The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Recon]

No offense, but should everyone believe you because you say so?

No offense, but right back at you. Should everyone believe you because you say so?

I never said anyone should believe me because I say so. I said people should apply science, and in doing so, they might want to look to the scientists instead of those who like Cheighton and Card (non-scientists) who spin the science.

Id suggest actually reading the contents of that link as well. It doesnt say what you think it does.

First folks tell me I say something I didn't say, then they are telling me what I think now? Priceless.

Evidence of co2 caused global warming is trouncing the case against it because you say so? 999/1000 scientists support global warming because you say so?

No. The evidence speaks for itself, regardless of what I have to say about it. When interpreting that evidence, I tend to rely upon those who know more about it than I, they are pretty much of one mind, so far.

And this is the best, using every link you posted:

Link #1: http://comment.independent.co.uk/com...cle2359057.ece
Regarding: Mis-interpreted scientist
Author: Not named, supposivly professor of Physical Oceanography
Oceanography: A scientist who studies the ocean, its topography, and its inhabitants (source, Google definitions)
shouldn't have to point out this field of science is not, nor has any relation to climatology
Website Bias: Far Left
Proof: http://www.independent.co.uk/
Just read the headlines:
Voice for homosexuals: A hero in the fight for gay rights
Open skies pact will worsen climate change
Household waste may be taxed to encourage recycling
Freedom of Information Act Misused, says Falconer
Schools & Colleges: Big boost for education spending to improve training for teenagers
Oil Rich Kirkuk at melting point as factions clash
(could go on) Id say fully 1/3 of its headlines are far left leaning, with 2/3's either no political relation or not a modern political issue.

What the hell are you talking about? NOT NAMED? His name is Carl Wunsch. I gave you his name. His name heads the article in the link. Further, he is the guy that was relied upon as the basis for the channel 4 show that started this whole thread! So the channel 4 show cites him for authority but he doesn’t support the channel 4 show positions. Don’t you see the link between so much of the anti-global warming theory positions? It’s non-scientist, without their own science, claiming that scientists support them when those scientists don’t support them. It’s non-scientists telling other people what they said and what they think, just as you do here with me.

Then you claim his field is unrelated to the issue of climatology (you are wrong, by the way) while at the same time you attack the media in which his response is found on grounds that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. It’s totally illogical. It would be like me attacking Card because he is LDS and doesn’t believe in Darwinian theory of evolution, not to mention some of his other “out there” ideas.

Link #2:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070308/..._scientists_dc
Regarding: Memo to tell people on foreign government business not to discuss polar bears.
Note: Doesnt tell them what side to take or what opinons to have, simply says not to discuss it - which applies to both sides of the issue.
Despite the fact its the long standing (decades old) policy for government entities not to let individual peons dictate for the government what its official stance is, it fully allows them to speak on behalf of themselves.
Also Note: People that speak on behalf of the government represent the government that they are speaking for. Speaking on either side of the "polar bear" issue would represent our government has taken sides on it, which they have not. It is standard practice not to officially discuss anything your parent organization (corperation, government, employer) etc does not have an official stance on, unless you have the authority to make the parent organizations official opinons for it. Which, thank god, a single person does not have the right to do in this country.
Author: Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent
Bias: Far Left, based on the article stating repeatedly the Bush administration is trying to censor everything, in more or less words, and making a decades old policy and moral code sound like its a gop conspiracy, along with "greenhouse gas emissions spur global warming" quote, not a balanced article.
Mention of Greenhouse Gas Involvement: "might spur debate about tougher measures to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming"
Proof of Greenhouse Gas Involvement: "Somebody named hall said so"

Again, you stick your foot in your mouth. If you don’t want to use a certain science or data set, then don’t cite it for authority. First, the WWF polar bear opinion is raised to show I was suckered. Then I cite the real WWF opinion to show that is not the case. It’s another example of the anti-global warming theory folks trying to pretend data and sources support their position when it clearly does not. Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

Oh, and as to the government position on these matters, especially the Bush Administration, go look at what it is. Global warming and man’s contribution to it has been accepted. Not under “feel-good” pressure, but because they kept getting bitch-slapped by the science at every turn, notwithstanding their best efforts to refute the science with science.

Link #3: http://www.worldwildlife.org/polarbears/
Regarding: Polar Bears
Author: Not named
Site Bias: General Left
Mention of Greenhouse Gasses as the Cause: None
Mention of Man made cause of global warming: None
And I quote:
Climate change is causing the disappearance of sea ice from which polar bears hunt their prey. Research funded by WWF found that with less time on the ice to hunt for food and store it leaves polar bears hungry and hinders reproduction. If current climate trends continue unabated, polar bears could become extinct by the end of this century.

Sounds like a rock solid scientific statement implicating man made global warming to me.

Again, if one side of an issue does not accept the position of the other side, they should not cite the other side for authority. Get that? As to the merits of your claim, I can only give you another analogy that you might understand. You know when someone is prosecuted for a crime and the state must prove something beyond a reasonable doubt? Well, that burden can be met by cumulative evidence. Each piece of evidence, in and of itself, may not make the case, but when you add up all the many factors, all the evidence going toward, time, motive, opportunity, etc. you can make your case. So, when you, or Card, or Creighton, or whoever try to hang your hat on one piece of evidence that won’t prove global warming by itself, you are nothing more than defense attorneys spinning hard when they don’t have a defense.

Link #3: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
Regarding: Climate Change
Author: Various
Site Bias: Government Agency, mostly unbiased
Official Stance: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...knowledge.html
Derived:
What We know: Humans have contributed to greenhouse gas
What we do not know: What contribution to global warming humans and natural causes have made.
Mention of Man made cause of global warming: It hasnt yet been determined

Now, im pretty sure if "virtually every scientist" that has weighed in on this subject, 999/1000 according to your made up statistics, has stated anywhere that global warming is caused wholly, majorly, or even significantly by humans, the EPA (un-biased, slighly left government agency) site would at least make mention of that.

Dont you think the EPA would make an official statement supporting "greenhouse gas" caused global warming if even a decent majority of scientists support its thesis?

They dont.

The only proof you have posted is that there is no proof.

I guess you don’t read so well. Hell, forget the EPA (which is in the Bush Administration); maybe you should check with the Bush Administration.

Suggestions:
Read your links before you post them, to see if they actually support what your saying
Please look for unbiased, fact based data
Stop inventing statistics, supporting them up with "if you check, its probably close"

Sorry for posting this last time, but I felt it was necessary to prove a point.

Suggestions: take your own advice. As for my links and what I said about them, the record speaks for itself. Each of those links submitted in response to a post in this thread that pretended to state the position of the primary source. The primary source refuted the proposition for which it was submitted.

Also, try to focus on what was said and not on who said it. It's more logical and you are less inclined to start waiving the "commie, pinko, liberal" bullshit which has nothing to do with the merits of a claim by some scientist who might be published in some journal you don't like.

I certainly hope you are not appologizing to me for your continued posting. No appologies necessary.

Time to hit the rack. Good night.

[Gman]

Again, you stick your foot in your mouth. If you don’t want to use a certain science or data set, then don’t cite it for authority. First, the WWF polar bear opinion is raised to show I was suckered. Then I cite the real WWF opinion to show that is not the case. It’s another example of the anti-global warming theory folks trying to pretend data and sources support their position when it clearly does not. Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

Yeah, I see the pattern. The WWF has a stated position that conflicts with the evidence, but you are seemingly blinded to it. Their hypothesis is in contradiction to the evidence.

Following the true scientists, they will tell you that they have some theories, but there have been no direct links to CO2, solar variation, or industrialization. The environmentalists are still looking for a smoking gun. The assertions of those that support global warming caused by man are simply that. Their "evidence" does not follow the scientific method, as any evidence that contradicts the hypothesis renders the hypothesis as invalid. You explain your way out of that inconvenient truth by suggesting an unprovable conspiracy.

Yeah, I see the pattern. This is a religious argument for you.

[Recon]

You said:

Dont you think the EPA would make an official statement supporting "greenhouse gas" caused global warming if even a decent majority of scientists support its thesis?

The EPA said:

"What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
. . .
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet."

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...knowledge.html

I’ll not put words in your mouth, but I suspect you meant to say “climate change” and not “global warming.” You can help me out here. In any event, it would be funny to see the side that is challenging the shift in terminology from “global warming” to “climate change” start hanging their hat on that very distinction.

[Recon]

Again, you stick your foot in your mouth. If you don’t want to use a certain science or data set, then don’t cite it for authority. First, the WWF polar bear opinion is raised to show I was suckered. Then I cite the real WWF opinion to show that is not the case. It’s another example of the anti-global warming theory folks trying to pretend data and sources support their position when it clearly does not. Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

Yeah, I see the pattern. The WWF has a stated position that conflicts with the evidence, but you are seemingly blinded to it. Their hypothesis is in contradiction to the evidence.

Following the true scientists, they will tell you that they have some theories, but there have been no direct links to CO2, solar variation, or industrialization. The environmentalists are still looking for a smoking gun. The assertions of those that support global warming caused by man are simply that. Their "evidence" does not follow the scientific method, as any evidence that contradicts the hypothesis renders the hypothesis as invalid. You explain your way out of that inconvenient truth by suggesting an unprovable conspiracy.

Yeah, I see the pattern. This is a religious argument for you.

First, your wrong about the “true scientists”:

What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...knowledge.html

Second, you cite a falsehood as an inconvenient truth and suggest a conspiracy. That is in line with Card and "the best offense is a good defense" method of argument. Unfortunately, the fallacy is made apparent in your suggesting this is a religious argument for me. In fact, religion has little, if anything to do with science and relies mostly on unsupported belief. Nice try, though, in taking your greatest weakness and attributing it to the opposition. The WWF’s interpretation is in accord with their own data. Had you followed up on their link you would have seen it. You’re like the guy who argues 1+1 = 2 when the teacher is talking procreation. :roll:

[Gman]

Do you have a clue as to what the word "virtual" means?

Here's the definition courtesy of www.m-w.com ;
Main Entry: vir·tu·al
Pronunciation: 'v&r-ch&-w&l, -ch&l; 'v&rch-w&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, efficacious, potential, from Medieval Latin virtualis, from Latin virtus strength, virtue
1 : being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted <a virtual dictator>
2 : of, relating to, or using virtual memory
3 : of, relating to, or being a hypothetical particle whose existence is inferred from indirect evidence <virtual photons> -- compare REAL 3
4 : being on or simulated on a computer or computer network <print or virtual books> <a virtual keyboard>: as a : occurring or existing primarily online <a virtual library> <virtual shopping> b : of, relating to, or existing within a virtual reality <a virtual world> <a virtual tour>

"Virtual" when referring to "science" is an oxymoron...and that highlights precisely why this is a religious argument for you.

If anthropogenic global warming was true science, it wouldn't be subject to opinion, consensus, or interpretation.

I'll just leave this link for those willing to understand that what we're dealing with in this conversation is far from scientific fact;
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_art...&cname=Opinion

[Recon]

Do you have a clue as to what the word "virtual" means?

Here's the definition courtesy of www.m-w.com ;
Main Entry: vir·tu·al
Pronunciation: 'v&r-ch&-w&l, -ch&l; 'v&rch-w&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, efficacious, potential, from Medieval Latin virtualis, from Latin virtus strength, virtue
1 : being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted <a virtual dictator>
2 : of, relating to, or using virtual memory
3 : of, relating to, or being a hypothetical particle whose existence is inferred from indirect evidence <virtual photons> -- compare REAL 3
4 : being on or simulated on a computer or computer network <print or virtual books> <a virtual keyboard>: as a : occurring or existing primarily online <a virtual library> <virtual shopping> b : of, relating to, or existing within a virtual reality <a virtual world> <a virtual tour>

"Virtual" when referring to "science" is an oxymoron...and that highlights precisely why this is a religious argument for you.

If anthropogenic global warming was true science, it wouldn't be subject to opinion, consensus, or interpretation.

I'll just leave this link for those willing to understand that what we're dealing with in this conversation is far from scientific fact;
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_art...&cname=Opinion

I do know what virtual means, but as usual, your use of terms in this debate is innopposite. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when you say: "If anthropogenic global warming was true science, it wouldn't be subject to opinion, consensus, or interpretation." Since when is true science immune from opinion, consensus or interpretation? You, of all people, referencing the polar bear/WWF issue, should no that. :roll: Oh, and if we are going to attack sources (which I am not inclined to do), you should do a little research into the NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS. Also find out if Exxon Mobile is funding Sterling Burnett (polar bear fame).

As for your citation, again, anyone can run to the web for support for any position they want. The guy you cite is responding to a guy who responded to others. Too bad, as your author suggests, none of them are part of the scientific process. He is right, and should get back in his lab and start doing science. Right now he's nothing more than you and I arguing on the internet.

[Zak Smith]

You, in summarizing what scientists know with virtual certainty (where virtual is a cop-out), have juxtaposed A and B. This does not show A causes B.

To show A causes B, or that A causes 90%, 75%, 50%, or 25%, or 1% of B requires a lot more data than is present and analysis that has not been done. The climate has been changing forever due to collosal factors and these have a complex interplay that is not understood.

Cherry picking a data set for a single-variable analysis over a short period of time will simply not yield a meaningful conclusion in this kind of system. For example, if the latest warming trend was already underway before the industrial revolution, then disambiguating a human component vs. the "natural" chaotic component is impossible because we simply do not understand, in a predictable way, that chaotic system.

The very short data-set used to "prove" human impact on warming is not even a blink in the eye of time-scales involved in warming and cooling trends, and its magnitude is dwarfed changes from the chaotic system.

[Recon]

You, in summarizing what scientists know with virtual certainty (where virtual is a cop-out), have juxtaposed A and B. This does not show A causes B.

To show A causes B, or that A causes 90%, 75%, 50%, or 25%, or 1% of B requires a lot more data than is present and analysis that has not been done. The climate has been changing forever due to collosal factors and these have a complex interplay that is not understood.

Cherry picking a data set for a single-variable analysis over a short period of time will simply not yield a meaningful conclusion in this kind of system. For example, if the latest warming trend was already underway before the industrial revolution, then disambiguating a human component vs. the "natural" chaotic component is impossible because we simply do not understand, in a predictable way, that chaotic system.

The very short data-set used to "prove" human impact on warming is not even a blink in the eye of time-scales involved in warming and cooling trends, and its magnitude is dwarfed changes from the chaotic system.

Now, I can agree with that, and I am glad you brought it up.

The Earth’s capacity for additional green house gasses, natural or man made, without catastrophic results, is 100%. Clearly the catastrophic results have not occurred so we have not exceeded 100% capacity. Further, the atmosphere contains *some* green house gasses, so we are not at 0%. We are obviously somewhere in between.

You can plug in ANY figures you want, but the following analysis still remains valid.

Let’s say, without mankind, the Earth is currently at a 50% capacity baseline, with a 30% natural variability, up or down, fluctuating over the millennia, with a high of 80% and a low of 20%. Now, along comes man and adds 21%. That puts us at 71% and reduces the room for natural variability by 21%. If nature comes along with her 30%, then catastrophic results occur.

In other words, Earth’s tremendous ability to take a punch is reduced each time she gets punched. Sooner or later, she punches back. Of course, she will always win, but some of us would like to win with her, and be around to share the *relative* stasis which she has provided for the last 500,000 years that we’ve been wandering around with all the critters we have come to know and love. The fact the Earth will continue on was no consolation to the dinosaurs and it won’t be to me, my child or anyone else I know. I am very conservative in that regard.

Only the Earth and God know how much she can take, and that is what scientists are currently trying to understand. I say place the burden of proof on those who want to tinker with a system that ain’t broke. Let them first do no harm, and prove they won’t. Since we are all in this boat together, we can’t rely upon individuals to carry all the freight. Working together is the key to avoiding the Tragedy of the Commons. Ask any public land cattle grazer from the late 1800s and early 1900s.

So, while you would demand certainty (instead of virtual certainty) of man-caused global warming, before man-caused global warming is accepted, I would demand certainty (instead of virtual certainty) of no harm, before we are permitted to continue dumping green house gasses into the atmosphere. If you can find a way to internalize your costs in our free market system, and accept personal responsibility for the outcome of your actions, then post a bond.

Oh, and if you try, remember not to cherry pick your data or use a cop-out of "virtuality."

The fact is, we are doing the best we can, and the science on your side is losing, badly.

[Zak Smith]

Anthropomorphic analogies are fun, but are not science. That post contains no scientific analysis, but speculation.

The burden of scientific proof is on the party who makes the claim. Period.

You've basically agreed, through your last two posts, that it is not proven.

[Recon]

Anthropomorphic analogies are fun, but are not science. That post contains no scientific analysis, but speculation.

The burden of scientific proof is on the party who makes the claim. Period.

You've basically agreed, through your last two posts, that it is not proven.

First, I am not a scientist. The science speaks for itself and you are losing, badly. In fact, by your own standards, your post is lacking any science.
Second, you are wrong about burdens of proof. As you yourself admitted, the status quo (natural baseline and fluctuation) existed long before our present impact. It is us who wish to change it and the burden is on us. If the claim is that man's actions cause no harm, then the burden is on you.
Third, no burden of proof has been established on proponents of global warming theory (preponderance of the evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt? etc.) and science, by it's very nature, soundly trounces your self-appointed demand for conclusive evidence. Proponents don't have to meet your subjective requirements of satisfaction. The political leadership has determined that any burden has been met and calls for changes. See Bush, the scientists and everyone who is not in denial.