Video: ‘The Big Swindle Movie’

Environment • Views: 3,754

Environmental advocate Peter Sinclair put together this presentation about the British documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” When Channel 4’s anti-AGW polemic was first broadcast, we linked to it here at LGF; but since that time a number of … uh … problems have been found with the data in the film. Sinclair’s presentation does a devastating job of presenting some of these problems.

You don’t have to be an alarmist to think it’s a bad idea to distort and misquote scientific research, by the way. There’s way too much of this intentional misrepresentation going on in the debate over climate change.

Youtube Video

Jump to bottom

240 comments
1 albusteve  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:21:35pm

I've been swindlized by both sides of the issue

2 freetoken  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:22:33pm

Thanos highlighted this video a few days ago. (BTW, where has he been lately?)

Good, but short, perhaps too short to do the subject justice.

3 Shug  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:24:12pm

The data are the data.( Like em or hate em, they are what they are. That's what I love about science)

or as my grandmother used to say : You can't polish a turd.

4 NelsFree  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:25:12pm

Something something something Global Warming Hoax!
/nuf said

5 pat  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:27:47pm

The misinformation being circulated in the climate debate is criminal. The stupidity awe inspiring.

6 JacksonTn  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:28:22pm

About ten years ago we started going to seminars on Global Warming ... as farmers we live and die by the weather ... we love the land ... without it we would be nothing ... No Farms No Food ... but what we have come away with is ... we believe in not polluting and taking care of what I believe G-d gave us ... we respect the dirt ... we stopped using the stuff that they "said" was bad ... Silent Spring and all ... but Al Gore has to explain to me why a couple of years ago we lost over one million seedlings to a late freeze ... cyclical is all we can come up with ...

I don't have much respect for people who make large fortunes from people's fears ... all the videos so professionally done will not make us change our minds ...

Maybe when we are in the dirt and gone there will be evidence to prove us wrong ... but for now ... we don't believe in Global Warming ...

7 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:30:20pm

re: #4 NelsFree

Something something something Global Warming Hoax!

"Something something something complete"
/Emperor voice

8 Sharmuta  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:30:21pm

I really don't appreciate getting bullshitted by propagandists. When I realized creationists were latching onto this issue, I knew something stunk.

9 jaunte  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:32:24pm

Good for Peter Sinclair in pointing out these distortions in reporting the research.

10 Idle Drifter  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:35:43pm

Well I can admit I was taken in by the film. With this flow of disinformation how can we as a nation make an informed decision on how to react to changes in our environment? How can we enact those decisions with the public trust?

11 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:37:05pm

Nuclear Power Plants.

12 JacksonTn  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:38:17pm

re: #11 Slumbering Behemoth

Nuclear Power Plants.

SB ... silly person ... those things only work in the desert ... in the middle east ...

13 Idle Drifter  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:39:21pm

re: #11 Slumbering Behemoth

Nuclear Power Plants.

I've been screaming that since I was a pup but hysteria about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl just won't die.

14 BignJames  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:39:23pm

Global warming?.......pffffft....it's the asteroids I'm concerned with.

15 Idle Drifter  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:40:24pm

re: #14 BignJames

Global warming?.......pffffft....it's the asteroids I'm concerned with.

Don't forget the Gama Bursts from Super Nova Blue Giants.

16 jorline  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:40:41pm

re: #6 JacksonTn

My wife's side of the family are all farmers. The only iragated land is the sugar cane...the majotity is dry land farming. This years cotton and grain sorghum are lost due to the drought in south Texas.

You have my utmost respect JT, it's a tough life and most of the American public don't think about how important your crops are...until the price goes up at the grocery store.

17 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:41:10pm

re: #13 Idle Drifter

I've been screaming that since I was a pup but hysteria about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl just won't die.

The Left hates energy generation.

18 Irenicum  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:41:30pm

So, are anti global warmers nearthers?

19 alkmyst  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:41:42pm

I thought the dustbowls were caused by using Brawndo to irrigate crops...

20 Gus  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:42:28pm

re: #11 Slumbering Behemoth

Nuclear Power Plants.

"Iran is entitled to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes. On the other hand, the United States is not entitled to further develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes."

Pres. Barack Obama

////

21 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:42:28pm

re: #12 JacksonTn

SB ... silly person ... those things only work in the desert ... in the middle east ...

And Europe. You left out Europe.

Since the issues of climate change and nuclear energy are so politically charged, maybe we can hook up some turbines to the politicos and squawking heads, and tap that source of energy.

P.S. I didn't know you were a farmer. Thanks for the grub, Jackson.

22 jaunte  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:43:01pm

re: #11 Slumbering Behemoth

Some contrasting views on energy plans from cnet:
Al Gore details five-step plan to clean electricity
Is Al Gore nuts?

23 jorline  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:43:44pm

re: #16 jorline

My wife's side of the family are all farmers. The only iragated land is the sugar cane...the majotity is dry land farming. This years cotton and grain sorghum are lost due to the drought in south Texas.

You have my utmost respect JT, it's a tough life and most of the American public don't think about how important your crops are...until the price goes up at the grocery store.

pimf irrigated...majority

24 JacksonTn  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:43:51pm

re: #16 jorline

My wife's side of the family are all farmers. The only iragated land is the sugar cane...the majotity is dry land farming. This years cotton and grain sorghum are lost due to the drought in south Texas.

You have my utmost respect JT, it's a tough life and most of the American public don't think about how important your crops are...until the price goes up at the grocery store.

jorline ... we are the genesis the the crops ... we grow the trees that go the actual orchard owners ... we do crop some things ... every year orchard owners need to replenish their orchards ... it is a hard life at times but so so rewarding ... we love it and I don't think we could do anything else at this point ... well, I did open a business recently kinda like yours but it is just a side thing .. and I have total respect for what you do ... really I do ... at the farms we have not had to lay anyone off but at my new business I may have to ... it sucks so bad ...

25 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:44:22pm

re: #20 Gus 802

"Iran is entitled to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes. On the other hand, the United States is not entitled to further develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes."

Pres. Barack Obama

////

I don't think he really believes that, but he's yoked to a hard left that considers nuclear power evil, and will lie, cheat and steal to stop it.

26 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:44:33pm

re: #20 Gus 802

He is only reflecting what the vast majority of his constituency believes. Dupes.

27 Ayeless in Ghazi  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:44:39pm

Dang. I can't watch this now - computer is busy. Looks good though.

28 Truck Monkey  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:44:47pm

re: #11 Slumbering Behemoth

Nuclear Power Plants.

You forgot to put this in front of what you said.
"I have two words for ya."

/snark

29 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:45:59pm

Flounce bait.

30 Gus  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:46:00pm

re: #25 Dark_Falcon

I don't think he really believes that, but he's yoked to a hard left that considers nuclear power evil, and will lie, cheat and steal to stop it.

I didn't think he was early on either but he's changed his tune and gone the way of the "China Syndrome" left. So it seems.

31 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:46:41pm

re: #26 Slumbering Behemoth

He is only reflecting what the vast majority of his constituency believes. Dupes. Assholes.

fixed

32 freetoken  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:47:15pm

re: #29 Killgore Trout

There aren't that many that get flounced by this topic, are there?

33 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:47:25pm

re: #18 Irenicum

So, are anti global warmers nearthers?

I'm a skeptic but not a denier.

34 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:49:40pm

re: #32 freetoken

There are quite a few who deny man made global warming. It's kinda like creationism; one of those "conservative" values that really doesn't have anything to do with conservatism. I don't know if we've had any flounces over the topic but we've had people flounce on dowsing threads before. I shit you not.

35 Cato the Elder  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:50:03pm

One needs to separate the scientific question of whether or not AGW is real from the political one of what the hell to do about it.

36 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:50:05pm

re: #31 Dark_Falcon

Aw. Can't they be both?
:)

37 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:50:06pm

Peter Sinclair is a long-time advocate of environmental awareness and energy alternatives.

He is an award winning graphic artist, illustrator, and animator, Mr. Sinclair runs Greenman Studio from his home in Midland, MI.

Should I believe him any more than Al Gore? As someone who has taken statistics courses at university as part of my electrical engineering degree, I know exactly how easy it is to manipulate data.

Charles, why don't you link to the data that shows that around 58% of the surface climate stations used by the USHCN do not meet NOAA requirements for placement to remove bias from the measurement?

I've never seen that on LGF:

[Link: www.surfacestations.org...]

38 freetoken  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:50:15pm

re: #18 Irenicum

So, are anti global warmers nearthers?

Hmmm.... I thought the Near Earth asteroid people where the nearthers...

39 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:50:42pm

re: #37 the_thermonuclear_pickle

I've never seen that on LGF:

[Link: www.surfacestations.org...]

You just did. Twice.

40 freetoken  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:51:46pm

re: #34 Killgore Trout

Yes, I remember the dowsing thread... but that was caught up into the dowsing gestalt... tough to separate the crowds.

41 [deleted]  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:51:57pm
42 Idle Drifter  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:52:10pm

How respected is the World Nuclear Association?

I found this article on the Geology of Uranium Deposits and it seems the United States is sitting on a large and varied Uranium deposits. Though the focus of the article seems to be on Australia there was several references of geological formations within the US, Canada, Africa, etc.

43 Irenicum  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:52:43pm

I don't know if conservative moonbat is on right now, but check out his link on the spinoffs. Amazing! And heartening. I think Iran needs to have a V for Vendetta moment!

44 jorline  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:52:54pm

re: #24 JacksonTn

jorline ... we are the genesis the the crops ... we grow the trees that go the actual orchard owners ... we do crop some things ... every year orchard owners need to replenish their orchards ... it is a hard life at times but so so rewarding ... we love it and I don't think we could do anything else at this point ... well, I did open a business recently kinda like yours but it is just a side thing .. and I have total respect for what you do ... really I do ... at the farms we have not had to lay anyone off but at my new business I may have to ... it sucks so bad ...

Mrs. Jorline's family has had a tough time with the global market place. They use to be able to sell their cotton here in the US, but with China and the Asian markets it's been a lot harder...China can produce cotton for damn near nothing.

How has the global market affected you? BTW...welcome to the restaurant business. I've been in for forty years...nut case here...lol

45 freetoken  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:53:09pm

re: #37 the_thermonuclear_pickle

There have been many links in the spin-offs to WUWT and like minded people who drone on and one about various weather stations, etc.

46 MacDuff  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:53:23pm

Not too long ago, "Global warming" was the buzz. Now that the "warming" myth has been all to be disproven, it's become "climate change".

Back in the 70s, we had a sting of harsh winters and then the buzz was "global cooling" and experts were predicting a new ice age.

Conservation? Absolutely! Reduce pollutants? No doubt! Recycle whenever possible? I'm all for it! Stunt human development because of its impact on the planet? Bullshit!

The least developed societies on earth tend to have the greatest negative impact on the Earth's environment. One need only look at China (where the pollution was so bad, there were serious concerns about the Olympics) and the former Soviet Bloc (where the environmental damage was stunning). In the U.S., air quality and water quality have been steadily on the rise for decades.

Mankind's development isn't the problem, it's the solution.

47 Ayeless in Ghazi  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:53:42pm

re: #29 Killgore Trout

Flounce bait.

Guaranteed. I just know I'm going to see certain names appear towards the end of the thread, looking for that all-important last word.

48 A Kiwi Infidel  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:54:47pm

If I was in Iraq I wouldnt be worrying about GW, I would be worried getting blown up by plodydope.

If I was in Iran I wouldnt be worrying about GW, I would be worried getting shot by the police while expressing my views on an election result.

If I was in South Korea I wouldnt be worrying about GW, I would be worried about the temperature suddenly rising by 3 gazzillion degrees, now that would be a bad hair day!

And if I was in Israel, I would be worried about the first and third as well as rockets falling from above from my friends in Gaza.

All of which means that there is a shit load more to worry about in the short term than confusion over Climate change.


Just sayin.

49 JoshB  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:54:49pm

Sinclair's pretty much on the fringe himself. His family has a long history of promoting fact-devoid anti-nuclear power hysteria in the state of Michigan, well before anyone was concerned about global warming. I'd suggest waiting until someone fact-checks his fact-checking.

50 Irenicum  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:55:42pm

re: #33 Killgore Trout

Understood. I respect that much more. It means, if I understand correctly, that you're being cautious about the stats. That is totally understandable.

51 Gus  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:55:47pm

My list:

Nuclear
Wind
Solar
Hydroelectric
Tidal
Natural Gas

52 A Kiwi Infidel  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:56:16pm

re: #41 buzzsawmonkey

If you only look and see, then I know you will agree
That the farmer is the man who feeds them all
The farmer is the man, the farmer is the man
Lives on credit until fall
Then they take him by the hand and they lead him from the land
And the mortgage man's the one who gets it all

--protest song, 1930s


And they can still sing that old tune, today.

53 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:56:17pm

re: #32 freetoken

There aren't that many that get flounced by this topic, are there?

Not in my experience; maybe I missed something.

54 Ayeless in Ghazi  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:56:49pm

re: #49 JoshB

Sinclair's pretty much on the fringe himself. His family has a long history of promoting fact-devoid anti-nuclear power hysteria in the state of Michigan, well before anyone was concerned about global warming. I'd suggest waiting until someone fact-checks his fact-checking.

Could you clarify - is it him or his family who are on the fringe?

55 JacksonTn  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:56:52pm

re: #44 jorline

Mrs. Jorline's family has had a tough time with the global market place. They use to be able to sell their cotton here in the US, but with China and the Asian markets it's been a lot harder...China can produce cotton for damn near nothing.

How has the global market affected you? BTW...welcome to the restaurant business. I've been in for forty years...nut case here...lol

jorline ... well, so far ... it has not hurt us ... their are many regulations to bringing in plants and trees into the country in the age we grow them to go to the market we provide ... but believe me ... if it can happen down the road it will ... the crops that we do crop for the actual food are pretty safe as we go to market with them to a specialize national group but nothing is safe from outside competition ... nothing ... we are regulated by the orchard owners down to the dna of a variety ... that would be something that would be hard to comply with for out of the country folks ... so I believe in my lifetime we are safe ... but who knows ...

56 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:58:04pm

I'm sold on AGW (surprise surprise) but I don't think anyone really knows the rate at which it's happening. They keep revising the numbers to say it's faster and faster but nobody can say for sure. In principle I agree we need to cut carbon emotions, but who knows how fast or by when.

Even if AGW is load of crap, coal is just nasty. Taking it out of the earth is nasty burning it is nasty and dealing with the ash left behind is nasty. There are plenty of reasons other than AGW why we should abandon the technology.

57 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 6:59:05pm

re: #33 Killgore Trout

I'm a skeptic but not a denier.

That's not allowed by the Gorist Purists. Skeptic are deniers, in their lingo. Questions are not allowed; your obedience to whatever scheme is presented is expected.

58 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:00:03pm

The real flounce bait is next thread up.

59 jorline  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:00:14pm

BBL...watching Gran Torino with Mrs. Jorline.

60 Idle Drifter  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:01:12pm

re: #51 Gus 802

My list:

There's a warning attached to the tidal generators for amateurs NOT to try and build their own. Something about using certain methods of fabrication that prevents serious electrocution.

61 Jim in Virginia  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:01:39pm

re: #57 OldLineTexan

That's not allowed by the Gorist Purists. Skeptic are deniers, in their lingo. Questions are not allowed; your obedience to whatever scheme is presented is expected.


It's a cult.

62 Ayeless in Ghazi  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:01:39pm

re: #57 OldLineTexan

That's not allowed by the Gorist Purists. Skeptic are deniers, in their lingo. Questions are not allowed; your obedience to whatever scheme is presented is expected.

rhetorical template (c) Discovery Institute

63 Irenicum  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:03:05pm

re: #59 jorline

You will love this movie!

64 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:04:16pm

re: #62 Jimmah

rhetorical template (c) Discovery Institute

Are you saying that the Gorists have been cribbing from the Disco people, or ?

65 Basho  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:04:22pm

re: #62 Jimmah

Hehe :)

66 MrPaulRevere  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:05:34pm

I'm waiting patiently for the first comment with the phrase 'Gorebull warming' in it... //

67 JoshB  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:05:45pm

re: #54 Jimmah

Could you clarify - is it him or his family who are on the fringe?

Both. His mother led the fight to prevent the opening of a nuclear plant in Michigan -- and succeeded through a decade-long battle of attrition, with all sorts of false spin offered on the relative safety of nuclear power.

A couple years ago Peter Sinclair went down to Tennessee to get "trained" by Gore. Like Gore, he thinks global warming could be disastrous for the earth. Also like Gore (and his mother), he thinks that one of the obvious solutions, nuclear power, is unacceptably risky. Given the nightmare scenario outlined by Gore, Sinclair, and others, the risk of a Three Mile Island every 30 years would seem to be a fair price to pay.

68 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:06:07pm

re: #66 MrPaulRevere

I'm waiting patiently for the first comment with the phrase 'Gorebull warming' in it... //

Here's a substitute for you ... "Follow the money".

69 Basho  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:06:34pm

Why is everyone saying flounce? =/

70 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:07:13pm

re: #69 Basho

Why is everyone saying flounce? =/

Try it, it's fun.

/

71 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:07:28pm

re: #6 JacksonTn


I don't have much respect for people who make large fortunes from people's fears ... all the videos so professionally done will not make us change our minds ...

Maybe when we are in the dirt and gone there will be evidence to prove us wrong ... but for now ... we don't believe in Global Warming ...

Jackson, I'm curious as to how you determine that the money is being made on the "pro" rather than "anti" Global Warming debate. It appears to me the short-term money is to be made by kicking the debate as far down the road as possible, because change is costly for industry. "Pro" as a philosophy seems to me such a long-term investment that it doesn't draw a bunch of private capital.

I'm open to contrary evidence, but the research I do tends to come up with the amounts of money being spent on the "anti" argument, like this one:

[Link: abcnews.go.com...]

72 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:08:26pm

re: #69 Basho

Why is everyone saying flounce? =/

It's an inside joke, and you're on the outside. Tough.
/

Actually, it's the new term for the "dramatic goodbye" posts that angry people sometimes dump.

73 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:10:43pm

re: #50 Irenicum

Understood. I respect that much more. It means, if I understand correctly, that you're being cautious about the stats. That is totally understandable.

Yes. And personally my carbon footprint is about as low as a normal person can achieve. I'm more worried about toxins and lead in the water supply/rivers/lakes/oceans and I think our energy policy stinks. Even Obama's green energy proposals are not sufficient to get us off oil.

74 jaunte  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:11:07pm

The term "climate denier" is terribly imprecise for anyone who wants to support precision in science reporting.

75 ConservativeAtheist  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:11:15pm

One point on which Sinclair is just flat out lying is in the "last 20 years" temperature description starting at about 2:43. He shows a scary red arrow shooting nearly straight up from about a 0 deg C anomaly to about a 0.6 deg C anomaly, with a big scary arrowhead intimating that it's continuing to increase in this fashion. Nothing could be further from the truth. The past thirty years of satellite temperature data from both RSS and UAH show that today's lower troposphere temperature anomaly is about 0.2 to 0.3 deg C over what it was 30 years ago.

The data also clearly show that there has been little to no warming for the past decade.

Go to here if you want to see a pre-made graph or go here to create your own graph from the data directly.

76 JacksonTn  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:12:00pm

re: #71 ShanghaiEd

Jackson, I'm curious as to how you determine that the money is being made on the "pro" rather than "anti" Global Warming debate. It appears to me the short-term money is to be made by kicking the debate as far down the road as possible, because change is costly for industry. "Pro" as a philosophy seems to me such a long-term investment that it doesn't draw a bunch of private capital.

I'm open to contrary evidence, but the research I do tends to come up with the amounts of money being spent on the "anti" argument, like this one:

[Link: abcnews.go.com...]

SE ... I believe many people are taken in by the immediate need to latch onto the Global Warming theory ... ask Al Gore how much money he has made off of it ... and he is a big phony ... I know where he lives ... they want to impose so many restrictions on companies to be "green" ... but many are hypocrites ... I believe in making a dollar honestly ... but I think many have pushed the agenda to make to seem like if you do not adhere to the "green" agenda there is something really wrong with you ... and that you are out to get Mother Earth ... I am not going to out myself but I can tell you that I know much about the green movement and many are hypocrites ... many ...

77 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:12:04pm

re: #58 OldLineTexan

All we need is a tea party thread or a thread about how Obama gave the correct statement on Iraq for a trifecta.

78 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:12:37pm

re: #77 Killgore Trout

All we need is a tea party thread or a thread about how Obama gave the correct statement on Iraq for a trifecta.

Abortion was also suggested. We could go for the perfect storm.

79 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:12:38pm

re: #77 Killgore Trout

Maybe an Ice cream thread.

80 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:12:55pm

re: #78 OldLineTexan

Heh. Good idea.

81 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:12:56pm

re: #56 Conservative Moonbat

I'm sold on AGW (surprise surprise) but I don't think anyone really knows the rate at which it's happening. They keep revising the numbers to say it's faster and faster but nobody can say for sure. In principle I agree we need to cut carbon emotions, but who knows how fast or by when.

You might want to think about that. Humans use trees at a slightly faster rate than we replenish them, which means that the oxygen content production capability is diminishing.

However, if you have a look at the process of photosynthesis:
CO2 + 2 H2A + photons → (CH2O)n + O2 + 2A

You will find that CO2 aids plant growth. In fact, farmers buy CO2 generators like this one to make sure their greenhouses have up to 30 times present atmospheric levels - it makes potential plant production higher and thus faster growth (and as a by-product, more CO2 production).

We have some similar stats from satellite imagery and their 2004 study:

They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres — enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year.

Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature’s fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up — carbon is the building block of life — and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life.

So here's the basic situation: if we reduce emissions while still cutting down trees and terraforming for the purpose of useless ethanol-based fuels, we're going to screw up the climate even more by lowering the oxygen production.

The solution is not just to cut emissions. The solution is to go nuclear and allow GM crops that produce more oxygen while also decreasing our use of old growth forests.

82 Basho  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:15:17pm

re: #73 Killgore Trout

A lot of the chemicals found in bodies of water that have given frogs awful birth defects and mutations are chemicals we use in our everyday products. That's really scary. There hasn't been enough time to test the side-effects of these things and we might be in for a shock a couple decades from now...

83 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:15:56pm

re: #79 Killgore Trout

Maybe an Ice cream thread.

We just kinda had one ...

84 Ayeless in Ghazi  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:17:11pm

re: #67 JoshB

Both. His mother led the fight to prevent the opening of a nuclear plant in Michigan -- and succeeded through a decade-long battle of attrition, with all sorts of false spin offered on the relative safety of nuclear power.

A couple years ago Peter Sinclair went down to Tennessee to get "trained" by Gore. Like Gore, he thinks global warming could be disastrous for the earth. Also like Gore (and his mother), he thinks that one of the obvious solutions, nuclear power, is unacceptably risky. Given the nightmare scenario outlined by Gore, Sinclair, and others, the risk of a Three Mile Island every 30 years would seem to be a fair price to pay.

His family aren't him. So, basically, he has spoken to Al Gore at some point. ~Not exactly a watertight case there.

85 MacDuff  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:18:33pm

re: #56 Conservative Moonbat

I'm sold on AGW (surprise surprise) but I don't think anyone really knows the rate at which it's happening. They keep revising the numbers to say it's faster and faster but nobody can say for sure. In principle I agree we need to cut carbon emotions, but who knows how fast or by when.

Even if AGW is load of crap, coal is just nasty. Taking it out of the earth is nasty burning it is nasty and dealing with the ash left behind is nasty. There are plenty of reasons other than AGW why we should abandon the technology.

Well, I'm not sold, but reasonable people can disagree on matters such as this, and the fact is that we may find more areas of agreement than disagreement.

As I said in #46, I'm all for taking prudent actions to preserve and/or improve the environment, and I agree that coal is a rather antiquated means of producing energy.

The hysteric and cultish Gorebots who seem to be against any method of producing energy, save solar, are just nuts. We need LARGE amounts of energy (that solar will not provide) and the only way we can produce those amounts, with existing technology, is nuclear. Alas, the last generation of environmental extremists have put us decades behind on that front and have largely created the energy problem we are now experiencing.

I'm not baiting you at all, but how do you feel about nuclear energy?

86 ConservativeAtheist  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:20:23pm

re: #73 Killgore Trout

Yes. And personally my carbon footprint is about as low as a normal person can achieve. I'm more worried about toxins and lead in the water supply/rivers/lakes/oceans...

No kidding. Instead of spending billions on decreasing carbon dioxide outputs which will have negligible affect on climate, I'd much rather see that money spent on things such as upgrades to our sewer systems, so we're not routinely dumping raw sewage into our waterways anytime there is a heavy rain.

It ticks me off that we're going to spend gobs of money chasing the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming boogeyman when there are real environmental (and other) problems that we could actually address.

87 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:26:36pm

re: #76 JacksonTn

SE ... I believe many people are taken in by the immediate need to latch onto the Global Warming theory ... ask Al Gore how much money he has made off of it ... and he is a big phony ... I know where he lives ... they want to impose so many restrictions on companies to be "green" ... but many are hypocrites ... I believe in making a dollar honestly ... but I think many have pushed the agenda to make to seem like if you do not adhere to the "green" agenda there is something really wrong with you ... and that you are out to get Mother Earth ... I am not going to out myself but I can tell you that I know much about the green movement and many are hypocrites ... many ...

It's clear to me you feeling strongly about this. And certainly, no "cause" has a monopoly on phonies or hypocrites or agendas. I just don't buy the argument that AGW is a get-rich quick scheme for everyone involved. What does "adhering to the green agenda" benefit participants, other than believing they're doing something to help future generations? At present, being green costs money, right?

If somebody can show me that the amount of money being made off AGW is equal to or greater than what existing industries are spending to save money, I'll change my thinking. This very night. But nobody has ever been able to show me that.

And saying "ask Al Gore" is about relevant as saying "ask Exxon." If it's really about the money, I'm just asking somebody to show me the money. And nobody has, yet. If I weren't really interested in honestly exploring this, why would I keep bringing it up in formats where people treat me as if there's something wrong with me for having arrived at the conclusion I have, on the evidence I have? Wish I were getting bucks from a nefarious source, but there sure ain't none that I can find.

88 nextcube  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:28:43pm

I admit to being in the 'yes, the Earth has warmed; some of it is man-made and some is natural, but how much of each is unknown' crowd.
Since it appears that it will in fact be impossible to "stop" global warming - Kyoto et. al. will have an essentially unmeasurable effect on global temperatures -I feel we're better off preparing for a warmer world, since we're going to get it with or without cap & trade.
Another downside to cap & trade and other taxes on energy in the West is that it increases the speed at which industry gets moved from countries with environmental laws and human rights to countries without.

89 Spartacus50  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:31:31pm

Quite frankly, I don't need videos from either side of the global warming debate. I choose not to believe it based upon my instincts and am not going to be duped by somebody with a slicker presentation.
Whatever our climate has in store for us is what we must live with and there isn't a goddamn thing we can do about it. Why worry?

90 JoshB  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:31:40pm

re: #84 Jimmah

His family aren't him. So, basically, he has spoken to Al Gore at some point. ~Not exactly a watertight case there.

I forgot. He's also a cartoonist.

[Link: web.archive.org...]

91 JacksonTn  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:31:51pm

re: #87 ShanghaiEd

It's clear to me you feeling strongly about this. And certainly, no "cause" has a monopoly on phonies or hypocrites or agendas. I just don't buy the argument that AGW is a get-rich quick scheme for everyone involved. What does "adhering to the green agenda" benefit participants, other than believing they're doing something to help future generations? At present, being green costs money, right?

If somebody can show me that the amount of money being made off AGW is equal to or greater than what existing industries are spending to save money, I'll change my thinking. This very night. But nobody has ever been able to show me that.

And saying "ask Al Gore" is about relevant as saying "ask Exxon." If it's really about the money, I'm just asking somebody to show me the money. And nobody has, yet. If I weren't really interested in honestly exploring this, why would I keep bringing it up in formats where people treat me as if there's something wrong with me for having arrived at the conclusion I have, on the evidence I have? Wish I were getting bucks from a nefarious source, but there sure ain't none that I can find.

SE ... believe it or not ... we are not all about the money ... we have enough if we never worked another day in our lives ... we farm because it is what we do ... Al Gore has become the "FACE" of the Global Warming Movement ... he is seen as a saint by the left because of the 2000 election and it has grown from there .... if you don't see my side of the issue ... I don't know what else to say ... I am on the frontline of the actual people who make their entire lives on the land ... they may be wrong but as of now ... the majority do not embrace the Global Warming theory ... maybe it is just the circle I am in ... but we will just have to disagree on this topic ...

/see how I can swirl an issue around to make it seem like I "might" agree with you ... yeah, it comes from generations of my family being yellow dog democrats .... I recognize it when I see it and I see it often ... even here ...

92 MacDuff  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:33:03pm

re: #45 freetoken
re: #82 Basho

Just curious, do either of you even take the time to read posts before you "down ding"?

93 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:34:44pm

re: #6 JacksonTn


Maybe when we are in the dirt and gone there will be evidence to prove us wrong ... but for now ... we don't believe in Global Warming ...

Maybe when you appreciate the difference between belief and understanding you will change your mind, and it will perhaps be before you are dirt and leaving it to your children to understand.

This video clearly defines the issues and lies involved, and the science is not politics beyond the obvious one of giving a free ride to the likes of China and India.

We have had this discussion before. I have heard morons make statements to the effect that "people breath out CO2"; so how can it be bad?

I have heard morons say that they don't like Al Gore, so how can it be true?

I have heard morons say that the earth has been warmer in the past, so how can 6 billion people make a difference?

I have heard people say God will decide how warm the place should be, so what we do is irrelevant.

I have heard people say that volcanoes put out more CO2 (and fart more methane than cows), when that is a lie, or dumbass ignorance.

I have heard people say that whatever happened in the past, thousands or millions of years ago, must be proof that no new factors could conceivably be happening now.

The how and when of the effects of people are still in question, but the asinine attitude that it is all just politics and that 6 billion + humans can't have a major effect on this biosphere is no different a head in the sand, blatant ignorance, than the creationists, who we pretend to disdain, express.

94 JacksonTn  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:36:47pm

re: #93 Naso Tang

Maybe when you appreciate the difference between belief and understanding you will change your mind, and it will perhaps be before you are dirt and leaving it to your children to understand.

This video clearly defines the issues and lies involved, and the science is not politics beyond the obvious one of giving a free ride to the likes of China and India.

We have had this discussion before. I have heard morons make statements to the effect that "people breath out CO2"; so how can it be bad?

I have heard morons say that they don't like Al Gore, so how can it be true?

I have heard morons say that the earth has been warmer in the past, so how can 6 billion people make a difference?

I have heard people say God will decide how warm the place should be, so what we do is irrelevant.

I have heard people say that volcanoes put out more CO2 (and fart more methane than cows), when that is a lie, or dumbass ignorance.

I have heard people say that whatever happened in the past, thousands or millions of years ago, must be proof that no new factors could conceivably be happening now.

The how and when of the effects of people are still in question, but the asinine attitude that it is all just politics and that 6 billion + humans can't have a major effect on this biosphere is no different a head in the sand, blatant ignorance, than the creationists, who we pretend to disdain, express.

NS ... we will have to agree to disagree or not ... but I will say that I hope you are not including me in the moran bunch ... I assure you what I say on the issue is from my experience and my beliefs ... I would not say the things I do unless I strongly believed them ... time will tell whether I am right or wrong ...

95 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:37:11pm

re: #5 pat

The misinformation being circulated in the climate debate is criminal. The stupidity awe inspiring.

Well, some of us are genuinely confused. I understand enough paleontology and biology to follow the debunking of creationism. But I don't understand enough statistics and climatology to do the same with climate change. Plus, I don't entirely trust all the people on either side.

96 Basho  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:37:51pm

re: #92 MacDuff

Yes.

97 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:40:23pm

re: #94 JacksonTn

NS ... we will have to agree to disagree or not ... but I will say that I hope you are not including me in the moran bunch ... I assure you what I say on the issue is from my experience and my beliefs ... I would not say the things I do unless I strongly believed them ... time will tell whether I am right or wrong ...

Sorry if I sounded too personal. It was a generalized rant of frustration. However I will say that you have made no arguments of substance, other than expressing your belief.

Those who disagree don't express their belief, they express their observations according to scientific principles and hard cold facts.

98 jaunte  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:43:05pm

Here's the link:
[Link: sciencereligionnews.blogspot.com...]

99 jaunte  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:43:36pm

re: #98 jaunte

Dang. Wrong again.

100 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:43:50pm

To those who downdinged me above. Your arguments are awaited. Dings don't hack it in this type of context.

101 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:45:27pm

meh. The activists on both sides are guilty of lying. You'll have to decide the truth for yourselves- as always. Since the sun is currently in a very low activity mode, we should have more data on the effect of solar activity vs. temperature in the near future.

102 JacksonTn  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:45:56pm

re: #97 Naso Tang

Sorry if I sounded too personal. It was a generalized rant of frustration. However I will say that you have made no arguments of substance, other than expressing your belief.

Those who disagree don't express their belief, they express their observations according to scientific principles and hard cold facts.

Naso Tang ... it would come as no surprise to many here that I am not the most educated Lizard ... so for me to bring you massive amounts of data would be hard for me ... but I do know that polls, data mining, statistics everything can be used for each side ... all I can relay is what we know as farmers ... can you honestly tell me that you believe everything on your side of the issue? ... G-d do you not think that we would love to preserve the land for our future generations? ... I can tell you that the family farm is being crushed ... we survive because we streamline ... I just do not believe in the alarm that many are pushing ... we are doing the best we can ...

Even if every single person in America adheres to the "green" agenda ... what about the other countries who have the most populations? ... for me ... I stand by my statements on this issue ...

103 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:47:04pm

re: #101 NukeAtomrod

meh. The activists on both sides are guilty of lying. You'll have to decide the truth for yourselves- as always. Since the sun is currently in a very low activity mode, we should have more data on the effect of solar activity vs. temperature in the near future.

Rubbish. Did you learn that debating point from the Disco Institute?

104 Basho  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:47:56pm

re: #100 Naso Tang

Well, I favorited that one because it was very well said. I look forward to plagiarizing it.

105 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:48:43pm

re: #91 JacksonTn

SE ... believe it or not ... we are not all about the money ... we have enough if we never worked another day in our lives ... we farm because it is what we do ... Al Gore has become the "FACE" of the Global Warming Movement ... he is seen as a saint by the left because of the 2000 election and it has grown from there .... if you don't see my side of the issue ... I don't know what else to say ... I am on the frontline of the actual people who make their entire lives on the land ... they may be wrong but as of now ... the majority do not embrace the Global Warming theory ... maybe it is just the circle I am in ... but we will just have to disagree on this topic ...

/see how I can swirl an issue around to make it seem like I "might" agree with you ... yeah, it comes from generations of my family being yellow dog democrats .... I recognize it when I see it and I see it often ... even here ...

Whoa. I certainly didn't say or imply that you and your family, or even farmers in general, are making money off the Global Warming issue. I didn't even raise the issue of money. I was merely replying to your assertion in Note #6:

I don't have much respect for people who make large fortunes from people's fears ... all the videos so professionally done will not make us change our minds ...

I grew up on a broiler farm, which my grandmother "ran" while my grandfather was mining coal. He took over her "shift" when he got off work. So I'm not a stranger to families and farms.

It's just that I'm repeatedly told to ignore all the facts that I've independently found, on the subject, solely because unscrupulous people somewhere are making tons of money. But nobody can show me evidence of that money. Can you see why I would feel frustrated? Nothing personal towards you.

106 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:48:53pm

re: #100 Naso Tang

To those who downdinged me above. Your arguments are awaited. Dings don't hack it in this type of context.

You acted like an arrogant jerk.

/end of "argument"

107 the_thermonuclear_pickle  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:52:10pm

re: #93 Naso Tang


This video clearly defines the issues and lies involved, and the science is not politics beyond the obvious one of giving a free ride to the likes of China and India.

What this video actually shows is the mistakes of GGWS - not anything new.

Furthermore, it is made by an environmental activist, computer artist and illustrator. That is not science - it's quite simply political activism brought to a multimedia format - just like An Inconvenient Truth and GGWS.

If anyone believes any one of those mockumentaries, they really need their head examined.


We have had this discussion before. I have heard morons make statements to the effect that "people breath out CO2"; so how can it be bad?

Because CO2 isn't bad - your body is 18.5% carbon-based. You breathe out CO2. CO2 is partly responsible for keeping this planet warm through the greenhouse equation. CO2 is the reason oxygen exists through photosynthesis conversion in plants.

In short, you'd better start thanking whatever deity you do or do not believe in for the existence of CO2.


I have heard morons say that the earth has been warmer in the past, so how can 6 billion people make a difference?

There have been dozens of historically proven climate - the one that comes to mind is a 15C shift in Greenland's climate 12,000 years ago in the space of a decade.

What does it tell you when 6 billion people can't get to within even a thirtieth of the change in 100 years that a natural process did in 10 years?


I have heard people say God will decide how warm the place should be, so what we do is irrelevant.

And you wonder when you liken all sceptics to religious god-botherers and Holocaust-deniers and the like, why we respond in kind and call you religious Al-Gore loving acolytes.

108 MacDuff  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:53:05pm

re: #100 Naso Tang

Well, there's a lot of that going on on both sides here tonight. This has become an issue no longer for civilized discussion, but one for those who have doubts about AGW to sniped with "down dings" and smug, sanctimonous insults directed toward said doubters.

109 Ayeless in Ghazi  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:53:32pm

re: #64 OldLineTexan

Are you saying that the Gorists have been cribbing from the Disco people, or ?

Or. Some anti AGWers like yourself are employing rhetoric that follows Disco Institute formulas. "You are not allowed by these 'scientists' to question their sacred dogmas! Where is the academic freesom?"

110 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:53:47pm

Also, I notice the conspicuous lack of an argument against the film's big point about the ice core sample data which showed the rise in CO2 following a rise in temperature as opposed to CO2 causing higher temperatures...

Maybe there will be another installment?

111 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:57:34pm

re: #107 the_thermonuclear_pickle

And you wonder when you liken all sceptics to religious god-botherers and Holocaust-deniers and the like, why we respond in kind and call you religious Al-Gore loving acolytes.

No, I don't wonder at all. You respond with name-calling because you've run out of evidence.

112 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:57:51pm

re: #103 Naso Tang

Rubbish. Did you learn that debating point from the Disco Institute?

First, I'd like to suggest that you go gently caress yourself.

Second, since both sides are distorting the data, I prefer to see the raw data myself and make my own conclusions. I call it critical thinking and make use of the scientific method. Both learned in high school science classes.

113 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 7:59:25pm

re: #102 JacksonTn

Again, I am sorry if I offended you personally. The truth is that we do make a difference, and I'm old enough to see it. There were half as many people on the planet when I learned to fish, and believe me the fishing was better then.

That's anecdotal, and not scientific, but there are simple clear measurable verifiable issues at stake that are not anecdotal.

The volcanoes versus human CO2 issue is a crock and simple to prove.
The solar cycle issue is a crock as far as warming in the past hundred years is concerned, and provable.
The destruction of carbon sinks in forests and oceans is provable and measureable.
There is more, but belief alone doesn't prove squat. Nor does political preferences, beyond how the pain might be distributed; but that is a different issue to whether or not the effect is real.

As to farming, some areas will benefit. Some will suffer. You may be in the right place at the right time. Maybe not.

However it is perfectly true that we may not know that for sure until you, and I, are dirt.

Cheers

114 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:00:00pm

re: #109 Jimmah

Or. Some anti AGWers like yourself are employing rhetoric that follows Disco Institute formulas. "You are not allowed by these 'scientists' to question their sacred dogmas! Where is the academic freesom?"

1) I'm not anti, I am a skeptic
2) What I know of the Disco people I learned here
3) Tough shit; there is plenty of dogma in the AGW, and plenty of attempt to stifle discussion. "The debate is over".

Thanks for taking the time.

115 MacDuff  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:00:15pm

re: #104 Basho

Well, I favorited that one because it was very well said. I look forward to plagiarizing it.

It's funny you should say that, since you "down dinged" me on #46 without taking issue or presenting arguments.........

116 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:00:36pm

re: #111 ShanghaiEd

No, I don't wonder at all. You respond with name-calling because you've run out of evidence.

Somebody else broke the name-calling trump. You reap what you sow.

117 Basho  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:01:27pm

re: #115 MacDuff

It's funny you should say that, since you "down dinged" me on #46 without taking issue or presenting arguments.........

It wasn't worth responding to.

118 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:01:58pm

re: #106 OldLineTexan

You acted like an arrogant jerk.

/end of "argument"

That is an opinion without argument, not end of argument. Your move.

119 JacksonTn  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:02:21pm

I am not apologizing for anythin ... even this country song ... No Farms No Food .. we believe ... we love the dirt ... most people don't even give it a thought where it comes from ... we are not country bumpkins like most people think ... we pay taxes and we are democrats and republicans ... all you people who think you got it all figured out about Global Warming come work on our farms for a day in August ... yeah, it's cheaper when it comes from South America ... but in the end ... you bend over ... and this is not flounce ... don't you think we have enough regulations on us already .. dang ...

Youtube Video
120 reine.de.tout  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:03:18pm

re: #100 Naso Tang

To those who downdinged me above. Your arguments are awaited. Dings don't hack it in this type of context.

OK then,
the downding was not necessarily the content, nor your disagreement with JacksonTN.

I didn't like the arrogant condescending tone.

Jackson makes her living from the land. She has every incentive to preserve as much as she can.

121 Altermite  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:03:27pm

re: #119 JacksonTn

I am not apologizing for anythin ... even this country song ... No Farms No Food .. we believe ... we love the dirt ... most people don't even give it a thought where it comes from ... we are not country bumpkins like most people think ... we pay taxes and we are democrats and republicans ... all you people who think you got it all figured out about Global Warming come work on our farms for a day in August ... yeah, it's cheaper when it comes from South America ... but in the end ... you bend over ... and this is not flounce ... don't you think we have enough regulations on us already .. dang ...


[Video]

Hey, Jackson, are you familiar with the Noble Foundation?

122 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:05:26pm

re: #117 Basho

It wasn't worth responding to.

Really? Everything he wrote is objectively true. How can you discount it so easily?

123 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:06:55pm

re: #118 Naso Tang

That is an opinion without argument, not end of argument. Your move.

I gave you a reason by way of explanation. Do as you will with it.

And good luck with all the converts you will make with venomous insults.

124 Teh Flowah  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:07:41pm

re: #105 ShanghaiEd

I grew up on a broiler farm, which my grandmother "ran" while my grandfather was mining coal. He took over her "shift" when he got off work. So I'm not a stranger to families and farms.

It's just that I'm repeatedly told to ignore all the facts that I've independently found, on the subject, solely because unscrupulous people somewhere are making tons of money. But nobody can show me evidence of that money. Can you see why I would feel frustrated? Nothing personal towards you.

And once you show that people are making money off of it, you have to show why that indicates the theory is wrong. People make money off of everything. I'm sure scientists that write books, like Dawkins, about evolution made a lot of money from it. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

There are plenty of people out there peddling the idea in talks and in books that AGW is just wrong. But the fact that they make money from it doesn't show that their beliefs are wrong, the science does that.

125 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:08:02pm

re: #119 JacksonTn

I have two acres at 3000 feet in the Appalachians. All I do is weed and plant when when I can be there. Not the same as making a living off of it, to be sure, but my hands get just as dirty and my back hurts too.

126 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:09:07pm

re: #123 OldLineTexan

I gave you a reason by way of explanation. Do as you will with it.

And good luck with all the converts you will make with venomous insults.

Which of my examples were venomous?

127 Ayeless in Ghazi  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:09:29pm

re: #114 OldLineTexan

1) I'm not anti, I am a skeptic
2) What I know of the Disco people I learned here
3) Tough shit; there is plenty of dogma in the AGW, and plenty of attempt to stifle discussion. "The debate is over".

Thanks for taking the time.

I think most of the real dogma is on the so called skeptic side now, OLT. Having said that, I'll readily acknowledge that climate science is still young, and there are probably going to be some surprises. But uncertainties aside I have seen one after another of the skeptics arguments dissolve under scrutiny in the last couple of years. Speaking as someone who was initially impressed by "The Great Global Warming Swindle" I now find myself more skeptical of the skeptics and more appreciative of what the majority of the climate science community is saying.

128 irongrampa  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:10:22pm

To deny either global warming OR cooling is foolish. These are natural phenomonons-to posit that man can affect either except in minor, localized areas is arrogance taken to the extreme.

The only recourse is to adapt to the particular--anything else is moot.

129 JacksonTn  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:10:28pm

re: #125 Naso Tang

I have two acres at 3000 feet in the Appalachians. All I do is weed and plant when when I can be there. Not the same as making a living off of it, to be sure, but my hands get just as dirty and my back hurts too.

Naso ... well, that is great because I love it when people experience that ... I don't take it personally what you said .. I know people are passionate on both sides ... in the end .... I guess we all see what happens on the other side ...

130 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:11:05pm

re: #116 OldLineTexan

Somebody else broke the name-calling trump. You reap what you sow.

Well, that's certainly a logical reason for sidetracking the debate. /

131 ConservativeAtheist  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:11:09pm

re: #93 Naso Tang

I've heard morons say the Loch Ness Monster was killed by global warming.

I've heard morons say most of us will be dead and the rest will be cannibals in 30 or 40 years.

Perhaps we should stop listening to morons...

132 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:11:38pm

re: #120 reine.de.tout

OK then,
the downding was not necessarily the content, nor your disagreement with JacksonTN.

I didn't like the arrogant condescending tone.

Jackson makes her living from the land. She has every incentive to preserve as much as she can.

I'm sorry if that was the interpretation. Where did I say anything that was negative to that issue? I thought we were talking about Global Warming - true or false, and the arguments presented.

133 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:11:51pm

re: #126 Naso Tang

Which of my examples were venomous?

I'm sorry, I thought you were waiting for an argument. Your examples were not insults; the insults were insults. If you did not intend them as insults, I suggest you read them again in as detached a manner as possible.

134 Velvet Elvis  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:12:20pm

re: #85 MacDuff

I'm not baiting you at all, but how do you feel about nuclear energy?

I'm all for it. In my backyard is fine and dandy.

135 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:12:25pm

re: #127 Jimmah

I think most of the real dogma is on the so called skeptic side now, OLT. Having said that, I'll readily acknowledge that climate science is still young, and there are probably going to be some surprises. But uncertainties aside I have seen one after another of the skeptics arguments dissolve under scrutiny in the last couple of years. Speaking as someone who was initially impressed by "The Great Global Warming Swindle" I now find myself more skeptical of the skeptics and more appreciative of what the majority of the climate science community is saying.

We will be disagreeing on that.

136 Teh Flowah  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:12:27pm

re: #107 the_thermonuclear_pickle

Because CO2 isn't bad - your body is 18.5% carbon-based. You breathe out CO2. CO2 is partly responsible for keeping this planet warm through the greenhouse equation. CO2 is the reason oxygen exists through photosynthesis conversion in plants.


My God. How dense can you be. H2O isn't bad, your body is mostly H2O, you can't live without it, so too much of it can't hurt you no matter what right? No shit that CO2 is a necessary part of our planet, and that carbon is a necessary part of our lives, we're fucking carbon based. But too much CO2 is deadly, for the planet and for us. You know that you exhale CO2 because IT'S POISONOUS TO YOU. There's a reason you exhale it and not inhale it. Christ.

Furthermore, it is made by an environmental activist, computer artist and illustrator. That is not science - it's quite simply political activism brought to a multimedia format - just like An Inconvenient Truth and GGWS.


I know who it was made by, but guess what he did to make it. He went to scientists! And real ones! And ones that the Channel4 team used. And surprise surprise, just like the "list" of scientists that doubt global warming, they wanted nothing to do with them.

137 freetoken  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:12:41pm

re: #92 MacDuff

I do not randomly down-ding. If I do so, it is for a good reason.

138 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:13:08pm

re: #130 ShanghaiEd

Well, that's certainly a logical reason for sidetracking the debate. /

Snark is also great. But you knew that.

/

139 Basho  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:13:52pm

re: #127 Jimmah

Hope I'm not boring you, Jimmah. You probably expected more passion from me. But it gets sickening to try to honestly educate people here, take a 2 month break, and then come back and hear exactly the same things that were addressed before. I'll just refer people to my comment archives unless there is actually something new that is brought up.

140 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:13:53pm

re: #131 ConservativeAtheist

I apologize to any who think that I was referring to them when I gave examples of what I thought were moronic pretenses to scientific arguments.

141 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:14:51pm

re: #137 freetoken

I do not randomly down-ding. If I do so, it is for a good reason.

You randomly down=ding for good reason?

142 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:15:04pm

re: #135 OldLineTexan

We will be disagreeing on that.

Tough, Basho.

143 Teh Flowah  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:15:22pm

re: #114 OldLineTexan

1) I'm not anti, I am a skeptic
2) What I know of the Disco people I learned here
3) Tough shit; there is plenty of dogma in the AGW, and plenty of attempt to stifle discussion. "The debate is over".

Thanks for taking the time.

You could replace AGW in your post with evolution and you'd be the template IDer. You have to ask yourself why you're against scientific consensus. Consensus doesn't mean truth, but it does mean you have to make your case, which no one has done yet. What you can't do is just say you don't believe it and call yourself a skeptic. Skeptics need reasons(reasons based in logic and data) to be skeptical, otherwise you're just an idiot.

144 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:15:52pm

re: #141 Naso Tang

You randomly down=ding for good reason?

Now you are being silly.

Let me buy you a virtual beer.

145 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:16:02pm

re: #124 Teh Flowah

And once you show that people are making money off of it, you have to show why that indicates the theory is wrong. People make money off of everything. I'm sure scientists that write books, like Dawkins, about evolution made a lot of money from it. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

There are plenty of people out there peddling the idea in talks and in books that AGW is just wrong. But the fact that they make money from it doesn't show that their beliefs are wrong, the science does that.

TF, you're absolutely correct. The thing is, I'm so frustrated that I would settle for getting one irrelevant distraction out of the argument, and by far the most frequent I'm faced with is "Al Gore and bad people are making money off you."

Seems to me if that one part could be reasonably settled, at least we'd all be forced to argue about the science part instead. Call me a dreamer. :)

146 reine.de.tout  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:17:32pm

re: #132 Naso Tang

I'm sorry if that was the interpretation. Where did I say anything that was negative to that issue? I thought we were talking about Global Warming - true or false, and the arguments presented.

Here is your response to Jackson. I will highlight the arrogance:


re: #93 Naso Tang

Big assumption right off the bat, that Jackson doesn't quite have what it takes:

Maybe when you appreciate the difference between belief and understanding

Shall we count the number of "morons" you used in your response?

We have had this discussion before. I have heard morons make statements to the effect that "people breath out CO2"; so how can it be bad?

I have heard morons say that they don't like Al Gore, so how can it be true?

I have heard morons say that the earth has been warmer in the past, so how can 6 billion people make a difference?

Remember this is all in response to Jackson. Asinine attitude?

The how and when of the effects of people are still in question, but the asinine attitude that it is all just politics and that 6 billion + humans can't have a major effect on this biosphere is no different a head in the sand, blatant ignorance, than the creationists, who we pretend to disdain, express.

147 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:17:50pm

re: #143 Teh Flowah

You could replace AGW in your post with evolution and you'd be the template IDer. You have to ask yourself why you're against scientific consensus. Consensus doesn't mean truth, but it does mean you have to make your case, which no one has done yet. What you can't do is just say you don't believe it and call yourself a skeptic. Skeptics need reasons(reasons based in logic and data) to be skeptical, otherwise you're just an idiot.

In the next thread, I explain my issues with the data.

I will not bother to repeat it here.

There is no evolution in my post; if you wish to substitute it in there, paint me falsely as an ID'er, and call me an idiot, I will make no attempt to stop you.

Have fun. Don't forget to be snotty while doing the above.

148 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:18:24pm

re: #142 OldLineTexan

Tough, Basho.

Even tougher, Basho.

149 freetoken  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:19:00pm

re: #141 Naso Tang

You randomly down=ding for good reason?

Ok, ok... I'll reword it...

I do not randomly down-ding.

If I ever down-ding I do so for a reason. Such reason is of a "good" quality.

150 JacksonTn  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:19:03pm

Oh, one more thing ... people who think they are really doing "good" in the world and buying all their stuff from over-priced "organic" stores .... you in most cases are being ripped off ... don't ask me how I know ... but I assure you I do know ...

151 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:19:33pm

re: #144 OldLineTexan

Now you are being silly.

Let me buy you a virtual beer.

Thank you. I have one in the fridge. If you have one too, I'll drink it.

152 Liberal Classic  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:19:43pm

re: #114 OldLineTexan

1) I'm not anti, I am a skeptic

Skepticism without understanding is a recipe for being led around by the nose.

153 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:19:57pm

re: #136 Teh Flowah

My God. How dense can you be. H2O isn't bad, your body is mostly H2O, you can't live without it, so too much of it can't hurt you no matter what right? No shit that CO2 is a necessary part of our planet, and that carbon is a necessary part of our lives, we're fucking carbon based. But too much CO2 is deadly, for the planet and for us. You know that you exhale CO2 because IT'S POISONOUS TO YOU. There's a reason you exhale it and not inhale it. Christ.

Sure CO2 is poisonous in a 7-10% concentration in the air, but you want us to get in a lather about a few ppm of CO2. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. It's like saying one man pissing in the ocean will cause all the fish to get sick and taste like urine.

154 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:19:57pm

Not that I need any more tonight.

155 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:20:02pm

re: #148 OldLineTexan

Even tougher, Basho.

I picture you kicking your feet in a tantrum of frustration.

It's not pretty.

156 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:20:21pm

re: #151 Naso Tang

Thank you. I have one in the fridge. If you have one too, I'll drink it.

Prosit!

157 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:20:50pm

re: #154 Naso Tang

Ha. Tomorrow is Monday, and I will be off to bed soon.

158 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:21:02pm

re: #149 freetoken

Ok, ok... I'll reword it...

I do not randomly down-ding.

If I ever down-ding I do so for a reason. Such reason is of a "good" quality.

Dig the hole deeper......

159 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:21:46pm

I'm going to wash my hands after I finish, reine, I promise.
;)

160 Ayeless in Ghazi  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:21:52pm

re: #139 Basho

I'm the same to be honest - it's kinda jading to have to cover the same ground over and over. At some point, for example, in all likelihood, someone is going to say that Pluto has been heating up over the last few years as well...or that volcanoes produce more CO2 than all of man's activities combined.

161 JacksonTn  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:22:38pm

Just to soothe ...

Youtube Video
162 MacDuff  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:22:57pm

Well, this thread seems to have been invaded by some enviro-snipers, sanctimonious in nature, smug in tone and completely convinced of their righteousness, even on a subject of hot debate, among real experts, such as AGW.

Basho (aptly named) and Naso Tang seem to fancy themselves experts on this particular subject and are so self satisfied that they possess the ultimate truth that even questioning them will earn you either a "down ding" or a dismissive insult. This is childish behavior that is unfit for this forum.

Basho and Naso Tang, your self serving and arrogant attitudes are offensive and it's clear that whatever talents you may other wise have, civility and decorum are not among them.

Both of you assholes may now "down ding" me now.

163 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:23:58pm

re: #160 Jimmah

Everything comes around, but not everyone has been around. That's what open registration is for.

164 jvic  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:24:05pm

re: #112 NukeAtomrod

Second, since both sides are distorting the data, I prefer to see the raw data myself and make my own conclusions. I call it critical thinking and make use of the scientific method. Both learned in high school science classes.

1. Working from the raw data is impractical IMO. There might be terabytes of satellite telemetry; metrology is a science in itself...

2. Iirc high school science involves controlled, reproducible experiments with a small number of degrees of freedom. AGW scenarios are not like that.

3. For that matter, have any participants in the debate accepted a falsifiability criterion? If x happens, I am no longer a skeptic and agree that AGW is likely. If y happens, I no longer claim AGW is established and agree that it is undecided. If z happens, I am no longer a skeptic and agree that a cooling trend is likely.

4. IMO the nightmare scenarios are the ones in which we get whipsawed. Suppose we reengineer our economy to mitigate warming, and then whatever AGW there is gets overwhelmed major cooling. Or suppose we go our merry laissez-faire way, and then the current cool spells in the Northeast prove chimerical and an extreme AGW scenario kicks in.

165 Basho  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:24:36pm

re: #160 Jimmah

The reactions to the down-dings is really freaking amusing though ;-)

166 Altermite  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:25:09pm

re: #162 MacDuff

Well, this thread seems to have been invaded by some enviro-snipers, sanctimonious in nature, smug in tone and completely convinced of their righteousness, even on a subject of hot debate, among real experts, such as AGW.

Basho (aptly named) and Naso Tang seem to fancy themselves experts on this particular subject and are so self satisfied that they possess the ultimate truth that even questioning them will earn you either a "down ding" or a dismissive insult. This is childish behavior that is unfit for this forum.

Basho and Naso Tang, your self serving and arrogant attitudes are offensive and it's clear that whatever talents you may other wise have, civility and decorum are not among them.

Both of you assholes may now "down ding" me now.

Tell you what. I'll down ding you, since you are doing exactly what you accuse them of doing. They might be using strong language, but they are at least providing arguments- all you've been doing is calling them smug and childish.

167 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:25:34pm

re: #165 Basho

The reactions to the down-dings is really freaking amusing though ;-)

You stole that from me. Lack of creativity.

;)

168 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:26:37pm

re: #162 MacDuff


Both of you assholes may now "down ding" me now.

I only down-ding for truly bad arguments, not opinions. When you wish to debate I'll consider it. Sorry to disappoint.

169 OldLineTexan  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:27:00pm

re: #167 OldLineTexan

Hell just froze over, so I am out.

Goodnight, all, and remember to hug your friends.

170 Ayeless in Ghazi  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:27:04pm

re: #163 Naso Tang

True.

171 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:27:10pm

Here's a question for anybody, for perspective sake:

On any of thousands of blogs, at this moment, people are having an equally heated argument on the validity of 9/11 Truth conspiracy, the Birth Certificate conspiracy, or the Darwin conspiracy.

We've progressed beyond that, here. How did we do it? And what sort of evidence would be required to progress beyond AGW and move on to other things?

172 Ayeless in Ghazi  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:27:55pm

re: #165 Basho

The reactions to the down-dings is really freaking amusing though ;-)

No-one ever expects the dingquisition ;-)

173 Basho  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:31:01pm

re: #167 OldLineTexan

You stole that from me. Lack of creativity.

;)

I was once a target of what might be called a "stealth dinger". TFK would downding anything I said, even if it was "hi" or "good morning". I never got upset, I just took it in jest.

When I down-ding though, there is some line of reasoning I don't agree with or something written as fact when I know it isn't. If the victim, if I could use such a strong word, asked me nicely why I did it I would happily respond.

To sum up my point, I don't know why people take down-dings so personally. It's not a big deal.

174 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:31:07pm

re: #169 OldLineTexan

Goodnight.

175 Ayeless in Ghazi  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:31:49pm

re: #171 ShanghaiEd

Here's a question for anybody, for perspective sake:

On any of thousands of blogs, at this moment, people are having an equally heated argument on the validity of 9/11 Truth conspiracy, the Birth Certificate conspiracy, or the Darwin conspiracy.

We've progressed beyond that, here. How did we do it? And what sort of evidence would be required to progress beyond AGW and move on to other things?

Not evidence as such, but I think it would help a lot if Al Gore became a staunch anti AGW skeptic.

176 JacksonTn  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:32:03pm

re: #171 ShanghaiEd

Here's a question for anybody, for perspective sake:

On any of thousands of blogs, at this moment, people are having an equally heated argument on the validity of 9/11 Truth conspiracy, the Birth Certificate conspiracy, or the Darwin conspiracy.

We've progressed beyond that, here. How did we do it? And what sort of evidence would be required to progress beyond AGW and move on to other things?

SE ... yeah ... admit you are wrong ...

/// ducking ...

177 Basho  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:32:18pm

re: #173 Basho

Except for OLT starting at 142. I just did it as a joke, hehehe. Good night dude.

178 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:37:07pm

re: #171 ShanghaiEd

Here's a question for anybody, for perspective sake:

On any of thousands of blogs, at this moment, people are having an equally heated argument on the validity of 9/11 Truth conspiracy, the Birth Certificate conspiracy, or the Darwin conspiracy.

We've progressed beyond that, here. How did we do it? And what sort of evidence would be required to progress beyond AGW and move on to other things?

I don't think we've progressed beyond it. To say so sounds like a stealth argument that "there are more important things to discuss" (deleted). More important is how we do it.

179 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:37:24pm

re: #175 Jimmah

Jimmah, thanks for the best laugh I've had in eons. That suggestion caught me totally out of the blue.

180 Basho  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:38:21pm

re: #162 MacDuff

Basho (aptly named)

Basho means "banana tree" in Japanese. Nothing against banana trees but I don't think I have much in common with them.

181 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:39:57pm

re: #176 JacksonTn

SE ... yeah ... admit you are wrong ...

/// ducking ...

No need to duck, Jackson. That's a very valid point.

On the other hand, what would you give, not to have to listen to my mouth on this subject? Tempting, isn't it? :)

182 MacDuff  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:40:57pm

re: #166 Altermite

Tell you what. I'll down ding you, since you are doing exactly what you accuse them of doing. They might be using strong language, but they are at least providing arguments- all you've been doing is calling them smug and childish.

Well that's amazing. You down-dinged #46; did you provided a counter argument? Basho did the same thing, and then said "it wasn't worth a comment", or some such.

BTW, It should be noted that I haven't down dinged anyone throughout this pathetic pissing match. That's an action that I do not take lightly.

Smug? Childish? Why, yes, I believe it to be so.

183 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:41:43pm

re: #178 Naso Tang

Good point. Are there any parallels with those other divisive topics that we can learn from, do you think?

184 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:42:10pm

re: #175 Jimmah

Not evidence as such, but I think it would help a lot if Al Gore became a staunch anti AGW skeptic.

And playing the skeptic here, want to bet who would replace him? Any emotionally fertile argument needs a simple target and one will always be found.

185 Ayeless in Ghazi  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:42:46pm

re: #180 Basho

Apart from about 50% of your DNA of course ;-)

186 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:42:52pm

re: #164 jvic

If you have two totally different conclusions based on the same set of data, you really have no choice but to go back to the basics. I find it very impractical to simply pick one side over the other. If I had to chose one expert over the other, I would choose AGW skeptic Freeman Dyson over AGW proponent Al Gore, but that is a completely unscientific decision.

There are some things about AGW theory that can be empirically tested. For instance that the thermal properties of an atmosphere containing 400 ppm of CO2 are significantly greater that that of an atmosphere of 300 ppm of CO2.

It should be simple enough to set up a couple of atmosphere bottles to test it out. If the temperature of the 400 ppm bottle ends up 2 degrees Celsius higher, I'll eat my hat.

187 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:44:01pm

re: #182 MacDuff


...pathetic pissing match.

Nom for rotating title?
////

188 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:44:41pm

If you haven't seen razorbackers post from earlier, it's in the top ten. The perfect Father's Day post.

Just found out my bosses father died today.

Now, that has to suck.

189 JacksonTn  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:46:22pm

re: #181 ShanghaiEd

No need to duck, Jackson. That's a very valid point.

On the other hand, what would you give, not to have to listen to my mouth on this subject? Tempting, isn't it? :)

SE .. To be honest with you ... I love to hear all sides ... take away the Global Warming issue ... the only time I really have issue with people is when they try to push the democrat and Obama agenda as if it is something "new" and different ... I will as the best I can go up against that always ... there are sometimes when I see people post and I just know that they really do not know about the bowels of the democrat party ... whether that is because they were never involved with them directly or got most of their information from left wing blogs or they are from another country and then really from a distance ... I just will never let what happened in this past election whether it be during the caucuses or the general be forgotten ... I have no personal agenda with anyone ...

Actually ... you would probably be surprised at what we may have in common ... it is just that on some issues I will not engage ...

190 Altermite  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:47:33pm

re: #182 MacDuff

Well that's amazing. You down-dinged #46; did you provided a counter argument? Basho did the same thing, and then said "it wasn't worth a comment", or some such.

BTW, It should be noted that I haven't down dinged anyone throughout this pathetic pissing match. That's an action that I do not take lightly.

Smug? Childish? Why, yes, I believe it to be so.


This is because your post at 46 isn't an argument that even attempts to debunk AGW. Its a string of near non-sequitors loosely related to climate change and environmental policy. The points you bring up prove absolutely nothing and are at best only loosely connected to the topic at hand.

191 MacDuff  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:47:45pm

re: #187 ShanghaiEd

Nom for rotating title?
////

LOL! Yes, I think it is sometimes fitting.....I've had to sit here and drink beer just to keep up!

192 freetoken  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:50:52pm

Sigh....

re: #186 NukeAtomrod

If I had to chose one expert over the other, I would choose AGW skeptic Freeman Dyson over AGW proponent Al Gore, but that is a completely unscientific decision.

Dyson clearly stated that he has no background in climatology, that he was not dismissing the science, but that he merely was being skeptical in order to provoke more discussion.

There are some things about AGW theory that can be empirically tested. For instance that the thermal properties of an atmosphere containing 400 ppm of CO2 are significantly greater that that of an atmosphere of 300 ppm of CO2.

The change in the thermal properties is not the really important part; rather it is the change in the optical properties that you ought to be thinking about.

It should be simple enough to set up a couple of atmosphere bottles to test it out. If the temperature of the 400 ppm bottle ends up 2 degrees Celsius higher, I'll eat my hat.

That is not what the Earth's climate is about. The opacity of CO2 is very well known. The atmospheric physics of changing the proportions of gasses is fairly well known. In understanding the climate of the Earth, the areas of current lack of knowledge tends toward the causes and effects of the biosphere wrt climate.

193 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:51:28pm

re: #189 JacksonTn


Actually ... you would probably be surprised at what we may have in common ... it is just that on some issues I will not engage ...

I wouldn't be surprised at all, Jackson. I know we have a lot in common. Enjoyed talking with you, and hope to do so again.

194 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:51:30pm

re: #183 ShanghaiEd

Good point. Are there any parallels with those other divisive topics that we can learn from, do you think?

The topic is not the issue as much as how the tone is managed. I seem to have offended a few this evening, but also corrected at least a couple of those offenses. beyond that we seem to be able to live with differences of opinions pretty well, and Charles keeps the playing field well umpired. Some places either don't allow offense of any sort, which kills reality, or allow mostly nothing but rants of offense of one flavor or another.

Nothing is perfect (would be boring if it were), but I like it here.

And with that I'm going to have my virtual beer for a nightcap and sign off.

Goodnight.

195 ShanghaiEd  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:53:41pm

re: #194 Naso Tang

Very well said, NT. I like it here, too, for the same reason. Goodnight to you.

196 Basho  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:54:55pm

Hey, thanks for the message Jimmah. I'm going to be heading to bed, have a good day/night. Naso Tang, good seeing you again it's been a while.

197 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 8:55:03pm

re: #175 Jimmah

Not evidence as such, but I think it would help a lot if Al Gore became a staunch anti AGW skeptic.

Hmmm... I suppose that unlikely turn of events would make me go back and check my premises.

198 Flyers1974  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:07:53pm

re: #150 JacksonTn

Because it isn't really organic.

199 Altermite  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:07:55pm

re: #186 NukeAtomrod

If you have two totally different conclusions based on the same set of data, you really have no choice but to go back to the basics. I find it very impractical to simply pick one side over the other. If I had to chose one expert over the other, I would choose AGW skeptic Freeman Dyson over AGW proponent Al Gore, but that is a completely unscientific decision.

There are some things about AGW theory that can be empirically tested. For instance that the thermal properties of an atmosphere containing 400 ppm of CO2 are significantly greater that that of an atmosphere of 300 ppm of CO2.

It should be simple enough to set up a couple of atmosphere bottles to test it out. If the temperature of the 400 ppm bottle ends up 2 degrees Celsius higher, I'll eat my hat.

I've read Freeman Dyson's essays on global warming- at least a few of them. I've only taken a handful of classes that addressed the subject, but even as a brilliant skeptic, there are issues with some of his ideas. Its pretty clear that one of his biggest contentions is that (in his opinion) climate change would only do damage on a very large scale if it occured quickly, and that if it was occuring, it was not occuring nearly quickly enough to do that kind of damage. He then starts digging the hole when he relies on the idea that climate change is that slow in order to shore up his claims that there are several stop gap solutions that could be done to retard the advance of climate change. (many of these are variations on the idea of a carbon bank/carbon recapture).

I personally haven't studied the science behind most of the solutions he suggests, but I do know a little about soil and plant genetics via various undergrad classes, and the method he suggests would take several centuries to work on the scale that he seems to expect.

Now, Dyson himself is aware that he isn't an expert in the field, and mentions that as a sort of disclaimer when he brainstorms these possible solutions. But if you have taken strong courses dealing with environmental issues, it really does reveal how much of a layman (albeit an absolutely brilliant one) he is in that field.

200 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:08:39pm

re: #192 freetoken

Sigh... That's why I said I would be making a completely unscientific decision. Only because Dyson is a physicist vs. Gore who is a politician. It would, in fact, prove nothing.

Okay fine. The same experimental setup should work for the opacity of CO2. We should be able to determine how much infrared radiation is absorbed by our 100 ppm increase by measuring the difference in temperature between the two bottles placed in sunlight.

201 jvic  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:09:11pm

re: #186 NukeAtomrod

There are some things about AGW theory that can be empirically tested. For instance that the thermal properties of an atmosphere containing 400 ppm of CO2 are significantly greater that that of an atmosphere of 300 ppm of CO2.

It should be simple enough to set up a couple of atmosphere bottles to test it out. If the temperature of the 400 ppm bottle ends up 2 degrees Celsius higher, I'll eat my hat.

The desirability of an experimental analog has crossed my mind as well.

But it's not as simple as you suggest. Most of the atmosphere is within say 10 miles of the planet's surface. The earth's radius is about 6000 miles. How do you scale the laboratory atmosphere to the pseudoEarth without getting gummed up by boundary layer effects? How do you bind the lab atmosphere to the pseudoEarth without gravity? How do you simulate the solar flux and the cold behind earth's shadow?

Mind you, I hope somebody is thinking seriously about such an experiment, and my tax dollars would be well spent on it if it can be done meaningfully. But it wouldn't be simple and it would cost millions at least and quite possibly orders of magnitude more.

re: #192 freetoken

That is not what the Earth's climate is about. The opacity of CO2 is very well known. The atmospheric physics of changing the proportions of gasses is fairly well known. In understanding the climate of the Earth, the areas of current lack of knowledge tends toward the causes and effects of the biosphere wrt climate.

I agree, but I think that an analog simulation, however oversimplified, would still be interesting if it could be implemented. For one thing, it might provide some kind of test bed, however oversimplified, for climatology models.

202 nyc redneck  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:15:52pm

even if the earth is warming, it is not possible to attribute the rise in temp. to humans to the extent that dramatically altering our behavior will have any effect on cooling the earth. and there is no indication that a slight rise in temperature
will be bad for life on earth. in fact, it could be a god thing.

203 Ayeless in Ghazi  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:24:37pm

re: #196 Basho

Hey, thanks for the message Jimmah. I'm going to be heading to bed, have a good day/night. Naso Tang, good seeing you again it's been a while.

Cheers Basho - have a good one:)

204 MacDuff  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:25:37pm

re: #190 Altermite

This is because your post at 46 isn't an argument that even attempts to debunk AGW. Its a string of near non-sequitors loosely related to climate change and environmental policy. The points you bring up prove absolutely nothing and are at best only loosely connected to the topic at hand.

Well, all I can say is that, while I am an admitted skeptic on the subject of AGW, I never even brought up AGW specifically one way or another:

Not too long ago, "Global warming" was the buzz. Now that the "warming" myth has been all but disproven, it's become "climate change".

By and large true, or at least open to discussion, no?

Back in the 70s, we had a sting of harsh winters and then the buzz was "global cooling" and experts were predicting a new ice age.

Fact.

Conservation? Absolutely! Reduce pollutants? No doubt! Recycle whenever possible? I'm all for it! Stunt human development because of its impact on the planet? Bullshit!

I stand by that.

The least developed societies on earth tend to have the greatest negative impact on the Earth's environment. One need only look at China (where the pollution was so bad, there were serious concerns about the Olympics) and the former Soviet Bloc (where the environmental damage was stunning). In the U.S., air quality and water quality have been steadily on the rise for decades.

Fact.

Mankind's development isn't the problem, it's the solution.

I stand by that as well.

Look, this is an opinion forum; this is my opinion. My intention was not to "debunk", for to do so, I would need to possess some "absolute truth, which I don't and, by the way, neither do you Basho, Naso Tang, or anyone else.

The opinions stated above aren't extreme or crazy and I'll not take back a word. Agree or disagree, at this point, I really don't care one way or the other. This whole thing has gotten way out of hand. The subject of "the environment" has moved from the realm of science into the realm of religion in it's fervor, and I think this thread is a perfect example.

Good night.

205 Altermite  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:27:33pm

re: #202 nyc redneck

even if the earth is warming, it is not possible to attribute the rise in temp. to humans to the extent that dramatically altering our behavior will have any effect on cooling the earth. and there is no indication that a slight rise in temperature
will be bad for life on earth. in fact, it could be a god thing.

Actually, there are some pretty strong indications that it would (and is) be bad for most life (species) on earth. I'm going to a research station in the British West Indies to study just that in about 2 months. There are some species that will benefit, and some that probably are. But there are ecosystems that will be shattered by it, and currently, those seem to outweigh the ones that will benefit. The most obvious victims are the ones that are restricted in movement for some reason. Forests that have been fragmented by human activity are the most obvious example, as a forest ecosystem would normally shift location over time as climate changed slowly moved its ideal temperature range north or south. However, fragmentation drastically increases the potential damage while limiting the benefits by restricting this kind of movement. Reefs are also fragile enough and slow growing enough that it is unlikely that most reef ecosystems will be able to shift rapidly enough to take advantage of climate change. I could go on, but its getting late, so please take my word for it that this isn't something that the scientific community is completely ignorant about.

206 nyc redneck  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:27:35pm

re: #202 nyc redneck

even if the earth is warming, it is not possible to attribute the rise in temp. to humans to the extent that dramatically altering our behavior will have any effect on cooling the earth. and there is no indication that a slight rise in temperature
will be bad for life on earth. in fact, it could be a god thing.

a good thing.

207 Mr. Sandman  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:28:24pm

re: #202 nyc redneck

even if the earth is warming, it is not possible to attribute the rise in temp. to humans to the extent that dramatically altering our behavior will have any effect on cooling the earth. and there is no indication that a slight rise in temperature
will be bad for life on earth. in fact, it could be a god thing.

Ah yes, the pronouncement of "NYC Redneck"--one of the finest minds in geology and climate science.

Based on rigorous examination and analysis of the data--certainly not a preconception believed before-the-fact without reference to the evidence.

208 tjseagrove  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:29:43pm

Hmmmm, here we are in upstate New York and it is still cool out. Maybe only a couple warm days so far up here. Seems temps are way below normal.

I wish "global warming" were true, New York would become a prime tourism area and I wouldn't have to shovel snow anymore.

209 JacksonTn  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:29:54pm

re: #207 Mr. Sandman

Ah yes, the pronouncement of "NYC Redneck"--one of the finest minds in geology and climate science.

Based on rigorous examination and analysis of the data--certainly not a preconception believed before-the-fact without reference to the evidence.

Mr. S... asshole ... I have no mind ... so box me in ... where you see fit ...

210 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:32:57pm

re: #201 jvic

I think that a closed system experiment, like the two atmosphere bottles I suggested, would actually be a "worst case scenario" because we're eliminating all the temperature sinks that exist in the real environment. We would just be looking for the impact of the 100 ppm change in CO2 on temperature. If the change is not significant, then the claims that an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 will bring about a runaway greenhouse doomsday caused by the CO2 become unlikely. If the change is the 2 degrees Celsius claimed by the AGW crowd, then we can move on to the rest of the theory.

The important question is, Is CO2 the culprit in global warming/climate change? If it isn't, as I suspect, then we don't have to worry about CO2 emitted during energy production and therefore don't have to torpedo our economy because we lack an instant replacement for fossil fuels.

If CO2 is the problem, then we have all kinds of ways to sequester it. I would suggest we cut down some forests, covering the resulting lumber in creosote so it will not degrade, then replant the forest. Repeat the cycle often and we'll trap huge amounts of CO2 in the treated lumber that can, in turn, be used for building things.

211 MacDuff  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:33:46pm

re: #207 Mr. Sandman

What's it with this environment thing that brings out the visceral asshole in some? Geez. If NYC Redneck hasn't beat me to it - FUCK YOU.

212 Original Kolya  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:39:33pm

The facts about climate change do not speak for themselves! They have to selected and interpreted via a multi-layered web of theories, many of which are themselves highly speculative and subject to dispute.

In my view, the best criterion non-scientists have for evaluating the state of play in the climate wars is indirect but, in-the-large, quite revealing. I speak of the intellectual integrity displayed by the various protagonists.

There are surprisingly many way in which proponents of one or other position can betray an integrity malfunction. The film illustrates several examples based selective presentation of data.

But I think that in the film Peter Sinclair is also guilty of several intellectually dishonourable tactics, such as appealing to authority, asserting that a particular theory is know with absolute certainty, and calling his intellectual opponents "climate deniers".

The last point is particularly telling, because it taints the opposing side in a scientific debate with connotations of heresy on the one hand, and the unspeakable evil of holocaust denial, on the other.

I cannot give much credence to the intellectual integrity of a person who deploys such low ad hominem tactics, in support of a supposedly scientific argument.

That is not a refutation of his specific criticisms of the Channel Four film. But it strongly suggests he, too, is more interested in seeing his beliefs vindicated, than in discovering the truth of the matter. And that is the antithesis of the scientific ethos.

213 nyc redneck  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:42:53pm

re: #205 Altermite

there was an amazing warming period from approx. 700 to 1300. life flourished in europe during that time.. the population doubled. it was an incredible time of prosperity. in fact during this time greenland was settled and quite a thriving large community of people settled there. around 1350 temps began to cool and europe went into the little ice age, giving rise to many hardships. all this fluctuation occurred when there was no pollution created by manmade activities. it was nature doing what nature does. this w/in recent history and all the previous major temp changes from the major ice age 10,000 ago to all the heating and cooling that came before, of course makes many skeptical of gw.

214 nyc redneck  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:43:35pm

re: #207 Mr. Sandman

Ah yes, the pronouncement of "NYC Redneck"--one of the finest minds in geology and climate science.

Based on rigorous examination and analysis of the data--certainly not a preconception believed before-the-fact without reference to the evidence.

go back to sleep sand man.

215 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:43:56pm

re: #207 Mr. Sandman

Ah yes, the pronouncement of "NYC Redneck"--one of the finest minds in geology and climate science.

Based on rigorous examination and analysis of the data--certainly not a preconception believed before-the-fact without reference to the evidence.

In a very broad way, a warmer Earth is a wetter Earth and therefore better for life. A cooler Earth makes cooler warm ocean currents, which causes an expansion of deserts, shorter growing seasons, etc.

If I thought CO2 emissions caused higher temperatures, I would probably argue that we should emit more. The extra CO2 would be fuel for more vegetation and the warmer atmosphere would promote its growth. The Earth would become more lush and provide for more animal life. To a point, at least...

216 Altermite  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:46:14pm

re: #210 NukeAtomrod

I think that a closed system experiment, like the two atmosphere bottles I suggested, would actually be a "worst case scenario" because we're eliminating all the temperature sinks that exist in the real environment. We would just be looking for the impact of the 100 ppm change in CO2 on temperature. If the change is not significant, then the claims that an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 will bring about a runaway greenhouse doomsday caused by the CO2 become unlikely. If the change is the 2 degrees Celsius claimed by the AGW crowd, then we can move on to the rest of the theory.

The important question is, Is CO2 the culprit in global warming/climate change? If it isn't, as I suspect, then we don't have to worry about CO2 emitted during energy production and therefore don't have to torpedo our economy because we lack an instant replacement for fossil fuels.

If CO2 is the problem, then we have all kinds of ways to sequester it. I would suggest we cut down some forests, covering the resulting lumber in creosote so it will not degrade, then replant the forest. Repeat the cycle often and we'll trap huge amounts of CO2 in the treated lumber that can, in turn, be used for building things.

I can't help but think that cutting down forests is not going to be very effective in reducing CO2 emissions/counteracting them in anything but the very long term. That isn't something I've studied extensively though.

217 Altermite  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:55:01pm

re: #215 NukeAtomrod

In a very broad way, a warmer Earth is a wetter Earth and therefore better for life. A cooler Earth makes cooler warm ocean currents, which causes an expansion of deserts, shorter growing seasons, etc.

If I thought CO2 emissions caused higher temperatures, I would probably argue that we should emit more. The extra CO2 would be fuel for more vegetation and the warmer atmosphere would promote its growth. The Earth would become more lush and provide for more animal life. To a point, at least...

I can agree that increased temps and CO2 would probably be better for life on earth- in the very long term. However, a relatively quick increase would almost certainly be devestating and costly for reasons I mentioned in part above.

218 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 9:57:22pm

re: #216 Altermite

As long as we're replanting the forests to create more trees to absorb atmospheric CO2, the trees that are cut down and sealed will effectively trap the carbon that they absorbed from the atmosphere.

Wood is roughly 50% carbon, btw. I don't want to bother figuring out how much CO2 gas would be released by burning a volume of wood, but the carbon is obviously more compact in solid form than gaseous.

219 Altermite  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 10:02:53pm

re: #218 NukeAtomrod

As long as we're replanting the forests to create more trees to absorb atmospheric CO2, the trees that are cut down and sealed will effectively trap the carbon that they absorbed from the atmosphere.

Wood is roughly 50% carbon, btw. I don't want to bother figuring out how much CO2 gas would be released by burning a volume of wood, but the carbon is obviously more compact in solid form than gaseous.

Oh, I understand the idea in taking it out of circulation for a time would help on one level. The problem is that replanted forests are generally far less effective at removing CO2 from the atmpsphere than well-established ones. So while you are taking C02 out of circulation, you are also reducing the amount being removed.

220 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 10:11:54pm

re: #217 Altermite

A relatively quick increase in temperature is only suggested by the most alarmist of the Carbon caused AGW crowd. I doubt it is a serious concern. But if it were true, it would be a bad thing.

The problem is that replanted forests are generally far less effective at removing CO2 from the atmpsphere than well-established ones.

I would be surprised if that is the case. There are hybrid walnut trees, for example, that can grow to full size in about 5 years. The volume change in the wood between sapling and fully grown tree is enormous. Since those trees are roughly 50% carbon, can be harvested and replaced with new saplings, I think it would be a very effective way to sequester carbon.

221 NukeAtomrod  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 10:13:41pm

Time for me to get some sleep. Good night.

222 lostlakehiker  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 10:19:06pm

re: #37 the_thermonuclear_pickle

Peter Sinclair is a long-time advocate of environmental awareness and energy alternatives.

He is an award winning graphic artist, illustrator, and animator, Mr. Sinclair runs Greenman Studio from his home in Midland, MI.

Should I believe him any more than Al Gore? As someone who has taken statistics courses at university as part of my electrical engineering degree, I know exactly how easy it is to manipulate data.

Charles, why don't you link to the data that shows that around 58% of the surface climate stations used by the USHCN do not meet NOAA requirements for placement to remove bias from the measurement?

I've never seen that on LGF:

[Link: www.surfacestations.org...]

You could check for yourself, easily enough, some of the factual claims made in this little piece. Any one of them, if correct, suffices to torpedo the credibility of the target film.

At trials they introduce forensic evidence as well as he-said-she-said evidence. As a juror in this trial, you owe it to yourself and the people who read your comments to look at and think about the forensic evidence.

As to the he-said-she-said part, when the scientists quoted by the target piece disavow, vehemently and in writing, the words put in their mouth by the target film, the target film's credibility is shot.

Peter Sinclair is good at popularizing and explaining things. It makes sense that he would put together this kind of rebuttal film. The technical rebuttal is all there on the internet, and backed by all sorts of experts, but it's not so accessible to casual viewers. It isn't really Sinclair you'd be believing. It's the experts he quotes.

AGW isn't a lead-pipe cinch. The Al Gore version of it is as fraudulent as the official returns from the recent election in Iran. But the honest version of AGW makes a pretty good case that the phenomenon is real, that we are the cause, and that ignoring it and proceeding to burn as much coal and oil as we can lay hands on is going to have some ugly side effects.

Going without coal next year would also have some ugly side effects. Any sensible response to the problem must play out over time, it must occur on a large enough scale to make a difference, and it must not be so expensive as to cost us more than enduring those ugly side effects would cost.

Wind, solar, nuclear, switchgrass biofuels (the current issue of Scientific American discusses this), efficiency, and madcap-at-first-sight ideas such as injecting particulates into the atmosphere that would reflect some of the incoming sunlight, all must be considered. In the end, adding up the advantages and disadvantages, we may find that it's wise to go ahead with some mix of these ameliorative technological responses.

223 jvic  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 10:24:48pm

re: #210 NukeAtomrod

I think that a closed system experiment, like the two atmosphere bottles I suggested, would actually be a "worst case scenario" because we're eliminating all the temperature sinks that exist in the real environment...

As this emphasizes, climate dynamics is complicated (even more so than I suspected before I started googled). Still, you might find this of interest.

224 Pythagoras  Sun, Jun 21, 2009 11:28:22pm

I commend Charles for wading into this hornets nest again. We know that CO2 is a key ingredient in photosynthesis. We also know that a little warming would be a huge help to the agriculture of many cold places like Canada and Russia. So why isn't an increase in CO2 a good thing?

Instead, we're told that we're near a "tipping point" and that we need to act NOW. OK, this graph shows that CO2 was a LOT higher when dinosaurs rules the earth and even higher during the Cambrian period, when life on earth "exploded" into diversity.

Image: image002.gif

If someone has an argument that this graph isn't accurate, I'd like to hear it (I'm only interested in the CO2 part -- the Temp part is not my point here.)

225 leereyno  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 12:07:45am

Much of the global warming / climate change / (insert new euphemism here) stuff is nothing more than an attempt to make the 3rd world safe for Marxism by stifling the economic development in these countries. It is much harder to sell slavery to people who live in a stable society and whose material needs are being met. This is why communism only took hold in nations where corruption and squalor were endemic.

Does this mean that the earth's climate is not changing? No, it only means that the usual suspects are latching onto the issue in order to make the world a colder, darker place.

Telling lies about the fundamental facts that the leftists are twisting to forward their agenda only makes things worse. Don't fight one set of lies with another set of lies. Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

226 [deleted]  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 4:32:59am
227 sbulka  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 5:51:43am

If you listen to this video carefully, it basically addresses the issue of climate change. While I think there is plenty of science to show that the earth is now cooling slightly, the direction of the temperature is not the issue. The issue is, if it is warming, is it caused by human activity and will the changes people are suggesting actually make a difference. I find it curious that in the post WWII period of mass industrialization, that there was cooling, not warming. And climatologists were claiming we were entering an ice age. I am a big believer in the science, but I have yet to see anything that convinced me that the warming we are experiencing is due to human activity. The fact that it may be warmer does not make this a fact.

I would also note that while some of this video was compelling, at other points they were just using "their climatologists" which to me doesn't prove anything. The fact that scientists can disagree doesn't make one side wrong or right.

228 S'latch  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 6:47:58am

Even if AGW is real and significant, I don't trust or want the Left's responses to it. There are more intelligent and less reactionary responses to deal with it.

229 OldLineTexan  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 7:23:20am

re: #152 Liberal Classic

Skepticism without understanding is a recipe for being led around by the nose.

And acceptance without understanding may just be the same thing.

Perhaps you don't know as much about what I understand as you think you do. Perhaps you are making assumptions based on your emotional responses to the topic or the accompanying argument.

230 fizzlogic  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 8:04:41am

Wow, that video is pretty devastating to all the talking points I learned from conservative talk radio over the last 15 to 20 years.

231 philip  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 8:34:06am

Personally, I think climate change is real and that the scientific consensus is that it is happening.

I put global warming deniers in the same category as Holocaust deniers.

Sue me if this offends you.

232 Original Kolya  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 8:45:20am

re: #231 philip

I put global warming deniers in the same category as Holocaust deniers.

Do you put everybody who holds a different opinion from yours in the same category as Holocaust deniers?

If so, you must be a very obnoxious person to be around.

Sue me if this offends you.

233 Charles Johnson  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 9:17:05am

re: #224 Pythagoras

I commend Charles for wading into this hornets nest again. We know that CO2 is a key ingredient in photosynthesis. We also know that a little warming would be a huge help to the agriculture of many cold places like Canada and Russia. So why isn't an increase in CO2 a good thing?

Instead, we're told that we're near a "tipping point" and that we need to act NOW. OK, this graph shows that CO2 was a LOT higher when dinosaurs rules the earth and even higher during the Cambrian period, when life on earth "exploded" into diversity.

[Link: ff.org...]

If someone has an argument that this graph isn't accurate, I'd like to hear it (I'm only interested in the CO2 part -- the Temp part is not my point here.)

Uh -- during the Cambrian period, there were no land plants at all, and sea levels were 30 to 90 meters higher than at present. This hardly makes a case that an increase in CO2 is "a good thing."

This is one of the weirdest anti-AGW arguments, that the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the better. It's completely false, and easily demonstrated to be false, but I see it repeated all over the place. The principle of the Big Lie in action.

234 Optimizer  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 9:57:38am

I can't check out the video right now, but I can comment that while An Inconvenient Truth has been found to have a large number of significant errors (some key errors even having been established in the courts in the UK), that, yes, The Great Global Warming Swindle is known to have errors as well. I'd comment on the relative importance, but I'm not up on that, offhand.

Mostly, I just wanted to express strong agreement to Charles' last paragraph:

You don’t have to be an alarmist to think it’s a bad idea to distort and misquote scientific research, by the way. There’s way too much of this intentional misrepresentation going on in the debate over climate change.

Well, except for the "You don't have to be an alarmist..." part, anyway, which seems a bit oxymoronic, to me. Someone in the alarmist camp probably wouldn't call themselves "alarmist", and someone in the skeptic camp certainly wouldn't be representing an alarmist as someone against distortion and misquoting. (Sorry, it that was humor that flew right past me - I'm a bit sleep-deprived at the moment.)

235 tatterdemalian  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 11:20:37am

re: #233 Charles

It is true, that there are some periods in the fossil record that we would be best off not replicating. The Earth goes through natural cycles, but "natural" does not always mean "good." Mass extinctions occurred before humanity appeared.

The question I have is, *can* we do anything about these shifts? If we can, then it would certainly be in our best interest to try, Mother Nature be damned. But if we can't, or worse, if we try hard enough to screw things up even worse, we've wasted a lot of effort that could have been put toward adapting to the change, or riding it out.

No matter the case, we will never survive if we follow the politicians who see it as an excuse to cease industrial and technological progress rather than clean up after it. They see AGW as an excuse to institute population and behavior controls that will make them excessively wealthy and powerful, and with a clear conscience because "the alternative may have been worse."

236 Lipo  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 2:00:29pm

I take the Philip Stott position: Of course humans affect climate - and always will. The key is whether humans can adapt to a changing climate - and the answer is yes. If you have electricity and if you have clean water, you can adapt to any climate; hot, cold, wet or dry.

The climate is always changing. It is one of the most complex systems we know, governed by thousands of variables.

Carbon Dioxide is a relatively minor greenhouse gas. Water vapor by far is overwhelming in its heat trapping capacity. The magnitude of anthropogenic climate change is thus likely to be extremely small.

There is no climate crisis. Our cities will not drown under the oceans.

Not enough is known about the internal structure of the Sun and of Earth's atmosphere and their relationship to the Earth's climate to make any concrete determinations as to the nature of carbon dioxide and its role in Earth's climate.

To the extent that Carbon Dioxide may be a problem, we should keep studying it, but I am concerned that far too many resources are being devoted to computer modeling - which is inherently problematic in itself - to the exclusion of other worthy candidates for funding, like NASA missions to further analyze and gather data about the Sun and the Earth so that we come closer to understanding internal structures and their role in Earth's climate.

237 jmctigret  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 2:12:14pm

Soylent Green is made out of People! Soylent Green IS People!

Charlton Heston in the movie Soylent Green.

238 Galroc  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 7:43:23pm

People seriously want to debate this issue here, on this blog? There are plenty of scientific blogs that do a much better job and keep the discord civil without people resorting to terms like "moron."

[Link: www.realclimate.org...]
[Link: www.climateaudit.org...]
[Link: wattsupwiththat.com...]

As a scientist myself (and apparently a nirther, creationist and holocaust denier?!?!?!), I visit the blogs above (and more) where people who have serious questions about the issue go. LFG doesn't have the scientific resources or background to discuss this issue. Posting videos by actors and then artists isn't really exploring the issue. Spend a month on [Link: www.climateaudit.org...] and then compare it to here.

239 Pythagoras  Mon, Jun 22, 2009 9:09:57pm

re: #233 Charles

Uh -- during the Cambrian period, there were no land plants at all, and sea levels were 30 to 90 meters higher than at present. This hardly makes a case that an increase in CO2 is "a good thing."

This is one of the weirdest anti-AGW arguments, that the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the better. It's completely false, and easily demonstrated to be false, but I see it repeated all over the place. The principle of the Big Lie in action.

I just wanted to establish that we agree that the graph is accurate. If the graph is accurate, then the higher CO2 concentration in Mesozoic period is counter-evidence against the "tipping point" argument.

What's the explanation for how it could be a tipping point now, when it wasn't back then?

240 hinduzionkafir  Tue, Jun 23, 2009 2:23:17am

1) CO2 levels lag behind temperature rises by between 500-1800 years. Indermühle et al. (GRL, vol. 27, p. 735, 2000)
Thus, it seems that instead of increased CO2 levels causing temperature changes, it is the other way around. So till you can find me a statistically accurate model showing otherwise, please stop harping on the nonsense.
2) CO2 is said to cause only between 9-26% of the greenhouse effect on earth. Assuming that what the "scientists" say, that the average temps would increase by abt 3 degree celsius over the next 100 years ( i am not saying they are right, they cant even predict weather for the next 10 days properly), CO2 is expected to contribute to maybe .3-1 degree celsius. Of course not all the CO2 increase will be caused by controllable industries. A large part of this would be caused by the increase in population (which breathes, incidentally), forest fires, volcanic activity, etc. To be generous, and I mean very generous, lets say that 20% of the increase will be caused by man made factors like industry, vehicles etc. Thus, the quantified man made temperature increase is of the range of .06-.2 degree celsius. If for this minuscule increase, you want the entire planet to stop economic growth, provide subsidies to nonviable technologies, stop driving cars and just enjoy life, you gotta be freakin kidding me.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 116 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 278 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1