The american denial of global warming...

Where do you get your evidence that "everything they say is a lie and dangerous, and I am right no matter what, and I don't have to provide evidence because it is already overwhelming"? Sounds pretty religiony, no?

But... you're right melatonin... we have better things to do. I would like to finish (for now) with a quote from another thread.

whether global warming is or isn't occuring or is or isn't natural, is only indirectly connected with THE VERY REAL DAMAGE that is happening in our environment right now...

My motives - and I know being a "keyboard warrior" won't help much - are to re-route the funds currently being pumped into "preventing AGW", and to convince people to put them into causes that will help, right now... instead of one that might help, later. Wildlife/rainforest conservation, developing Africa... those sorts of things. Just so you understand my motives.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by SlyCM (work)]

Originally posted by SlyCM (work)
Where do you get your evidence that "everything they say is a lie and dangerous, and I am right no matter what, and I don't have to provide evidence because it is already overwhelming"? Sounds pretty religiony, no?

That's quite the interpretation of my posts. I think I have presented evidence and attempted to support or explain much of my reasoning.

I'm not always correct, in fact, I think you were right to point out that I did overstate the PETM extinction issue. But, hey, we're all human after all...

My motives - and I know being a "keyboard warrior" won't help much - are to re-route the funds currently being pumped into "preventing AGW", and to convince people to put them into causes that will help, right now... instead of one that might help, later. Wildlife/rainforest conservation, developing Africa... those sorts of things. Just so you understand my motives.

I think we can do them all if we focus our attention away from our more destructive endeavours.

Cheers.

reply to post by traderonwallst


I live where it is 82 degrees year round, the Marshall Islands, but I dont think you will move here; since the atoll is only a meter above seawater at mean hightide (just a foot or so during spring tides) it is due to go underwater during the life time of many residents (say, fifty years).

First, CO2 always follows a warming trend; this is well documented in ice core samples. CO2 does not create global warming.
This is well established, even by the scientific world big-wigs at IPCC hearing of 2007.
Secondly, CO2 is critical to agriculture.
Third, over 57% of CO2 is composed of moisture.
Fourth anthropogenic/man made CO2 is responsible for about 1%.
Finally, for now, we could easily increase CO2 5 times with no adverse health impact to the citizens and would in fact increase agricultural crops.
The Earths climate has continually 'changed' with even higher temp increases, well before the 20th century.
Geo-engineering of our atmosphere based on faulty 'models' is a tragedy in the making.
“Global Warming or Global Governance?”
Naturally, we need to continue to protect the Earth, but why would we allow the government to hold the wheel, driving the machine which is fueled by our money but with no oversight by the people?
Know the truth, do the simple research and think for yourselves or someone will do your thinking for you.
CO2 is not the big boogy-man that Al Gore has led you to believe.
THINK FOR YOUR SELVES

That video really does nothing to prove anything. She states, simply, that there were some scientists prior to the 1970s who believed in increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could cause warming. She then tries to discredit a few prominent global warming scientists, and repeatedly states that there's an overwhelming consensus, going as far to compare it to there being hundreds of thousands who are on the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming bandwagon (note catastrophic and anthropogenic) to three who aren't. This is silly, it's like scientific bullying. There was no proof presented, no actual evaluation of anything, including the "consensus." She failed to demonstrate either that the overwhelming majority of some kind of scientist believes in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming or that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is sure to happen as a result of the human-generated carbon dioxide emissions.

I honestly see that video as relatively worthless to scientific global warming debate.

reply to post by Johnmike


From my OP:

"As I said, very good talk. If you are interested in the basic history of the science, and its denial, well worth the hour."

It's a talk by a historian of science about the history of climate science and its denial. It isn't meant to be a thorough analysis of the scientific evidence.

If you want the scientific evidence in detail, perhaps read the latest IPCC report.

repeatedly states that there's an overwhelming consensus, going as far to compare it to there being hundreds of thousands who are on the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming bandwagon (note catastrophic and anthropogenic) to three who aren't.

She uses this thousands of physicists vs. three to criticise the political tactic of using the 'fairness doctrine' in the media to give apparent equality for the position of the deniers (even using threats of lawsuits to ensure this illusion). A BS tactic used for FUD.

It clearly shows that these groups have little scientific credibility and go direct to the media to give an illusion of there being some serious debate over the basic scientific position (just like the dishonest creationists with intelligent design).

This tactic has been shown to work, but it's nothing more than dishonest tactics from industry funded think-tanks. The same tactics were used by many of the same people who were tobacco industry shills (and CFC denial etc). On examination, she argues how the media shows about 50/50 split between positive and negative stories for climate science - the illusion of balance. Yet in the scientific literature, there is a consensus and has been for decades.

Of course, the general public tend not to read the scientific literature. The shills are using mass media to create FUD - a BS political game.

no actual evaluation of anything, including the "consensus."

Naomi Oreskes has assessed the scientific consensus. That is her claim to fame. Her work is in a paper published in Science.

Moreover, she also describes the presence of a scientific consensus nearly 30 years ago about where we were heading (e.g., JASON and Charney reports), and even a bipartisan political consensus. She also outlines predictions made decades ago that have been verified. Then she goes onto the question of what happened since then - the rise of the industry shills and conservative/free market fundie political shennanigans.

I think your comment is pretty disingenuous. But, hey, no surprises.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by melatonin]

In the mid-1990s the use of ground boreholes as a clue to paleoclimate history was becoming well-established. In 1995 David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, published a study in Science4 that demonstrated the technique by generating a 150-year climate history for North America. Here, in his own words, is what happened next.


"With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”5

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is an interval from approximately AD1000 to AD1300 during which many places around the world exhibited conditions that seem warm compared to today.

...the sun can be eliminated as it has been going nowhere for the last 50 years.

really o

The same can't be said for the Hockey Team. What are you, like number fourteen or something?

www.climatechangeissues.com...

WARNING! The above pdf is purest heresy to Team world.


[edit on 6-8-2008 by undermind]

Climate change is a fact. Global warming is not.

Do you know that in the '70s some scientists claimed the world was actually cooling down?!

See Wikipedia on global cooling --> en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by undermind

...the sun can be eliminated as it has been going nowhere for the last 50 years.

really o

Yeah, really.

The same can't be said for the Hockey Team. What are you, like fourteen or something?

Not quite.

www.climatechangeissues.com...

WARNING! The above pdf is purest heresy to Team world.

What the hockey stick debate is about is more of the dishonesty and misdirection of a certain group of deniers. About a dozen studies have essentially verified the original findings of Mann et al.

Hockey stick, medieval warming, grapes in england, Mann blah blah. Rinse, wash, repeat.

This thread is really about the denial industry. It's not really about the evidence, tbh. That's pretty boring to me. Almost every whine you have I've seen dozens of times. If you have anything new, I might be interested.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by melatonin]

I don't know about this whole warming business.... we got snow in June, so someone can send their warming my way... I'm in Fargo ND. Right now it's even a little chilly out.. 68 degrees.

Originally posted by melatonin
I think your comment is pretty disingenuous. But, hey, no surprises.

Hey, I just thought it didn't go over anything properly. There was barely a history lesson outside of "They've been saying it would happen! But you didn't listen!!!" It doesn't say much about "the American denial of global warming" aside from some passing accusations of fake science propagated by the industry. It's basically a bunch of claims and a description of a couple scientists. I know you didn't claim that it was on par with a scientific paper, but I still think that it's nothing more than a bunch of claims.

As for global warming itself, I'm still on the fence. I have no idea what to believe. Analyzing the data is hard (do you know that site that had the up to date satellite temperature records? it was great) and I'm not just going to believe in something because I'm told to, you know?

Originally posted by Johnmike
Hey, I just thought it didn't go over anything properly. There was barely a history lesson outside of "They've been saying it would happen! But you didn't listen!!!"

Oh, come on, JM. Be fair.

She starts all the way back at the embryonic stage of climate science with Tyndall in the mid 1800s, then to Arrhenius. Then Callender, Revelle and Keeling up to the 60s. Then to the more modern organisations before the IPCC and after its conception, all the time showing how the data has collected and become more robust over time. That's a pretty good coverage of the history.

It doesn't say much about "the American denial of global warming" aside from some passing accusations of fake science propagated by the industry. It's basically a bunch of claims and a description of a couple scientists. I know you didn't claim that it was on par with a scientific paper, but I still think that it's nothing more than a bunch of claims.

Well, in this second part she covers the history of the main movers and shakers of the denial industry, particularly old stodgy Fred Singer and his history in tobacco and CFC denial. Also pointing out the history of one of the major denial think-tanks - George Marshall - from its roots in defence industry lobbying and free market 'fundamentalism'. This stage covers much of the dirty non-scientific tactics used by these people and groups.

Indeed, the same tactics are used to this day.

As for global warming itself, I'm still on the fence. I have no idea what to believe. Analyzing the data is hard (do you know that site that had the up to date satellite temperature records? it was great) and I'm not just going to believe in something because I'm told to, you know?

I suppose it is hard without access to the primary literature, but the IPCC report, in spite of denial industry canards, is the best place to start.

If you want the up-to-date satellite data you'd really need to go to the source. Thus, UAH for one set of data, and RSS for another.

RSS is here.

1200 difference scientists proved about a month ago that Global Warming was a myth. Mars, Venus, Mercury, all the planets in our solar system have also experienced an increase in their average temperature due to Solar activity and all of those increases were relative their position in the solar system. Al Gore and all those like have one thing in common.... stupidity.

What the hockey stick debate is about is more of the dishonesty and misdirection of a certain group of deniers.

It's a 1998 dot com profits projection chart

that relies on people's willingness to do what the guy in the lab coat tells them in order to McScience a political point.

There's no debate. To debate implies that the Team cares about, or even has a passing knowledge of the concept of level of significance, or the quanta involved in measurements of the carbon cycle, or measurement error, or the role of carbon dioxide as an emitter of long-wave radiation in to space from the upper atmosphere, or the need for the IPCC to allow peer reviewers of referenced papers in their reports to actually see the data those papers are based on.

It's not really about the evidence, That's pretty boring to me.

Yes, I can see that.


[edit on 6-8-2008 by undermind]

Originally posted by undermind
There's no debate. To debate implies that the Team cares about, or even has a passing knowledge of the concept of level of significance, or the quanta involved in measurements of the carbon cycle, or measurement error, or the role of carbon dioxide as an emitter of long-wave radiation in to space from the upper atmosphere, or the need for the IPCC to allow peer reviewers of referenced papers in their reports to actually see the data those papers are based on.

The IPCC doesn't allow peer-reviewers, or even laymen like us, to access the data they base their papers on?

reply to post by Johnmike


Steve McIntyre's story

On August 1, 2005, I was invited by IPCC to act as a reviewer. (I guess this makes me one of the 2500 scientists who support IPCC conclusions, although my review comments have all been ignored as far as I can tell.)

You have been nominated to serve as an Expert Reviewer for the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. The first draft of this report will be available for expert review from Friday, 9 September 2005, with all review comments due by Friday, 4 November 2005.

I accepted. In September 2005, I noticed that the Paleoclimate chapter cited two then unpublished studies by D’Arrigo et al (later D’Arrigo et al 2006) and Hegerl et al (later Hegerl et al J Clim 2006). In order to carry out my responsibilities as a reviewer, I wanted to see the supporting data for these studies and I accordingly wrote to the IPCC Technical Services Unit at UCAR in Boulder on Sep 20, 2005 as follows:

I have been unable to locate supplementary information or data archives for several of the articles posted at the pdf location for Chapter 6 and would appreciate assistance in this regard.
1) Hegerl et al, submitted. Can you provide me with an ftp location for the proxy data used in this study (which does not even list the proxies used) or post it at your website.
2) D’Arrigo et al, submitted. Again, this data has not been archived at WDCP. Can you provide me with an ftp location for the proxy data used in this study or post it at your website.

On Sep 22, 2005, Martin Manning of the IPCC/UCAR TSU wrote back refusing to provide this data in the following terms:

… It is normal practice that expert reviewers of scientific works check the references given and the way they are used. We certainly expect this during the review of the first draft of our report and are grateful that you have identified an issue that the authors will need to deal with in the next draft if that can not be done now.

The second issue is availability of data used in cited literature. As you have recognized some of this is available at data centers. Often the original authors of the cited papers will release their data on request. However, the IPCC process assesses published literature, it does not involve carrying out research, nor do we have the mandate or resources to operate as a clearing house for the massive amounts of data that are used in the climate science community or referred to in the literature used by our authors. Given the many different approaches to intellectual property and data release in different countries and agencies such an undertaking would in any case not be possible.

SEE THE DATA?!? ARE YOU MAD?!?

In truth I can see where the IPCC are coming from: according to the hand that feeds them, they're not there to assist in the actual scientific investigation of global warming. The science is a given. They understand this, like the good little highly-paid munchkins they are.

The problem is, they need real scientists to put their name to what amounts to self-fulfilling prophesy, and some real scientists like Steve McIntyre actually have this nasty habit of wanting to see the data.


[edit on 7-8-2008 by undermind]

My request for data pertains to two papers which are presently unpublished and for which the data is unarchived. One of the papers does not even list the data used. I request that you simply contact the authors who submitted the articles in question and ask him/her to provide an FTP location for the data so that it can be reviewed. The request can be made through a simple email and does not require resources beyond those available to you. You could have submitted the request as quickly as it took you to draft your reply to me. If the authors refuse to provide their data pursuant to a request from you, then that would be a factor in my review, as it should be for IPCC itself, as to whether the article should be referenced by IPCC.

The next day, Sep 23, 2005, Manning made the following shirty reply:

Let me repeat - If you wish to obtain data used in a paper then you should make a direct request to the original authors yourself. It would be inappropriate for the IPCC to become involved in that communication and I have no intention of allowing the IPCC support unit to provide you with what would in effect be a secretarial service. There are over 1200 other scientists on our list of reviewers and we simply can not get involved in providing special services for each. I gave you the courtesy of a detailed response earlier to ensure there was no confusion about our process which is my responsibility. Acting as an intermediary with other scientists is not. I will not be responding to further correspondence on this matter.

Now I had presumed that a unit entitled Technical Services Unit would not view “secretarial services” as beneath their dignity. Perhaps they’d been watching too many episodes of 24 and got the TSU and CTU units mixed up. In addition, by requiring me to contact the authors directly, obviously the anonymity of the process was forfeited.

The entire story is at Steve McIntyres Blog climateaudit.org (winner of the 2007 weblog awards Best Science Blog).





[edit on 7-8-2008 by undermind]

Im getting tired of this debate.
For every 500 pages of crap data for global warming being caused by modern humans.
There is another 500 pages of crap data against global warming being caused by modern humans.
And I mean DATA evidence scientific facts not people just dribbling more junk.
There is facts on both sides.It really cannot be proven either way.
I mean how can anyone prove, I mean prove 100% beyond any reasonable doubt, not just blurt things out and quote other blurting out from so called expert people with hidden agenda's.
That the government with there HARRP programs trying to make weapons to further control the planet, haven't damaged the atmosphere.
And are trying to blame it on all of us and make us pay more tax to make a profit from it.
No one can PROVE that is or isn't true.So whats the point.......

Originally posted by undermind

It's not really about the evidence, That's pretty boring to me.

Yes, I can see that.

Har Har.

I've been discussing the evidence for AGW for years on this forum and others. What I quickly learned, is that most of the deniers here don't particulary care - not much better than discussing with some wacky creationist. I can spend numerous posts which required a lot of research and preparation, but they tend to be unable to process the information and quickly fallback to inane oft-refuted BS like SUVs on mars, solar system warming, Mann Hockey stick blah, etc .

Indeed, some of the people in this very thread are still repeating the same old oft-refuted crap in other threads. They have nada new, and it quickly becomes groundhog day-like.

Part of intelligence is being able to apply effort and time in an adaptive way. Repeating myself over and over and over and over and over to people with fingers in their frontal lobe, is not worth the effort.

So, this thread was not really meant to be about SUVs on mars or other inane BS like the anon blurted above. But it's sort of a ritual in this subforum.

.....

As for the IPCC, they don't produce the data. They are an organisation that surveys and integrates the literature, producing the best overview possible of the current state of knowledge. So your faux shock is wasted. That is their remit.

The problem with people like McIntyre is that they show confirmation bias in shedloads. I think the temperature station data analysis by his mate Watts is a great example of that. Indeed, it all went pretty quiet when it was obvious that their data was just a great confirmation of the NASA-GISS methods and data.

They love to bleat about negligible changes in the data, but when they produce data that supports the current data? All suddenly goes quiet, heh.

They are just part of the FUD team, another George Marshall dude. Feeding the conspiracy BS with cherrypicking (excellently shown in his recent Hansen whine article), confirmation bias, innuendo, and windbag bleating. Bit like a creationist that runs to AIG for his serving of ideological programming, climate deniers with preconceived ideas run to CA or Watts blog and regurgitate drone-like.

McIntyre. A real scientist? Rofl. No more than a parasite. A person who sits on the sidelines whining and bleating, reassessing data and cherrypicking for the good of FUD.

[edit on 7-8-2008 by melatonin]

A new talk from Naomi.

In this talk she dicusses evidence she has acquired about the 'Western Fuels Association', and their anti-science efforts in the early days of climate change denial (90s). Another great talk showing the vacuous methods of the fuel industry advocates/lobbyists and free-market fundies.

smartenergyshow.com...