications about their work.

The scientists also reported 435 instances of political interference in their work over the past five years.
=======================

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

True to some degree

Yep. And the difficulty is in sorting out to what degree, and from what angle.

Which leads me back to my original point. The problem is that a scientific inquiry has been converted into a political issue, and since it's being used as such, it's become prone to the same problems as the rest of politics. Which is a terrible way to conduct a scientific inquiry.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

Then get your science from science sources...

I'd like to. My concern is that "science" sources have been shown to have, in some instances, suppressed scientific research that might lead in directions opposite the dominant political belief. That's not very scientific.

The great thing about science is that it is self-correcting; for nature does not lie and you cannot silence it. There are undoubtedly some people who do not get the publications they think they deserve; absolutely every scientist on earth has been knocked back for funding or publications at one time or another, it's the nature of the game. But there is no conspiracy, the whole game is way too big for that. If Nature won't publish you, Physical Review will. If Science won't play, try Physics Letters. If you can't get published in the US, go to Russia. And if all else fails, you can post your papers on the arXiv e-print server where there are no moderators, no editors, no peer review, just legions of scientists just queueing up to read your latest work.

Your concerns are valid and wise but I doubt they have much by way of foundation, exept for the odd fruit cake who thinks he's disproved thermodynamics with his new perpetual motion machine.

One thing is for damned sure, you'll do better getting your science from reputable science sources than from anywhere else on the planet. If you go anywhere else, anywhere, you will get the wrong end of the stick. I can almost guarantee it.