Handbook for AGW sceptics

[billvon 2,991]

>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.

And again, I think that's largely dependent on where you get your news from. If it's from a political source it's going to be politically accurate but not very scientifically accurate. If it's from a scientific source, the opposite is generally true.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Do you want medical decisions made by “medical-elite” (aka physicians) or by the public? That’s one of the criticisms of single-payer.

Fine example. I want medical decisions made by the patient. I don't want doctors, lawyers, or benevolent dictators making medical decisions about me.

"So, doctor, you are telling me that test results indicate that I am suffering from Raynaud's disease. You have decided that this is caused by Sjogren's disease, which is the result of environmental factors. To prevent this from getting worse, you recommend that I mitigate environmental contaminants by installing a custom ducted system in my home, vehicle and office. In addition, you want to put me on a course of experimental gene therapy, as well as quitting my job to avoid stress."


"So, you are telling me that I have Reynauds secondary to smoking. You know, I'm gonna go with what the second doctor said, which was to 'tolerate it.' It isn't getting worse and I've had it since I was a kid."

We want them involved/heard/listened to in policy decisions. We want, however, to hear all sides.

I look at it from a military standpoint.
(1) What's the situation? Give it to me as best as you can. (Need input from all sides. My situation and the G2 will have some input, as well.)
(2) What is my task/mission?
(3) How are we going to do it? Get some input from everyone before deciding how to go for it.
(4) What are my resources? (I believe that this one is the one that is being glossed over. How do we do this with what we've got? What do we need? What will it cost?)
(5) What's the chain of command and communications? (This is important, too. i.e., who's gonna enforce China?)

You want input from everyone. You want to examine the input. Steve Jobs has a good idea of the technology, etc. But he more than anything is a master at letting to pros do what pros do, gathering information and making decisions on how to proceed.

I want firefighting done by firefighters. I don't want firefighters determining the resources devoted to firefighting.

I want legal decisions made by judges. I want factual decisions made by judges and juries. I don't want judge/jury/prosecutor to be the same person.

I don't even necessarily want the military directing foreign or domestic policy. I want somebody else. Leave it to the military to advise the decisionmake on what it can and cannot do.

Quote

For me, it comes down to a belief that democracy – or representative republic – functions better when the electorate is more informed. And the electorate is not dumb ... they may occasionally say dumb things & do dumb things - some more often than others, but people are not inherently stupid.

Absolutely. I do not believe juries are dumb. I agree that it works better when the electorate is better informed.

My problem is that when an idea is repeated enough it becomes accepted. The public is generally uninterested in the drudgery of the science. The press knows it, too. So it needs something juicy.

Said James Hansen in 2003: "Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as "synfuels," shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration." He went on that it was now time to be realistic.

Hansen knew that hype, doom, fire and brimstone work. Now it's time to lower expectations but work toward some ultimate goal.

Thus, he sought to inform the public of global warming by deliberately misinforming the public of the consequences. Where is the honesty? Integrity?

Hype is not educational. On top of that, it does not help discourse to claim that any person or scientist whose views and reasearch stand counter to the paradigm are in the pockets of special interests or lobbyists, etc.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JackC 0]

Quote

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?

No. The experiment shows how CO2 works as a greenhouse gas. It doesn't show that CO2 causes an increase in the amount of heat in a system, it shows how CO2 acts to retain heat put in a system from an external source. CO2 does not cause heat. You really don't understand any of this do you?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It doesn't show that CO2 causes an increase in the amount of heat in a system, it shows how CO2 acts to retain heat put in a system from an external source.

Then why did you say

Quote

3) does a system increase in temperature if you increase its capacity to retain heat?

Care to make up your mind what you're arguing?

Quote

CO2 does not cause heat.

No shit.

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

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

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)

Why? Why should the person whose science is published make any difference to the science that is published? It is either good science or it is not. A person who isn't "qualified" by whatever person or group appoints itself as the arbiter of same may have valid things to say.

Quote

Unfortunately, Greenpeace doesn't have nearly as much to gain as Exxon/Mobil does.

Sure it does. Perhaps not monetarily, but Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, etc., are lobbies. They are special interest groups.

Dontcha think that any studies or other actions brought about by Generation Investment Management, LLC, should be looked upon with some degree of skepticism? How about the Alliance for Climate Protection? What about the NRDC, also partnered with Generation Investment?

Here is a company with perhaps trillions of revenues to gain by causing the extinction of Exxon, Texaco, BP, etc. I believe that all of these organizations are in the business of making money. They can best do that by destroying the competition.

Quote

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.

If "hype" was not a factor this would not be the case.

Quote

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.

The problem is that reduction of greenhouse gases at all costs seems to be the rule now. At all costs. If, in 25 years, they say, "Ooops. My bad. Sorry about that" then there has been harm. What I expect if such happens is that, "Oops. My bad" will not be the words. Rather, Generation Investment Management, with its $1.4 trillion or so in market cap, will publicly take credit for it, say that they have now proven results, and it's time to quit going so easily on this and mount a full-scale assault on global warming.

Politicians, activists, and other with vested interests will go ahead and take credit for it. "You can't prove we didn't make this happen." And smear those who suggest otherwise.

Because they are people with vested interests.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Why should the person whose science is published make any difference to the science that is published?

Good grief. Just read that sentence again would you.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

It doesn't show that CO2 causes an increase in the amount of heat in a system, it shows how CO2 acts to retain heat put in a system from an external source.

Then why did you say

Quote

3) does a system increase in temperature if you increase its capacity to retain heat?

Care to make up your mind what you're arguing?

Quote

CO2 does not cause heat.

No shit.

Fuck a duck. Read what was I saying about CO2 increasing a systems capacity to retain heat. A blanket is not the same a heater. Come on Mike, stop winding me up.

[billvon 2,991]

>>Unfortunately, Greenpeace doesn't have nearly as much to gain
>>as Exxon/Mobil does.

>Sure it does.

Greenpeace net worth - $360 million
Greenpeace director salary - $65,000

Exxon net worth - $550 billion
Exxon CEO pay - $147 million

>The problem is that reduction of greenhouse gases at all costs seems
>to be the rule now.

Do you drive a car? Perhaps an SUV? Get electricity from coal fired power plants? Is our gasoline one of the cheapest per-gallon prices in the world?

If you do any of those things you will realize that your statement is not only wrong, it is the opposite; no country pushes carbon emissions as hard as we do. We spare no expense to EMIT as much carbon as possible.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Come on Mike, stop winding me up.

Then quit arguing points I never made, Jack.

I never said CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas.
I never said that greenhouse gases don't increase the capacity of a system to store heat.
I never said that thermodynamics didn't work.

I said, show me the proof that there is a direct link between the CO2 level and the increased temperature.

Are both CO2 levels and temperatures higher now than 30 years ago? Absolutely. Does that mean that the temperature increase is DUE TO the increase in CO2 levels? It MAY be, but it also may not. It is a HYPOTHESIS, NOT a PROOF.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

no country pushes carbon emissions as hard as we do.

Are you saying that we emit more carbon than China or India?

Quote

We spare no expense to EMIT as much carbon as possible.

Which, of course, is why factories go through the expense of stack scrubbers, supertemp exhaust, etc etc etc.

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

[billvon 2,991]

>Which, of course, is why factories go through the expense of
>stack scrubbers, supertemp exhaust, etc etc etc.

None of those reduce the amount of CO2 emitted. Indeed, many of the mitigation technologies you allude to above (like catalytic converters) convert other waste products INTO CO2, thus increasing their CO2 output.

[JackC 0]

Quote

I never said CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas.
I never said that greenhouse gases don't increase the capacity of a system to store heat.
I never said that thermodynamics didn't work.

Finally!

Then you agree that CO2 acts to retain heat, that we've added more CO2 to the atmosphere so it will retain still more heat, and that if you retain more heat in a system the temperature goes up. You have agreed with all the consituent parts of global warming. You have agreed that the mechanism for global warming is real and is happening.

Quote

I said, show me the proof that there is a direct link between the CO2 level and the increased temperature.

I did and you agreed with it all.

Quote

Are both CO2 levels and temperatures higher now than 30 years ago? Absolutely. Does that mean that the temperature increase is DUE TO the increase in CO2 levels? It MAY be, but it also may not. It is a HYPOTHESIS, NOT a PROOF.

Each step is a proven fact, you agreed with all of them.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>Which, of course, is why factories go through the expense of
>stack scrubbers, supertemp exhaust, etc etc etc.

None of those reduce the amount of CO2 emitted. Indeed, many of the mitigation technologies you allude to above (like catalytic converters) convert other waste products INTO CO2, thus increasing their CO2 output.

Wow, really? Why did the factories install those things in the first place?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[chasteh 0]

>Why? Why should the person whose science is published make any difference to the science that is published?

You slid off the issue a little bit here. Much of the post you are responding to said that it shouldn't. However, the person's qualifications in the matter are always relevent. In your case, Gilligan, you weren't as qualified as the professor, but we had at least some way of consindering your information as factual - you were actually on the island.
Are you and mnealtx on that island? If you are, you definitely don't have the same perch that kallend does. Kallend can see the entire thing and you guys are stuck looking at one piece. The chance that the piece you could be standing on was not already seen by kallend is next to non existent.
This is an important analogy because it demonstrates how experience makes a difference. Notice I have said nothing here that parallels how well known any of you are.
Are you actually fighting my statements?

>A person who isn't "qualified" by whatever person or group appoints itself as the arbiter of same may have valid things to say.

Sure. I am saying it is far far less likely, but that doesn't mean I am ruling out that possibility. For a lawyer, it sure doesn't seem like you are understanding my case very well.

> Dontcha think that any studies or other actions brought about by Generation Investment Management, LLC, should be looked upon with some degree of skepticism?

I remember saying:
"That is right, a study funded by Greenpeace would be equally suspect." Which, by remaining in the context of the point I was making earlier, would also leave us room to be suspicious of their motives if they had the potential to make enormous profits based on the biases they "influence" in specific scientists. Have you said that they fall under that category? No, you said that the GIM does. That is a little bit different.
Please show how Greenpeace will gain in the same volumes as Exxon/Mobil through lobbying, and don't falter by stating some other business is guilty of doing it.

>I believe that all of these organizations are in the business of making money.
Well, I just looked at the site for GIM, LLP, and you are right. That still fits in quite well with what I said before, with the exception of the one line that you decided to shred to pieces (which wasn't my main point, but whatever) "Unfortunately, Greenpeace doesn't have nearly as much to gain as Exxon/Mobil does"

>Sure it does. Perhaps not monetarily, but Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, etc., are lobbies. They are special interest groups.

Do Greenpeace and the Sierra club really have as much to gain? It looks here as though you said they do have something to gain, but then you decided to leave them aside and then say another conglomerate, GIM LLP, is involved in the global warming "scandal" to make a profit. (edit): Was Greenpeace's income potential too small for you to attack?

Also, every political party is involved in lobbying. Does that mean that each lobbyist or the special interest group that they are affiliated with is guilty of having the same profit motives as some other special interest group? Of course not. And in actuality, it becomes increasingly difficult to make that comparison when what is being compared makes billions of dollars to begin with or has the potential to earn billions of dollars based on that policy decision. Show me how Greenpeace and its members do this for Greenpeace, please.

>>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.
>If "hype" was not a factor this would not be the case.

(From Top)
"Notice I have said nothing here that parallels how well known any of you are."
Did I make a claim saying that we should trust you because you are well known? Or, did I say that a person who has reputable qualifications (Like, A degree in a relevant field of interest) is in a better position to address the issue we are discussing?

>The problem is that reduction of greenhouse gases at all costs seems to be the rule now

Really? Thats quite a generalized statement. Hell, if you get one then I get one: People think "the reduction of greenhouse gases at all costs is the rule now."

>Because they are people with vested interests.

Fantastic, so we agree that someone who will greatly profit from the policy change that would result from accepting either position on the issue deserves our suspicion.

[chasteh 0]

>Which, of course, is why factories go through the expense of stack scrubbers, supertemp exhaust, etc etc etc

How many of those are implemented, do you think, for the purposes of cleaning the air? How many power plants and factories out there in the U.S., do you think, employ those measures for the purposes of meeting government restrictions or the tax incentives that are associated with said equipment?

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

I did and you agreed with it all.

I must have missed this.
Where did you do this?

We are all engines of karma

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Which, of course, is why factories go through the expense of
>stack scrubbers, supertemp exhaust, etc etc etc.

None of those reduce the amount of CO2 emitted. Indeed, many of the mitigation technologies you allude to above (like catalytic converters) convert other waste products INTO CO2, thus increasing their CO2 output.

Ah, I see - you may want to edit your post to state CO2 rather than carbon, then...less confusion.

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

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Why should the person whose science is published make any difference to the science that is published?

Good grief. Just read that sentence again would you.

I will restate it. Why does the author make any difference to the science?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[chasteh 0]

The author does not create a necessary difference bucko. It just turns out in alot of cases it makes a BIG difference.

For example, in terms of psychoanalysis you could study any of the thousands of rediculous pieces of advice people have given to you over the years regarding problems in your childhood....

Or, you might just read some of Freud's findings. In that case, would you rather look at Freud's research or the information that was written simply in accordance with another persons psychological assumptions? I'd take Freud's research. There is an example where the author makes a huge difference to the science. Freud revolutionized it.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Then you agree that CO2 acts to retain heat,

That it CAN act to retain heat, yes.

Quote

that we've added more CO2 to the atmosphere so it will retain still more heat,

That it CAN retain still more heat.

Quote

and that if you retain more heat in a system the temperature goes up.

Correct.

Quote

You have agreed with all the consituent parts of global warming.

With the correction above, yes.

Quote

Quote

I said, show me the proof that there is a direct link between the CO2 level and the increased temperature.

I did and you agreed with it all.

No, I didn't. However, by your logic stated above, if CO2 increases, then temperature increases (you say it yourself, above) - therefore, you should be able to unequivocably show that adding 20ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere will result in some definable rise in temperature.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Which, of course, is why factories go through the expense of stack scrubbers, supertemp exhaust, etc etc etc

How many of those are implemented, do you think, for the purposes of cleaning the air? How many power plants and factories out there in the U.S., do you think, employ those measures for the purposes of meeting government restrictions or the tax incentives that are associated with said equipment?

Bill said that companies spare no expense to MAXIMISE their carbon output - the reason WHY they do it is immaterial for this argument.

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

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why should the person whose science is published make any difference to the science that is published?

Good grief. Just read that sentence again would you.

I will restate it. Why does the author make any difference to the science?

I'm gald you restated the question, because the first attempt was pure gibberish.

Of course it matters. What do you think would happen if some of the people here wrote science reports? Gravity would be waves, as proved by Newton and then if anyone questioned it they'd deny saying any of it and claim a PA.

What would happen if people didn't have to pass the bar exam to be lawyers? What piss poor standard of law would be practiced then eh?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

What piss poor standard of law would be practiced then eh?

Probably about the same standard of 'science' that is obtained when a 'consensus' decides what is suitable for print or not.

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

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

Then you agree that CO2 acts to retain heat,

That it CAN act to retain heat, yes.

Show me a single example where CO2 does not act to retain more heat in an applicable system and you will win the Nobel prize for physics.

Quote

Quote

that we've added more CO2 to the atmosphere so it will retain still more heat,

That it CAN retain still more heat.

Demonstrate a single example where adding a capacity to retain more heat does not result in more heat being retained and you'll disprove thermodynamics and win a Nobel prize for physics.

There is no can, it does every single time.

[StreetScooby 5]

You haven't offered any proof that adding ppm of CO2 will cause any noticeable difference in the temperature. Yes, your understanding of thermo is correct. It's the degree of change that's in doubt here (...pun intended).

We are all engines of karma