Leaderboard

Thank you, WoodDragon for going to the time and effort on educating the rest of us who clearly don't know anywhere near as much on this subject as you do Hutch, why are you so threatened by the possibility of your being wrong about this subject? It doesn't appear that you're wanting to know the facts; rather you're just trying to save face and refuse to admit being mislead by - apparently severely - discredited professionals. And whoever it was who mentioned WD's dad in an insult... way to go, what a fantastically mature way to put forward your personal beliefs on climate change. *********** The planet will survive without humans. Humans will NOT survive without the planet. Priorities should be adjusted accordingly. *********** The following posts are NOT childish, condescending, and obnoxious?!? Edit: Also I negatised a few of the more particularly childish comments and positised WD's more detailed and knowledgable posts.

No, actually. Hypotheses, ideas, and even accepted theories are continually scrutinised and retested. It's a part of what scientists do. Many scientists have their hobby-horses, sure, but if they can actually turn an idea over, even a favoured one, well, that's fodder for an extension of knowledge, which is what science is all about. There are always going to be some recalcitrants of course, and a classic example of this is some of the scientific climate change denialists who don't know when to let go, even after their ideas have been well and truly roasted. Gerlich and Tscheuschner, Lindzen, Plimer, and others spring to mind... I personally have had experimental results that have blown previously-held ideas (both mine and others) out of the water. It's surprising, and one always goes back and double-checks everything and then triple-checks it, to make sure, but it's also a real intellectual buzz to find such a challenge to old ideas. I think the meme that scientists are all ideologues comes in part from the dismissal of scientists of pseudoscientific nonsense such as over-unity engines and antigravity machines. This gets up the goat of the nutters who push this stuff, but they seem constitutionally incapable of understanding why it is that the professional scientific world does discount such notions. They scream "Galileo!" and make a lot of noise about how their genius is not recognised, without actually understanding why they're dismissed. Such dismissal might look to be ideological snobbery from the outside, but in the end there's no point in being so open-minded that your brain falls out. [Edit: Please take the time to follow the Galileo link. The quotes at the end are priceless.]

Isn't that just what science is though... an ideology?

The fact is, hutch, that you don't want to believe the science, so you won't believe it. That's not scepticism, it's ideology. Just like some folk don't want to believe that the Earth wasn't created in 6 days, just over 6 thousand years ago, even with the huge array of scientific evidence that proves otherwise. And you think that scientists are "religious"...

You'll never believe anything "the science" has to teach you hutch, as you don't want to believe it. Your mind is as closed as a locked door with the key thrown out.

Only if it actually changes human behaviour, and how we get and use our energy. Otherwise it'll be useless.

Most of the surface stations are decades old, and were nowhere near built-up areas when they were first sited. See, there's this thing called urban sprawl, which arises from development, and these things have encroached on a subgroup of the stations. Over time some stations were simply closed, others were relocated, others were given (or retained) a lower classification and not used for certain calculations, others were recalibrated using ongoing corroboration techniques, and so on. And many remained as first class stations. See, there's no great conspiracy to hide the reason for "poor" siting. In most cases it's simply a result of the expansion of cities, and where it's not the stations were almost always recognised as being second rate. There was never any intention to "create fake warming", and as I have been repeatedly asking you now, how do you explain the fact that US surface station warming is independently confirmed by "ocean temperatures, by temperatures in scores of other countries around the planet, by the melting of glaciers, by the phenological changes in a huge array of plant and animal species, by other biological and ecological alterations around the planet, by corrected satellite measurements, and, as I said before, by the stations in the US itself that are not anywhere near a city"?

That wasn't mine it was from your link....... The point I'm making, duffus, is that the basis for Codling's/Watt's/Lewis' arguments about the fraud/incompetence in US surface station records - arguments that you are attempting to promote - is spurious. You quote Kforestcat, who derides Menne et al without basis, so therefore you are aligning yourself with his comments. I am simply pointing out that there is no defence of Codling/Watt/Lewis/Kforestcat... or hutch. Sheather: .No. Erm, yes. I get from my ISP x-gigabytes of download a month - what does that mean? That I save x-gigbytes to my hard-drive every month? I think not. Further, when I open a pdf in Firefox, it is saved to RAM, and not to one of my document folders on my external hard drive. Sorry mate, but you're wrong. Twice. Bacon. I've never suggested that we surrender all of our freedoms. I'm a big libertarian myself, and I hate bureaucracy and big government. I especially hate Big Brother style government, and corporate snooping of average citizens' habits. However, I want my grand-kids and my great-grand-kids to have the same freedoms that I enjoy now, and I want them to have the same quality of life, and I want them to have the same opportunity to grow the species of pants that we do, and to see the same species of animals that we do, and to do so with no more worry of the world going belly-up than my grandparents had. If we don't clean up our acts today, though, they won't be the chance to enjoy these freedoms and privileges. How we do this needs to be discussed by everyone, and that obviously ain't gonna happen when there are so many people who won't even acknowledge that there's a problem. It's like trying to tell a little kid why broccoli is good for them...

Go for it. Once I identify someone as a troll rather than just as an idiot, I stop responding to them. In your case it's a very tempting option. By way of observation, I note that you simply changed the subject every time I pointed out that you were wrong. How about you stop throwing abstract denialists' claims around, and how about you stop trying to trump me with the next denialist canard or red herring or strawman or whatever gambit your can come up with, and you actually sit sown and type in your own words a clear and detailed physical explanation of where climate science has it wrong. You know, using physics and equations and stuff like that? Do you actually have enough science under your belt to do so? You can use crayons and paper to draw pretty picture if you like, but it'll be a cold day in hell before you will be able to give a one page answer that shows why climatology is wrong. And if it's wrong, a page should be all it takes to summarise it. If warming climatology was a fraud, or corrupt, such a one page demonstration would be on the front page of every newspaper, and scientists would be tripping over themselves to be the first to publish something in teh scientific literature that would earn them a Nobel Prize. It won't be happening any time soon.

No, your mistake is that you are an idiot.

Idiot. You obviously didn't read my post:

Idiot. I downloaded it and saved it. That's why I know that it was 4.3 megabytes in size, as I observed yesterday. I read through it too, which is why I know that it is crap. It's also why I know that it referred to Watts' SurfaceStations project, amongst all of the other crap. And I actually explained to you why it is crap. So no, I did not ignore your lame link. Heh, you obviously didn't read Menne et al 2010. You needn't have copied and pasted paragraph after paragraph of crap if you had. But if technical stuff is beyond you, go back to the Skeptical Science link and follow the links there - all of the answers to your silly claims are addressed amongst the explanations and links there. You are also patently oblivious to the fact that there have always been correction made for the urban heat island effect, that has occurred as previously isolated areas have been subsumed by development. You are similarly patently oblivious to the fact that there are many, many temperature stations that have always been isolated from the urban heat island effect, that still demonstrate the same pattern of warming over the last 100 years, and that the oceans are warming (no "air conditioner exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, or asphalt" there, huh?), and that there is an enormous body of phenological, ecological, and glaciological evidence to corroborate the fact of warming. Massive fail, Hutch. Feedbacks? You need to start reading about feedbacks. There's no "tricking" or "deceiving". This is just denialist spin. There have been short-term observations of the tropical tropospheric hotspot. And yes, there are freely-acknowledged issues with long term observations, but this does not challenge the proposition of global warming. You see, the tropical tropospheric hotspot should occur no matter the cause of global warming; that is, it should occur if it's human-caused or if it's natural. If a tropical tropospheric hotspot does not occur when the planet is warming, then this means that all understanding of basic physics is wrong, and not that there is no human-caused warming. We know that our physics understanding is not wrong, because it's been tested time and again in all of our technology that actually works. And we know unequivocably that the planet has warmed, and we know that there are short-term hotspots, so the longer-term uncertainty is most likely a problem with the way that the troposphere is measured by satellites. And it wouldn't be the first time that satellite measurements were wrong... Roy Spencer, a denialist at UAH and who used satellite measurements to try to prove that there was no warming, was caught out when it showed that he had problems in his data, that when corrected showed that yes, actually, the planet is warming just as the surface station data had said. On the matter of Hal Lewis, it's quaint that you think that his resignation actually meant anything, but if you had bothered to do some background reading, you'd have discovered that it was a great exercise in huffing and puffing from someone who knows much less about climatology than he pretends. Read this link, it's actually a devastating dismissal of Lewis's drama-queen dummy-spit. Shhh...its called cut and paste....and those who keep banging the "world is ending" drum are all over the net ripping into any one who dares question there [<i>sic</i>] self importance. Hutch, the only stuff that I cut and paste is explicitly included in quote boxes, or in quotation marks. All of the rest is my own typing. Get over it. Unfortunately, it is the denials who are all over the internet spreading their shit. Folk like myself are simply trying to straighten out the record with reference to the actual science. Read this thread, or any thread discussing warming - your lot are there just dropping claims without any reference to primary literature, or without any provision of detailed explanation for their claims. It's all heresay. On the other hand, people like me try to straighten out the record, and in return we get dissemblance, changings of the subject, and shiftings of the goal posts. That's one reason why denialists can't even decide amongst themselves why it is that they think that humans are not warming the planet. If you don't believe that your lot are spamming the internet with unsubstantiated crap, you only need to study how G00gle searches on climate warming subjects frequently return a plethora of denialist sites before there's much sign of actual expert material appearing.

I gave you an explanation - Codling and Evans are full of pseudoscientific crap. Their stuff is refuted time and again: that you do not know this simply shows that you're not very widely read in climate discussion. I'n sorry, but I don't have the time to write a book's worth to explain it to you, and I doubt that you'd actually read it anyway, but I will say again what I've recommended before - go away, UTFSE, read, read, and read some more - and not just conspiracy sites, but real science - and stop listening to shock jocks and propagandists. If you can actually demonstrate clearly in a paragraph what the fraud is, how it has been perpetrated, how it is coordinated, and who is involved, I'd be most interested. Please, go ahead. And seriously, do yourself a favour and learn a little about the history of the climate change argument. I know - it's about three quarters of an hour of listening,which is probably way past your attention span, but try it nevertheless. To others with a more open mind, please do follow that last link. It'll put a lot of the claims of denialists in context, although you'll still need to go to scientific sources to understand why any particular example of their crap, is crap.

You didn't waste half an hour necessarily WD. Be scientific and collect data on how many people benefit from your posts!

seems to be the bottom line. edit: BTW thanks WD for going to so much effort.

1) Does it matter if I do or do not? 2) Why would we? and 3) what is the relationship of the metaphysical question of god, with the physics of global warming?

Synchro, seriously bro', read carefully Greenfyre's initial take-down of Morano's piece. Seriously mate - I mean it! It'll take time, and it's still only an initial look at Morano, but a lot of what you've referred to has already been discredited. Listing so many quotes doesn't automatically invalidate any of the science, because Morano is not actually tackling any point. Look carefully at the selection, and in fact look carefully at the whole document. You'll notice that there's not actually any serious science in it - as Greenfyre observes, "utterly absent is any trace of of actual science or any reference to it except in the most abstract and meaningless ways". The scattergun method of listing this sort of quoting without carefully putting forward the context, a favourite technique of Morano and his mates, is hedging toward the fallacy of plurium interrogationum, and it only serves to tie up an argument without actually getting to the meat of the disagreement. If you have a sincere problem with the actual science of global warming, rather than a shivery fear that's the result of the words of people such as Morano, please detail it to me and I will try to address the specifics. Trying to address the quotations in a list like the one above is like trying to put out burning garbage bins along a street whilst the school on the other side of the fence is blanketed in smoke. Neverthless, I'll try to give the potted version of my knowledge of each quote, with the proviso that you shouldn't believe me any more than you should believe the quote in isolation - you need to go back to each and explore them in detailed context. 1) Tom Tripp is a metallurgist, who: and who misrepresents his status with the IPCC. 2) Leonard Weinstein is a former engineer who has produced no credible work that actually refutes any of the basis of climatology. Greenfyre has more. 3) Robert B. Laughlin? Oh, Morano must mean this Robert B. Laughlin, who earned a lot of scorn from scientists by publishing his nihilist views without actually producing any climatological science at all. 4) Christopher J. Kobus. Mechanical engineer (climate change deniers are notorious for being engineers or geologists - can you figure out why?). Note how his quote does not actually contain, nor does it refer to, any, you know, science? 5) Anatoly Levitin. Oh god, his quote is just so stupid that I can't believe that even Morano put it on a list. No, actually, I can... The physics of climatology is not about how much energy humans release, but about how much energy-absorbing 'greenhouse' gas we release. The CO2 that we release absorbs and re-radiates back to earth far, far more energy than we actually directly release from fossil fuel. That energy comes from that stonking great ball of thermonuclear-fusing fire of hydrogen in the sky - the sun. We don't need to release energy ourselves to warm the planet, all we need to do is to put a big blankie around it and the sun will do the job for us. This nonsense is so priceless that any science graduate should laugh, if they didn't cry first at the sheer idiocy of it. 6) Geraldo Luís Lino. Geologist. (Heh, I should do astrology...) One of a fat cadre of people who are threatened by the fact that their profession is implicitly tied with the extraction of the materials that are causing the current warming, and in this case someone who makes quite some money, thank-you-very-much, selling books reassuring people that the science is a fraud - although he produces no useful science to back up any of his claims. 7) Mary Mumper. Who? Sorry, never heard of her, but her quote is a huge non sequitur. It matters not if she considers herself an "environmentalist" (so do the Japanese whalers - truly!), or if she "disagrees with Al Gore". What she needs to do is to produce some science - either her own original work, or a credible analysis and summary of someone else's. No sign of that. 8) William C. Gilbert. Well, he's ashamed, but what else is he? I can't find anything remotely climatological by him in the scientific literature, and the fact that he published in Energy and Environment (see my earlier post) instantly tells me that he is either incompetent, or completely clueless, or speaking crap, or all three. Seriously, E&E is no better than Woman's Day for scientific cred. 9) Hans Jelbring. Another 'who'? Apparently he has a PhD thesis about climate and wind, which was a hopeful start, but as it's only 111 pages I started to grow a little suspicious - that's a bit limp, but as it's not available for reading, I'll let that one go to the keeper. Next clue is that he's another star of E&E (a paper titled "Greenhouse Effect as a Function of Atmospheric Mass") - uh oh... And guess what, it seems that he's one of the curious folk who doesn't actually understand gas physical chemistry or thermodynamics, when he really should. From his E&E paper: This is true if there are 'greenhouse' gases (water, CO2, methane, etc) in the atmosphere. Otherwise, if the theoretical atmosphere simply contains gases such as nitrogen or oxygen, incoming and outgoing radiation will go their merry ways in spite of any atmosphere, as these gases are completely transparent to infrared radiation. No difference in temperature variation, in spite of any non-'greenhouse' gas variation - not unless the atmosphere is so bloody dense that it actually absorbs heat kinetically from the planet's surface. And that's a different kettle of fish. Another of his quotes: is so hilariously, screamingly wrong that I am amazed that even Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, the editor (and another geologist ), allowed this to go to print. The thermodynamics is too complicated to go into here, but there are sources for discussion if anyone is really interested. Actually, thinking about it a little, I recall that Science of Doom had something to say about this a while back, and sure enough... Just search for "Jelbring" on the page. 10) (Fuck, double digits, and I'm still going) So, Burt Rutan. Engineer. Right. Experience in climatology? None. Reading of the science? None, apparently. Claim? .Ah, he's one of those simplistic twits... Yeah, some plants grow much better in a high-CO2 atmosphere. That's trivially understood. What he doesn't say is that many crop species are outcompeted by weeds, when grown in a high CO2 atmosphere, and that their nutritional content decreases to more than offset the productivity gain. And pest species that eat crops chew through them so much more too, because they can't gather efficiently the nutrients they need. Oh, and with a high CO2 content comes a higher temperature and thus a higher soil evaporation rate, so if you're not in an area that benefits from regular increased rain, you're screwed. Oh, and many soil symbionts are screwed by higher CO2, as are many plants in natural plant association, so those parts of the global ecosystem can go belly-up too. A lot of this is covered in the second half of .Combine the effects of increasing CO2 and increasing temperature on ecosystems, and you'll FUBAR the current state of the biosphere before any decent substitute for the productivity that we rely upon reappears. We certainly won't be here to see it, and it's unlikely that future humans would either, for centuries or even for millenia. [Edit: Another thing that is worth pointing out is that until human activity went berserk with the Industrial Revolution, biodiversity was greater in the current epoch that it ever was at any time in the Earth's history. And this biodiversity was achieved with an atmospheric CO2 concentration of around 280 ppm - plants did not "starve" from CO2 "scarcity" during this time, and they are indeed exquisitely adapted to such levels.] Oh, and have I mentioned ocean acidification yet? Fuck this for a joke. I'm just torturing myself I've wasted an hour and a half of my life picking at the lame-arsed claims of people who don't present any real, factual science to the public, and that's an hour an a half that I'll never get back. What pisses me off even more is that I just found a review similar to mine - my only consolation is that I lasted for one more than he did. One of the things that characterises most of the people in Morano's list is that they have very different reasons for saying that there is no global warming - to the point that they have contradictory and often mutually exclusive views. Some people say that there is no greenhouse effect; others say that there is but that it is negligible, and others say that CO2 in not a greenhouse gas. Some of the people on the list claim that CO2 in the atmosphere is not increasing, or that it comes from volcanoes (humans produce more than a hundred times more CO2). Some of them say that there is no temperature increase, and others say that there is but that it's not caused by humans. And it just goes on and on and on: it's a dog's breakfast of denial, and nowhere in there is there actually any real science to support their case. And in petitions such as this some otherwise-credible people are in fact misrepresented, or were asked trick questions in order to get the answer that the lobby group wanted so that they could use their names on a list. The one thing that climate change denialists have in common is that they know how to sound all sciency to lay people, but they never actually engage in any real science, and certainly not in exchanges with real, professional climate scientists. There are only a handful - literally - who do, and almost to a man these people admit that there is a greenhouse effect and that the planet is warming: their take (or the public face of it, at least) is that it is not warming as quickly as physics, instrumental data, and empirical evidence indicate. And sadly, most of these blokes have obvious ties to the fossil fuel industry or similar lobbies. Syncro, I'll say again - if you have a specific point of science where you believe that the issue of anthropogenic global warming falls down, elucidate it here and I'll try to tell you what the best understanding on the area is. But first, please - I'm begging you - take the stuff from the denialists with a huge dollop of salt, and think about trying to track down some of the science yourself. Googling won't bring it up immediately because denialists spend more time on the web spreading their gear than do scientists, but if you start with Google Scholar, or even go down to your local uni library or to the Physics/Physical Chemistry departments, you'll be able to find folk who would be happy to talk to you. It breaks my heart that otherwise clued-in dudes don't seem to have their minds open about this. Look past the screaming headlines of the denialists, and don't pay any attention to the overly-hyped stories from the media either. Learn the science, the real science. The truth is out there, and it's not nearly as conspiratorial as you might think, and sadly the end result if we get it wrong will be worse for future generations than just about all of the hyperbole that the media currently bath us in - it'll just be a slow and inexorable path there, and fortunately (or otherwise) none of us will be around to see the worst of it...

Thought so...can't give an explanation for the fraud that is being thrust upon the human race...we are just a waste of time if we can't understand why the fraud? Just ignore it and it goes away...sorry NOT!

It actually worries me that you publicly posted that these people privately messaged you. Why did you want us to know they support you?

Well well well, why doesn't that surprise me...I'ts us naughty little deniers running around the internet destroying your dreams and it's your duty to set us right...Maybe what is concerning us idiots is the validity of those "actual science" links that you have lined up on your desk top. Idiot. I downloaded it and saved it. That's why I know that it was 4.3 megabytes in size, as I observed yesterday. You don't need to down load something to know what size it is dickwad! From the time I posted it you took 1hr and 1 minute to download it and read the whole document. You even had plenty of time to get back on the forum and insult me. You really are as good as you think hey? I made the mistake of questioning the integrity of the science. Oh deary me...sorry about that...If you tell us it's so then who are we to question. I note you fail to mention anything in regards to Harold Lewis......A good scientist who clearly believes corruption on a grand scale has taken place...Is he just an idiot like me? As I said before and you continually fail to answer is why did they need to deceive in the first place? Oh...I'm sorry..I forgot...this is all above board ridgy didge stuff because YOU told us all so....

You just got caught out big noting yourself there hey sunshine

Are you for real? You know every thing? You've heard it all before? Are you full of yourself or what....Man am I definitely putting in that wood heater for winter..burn baby burn....clown!

I know your there

Ive also attempted to balance the positive and negative points. I did this non bias and simply tried to zero them all..... Seriously, people are way capable of forming an opinion on there own, with out needing to see if someone else thinks its right or wrong. ACTUALLY- I take back my feelings of this thread being degenerated, to be honest , I like posting controversial articles and watching the debate that insues. You all deserve a pat on the back, to defend your ideas takes guts, and you all stood tall. There was condecending ideas but you will all learn it does nothing to further your point. Sorry for stirring the shit.... make sure your all this entertaining in future threads.

I have had a bit of a re think about all the negatives you gave me and I do believe you have been a little unfair, please let me explain. You neg me for IDIOT...It's warming dude get used to it.... It was a direct reply to him saying It's warming dude get over it...now if you think the word IDIOT offensive then maybe you should look at whom first used it and how often they did. Then you neg me for "I'm a little tea pot...short and stout" Well I am ever so sorry...I just didn't know that was an insult...please forgive me I was just meaning to say I'm still here. And then you neg me for ..I know your there. And I was right...he was there.... could be insulting I suppose but no more so than anything he said to me...you really didn't read the whole thing did you fancypants? You just jumped in to defend the person that believes the same thing as you. As for insulting his father...WTF...All I said was did your dad call you Idiot? Hardly an insult to his father and maybe just a little precious on your part don't you think? I could be childish and hunt out all your post's and put a neg to them but I understand that a persons rep is important to them so I won't do that but I am pretty pissed off that you have no such issue with trashing me. And still the question goes unanswered....Why did they put them in locations in the first place that went against their own guiedlines and don't give me the "urban sprall" crap cause that won't wash. You maybe happy to let that question go unanswered but not me. Sorry I so offended you. Hutch