Global Warming

[Clawg]

I think this is the last climate change report. Of course it's been a while since I've dug up any of this material, but even in 2001, it seemed like no one had actually read the IPCC report. Amazing what passes for "science" and "truth in journalism", isn't it?

Well, for 4th edition report I can say that they did a big announcement and then only released a 'summary for policy-makers' to the public. People that got interested in the subject due to the many news reports weren't able to read the actual report. Now that it's out (it was released on Nov 17th) nobody will read it and the policy is already decided.

In any case, at least according this report, the conclusion was, and I quote:

In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation ensembles of model solutions. (bold emphasis added by me)

Why Global Warming alarmists persist in their nonsensical ramblings is a mystery to me IF they were in fact relying almost exclusively on the IPCC report(s) AND they were really concerned for the environment. IF...that's a big IF.

Well, many media outlets and the politicians said that the IPCC report showed that it is undeniable that there is a global warming caused by man. That's enough for some people.

Reading the current report we can see a completely different picture:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/a...ntroduction.pdf and http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/a..._syr_topic1.pdf

They are talking a lot about 'confidence' and 'likelihood', sometimes in the range of only 66% confidence (!).

[gags]

Clawq, I'm struck by the short periods of time discussed in the second document you posted. They are primarily talking about changes since 1850 and later, with the longest period mentioned being 1,300 years. These are just minor blips in the life of this planet, which is many tens of millions of years old. As you mentioned, I also noted the liberal use of the term "likely" and the associated 66% confidence level. And this is why people are choosing to have abortions? Amazing.

[Clawg]

Clawq, I'm struck by the short periods of time discussed in the second document you posted. They are primarily talking about changes since 1850 and later, with the longest period mentioned being 1,300 years. These are just minor blips in the life of this planet, which is many tens of millions of years old.

The last small ice age ended with the beginning of the industrial age. In the past climate warming usually lead to technological advancements, think of the Romans, the Greeks and to a certain degree the early Middle Ages. Blaming the warming ON the industrial revolution turns the whole relation around. For the first time in history climate warming will lead to stagnation and decline.

In addition global changes in the atmosphere need hundreds if not thousands of years to affect the sea and the ice while we produced the most CO2 only in the last 30 years.

As you mentioned, I also noted the liberal use of the term "likely" and the associated 66% confidence level. And this is why people are choosing to have abortions? Amazing.

No, the reason why people believing it is simply because everyone else does. People hope that someone researches the issue and due to his knowledge can easily spread his findings. Many people assume that that which everyone believes is the result of a nationwide discussion where only the correct arguments will spread. But the way such discussions are actually conducted are often very different than people think they are. Money, the prevalent philosophy, the opinion of the majority, politics etc. do play an important role. If the coal industry finances a study the first reaction from people will be that they are distorting the facts and that it is politically motivated. If an institution like the UN or their government finances a study they assume that this study is not politically motivated.

So the problem is that that which government agencies (including government financed science) produce is seen as fact. With the current prevalent philosophy people tend to think that industry is evil so they will believe more likely in anything that reinforce that belief. On the other hand their governments represent their philosophy so they will have much more trust in government agencies.

It's like always choosing the market leader and ignoring the product itself. If a large portion of the population does that the result is random or is influenced by other factors such as philosophy or 'feeling' rather than quality (just look at the fashion industry). The only difference is that with 'global warming' it's not your money that is at stake if you choose to not invest time in researching the product.

[Rourke]

In addition global changes in the atmosphere need hundreds if not thousands of years to affect the sea and the ice while we produced the most CO2 only in the last 30 years.

This is news to me. Source?

[Rourke]

Does anyone remember the decades-long campaign by the tobacco industry to muddle the science and confuse people into thinking that cigarettes weren't bad for you?

People have a tendency to believe what they want to believe. I don't think there's anything intrinsic to Objectivism that precludes believing that global warming is real. Yet I find no dissenting voices among the regular Objectivists posters on this 23 page thread. I find it remarkable, because according to Wikipedia:

The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[18] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[19] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[20] explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.

A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[21] Oreskes stated that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies."

Doesn't anyone find it disturbing that the opinion of this forum is seemingly uniform against GW being real, yet almost every scientist who studies climate has come to the opposite conlusion?

[Inspector]

Does anyone remember the decades-long campaign by the tobacco industry to muddle the science and confuse people into thinking that cigarettes weren't bad for you?

Actually, the idea that they are so bad may have been a lie.

The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[18] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[19] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[20] explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.

There is a LOT of detail out there in the Objectivist community showing how they are lying and distorting the facts. Such "facts" are unsurprising, given the lies, distortions, and government involvement in the scientific community.

Plus, Wikipedia? Please.

Doesn't anyone find it disturbing that the opinion of this forum is seemingly uniform against GW being real, yet almost every scientist who studies climate has come to the opposite conlusion?

First that's not true. Just simply not true at all. There are plenty of dissenting scientists, they are simply marginalized and censored by the mainstream. Try actually reading this and the other threads on the board; you'll see plenty of examples. Try watching the several BBC documentaries which are out there. Try reading bloggers such as Gus Van Horn, Mike's Eyes, Noodlefood, and Galileo Blogs (and myself) for articles on the Global Warming lie.

If there's anything that should disturb you, it should be the supposed support by so many "scientists" for the malevolent hoax which is "Global Warming."

Edited December 12, 2007 by Inspector

[softwareNerd]

Does anyone remember the decades-long campaign by the tobacco industry to muddle the science and confuse people into thinking that cigarettes weren't bad for you?

How about the many examples on the other side? Alar, Peak-Oil, Dow-Corning's breast implants, Electro-magnetic fields? There's no doubting that scare-stories get more media and more money. If it bleeds, it leads.

Even where there is causation, the idea that "the poison is in the dosage" is lost on many. Asbestos is a good example of this.

Skepticism: Personally, I'll admit that when anybody makes a claim of the form "there is environmental problem X, and we need to do tonnes of things to combat it, and most of those things involve giving up values", I am extremely skeptical. I was much less skeptical a couple of decades ago, but it's become "fool me twice..thrice...N-times".

Consensus: If you think there is consensus, then let's start by asking this question: what do you mean by consensus? If scientists who are actually studying climate, based in various reputed institutions around the world still dispute something, do you think there is consensus, if these scientists are below a certain % or below a certain absolute number, or what?

For instance, here's mention of some scientists who are GW "skeptics".

As a lay-person, if you wish to understand the issue, it is definitely worth reading some summaries from the skeptics too, not to judge if they are right or wrong, but -- at a more abstract level -- to understand the broad nature of their arguments. I suggest that this is part of figuring out if there is real consensus, and whether the skeptics are a bunch of kooks.

A good summarized survey from a "skeptic" view-point can be found in "Rational readings on Environmental Concerns" by Jay H. Lehr. (An expensive book, but the type a college library might have.)

Edited December 12, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Inspector]

See also here, for just a recent headline. I looked up Dr. Singer, and he is the founder and president of http://www.sepp.org/

[Rourke]

Consensus: If you think there is consensus, then let's start by asking this question: what do you mean by consensus? If scientists who are actually studying climate, based in various reputed institutions around the world still dispute something, do you think there is consensus, if these scientists are below a certain % or below a certain absolute number, or what?

For instance, here's mention of some scientists who are GW "skeptics".

Well the groups I previously mentioned speak for almost all the climate scientists on the issue. There are credible skeptic scientists, but relatively few of them. If you notice the skeptic community keeps quoting Lindzen and Singer and Lomborg. Given the many thousands of scientists that agree with anthropogenic GW, this is a paltry few indeed. Not that that automatically makes them wrong, but when you logically deduce that only these few can have any legitimacy, even when people such as Singer take gobs of money from oil and tobacco industry to support their agenda, you have a problem in my view. Somehow the government taints all research supporting anthropogenic GW, but the fossil fuel industry's funding of skeptic science has no effect. A logical fallacy?

I do like GW skeptic Henrik Svensmark, who is doing important work on solar activity and cloud formation, and its link to climate. But even he concedes increased CO2 is warming the planet.

And softwareNerd, you can't reference Senator Inhofe IMO, he is incredibly compromised by all the Oil and Gas money he takes. The claims he posts on his site often have the same few scientists as sources, over and over again. No one outside of his constituency takes him seriously because of his intellectual dishonesty.

[softwareNerd]

And softwareNerd, you can't reference Senator Inhofe IMO, he is incredibly compromised by all the Oil and Gas money he takes.

If one were to exclude scientists who took government money to enact government controls, who'd be left? A majority of economists were Keynesian once, and many still give it lip service. One can go either way on this type of assertion; but, in fact, one can go nowhere -- it's argument ad hominem.

You simply cannot go by numbers. As a non-scientist, your only hope is to understand the nature of the claims and the nature of the objections, even if you cannot verify the veracity of either. That will be sufficient to make a decision.

Edited December 12, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Rourke]

Actually, the idea that they are so bad may have been a lie.

That long rambling rant actually tried to assert that cigarettes were not proven to be harmful because of a few people who somehow lived to a ripe old age while puffing away. Somehow the thousands of people who die a year from cigarettes are just an anomaly that doesn't prove anything.

There is a LOT of detail out there in the Objectivist community showing how they are lying and distorting the facts. Such "facts" are unsurprising, given the lies, distortions, and government involvement in the scientific community.

I like how throughout this thread you keep referring to "they." Like any scientist who supports anthropogenic GW are part of one homogenous mass conspiracy. I think it is a discredit to thousands of men and women, who have devoted their lives to research, to say they are "liars" and "evil" simply because they go where the science leads them.

I take back what I said about everyone on this thread being of one uniform opinion. It does appear that Liriodendron, strangelove and Hal did provide some intelligent contrarian commentary, but they are in the distinct minority. Post #184 and #185 were the most logically sound and persuasive in the entire thread.

There are plenty of examples in this thread of claims that man-induced GW is false, notably by Thales, where no source for the information is given. For example, much of the info he presented in his long post (post #303) had no sources whatsoever. Then later in post #311 he misrepresented the Oregon Petition as refuting GW, when in fact the petition itself mentions only "catastrophic heating" and not the broader issue of global warming, not to mention many of the scientists had no background in climatology.Yet, these posts go unchallenged by people who should know better, simply because it supports what they already believe. Also, Inspector's assertion (post #161) that DDT was not harmful to animals, when DDT is in fact toxic to animals (the evidence is less conclusive for humans). Sorry to reference Wikeipedia again but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Environmental_impact

This is what I am saying: you should consider the possibility that the the reason you are so willing to believe a select few scientists on the fringe is that they espouse conclusions you already agree with. As evidence, clearly on this forum people say unsubstantiated things that go unchallenged because it supports the orthodoxy. See above on the outrageous assertion that its possible cigarettes aren't bad for you.

[Rourke]

If one were to exclude scientists who took government money to enact government controls, who'd be left? A majority of economists were Keynesian once, and many still give it lip service. One can go either way on this type of assertion; but, in fact, one can go nowhere -- it's argument ad hominem.

You simply cannot go by numbers. As a non-scientist, your only hope is to understand the nature of the claims and the nature of the objections, even if you cannot verify the veracity of either. That will be sufficient to make a decision.

But then you need to talk to Inspector, because he is saying that all scientists funded by the government are compromised, so we don't have to listen to them. I find it a compelling argument that Oil and Gas funding would be more corruptive than government money, because the former clearly has a financial stake. The latter does not have a singular point of view. Take for example the Bush Administration's attempted manipulation of government reports to water down the evidence for GW.

You mostly certainly can deduce certain things from the numbers. In science when you get to this level of concensus on anything, especially something so complex and vast as the Earth's climate, that is very compelling. I think certain points of view can become dogma in the scientific community over time, and we have witnessed a number of them. But GW science has been in the mainstream for decades now, and the science keeps getting stronger, and many people have had to walk back a lot of things they said.

I can't expand on all the good points that Liriodendron Tulipifera made several pages back, so I will stop there.

[DavidOdden]

Doesn't anyone find it disturbing that the opinion of this forum is seemingly uniform against GW being real, yet almost every scientist who studies climate has come to the opposite conlusion?

A good place for you to start, in your road to understanding, is to try to objectively demonstrate the truth of this statement of yours. You should find the reasons for your failure to be quite educational.

[Thales]

Does anyone remember the decades-long campaign by the tobacco industry to muddle the science and confuse people into thinking that cigarettes weren't bad for you?

Do you realize there is a postmodernist movement out there pushing an ideology (environmentalism, multiculturalism, feminism)? Do you remember how communism was pushed by leftists despite the evidence of its brutality?

Environmentalism is simply part of an anti-man, anti-capitalist movement.

People have a tendency to believe what they want to believe.

I go by the evidence. I've seen the temperature records: ground level, balloon, satellite, ice core and tree ring proxies, etc. I've seen so many graphs it's not funny. You want to argue the evidence?

I don't think there's anything intrinsic to Objectivism that precludes believing that global warming is real. Yet I find no dissenting voices among the regular Objectivists posters on this 23 page thread. I find it remarkable, because according to Wikipedia:

Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source, for crying out loud. My rule for using Wikipedia is that more policially charged a subject matter the less likely it is to be accurate. I personally know of out right lies regarding chemist Dr. Robinson (who also disagrees with catastrophic GW theory) in Wikipedia, but I would have little chance of changing the text, because it'd be changed right back again.

The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[18] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[19] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[20] explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.

I submit, I don't give a damn. I'm looking for EVIDENCE, not people who use their credentials to push an agenda. I'm not finding evidence, and I'm finding tons of scientists that don't agree with the propaganda. Top flight scientists.

A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[21] Oreskes stated that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies."

What she looked for was agreement on warming, not apocalyptic warming, but warming. The fact is, very few scientists, including Lindzen and Singer, disagree there has been warming. This means that her work was useless.

Doesn't anyone find it disturbing that the opinion of this forum is seemingly uniform against GW being real, yet almost every scientist who studies climate has come to the opposite conlusion?

Have you actually looked at what is being said, rather than putting yourself between a layer of "scientists" and the real world? Look at what was said 20 years ago and what happened. Look at what Al Gore says, and how he lies. Or, don't you agree that he's a liar? Look at the alleged "solution" that is offered to the alleged problem: crippling the world's economy, which would cause millions of deaths.

But then you need to talk to Inspector, because he is saying that all scientists funded by the government are compromised, so we don't have to listen to them.

They are, because the only science that gets funded is politically correct science.

I find it a compelling argument that Oil and Gas funding would be more corruptive than government money, because the former clearly has a financial stake.

Jim Hansen is Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The guy has been paid as much as $725,000 by George Soros. Hansen has been found guilty of doctoring temperature records this year. Ever heard about that?

If you want to see some bizarrely apocalyptic predictions from "scientists", check out the magazine Science. This Policy Statement for instance.

excerpt:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate

change caused by human activities

is occurring now, and it is a growing

threat to society. Accumulating data from

across the globe reveal a wide array of

effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization

of major ice sheets, increases in

extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts

in species ranges, and more. The pace of

change and the evidence of harm have

increased markedly over the last five

years. The time to control greenhouse

gas emissions is now.

It's pure garbage, of the first order, with not one whit of science to back it up, yet these are 'scientists' pushing an apocalyptic view.

Aside from that, many, probably most, of the thousands of contrarian scientists are not funded by Oil and Gas. And, to top it off, they are of higher caliber as scientists.

The latter does not have a singular point of view. Take for example the Bush Administration's attempted manipulation of government reports to water down the evidence for GW.

You mostly certainly can deduce certain things from the numbers. In science when you get to this level of concensus on anything, especially something so complex and vast as the Earth's climate, that is very compelling.

What level of consensus? What are you talking about? I've yet to see any evidence that even 50% of scientists believe in the apocalyptic global warming view. Hell, I doubt that 10% do.

[Thales]

I like how throughout this thread you keep referring to "they." Like any scientist who supports anthropogenic GW are part of one homogenous mass conspiracy. I think it is a discredit to thousands of men and women, who have devoted their lives to research, to say they are "liars" and "evil" simply because they go where the science leads them.

Have you heard the phrase "Global Warming Denier"?

I take back what I said about everyone on this thread being of one uniform opinion. It does appear that Liriodendron, strangelove and Hal did provide some intelligent contrarian commentary, but they are in the distinct minority. Post #184 and #185 were the most logically sound and persuasive in the entire thread.

Apparently not as persuasive and logical as the contrary arguments.

There are plenty of examples in this thread of claims that man-induced GW is false,

Right, as the evidence comes in, that becomes all the more clear.

notably by Thales, where no source for the information is given. For example, much of the info he presented in his long post (post #303) had no sources whatsoever.

That is pure bunk. I linked right to junkscience.com. This was done by the scientist who runs that website. The references on the site are right to the work of atmospheric scientists.

Then later in post #311 he misrepresented the Oregon Petition as refuting GW, when in fact the petition itself mentions only "catastrophic heating" and not the broader issue of global warming, not to mention many of the scientists had no background in climatology.

What are you talking about? Global warming is what they are referring to by "heating". The scientists are top flight and perfectly capable of judging the science. And, of coures, you can find petitions signed by atmospheric scientists on sepp.org.

This is what I am saying: you should consider the possibility that the the reason you are so willing to believe a select few scientists on the fringe is that they espouse conclusions you already agree with. As evidence, clearly on this forum people say unsubstantiated things that go unchallenged because it supports the orthodoxy. See above on the outrageous assertion that its possible cigarettes aren't bad for you.

They are not on the "fringe". There are so many scientists who don't believe in the catastrophic global warming theory, it's not funny. Dr. William Gray, I believe, is one who came out recently against it.

And softwareNerd, you can't reference Senator Inhofe IMO, he is incredibly compromised by all the Oil and Gas money he takes. The claims he posts on his site often have the same few scientists as sources, over and over again. No one outside of his constituency takes him seriously because of his intellectual dishonesty.

Inhofe is a great source and has a multitude of scientists as sources, not that your "he quotes the same few scientists over and over again" is a good argument, it's laughably weak. You appear to work at the level of opinion, rather than fact.

Well the groups I previously mentioned speak for almost all the climate scientists on the issue. There are credible skeptic scientists, but relatively few of them. If you notice the skeptic community keeps quoting Lindzen and Singer and Lomborg. Given the many thousands of scientists that agree with anthropogenic GW, this is a paltry few indeed.

Ah, no, I haven't noticed that. I can reel off tons of names. Dr. Patrick Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Arthur Robinson, Dr. Sallie Ballinus, Dr Willie Soon, Dr Jorgen Steffensen, etc.... many, many more... See the documentaries "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and "Doomsday Called Off" and you'll see many top flight scientists.

Lindzen is quoted because he is more vociferous than others, and he is highly credentialed. And, btw, I’ve yet to see anyone able to effectively counter Lindzen, scientist or otherwise. He clearly hates these pseudo-scientists who are ruining his field. Singer is quoted because he set up an organization to deal with the lies and half truths of GW propagandists.

...John

[Inspector]

That long rambling rant actually tried to assert that cigarettes were not proven to be harmful because of a few people who somehow lived to a ripe old age while puffing away. Somehow the thousands of people who die a year from cigarettes are just an anomaly that doesn't prove anything.

This statement demonstrates you aren't looking at the matter from a particularly scientific viewpoint. As if things can just be "bad" and people "die from them." As if there weren't such facts as the dose makes the poison, to state even the most obvious problem with such a claim.

The fact is, that there aren't really any conclusive studies on the dangers of cigarettes. (if you know of one, I would like to see it) We know that they are bad for some people in some quantities, just as eating too many cheeseburgers and chocolate donuts is bad for some people in some quantities. But this doesn't establish the kind of "OMG OMG PANIC EVIL DEATH BAD" intrinsic bad which certain groups have claimed cigarettes to be.

I like how throughout this thread you keep referring to "they." Like any scientist who supports anthropogenic GW are part of one homogenous mass conspiracy.

Are you at all familiar with how philosophic ideas spread? Of how any movement like this works? The "they" thing is a shorthand. You're going to have to get over it. It is not required that there be some kind of monolithic and deliberate agenda. If you're at all aware of how philosophy (especially, corrupt epistemology) makes things happen, this makes perfect sense.

I think it is a discredit to thousands of men and women, who have devoted their lives to research, to say they are "liars" and "evil" simply because they go where the science leads them.

I said that there are evil liars involved in this movement, and indisputably there are. The most glaring example being the computer modelers who, to the last man from what I have seen, have completely "cooked the books" in their programs in total defiance of the actual truth. Try reading the bit I blogged about that was exposed by Orson Scott Card.

But my statement did not have to mean that every last person who made any kind of claim for AGW was necessarily a knowing liar. I did not say that there were not other people who were acting in the service of those liars and their lies, either through ignorance or laziness, or philosophic corruption, and/or blind trust for authority.

I take back what I said about everyone on this thread being of one uniform opinion. It does appear that Liriodendron, strangelove and Hal did provide some intelligent contrarian commentary, but they are in the distinct minority.

Try reading Lirodendron's blog - after examining the issue, she has rejected AGW.

Also, Inspector's assertion (post #161) that DDT was not harmful to animals, when DDT is in fact toxic to animals (the evidence is less conclusive for humans).

Yeah... it's toxic to insects. That's the whole freaking point. But it was proven by the very studies that are cited that it does not hurt the birds, which was the claim they used to publicly to ban it. Try actually reading the information I provide.

See above on the outrageous assertion that its possible cigarettes aren't bad for you.

I'm sure you're not aware of how ironic you're being...

"Argument from outrage: argues against something without offering arguments besides saying that the thing would be unacceptable, or outrageous, or "wrong", or "silly", and so on."

Edited December 13, 2007 by Inspector

[softwareNerd]

Now, even the pope thinks its safe to speak up against the most die-hard GE environmentalists.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

The church likely wants a slower move toward environmentalism (it's called "sustainable development"); something that will keep the third-world back a bit, while not frightening the money-bags among it's richer flock. Or, ideologically, the Pope might just want to be more measured!

[softwareNerd]

Here's an open letter from some scientists to the U.N.:

...scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

[Mammon]

http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.html

In April 1972, after seven months of testimony, EPA Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney stated that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. ... The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. ... The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for the essential uses of DDT.”*

Two months later, EPA head [and Environmental Defense Fund member/fundraiser] William Ruckelshaus - who had never attended a single day’s session in the seven months of EPA hearings, and who admittedly had not even read the transcript of the hearings - overturned Judge Sweeney’s decision. Ruckelshaus declared that DDT was a “potential human carcinogen” and banned it for virtually all uses.**

Rourke, what do you suggest we do about Global Warming?

Also, I think everyone in this thread should just stop trying and die off.**

**Hope everyone has their sarcasm detectors handy.

Edited December 14, 2007 by Mammon

[Rourke]

Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source, for crying out loud. My rule for using Wikipedia is that more policially charged a subject matter the less likely it is to be accurate. I personally know of out right lies regarding chemist Dr. Robinson (who also disagrees with catastrophic GW theory) in Wikipedia, but I would have little chance of changing the text, because it'd be changed right back again.

Wikipidia is not a credible source, yet you are going to cite www.junkscience.com as your source? You've got to be kidding me. The former is at least an attempt at an open and fair-minded resource, the latter is a fossil fuel industry bought-and-paid-for collection of "science". In fact, they couldn't have a more ironic name.

What she looked for was agreement on warming, not apocalyptic warming, but warming. The fact is, very few scientists, including Lindzen and Singer, disagree there has been warming. This means that her work was useless.

Wrong. She had strong evidence of a concensus. A quote from the actual paper (Science 3 December 2004:Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686):

The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

That's none, as in zero.

Have you actually looked at what is being said, rather than putting yourself between a layer of "scientists" and the real world? Look at what was said 20 years ago and what happened. Look at what Al Gore says, and how he lies. Or, don't you agree that he's a liar?

I think where you have gone astray is focusing on Al Gore like he was representative of the mainstream thought on anthropogenic GW. He is not. The mainstream is more moderate. Ironically, as it turns many moderate views on GW have had to be revised because the rate of climate change is accelerating faster than predicted. Al Gore is the convenient straw man for skeptics, because he is easier to attack than, say, the thousands of hard working scientists who tell us that this is what's happening.

They are, because the only science that gets funded is politically correct science.

You haven't done yourself any favors here in the credibility department by unsubstaniated claim.

Aside from that, many, probably most, of the thousands of contrarian scientists are not funded by Oil and Gas. And, to top it off, they are of higher caliber as scientists.

So these "higher caliber" scientists are so good they don't need to actually publish anything in the peer-reviewed literature on climate science? They're that good.

What level of consensus? What are you talking about? I've yet to see any evidence that even 50% of scientists believe in the apocalyptic global warming view. Hell, I doubt that 10% do.

Why is the apocalyptic GW view the only one that you attack? Because it's easier? Why aren't you out attacking all the mainstream sceintists who concur that man is affecting the climate in a serious way? You have to stop setting up straw men to knock down and see the bigger picture. The UN climate change talks in Bali just concluded. Do you honestly believe the uber-business friendly Bush Administrtation would be sitting down to discuss cuts in greenhouse gas emissions on the basis of a radical environmental agenda led by Al Gore and his tree-hugging leftist fanatics?

[Robert J. Kolker]

Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source, for crying out loud. My rule for using Wikipedia is that more policially charged a subject matter the less likely it is to be accurate. I personally know of out right lies regarding chemist Dr. Robinson (who also disagrees with catastrophic GW theory) in Wikipedia, but I would have little chance of changing the text, because it'd be changed right back again.

For topics in well established sciences (particularly physics, chemistry and medicine) and mathematics wiki is as good as E.B. The references provided in most of the articles of this sort are generally very good. Wiki is a good first step to getting to scientific and mathematical references, many of which are in peer reviewed journals. Ultimately one has to go to the peer reviewed literature to get any real in depth authentic material. But for people looking for a definition and a brief description, wiki is pretty good for the areas I have delineated.

For political topics or politically charged topics (such as climate change, global warming and the like) I read wiki with reservations and skepticism. I might also point out that articles concerning global warming, climate change, CO2 even in the peer reviewed sources have to be examined critically.

For philosophy I go to http://plato.stanford.edu/ particularly for historical references to the Greek philosophers.

You have a good point concerning articles that are challenged or fiddled a lot. The people running wiki have done a reasonably good job to keep their vehicle from being hijacked by partisans, but nothing of that sort is perfect.

Bob Kolker

[Rourke]

The fact is, that there aren't really any conclusive studies on the dangers of cigarettes. (if you know of one, I would like to see it) We know that they are bad for some people in some quantities, just as eating too many cheeseburgers and chocolate donuts is bad for some people in some quantities. But this doesn't establish the kind of "OMG OMG PANIC EVIL DEATH BAD" intrinsic bad which certain groups have claimed cigarettes to be.

Okay, so you're actually putting forth the claim that they still haven't put together a conclusive study that cigarettes are bad for you. This is laughable.Here is a good run-down of the reasons smoking is uniquely bad for you, and not just something you can do in moderation (ask any addict) like eating cheeseburgers.

Try reading Lirodendron's blog - after examining the issue, she has rejected AGW.

Yea, you were right she completely flipped her position. But her blog postings almost exclusively target... wait for it... Al Gore! And she has admittedly conceded she has not read much in detail about anthropogenic GW. I give her credit for intellectual honesty though.

Yeah... it's toxic to insects. That's the whole freaking point. But it was proven by the very studies that are cited that it does not hurt the birds, which was the claim they used to publicly to ban it. Try actually reading the information I provide.

Get some new sources. The reason DDT is being championed, rightly, is because of its effectiveness in battling malaria. It is being used, and should be used more, in indoor environments to ward off mosquitos. It is still a toxic pesticide to the environment and its widespread indiscriminate use was rightly ended. As to your claim that it is not toxic to birds, simply untrue truth:

DDT and its metabolites can lower the reproductive rate of birds by causing eggshell thinning which leads to egg breakage, causing embryo deaths. Sensitivity to DDT varies considerably according to species(35). Predatory birds are the most sensitive. In the US, the bald eagle nearly became extinct because of environmental exposure to DDT. According to research by the World Wildlife Fund and the US EPA, birds in remote locations can be affected by DDT contamination. Albatross in the Midway islands of the mid-Pacific Ocean show classic signs of exposure to organochlorine chemicals, including deformed embryos, eggshell thinning and a 3% reduction in nest productivity. Researchers found levels of DDT in adults, chicks and eggs nearly as high as levels found in bald eagles from the North American Great Lakes(36).

You're credibility is severely compromised by these outrageous claims about smoking and DDT. What's next? Lead paint is good for you? We didn't land on the moon? 9/11 was an inside job? It suggests that you are unreasonable, and it would be a fool's errand to engage further in debate weith you about something such as GW where the science is less certain.

Are you at all familiar with how philosophic ideas spread? Of how any movement like this works? The "they" thing is a shorthand. You're going to have to get over it. It is not required that there be some kind of monolithic and deliberate agenda. If you're at all aware of how philosophy (especially, corrupt epistemology) makes things happen, this makes perfect sense.

My honest opinion is that, based on the postings of yours I've read, you may fit the profile of a full-fledged conspiracy guy. Such people don't want to be "tricked" into believing anything mainstream. It's a psychological ploy to deal with instrinsic fear of the unknown, but also an ego trip, in that one feels instantly superior to others who you feel have been "duped." You don't want to be this guy. You end up with a cellar full of survivalist gear, a 6 years supply of canned goods, and a 1000-page manifesto of incoherent ramblings.

[softwareNerd]

Such people don't want to be "tricked" into believing anything mainstream. It's a psychological ploy to deal with instrinsic fear of the unknown, but also an ego trip, in that one feels instantly superior to others who you feel have been "duped." You don't want to be this guy. You end up with a cellar full of survivalist gear, a 6 years supply of canned goods, and a 1000-page manifesto of incoherent ramblings.

When you use ad hominem, again, and again, and ... you do your "argument" no good.

[Rourke]

www.junkscience.com is dedicated to debunking what publisher Steven Milloy labels "faulty scientific data and analysis." according to the Wikipedia entry on Milloy, which incidentally lists all his ties to groups he so vociferously defends.

For example, Steven Milloy was a registered lobbyist from 1998-2000 for The EOP Group. Its clients include the American Crop Protection Association (pesticides), the Chlorine Chemistry Council, Edison Electric Institute (fossil and nuclear energy), Fort Howard Corp. (a paper manufacturer) and the National Mining Association. Milloy himself was personally registered as a lobbyist for Monsanto and the International Food Additives Council.

I would think that Milloy would disclose his relationships and ties on the web site in the interest of objectivity. But of course nothing about his ties to any of these industries is revealed. Anyone credible would disclose all potential conflicts up front.

A good link to make you think twice about junkscience.com here, and a good debunking of a typical argument over here

[softwareNerd]

More ad hominem: "don't let the accused speak; he is not disinterested".

You're yet to make any substantial points.

Edited December 15, 2007 by softwareNerd