Global Warming

[Inspector]

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.

I read about halfway down the page and got 4 junk-type claims - i.e. establishing correlations and trying to sell them as causation. I stopped reading once I saw the secondhand smoke "30% more likely" lie used. As I said in my post on smoking, 30% more than a statistically insignificant number is still a statistically insignificant number and proves nothing at all. Anyone who cites that nonsense is a fool or a liar.

And, to boot, it's a chiropractor. I have a low opinion of them in general and this isn't helping.

Get some new sources.

So you finally got around to reading the actual EPA study? Or are you like the fellow who banned DDT - who didn't even read the study which said, and I quote - "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."

I tried to find that AMAP study that is cited by your web site, but it appears their web site is no longer active. As with any substance, however, I'm sure you can show toxicity in some kind of dose - a dose well beyond anything they were using when they banned it.

As for the WWF and the EPA, which seem to be the ones doing the actual study here, I suppose those are totally philosophically neutral and scientific organizations who aren't environmentalists at all. Meanwhile, the original EPA study showed that eggshells were not in fact thinned at all; in fact they were strengthened.

You're credibility is severely compromised by these outrageous claims about smoking and DDT.

There you go with that fallacy again.

You know what? I don't think you actually read any of the links or information I've provided when you started your attacks and I don't think you have since done so any more than is necessary to fabricate your fallacious attacks and arguments from intimidation.

I have to conclude, for the moment, that you're dishonest.

What's next? Lead paint is good for you? We didn't land on the moon? 9/11 was an inside job?

This from Mr. anti-AGW scientists were bought out by the EEEEEEVIL OIL COMPANIES.

Your final paragraph is just insults. I don't have to deal with that. You are a pisant and a dishonest fool. Get lost.

Oh, and here's some more on the "Global Warming" lie.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Inspector

[fletch]

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.

You seem to be doing two things here. First, implying that the scientists on the EPA or the UN climate study payroll are objective and second, denouncing those who oppose them as shills for big industry. There is no other way to explain your rejection of anything Milloy and others like him have to say. Who do you suppose is going to fund research into debunking global warming if not the private industries that stand accused? His familiarity and knowledge of the industries he is representing gives him greater credibility in my mind not less. Global warming is politically and ideologically driven. Science is used to perpetuate the fraud. Generally, I view anything the UN shits out as just that. And the EPA isnt much better. I would trust an industry funded study over a state funded study any day.

[Thales]

Wikipidia is not a credible source,

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for highly political subjects, such as Global Warming. I've vetted it and draw my conclusions from my direct experience. Find something dealing with, for instance, animal rights, and you'll find all manner of wild-eyed nonsense. Wikipedia is great for virtually any non-political topic, such as the architecture of an Nvida graphics card, but will be of almost no use for politically charged topics and often provides misinformation.

yet you are going to cite www.junkscience.com as your source?

Steven Milloy is a scientist who *explains* things and I've come to trust him after years of reading his website.

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.

That's an ad hominem attack. Milloy has proven to me to be very reliable and honest.

Wrong. She had strong evidence of a concensus.

The following is an article by her from 2006:

Scientists Agree The Earth is Warming

Papers that continue to rehash arguments that have already been addressed and questions that have already been answered will, of course, be rejected by scientific journals, and this explains my findings. Not a single paper in a large sample of peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 refuted the consensus position, summarized by the National Academy of Sciences, that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

Since the 1950s, scientists have understood that greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels could have serious effects on Earth's climate. When the 1980s proved to be the hottest decade on record, and as predictions of climate models started to come true, scientists increasingly saw global warming as cause for concern.

In 1988, the World Meteorological Assn. and the United Nations Environment Program joined forces to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. The panel has issued three assessments (1990, 1995, 2001), representing the combined expertise of 2,000 scientists from more than 100 countries

Notice she says “refutes”, a refutation would be a rarity in a paper. But further note she is referring to the last 50 years, that only goes back to 1955 or so, well after the bulk of the warming occurred.

1980s the hottest decade on record? What record? Satellite and balloon data showed no upward or downward trend in the 1980s, and that’s the best data we have.

Regarding the IPCC, it has been since discovered that many of those scientists were not climate scientists, and many of them didn’t agree and had no say in the final political document.

, and a fourth report is due out shortly. Its conclusions - global warming is occurring, humans have a major role in it - have been ratified by scientists around the world in published scientific papers, in statements issued by professional scientific societies and in reports of the National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society and many other national and royal academies of science worldwide. Even the Bush administration accepts the fundamental findings. As President Bush's science advisor, John Marburger III, said last year in a speech: "The climate is changing; the Earth is warming."

To be sure, there are a handful of scientists, including MIT professor Richard Lindzen, the author of the Wall Street Journal editorial, who disagree with the rest of the scientific community.

Now, this is a flat out lie. There are not a mere handful of scientists. Using the phrase “a handful” is a deliberate attempt to make the number sound really small. We know for a fact there are hundreds of scientists who aren’t on board. We know it from petitions. See This Petition for instance.

This is the really telling part:

To a historian of science like me, this is not surprising. In any scientific community, there are always some individuals who simply refuse to accept new ideas and evidence. This is especially true when the new evidence strikes at their core beliefs and values.

Notice how biased the above statement is. There have been many times in history where a lone scientist has been right, and the consensus wrong (even though the evidence doesn’t support a consensus here), but she leaves no room for that possibility.

Here is a link to a refutation Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of

peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have

published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global

warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a

natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen

global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our

Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.

"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that

a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global

temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow

Dennis Avery.

[Thales]

Continuing with Rourke:

Btw, did you read the pdf with the statement by the AAAS I provided? It was a clearly non-scientific statement, full of wild and irrational claims. Read it and tell me it's informed by a rational evaluation of the science.

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.

This line strikes me as bizarre, if not down right dishonest. Given the fact that the temperature of the earth has been rising and falling as long as there has been an earth, we know that natural change is real. It happens continuously. Natural change takes place all of the time, continuously. Suddenly, magically as soon as human beings get cars and CO2 emitting power plants, bang! all change is man caused? Think about that for a while. Why even write such a sentence?

Also, given the fact I know there are scientific papers, peer reviewed, that point to sun spot activity as the cause of most of the change, I know for a fact that there are scientists out there who believe that most of the change is natural.

That's none, as in zero.

In a pig's eye.

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.

What? They guy is being endorsed by our education system. He was given the Noble Peace prize for his propaganda. He is very much part of the mainstream of thought. He's become the de facto leader of it, in fact.

I said regarding government funded science:

"They are, because the only science that gets funded [by government] is politically correct science."

your response:

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

Well, that's cute. That's how leftists "argue". I've substantiated virtually every one of my claims.

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.

These higher caliber scientists had a long track record of excellence in science before the whole GW issue ever came up. Furthermore, what I also note is that they make sense. They don't come across as propagandists, as GW supporters do. If you listen to their actual arguments you find real merit.

Why is the apocalyptic GW view the only one that you attack? Because it's easier?

Because it's pure propaganda being used to force us down the road to totalitarianism. The fact is, the temperature of the earth today is pretty much average over the last 8000 years. It was warmer 1000 years ago, and even warmer 4000 years ago. In fact, what was unusual was that little ice age of 150 years ago, which was the coldest period of the last 8000 years. That's what sticks out. There is simply no evidence of any big rise in temperature, and no evidence of anything that should cause us to be remotely concerned with the earth's temperature. Sea level is rising, but it's been rising for a long time, with no increase in rate of rise.

The only thing noteworthy are CO2 levels, but they have not been much a climate forcer, and water vapor is much the bigger greenhouse gas that overlaps the CO2 absorption spectrum.

Why aren't you out attacking all the mainstream sceintists who concur that man is affecting the climate in a serious way?

I like main stream scientists who don't go for GW propaganda. The few who have stepped forward who do go for the propaganda aren't convincing. Anyway, I did bring up Jim Hansen at Nasa in a prior posting.

You have to stop setting up straw men to knock down and see the bigger picture.

Name one "straw man".

The UN climate change talks in Bali just concluded.

A scientist comments here:

Scientists Urge World To Do Nothing

‘IPCC is unsound'

UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants.

"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any effect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. ( LINK )

"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails," Gray, who wrote the book "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," said.

"It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.

Do you honestly believe the uber-business friendly Bush Administrtation

Bush is a big government statist, not a capitalist.

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?

Al Gore received the Nobel Peace prize. He's regarded as valuable by leftist intellectuals.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Thales

[gags]

This is an article well worth reading. It tears the covers off of the lie that is the IPCC "consensus".

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968

[softwareNerd]

That article mentions Steve McIntyre, who runs the ClimateAudit site and has been the bane of many a GW researcher in the U.S. Sometimes, Steve's probing can seem like a fishing expedition and can irritate scientists who never thought they'd be audited as if they were working in the mint. Overall, however, Steve has contributed a lot. He has appointed himself as the unofficial auditing clearing house, and as a counter-balance to pro-GW sites like RealClimate.

[Inspector]

Bush is a big government statist, not a capitalist.

Good lord, was he serious with that comment? I thought for sure he was being sarcastic or something.

Well.

[Thales]

This is an article well worth reading. It tears the covers off of the lie that is the IPCC "consensus".

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968

Great article! I've heard scientists who are were part of the IPCC complain about it, but that's the most thorough analysis I've seen. In effect, it's a shell game. There is no transparency and the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Oh, these people are REALLY concerned about a REAL problem. Right. Yeah.

This is something that must be emphasized, these people are sneaky. People who are concerned with a real problem don't have to be sneaky and don't want to be sneaky. Virtually everything they write strikes me as suspect and superficial.

Btw, anyone who is interested, here is a Global Warming debate between Richard Lindzen, Phil Stott, Michael Crichton and three people from Real Climate, or at least one is associated with Real Climate (I think they all may be). This is a 10 part video. It will give you an insight into the best of the pro-GW scientists. It has some real entertainment value as well!

[gags]

This is something that must be emphasized, these people are sneaky. People who are concerned with a real problem don't have to be sneaky and don't want to be sneaky. Virtually everything they write strikes me as suspect and superficial.

I'm not a scientist, but anyone who is a critical thinker and who understands the way philosophy influences our lives should be able to see through this scam. If this were a true issue of science, why in the hell is there so much effort put into silencing people who interpret the data differently than the "consensus"? Why won't Al Gore, the high priest of AGW, agree to debate the issue?

More importantly, why are most of the proposed solutions to this supposed problem centered around reducing our standards of living as opposed to ones that rely on technology and that would be consistent with man's rational nature? You don't need to have a degree in atmospheric science to have major misgivings about AGW.

[softwareNerd]

...these people are sneaky. People who are concerned with a real problem don't have to be sneaky and don't want to be sneaky. Virtually everything they write strikes me as suspect and superficial.

Also, often they will say "well, yes Gore might be exaggerating and Mann's 'hockey stick' cannot be justified, but that doesn't change anything, because climate is still warming". For instance, Rourke disavowed Gore in a post above. Now,this would be fine if the organizations that matter (in terms of government power) were then to chuck people like Gore and Mann, and have nothing to do with them. Instead, they continue to use their more scary scenarios. Why is Gore speaking at Bali? Is there anything scientific that he brings to the table? On the one hand, they want to scare people into thinking that things are much worse than they are, and on the other, they will disavow the scare-mongers if someone more knowledgeable attacks them. The popular pop-science RealClimate site has Mann as one of it's key authors, and continues to praise Gore's film as being very accurate. It is disingenuous of them to then turn around and say that their opponents are the ones with an agenda!

As for committees, the kind of things mentioned in that article are par for the course. Even private companies trying to "build consensus" within the organization, will sometimes carefully pick team leaders who can achieve the veneer of consensus. Often, people will not overtly object to something as long as they do not feel they have actually signed on. Therefore, if people are working on different sub-goals, one only has to ensure that the team working on the critically controversial goals will toe the party line. Even for some of the more recalcitrant ones, if you let them write a dissenting opinion, they will usually be placated. The point is that this type of "consensus building" is not unique to the IPCC. This is how a lot of large committees work, particularly in the government sector.

The idea of 1000 climate scientist being agreed is laughable even on the surface of it, if one takes it to mean that there are 1000 independent inquiries that came to the same conclusion. The fact is that at any point in time most such fields have a handful of living people who set the framework for the discipline world-wide. A generation after Keynes, there were thousands of economics "experts" worldwide who all agreed that their observations of economies fit with Keynes'; then, there were thousands who think Milton Friedman was right; and so on.

[Robert J. Kolker]

After reading a recent article in CapMag on the global warming myth I decided to find out some more by reading older articles.

What is the myth?

1. That global warming (an upward secular trend in ocean or atmospheric temps exists)

OR

2. That warming, if it is the case, is due to anthropogenic causes, particularly the man caused production of CO2.

I am happy to say there was Global Warming after the last Ice Age. Also after the so-called Little Ice Age between 1600 and 1750. Sure enough. The ice melted and the oceans rose (about 360 feet after the end of the big ice age 13,000 ybp). Consider the alternative. Being comfortable in the temperate zones or being able to walk from Siberia to Alaska on foot but freezing one's ass off nine months out of the year. I will settle for warm, thank you.

Bob Kolker

Edited December 16, 2007 by Robert J. Kolker

[gags]

I will settle for warm, thank you.

Bob Kolker

Bob,

This points out another contradiction in the whole AGW crisis claim as it is currently presented for mass consumption. All we ever hear about are the potentially bad effects of AGW, based on much speculation. i.e., we're all going to drown when the polar ice caps melt, etc.... There is hardly ever a mention of the good effects of warmer weather. Given the nearly twelve inches of snow outside my door this weekend, I'm all in favor of more warming.

[UptonStellington]

For what it's worth:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Although, mention Inhofe to an environmentalist and they immediately tune you out.

[Thales]

For what it's worth:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Although, mention Inhofe to an environmentalist and they immediately tune you out.

Yes, but environmentalists try to marginalize anyone that disagrees with them. Don't cave into that. Anyway, 400 scientists are not Inhofe alone.

Thanks for the link!

[Rourke]

See the documentaries "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and "Doomsday Called Off" and you'll see many top flight scientists.

The only way you should look at that film is as a pure propanda peace. Carl Wunsch of MIT, who is quoted in the film, has come out vociferously that he was duped into believing it would be a balanced piece on global warming. Wunsch is on record as condemning the more excitable catastrophic GW claims, so he is a reasonable guy. But the film used his comments attacking some alarmist GW views, but only in the context that it supported their one-sided agenda, and never explained his belief that GW is a serious problem. He wrote them a letter explaining his objection to their blatant manipulation of him.

Here's a good sight that refutes some of the major claims of this film.

So here is a major bit of evidence to suggest you should be thinking twice about the objectivity of "Swindle".

[Rourke]

I read about halfway down the page and got 4 junk-type claims - i.e. establishing correlations and trying to sell them as causation. I stopped reading once I saw the secondhand smoke "30% more likely" lie used. As I said in my post on smoking, 30% more than a statistically insignificant number is still a statistically insignificant number and proves nothing at all. Anyone who cites that nonsense is a fool or a liar.

Well you call me a liar but here you have carelessly given me the opportunity to demonstrate your lie in the very same post. You said you got half-way down the page, then "stopped reading" after the "30% more likely lie". However, this is just the 4th of 45 complication listed, hardly half way down the page. Again, the credibility problem surfaces.

As for the WWF and the EPA, which seem to be the ones doing the actual study here, I suppose those are totally philosophically neutral and scientific organizations who aren't environmentalists at all. Meanwhile, the original EPA study showed that eggshells were not in fact thinned at all; in fact they were strengthened.

Okay, two problems here. Citing a study without a link or any documentation. Then, talking about an "original" study, when everyone knows science builds on other science. Why reach back to find an early study that just happens to agree with your thesis, even if it it does exist? I also find it interesting that you cast the EPA as wacky environmentalists when you disagree with their conclusions, then in the next breath use their study if it happens to support your view.

You know what? I don't think you actually read any of the links or information I've provided when you started your attacks and I don't think you have since done so any more than is necessary to fabricate your fallacious attacks and arguments from intimidation.

I have to conclude, for the moment, that you're dishonest.

I read everything. What makes it easy for me, as opposed to your plight, is that there is a lot less global warming skeptic science to brush up on as compared to AGW science. So you have my sympathies there. Although I don't see where I've lied about anything.

Your final paragraph is just insults. I don't have to deal with that. You are a pisant and a dishonest fool. Get lost.

I apologize for that.

[Rourke]

Also, given the fact I know there are scientific papers, peer reviewed, that point to sun spot activity as the cause of most of the change, I know for a fact that there are scientists out there who believe that most of the change is natural.

Links or documentation please. I would like to read the peer reviewed studies that say global warming is an all natural phenomenon. I believe even the sun spot papers acknowledge man's contribution to the warming.

I've substantiated virtually every one of my claims.

Well, except for this one:

I said regarding government funded science:

"They are, because the only science that gets funded [by government] is politically correct science."

Or any of this:

The fact is, the temperature of the earth today is pretty much average over the last 8000 years. It was warmer 1000 years ago, and even warmer 4000 years ago. In fact, what was unusual was that little ice age of 150 years ago, which was the coldest period of the last 8000 years. That's what sticks out. There is simply no evidence of any big rise in temperature, and no evidence of anything that should cause us to be remotely concerned with the earth's temperature. Sea level is rising, but it's been rising for a long time, with no increase in rate of rise.

The only thing noteworthy are CO2 levels, but they have not been much a climate forcer, and water vapor is much the bigger greenhouse gas that overlaps the CO2 absorption spectrum.

BTW take a meteorology class and try citing junkscience.com as a source for one of your papers. You'll get a good lesson in the use of valid source materials. A "truth-telling" web site should out of its way to document its financial and professional ties so that people can trust you. When you specifically downplay or omit financial ties or associations that could potentially contribute to a material bias, that's a major red flag. See factcheck.org for how to do it right. Then again, bad example, because factcheck.org actually is unbiased. Speaking of, here's a good link from them exposing GW lies from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

What? They guy is being endorsed by our education system. He was given the Noble Peace prize for his propaganda. He is very much part of the mainstream of thought. He's become the de facto leader of it, in fact.

Name one "straw man".

Al Gore is the human straw man, a convenient poster boy to attack, rather than a bunch of non-partisan scientists. He has made what many feel to be unsubstantiated claims about global warming in An Inconvenient Truth, such as hurricanes being linked to man-made GW (which may be true but the science is apparently inconclusive now). However, his underlying premise is not in dispute at all in the mainstream. He is not being lionized for his scientific achievements, but rather for his efforts at getting the word out that action needs to start now to curb emissions worldwide, especially in the US.

[Rourke]

Btw, anyone who is interested, here is a Global Warming debate between Richard Lindzen, Phil Stott, Michael Crichton and three people from Real Climate, or at least one is associated with Real Climate (I think they all may be). This is a 10 part video. It will give you an insight into the best of the pro-GW scientists. It has some real entertainment value as well!

A verbal debate is a good show but only shows who has the best rhetoric. You may not know this but the nation's best collegiate debate team for years is from one of those fundamentalist Christian colleges, Liberty University. So you don't have to be reasonable to win a debate.

[Rourke]

Bob,

This points out another contradiction in the whole AGW crisis claim as it is currently presented for mass consumption. All we ever hear about are the potentially bad effects of AGW, based on much speculation. i.e., we're all going to drown when the polar ice caps melt, etc.... There is hardly ever a mention of the good effects of warmer weather. Given the nearly twelve inches of snow outside my door this weekend, I'm all in favor of more warming.

Certainly anyone with even the slightest bit of curiosity could find information out there for themselves, from credible scientists who back anthropogenic GW, that there will be some good effects to GW. But the overall net results will NOT be good.

But your post here is more educational in that it gives us a preview of the next wave of argument against doing anything about GW. This argument will state that its too late to do anything, that GW is here and that 1) there's nothing we can do to stop it, or 2) its actually a good thing. This strategy will segway neatly from the one denying GW even exists. In fact we are starting to see more people jump on this bandwagon as the "it doesn't exist" argument is steadily becoming more untenable. And really it highlights the motivation, most of all. I don't think most GW skeptics are bad people, or that they're necessarily stupid. Their position is derived from fear, in this case fear of government action. And fear in so many cases trumps reason.

[Rourke]

I'm not a scientist, but anyone who is a critical thinker and who understands the way philosophy influences our lives should be able to see through this scam. If this were a true issue of science, why in the hell is there so much effort put into silencing people who interpret the data differently than the "consensus"? Why won't Al Gore, the high priest of AGW, agree to debate the issue?

I disagree with your premise. I think there is a level of frustration by many in the scientific community towards the ongoing misinformation campaign, similar to the one waged by Big Tobacco for decades, by a vocal minority (amplified by big oil, gas and auto company cash). So there is a tendency to lash out, in many instances rather viciously and unfairly at even the credible scientists who dispute some of the science of man-made GW. The stakes are high, and you better believe Exxonmobile knows it, which is why they have dumped gobs of cash at making this problem go away. Now if you are gullible enough to think that Exxonmobile is spending this money out of civic duty, well...

Edited December 22, 2007 by Rourke

[Inspector]

Well you call me a liar but here you have carelessly given me the opportunity to demonstrate your lie in the very same post. You said you got half-way down the page, then "stopped reading" after the "30% more likely lie". However, this is just the 4th of 45 complication listed, hardly half way down the page. Again, the credibility problem surfaces.

I didn't call you a liar - I said liar *or* fool. And I didn't read them in order - so there goes your theory. (Not that I would be a supreme liar if I was slightly imprecise about whether I had gotten halfway down or 1/8 of the way - something easy to miss at a glance)

And you haven't meaningfully replied to what I've said on smoking.

Okay, two problems here. Citing a study without a link or any documentation.

I'm referring to the study that has been referenced multiple times in this thread, including links to it - if you'd bothered to read the thread.

I also find it interesting that you cast the EPA as wacky environmentalists when you disagree with their conclusions, then in the next breath use their study if it happens to support your view.

They are wacky environmentalists so you know what their agenda is. It does lend a certain credibility when they say something is not harmful to animals. It isn't having it both ways - I'm saying even the wackos admitted it was harmless.

I read everything.

So far, I don't see that. You don't seem honestly interested in reading the arguments presented and linked to here, just in hurling insults and acting as a mouthpiece for environmentalism.

What makes it easy for me, as opposed to your plight, is that there is a lot less global warming skeptic science to brush up on as compared to AGW science.

If you'd bother at all to read what we have presented and linked to, there is a very potent - and NON-scientific - reason for that. The governments' involvement in the issue (see the blog Mike's Eyes and read the Ayn Rand articles he references), and the way that a philosophic ideology poisons the well are very powerful factors. For instance, you lament a lack of peer review - yet I have cited repeatedly the fact that the peers openly refuse to review anything that is against the AGW theory - automatically rejecting any such claim before even reading it to determine its scientific validity. Yet you haven't addressed this point in the least. It makes me think you have not in fact read the people you are arguing against before commencing your attacks.

I apologize for that.

If you're sincere about that, then I encourage you to actually follow all of the links and references given to you (including especially the blogs) so that you can have an informed discussion instead of simply blindly berating us.

[gags]

I disagree with your premise. I think there is a level of frustration by many in the scientific community towards the ongoing misinformation campaign, similar to the one waged by Big Tobacco for decades, by a vocal minority (amplified by big oil, gas and auto company cash). So there is a tendency to lash out, in many instances rather viciously and unfairly at even the credible scientists who dispute some of the science of man-made GW. The stakes are high, and you better believe Exxonmobile knows it, which is why they have dumped gobs of cash at making this problem go away. Now if you are gullible enough to think that Exxonmobile is spending this money out of civic duty, well...

Exxon Mobil is dumping "gobs of cash at making this problem go away"? The report you cite states that EM, a company that generated sales in excess of $300 billion last year alone, spent a little over $2million per year between 1998 and 2005 supporting some groups that don't necessarily agree with the GW "consensus". This hardly seems like a major effort to obfuscate the truth on such an important matter. How many hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in the last few years to promote global warming hysteria and alarmism? I find it odd that you have such a problem with private company that spends a couple of million dollars a year in an attempt to generate some balance while not seeming to care about the wild claims of pending doom that are routinely put out by the enviro freaks and their willing dupes in the media. Frankly, I wish companies like EM would spend a hell of a lot more money on setting the record straight.

By the way, I have an immediate sense of skepticism regarding any claims made by the Union of Concerned Scientists. This is the same group that opposed the Strategic Defense Initiative while attempting to convince Americans to engage in unilateral disarmament at the height of the Cold War. They are a bunch of leftists and I don't trust anything they say.

Edited December 23, 2007 by gags

[Thales]

The only way you should look at that film is as a pure propanda peace.

Carl Wunsch of MIT, who is quoted in the film, has come out vociferously that he was duped into believing it would be a balanced piece on global warming.

This is denied by the producers of the film, and none of the other scientists complained. Furthermore, Wunsch doesn't retract the scientific opinion he presented, which makes me think he was pressured by little environmental thugs out there. Anyway, "balanced" doesn't mean objective and that was a brilliant and objective documentary.

[Inspector]

Furthermore, Wunsch doesn't retract the scientific opinion he presented

Exactly. He objected to the fact that they omitted him saying he still thought it was a problem. He doesn't dispute the facts he said that they left in - and he doesn't claim that they distorted those facts - only that he didn't want to be presented as anti-AGW. It's nothing to indict the film over.

The report you cite states that EM, a company that generated sales in excess of $300 billion last year alone, spent a little over $2million per year between 1998 and 2005 supporting some groups that don't necessarily agree with the GW "consensus". This hardly seems like a major effort to obfuscate the truth on such an important matter.

Meanwhile, BP - which endorsed Kyoto - spends hundreds of millions running Green propaganda ads and investing in "alternatives." Really, I wish it were true that oil companies were opposing the environmentalists' propaganda, but unfortunately it isn't.

[Thales]

I said regarding government funded science:

"They are, because the only science that gets funded [by government] is politically correct science."

True, I didn't back this up fully, just read this complaint from many scientists.

Or any of this:

Quote of me:

The fact is, the temperature of the earth today is pretty much average over the last 8000 years. It was warmer 1000 years ago, and even warmer 4000 years ago. In fact, what was unusual was that little ice age of 150 years ago, which was the coldest period of the last 8000 years. That's what sticks out. There is simply no evidence of any big rise in temperature, and no evidence of anything that should cause us to be remotely concerned with the earth's temperature. Sea level is rising, but it's been rising for a long time, with no increase in rate of rise.

The only thing noteworthy are CO2 levels, but they have not been much a climate forcer, and water vapor is much the bigger greenhouse gas that overlaps the CO2 absorption spectrum.

The documentary Doomsday Called Off will give you most of this information, but many of these facts have been well established from multiple sources. I mean, the little ice age? Have you never heard of it? The 1000 year optimum, have you never heard of it? If so, your knowledge of this matter is woefully lacking.

BTW take a meteorology class and try citing junkscience.com as a source for one of your papers. You'll get a good lesson in the use of valid source materials.

Milloy cites the work of scientists when discussing the warming trend. It’s been months since I’ve been to the link, but I recall that vividly.

Al Gore is the human straw man, a convenient poster boy to attack,

Al Gore is the de facto leader of the pseudo-science movement. I've heard him praised by "scientists" who toe the GW line. Btw, have you read about the fraud involved in the IPCC linked from this thread?