‘Get Over It’: Climate Change Is Happening

[Guest]

You can say that based on a 4 second snippet of Jack saying he's a denier of man-made global warming???

:td:

You were attempting to define cherry-picking.

Please. It's tiome to grow up if you're going to discuss here.

There is clear evidence that Schmidt - your hero - doctored data to mislead the public (that would be you). There are other examples of his deceptions.

This MID is what you base your belief on - known liars.

it is not an ad homin to point out that someone has lied.

If the evidence was in any way clear that AGW was not real - then skeptics would not have to use deception to make their points.

Its time for your to grow up and stop following charlatans.

Answer the simple direct question - has Schmidt cherry picked data to show an increasing sea ice trend when in fact the data clearly shows a declining sea ice trend ? Yes or No.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 12, 2012 by Guest

[MID]

There is clear evidence that Schmidt - your hero - doctored data to mislead the public (that would be you). There are other examples of his deceptions.

This MID is what you base your belief on - known liars.

it is not an ad homin to point out that someone has lied.

If the evidence was in any way clear that AGW was not real - then skeptics would not have to use deception to make their points.

Its time for your to grow up and stop following charlatans.

Br Cornelius

There is clear evidence that Schmidt - your hero - doctored data to mislead the public (that would be you). There are other examples of his deceptions.

This MID is what you base your belief on - known liars.

Br Cornelius

As I say to all foolish CTs, here or elsewherePROVE IT.

I expect no response, as you are foolish and incapable (as are all CTs) of proving their ridiculous contentions.

And you speak to "known liars", anotgher great CT tactic in which their simply saying something, no matter how stupid, is supposed to be perceived as true, simply because you say it.

Prove it....all of it.

But, aas you know, you can't.

[Guest]

I demonstrated Schmidts Lie.

You have proved beyond reasonable doubt that you live in denial and that you do not respect the scientific method.

You cannot even answer a simple question regarding a simple fact.

As I said before - time with you MID is always time wasted.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

More on Harrison Schmidt;

Regarding Mark Boslough’s Jan. 25 My View, “Climate-change deniers ignore science,” and in subsequent responses, there was discussion of Harrison Schmitt’s statement in 2009 that Arctic sea ice had recovered to 1989 levels. Since data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center were cited, we feel it worthwhile to clarify the issue for readers.

Sea ice conditions can vary from month to month, but overall we see the continuation of a strong downward trend. You can read our 2009 season analysis at http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html.

While 2009 Arctic sea ice extent did briefly exceed 1989 levels in April and May, it was substantially less than 1989 the rest of the year. The 2009 maximum extent, minimum extent, and annual average extent values were all well below 1989. Based on these facts, it would be incorrect to suggest that 2009 represented a recovery of Arctic sea ice to 1989 levels.

NSIDC posts the most recent data and regularly updated analyses of conditions at _http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/._

http://climatecrocks...-strange-views/

Br Cornelius

Edited August 13, 2012 by Guest

[Paracelse]

When will ants (humans) will realize the earth doesn't need us to change? Real scientists do! more here.

Earth's climate will change no matter what we do, it has changed in past when the humanoids had no idea of creating a hummer and dino didn't know they would be gasoline!

By the way, my car runs on free range dinosaurs, so it's organic isn't it?

[MID]

There is clear evidence that Schmidt - your hero - doctored data to mislead the public (that would be you). There are other examples of his deceptions.

This MID is what you base your belief on - known liars.

it is not an ad homin to point out that someone has lied.

If the evidence was in any way clear that AGW was not real - then skeptics would not have to use deception to make their points.

Answer the simple direct question - has Schmidt cherry picked data to show an increasing sea ice trend when in fact the data clearly shows a declining sea ice trend ? Yes or No.

Br Cornelius

And what, pray tell, would a geologists motive be for lying, using deception, etc...and what gives you the idea that he influenced me in some way?

I felt the way I do (which he happens to echo...and wisely) long before Jack resigned from the Planetary society.

Sometimes, the zealots lie to bolster their position.

Woops.

[MID]

I demonstrated Schmidts Lie.

You have proved beyond reasonable doubt that you live in denial and that you do not respect the scientific method.

You cannot even answer a simple question regarding a simple fact.

As I said before - time with you MID is always time wasted.

Br Cornelius

CTs waste alot of time, making statements that are unsubstantiated, as if they're fact, and presuming to "know" when they have no klnowledge at all.

You do that very well.

But I will say this:

You're free to be as unknowledgeable as you like, and to believe (and that's what you do whatever you like.

I judge nothing. People are free to believe and comment.

And when they fail to substantiate a thing they say, I am free to ignore them...as I do with you.

Have fun with the end of the world. Al says it's not too far away.

Jack and I will be flying, likely studying why the Moose population is migrating south because of all the snow in Alaska, and how those Polar Bears are thriving up north when they're supposedly dying off due to global warming...

But not until after a truly progressive government is elected and we're actually producing our own oil, and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and saving our economy by getting people with your mindset out of positions of authority.

I think we're going to have fun...even if you think Jack's a liar (and I'm sure he cares!).

Oh, and was your post a response to this?

As a geologist, I love Earth observations. But, it is ridiculous to tie this objective to a "consensus" that humans are causing global warming in when human experience, geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise. "Consensus", as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science. You know as well as I, the "global warming scare" is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.

No, not rally.

Oh, let me advise you on a key point, in response to another mistake you've made.

You made the cardinal CT mistake wirth me when you spoke about my beleifs and what ionfluences them.

Here's the fact:

YOU BELIEVE...in all the stuff you want to believe in.

I don't believe in anything.

In know things. I place no conjecture or faith on anything. I know it, or I don't.

What I know is that I'm in the majority...of scientists and technical people who realize it's a politically motivated power grab by the present government, and that it's not in any way "science".

Let's try again some truth you chose not to respond to:

And there we are again, reciting the party line--that somehow, we humans are capable of somehow affecting this amazing planet, and its climate, and of course, can combat the "climate change" that we caused(!), (You know, climate change..that natural Earth process that cycles around in huge segments of time(thousands of generations pass before one cycle completes) , driven by a star that's fairly close by and which represents unimaginable power?).

But you don't have to, because you believe.

I know better.

So does Dr. Schmitt. he alqYS has.

But then again, we're just charlatans and liars....

Edited August 14, 2012 by MID

[docyabut2]

There are climate changes, but I don`nt think man is causing it when the CD levels were higher in the dino ages,when man was not even around.

Edited August 14, 2012 by docyabut2

[Guest]

CTs waste alot of time, making statements that are unsubstantiated, as if they're fact, and presuming to "know" when they have no klnowledge at all.

You do that very well.

But I will say this:

You're free to be as unknowledgeable as you like, and to believe (and that's what you do whatever you like.

I judge nothing. People are free to believe and comment.

And when they fail to substantiate a thing they say, I am free to ignore them...as I do with you.

Have fun with the end of the world. Al says it's not too far away.

Jack and I will be flying, likely studying why the Moose population is migrating south because of all the snow in Alaska, and how those Polar Bears are thriving up north when they're supposedly dying off due to global warming...

But not until after a truly progressive government is elected and we're actually producing our own oil, and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and saving our economy by getting people with your mindset out of positions of authority.

I think we're going to have fun...even if you think Jack's a liar (and I'm sure he cares!).

Oh, and was your post a response to this?

No, not rally.

Oh, let me advise you on a key point, in response to another mistake you've made.

You made the cardinal CT mistake wirth me when you spoke about my beleifs and what ionfluences them.

Here's the fact:

YOU BELIEVE...in all the stuff you want to believe in.

I don't believe in anything.

In know things. I place no conjecture or faith on anything. I know it, or I don't.

What I know is that I'm in the majority...of scientists and technical people who realize it's a politically motivated power grab by the present government, and that it's not in any way "science".

Let's try again some truth you chose not to respond to:

But you don't have to, because you believe.

I know better.

So does Dr. Schmitt. he alqYS has.

But then again, we're just charlatans and liars....

Just go back and see how Schmidt reversed the Artctic ice trend from negative to positive. Its clearly shown in that video and I can find a more detailed analysis for you.

Just stop the baseless indignant rethoric and admit that schmidt distorted real scientists work for political motives. This is the quality of science you choose to base your denial of climate change on - its pathetic.

You really cant address a simple fact can you.

Schmitt submitted a paper to NASA in 2009 which was filled with physical nonsense. In it, he stated, “Artic (sic) sea ice has returned to 1989 levels of coverage.” Mark Boslough, a physicist and computational modeler and an adjunct professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at University of New Mexico,

wrote

in the Sante Fe New Mexican newspaper:

”I wrote to him, politely pointing out that this was not true, and directing him to the data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (the ice extent in 2009 had not recovered, and as of this writing is at an all-time winter low). He responded, but never made the necessary correction. Anyone can make a mistake, but scientific integrity requires that authors own up to mistakes and fix them.”

Below is the NSDIC Arctic sea ice extentplot that is very well-known because it is well-publicized. Of course, Schmitt must have looked at this same graph when he made his statement. Did he not see that well-defined downward trend line? If he did not view the data, then why mention it in his NASA paper?

NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice Extent Downward Trend

Schmitt might also have seen this longer-term plot from NSIDC:

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Since 1953

For even more data Schmitt could have viewed this NSIDC page.

The NSIDC’s data clearly shows that Arctic sea ice is decreasing and did decrease between 1989 and 2009 so Schmitt was wrong when he wrote that there was a recovery of Arctic sea ice to 1989 levels.

Schmitt could also have viewed this very-well publicized plot of Arctic sea ice volume:

Arctic Ice Volume Trending Downward (PIOMAS)

Or perhaps he could have viewed the image below that shows a decline in Arctic sea ice thickness. This data includes declassified submarine data since 1958.

In his NASA paper, Schmitt concludes:

”Those who observe the natural, economic, and sociological aspects of climate change see no evidence indicating that human activities have influenced global climate. Actual observations show that climate varies in response to natural forces and that human burning of fossil fuels has had negligible if any effect over the last 100 years.”

Also, in his paper, Mr. Schmitt makes many other claims that are unsupported by fact, including: (Click links for the correct science)

1. CO2 is saturated and cannot cause more warming
   
2. Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
   
3. It’s El Nino
   
4. It’s the sun
   
5. It’s cosmic rays
   

Of course, there is overwhelming evidence for human-caused global warming, and that is why there is an overwhelming scientific consensus.

Given Schmitt’s position as a denier of well-understood climate science, it was hardly surprising that Joseph Bast, President of the Heartland Institute, wrote an article (January 31) in the Sante Fe New Mexican calling on Dr. Boslough to apologize to Schmitt. In that article, Mr. Bast was quite “economical with the truth” - true to form for the Heartland Institute which is no friend of accurate climate science information.

In 2009, Schmitt resigned from the Planetary Society writing:

”The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society’s activities. As a geologist, I love Earth observations. But, it is ridiculous to tie this objective to a ‘consensus’ that humans are causing global warming in when human experience, geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise.”

Schmitt really distances himself from reality with those statements. If the government wished to control our lives, why would it create a problem that is very difficult to resolve while simultaneously making no movement to enforce that control? Congress has made no real progress toward an energy policy and we are importing more fossil fuels than ever while increasing our carbon emission rates. Global cooling? How does Schmitt think that the hottest decade on record means cooling? How does global cooling add heat to the oceans and melt surface ice at increasing rates?

… Now that Schmitt knows the truth, will he rethink his position, will he retract his claims, and will he apologize to the people of New Mexico for misleading them?

–

Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences at

Suffolk County Community College

, Long Island, NY. Mandia holds an M.S. Meteorology from Penn State University and a B.S. Meteorology from University of Lowell (now called UMass – Lowell). Mandia has been teaching introductory meteorology and paleoclimatology courses for 23 years.

For some debunking of the Heartland Institute’s tortured effort to hide the decline in Arctic ice, see Cook and Peter Gleick who has this nice chart in his post “Misrepresenting Climate Science“:

So what have you got to say about Schmidtt lying about sea ice extent ??

I am frankly bored of your indignant rants I want you to provide some real science to support your ignorant position. Start with Schmidts claim that arctic sea ice is growing.

PS - I note with some considerable amusement that you have started to refer to me as a CT. That would mean that you believe in the vast conspiracy of communist inspired environmentalist plotting to destroy the good old American way.

We have entered the Reds under the bed territory here. I guessed you would eventually reveal your real motives for Denial.

The question is - do you want me to send round the men in white coats before or after your steak dinner

Br Cornelius

Edited August 15, 2012 by Guest

[Guest]

Would you say that that vast conspiracy of Climate scientists would be the same as the vast conspiracy of NASA scientists who concealed the faked moon landings, just bigger ????

Maybe there even the same people ?

Br Cornelius

Edited August 15, 2012 by Guest

[Little Fish]

If the evidence was in any way clear that AGW was not real - then skeptics would not have to use deception to make their points.

do you think that not being able to prove AGW is not real, is proof that AGW is real?

the concept of burden of proof applies to the one who asserts.

is CAGW hypothesis even scientific?

is it falsifiable?

what is the condition that would falsify CAGW? you have not answered that question which I have repeatedly put forward.

if there is no condition that would falsify CAGW then it is not falsifiable, if it is not falsifiable then it is not scientific.

besides anything else, it is CAGW not AGW that is in dispute for most people, which means most skeptics question whether global warming is going to be catastrophic or harmful in any way shape or form.

are you aware that Peter Gleick who you have cited several times just recently, stole heartland documents and released them with a forged memo in order to demonize the skeptic thinktank of the heartland institute? analysis of writing style shows that it was gleick himself who forged the fake document. so to repeat your meme, why would Gleick need to use forged documents to make his points? this is one incident from a long line of warmist activist-scientists having behaved very badly and illegally. you are making a huge fuss over a single hearsay point from Harrison Schmitt and calling it deception, but ignoring the elephant of wrongdoings from the other side.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Little Fish

[MID]

Would you say that that vast conspiracy of Climate scientists would be the same as the vast conspiracy of NASA scientists who concealed the faked moon landings, just bigger ????

Maybe there even the same people ?

Br Cornelius

Nah.

The big difference is that the scientists and engineers at NASA did execute Apollo (I was there. I even remember that far back, before people with your mindset existed in tiis country..world.

These sciemntists I speak to couldn't even have imagined the nonsense this issue spews forth.

"Climate scientists" who promote Al Gore's agenda didn't execute the extraordinary...they just made up the extraordinary!

:td:

Edited August 15, 2012 by MID

[MID]

I note with some considerable amusement that you have started to refer to me as a CT. That would mean that you believe in the vast conspiracy of communist inspired environmentalist plotting to destroy the good old American way.

Br Cornelius

Speaking doesn't suit you.

Thought before trying can help.

It's nearly radical left wing environmental policy, not communist.

Just socialist. Just power-hungry attempts at control.

The problem is, looking into the mirror will reveal to you that it's working.

By the way:

I'm sure you'll have another last word post.

Go ahead.

Jack and I don't care. We're having fun elsewhere, thinking about cool things, like Apollo 17 and all the cool science they did up there.40 years go.

You know, science, back before the post -Apollo generation started "thinking " along the lines you do, and abandoned rational, critical thinking for being swayed by opinions derived from...nothing at all.

[MysticStrummer]

One presents science, the other counters with sarcasm. Br Cornelius doesn't really need a last word to win the discussion.

I see some are still using the tired "the climate has changed before" approach, as if climate scientists don't know that. How do people not notice the deniers using the same arguments over and over, even after those arguments are answered and shown to be false over and over?

It's incredibly illogical and quite frankly stupid to think we have no impact on our environment and atmosphere.

[MID]

One presents science, the other counters with sarcasm. Br Cornelius doesn't really need a last word to win the discussion.

I see some are still using the tired "the climate has changed before" approach, as if climate scientists don't know that. How do people not notice the deniers using the same arguments over and over, even after those arguments are answered and shown to be false over and over?

Looks like you've spent a long time studying too!

It's incredibly illogical and quite frankly stupid to think we have no impact on our environment and atmosphere.

But you unfortunately failed elementary logic... :td:

[Guest]

Vast conspiracy perpetrated by thousands of scientists (including your incorruptable NASA scientists- spot the logical inconsistency there).

Its so funny I had to change my pants !!!

There you go MID the last word - or will you have another dumb Conspiracy inspired come back without any actual science to back it up.

We can only wait with bated breath for the next shocking installement.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

do you think that not being able to prove AGW is not real, is proof that AGW is real?

the concept of burden of proof applies to the one who asserts.

is CAGW hypothesis even scientific?

is it falsifiable?

what is the condition that would falsify CAGW? you have not answered that question which I have repeatedly put forward.

if there is no condition that would falsify CAGW then it is not falsifiable, if it is not falsifiable then it is not scientific.

besides anything else, it is CAGW not AGW that is in dispute for most people, which means most skeptics question whether global warming is going to be catastrophic or harmful in any way shape or form.

are you aware that Peter Gleick who you have cited several times just recently, stole heartland documents and released them with a forged memo in order to demonize the skeptic thinktank of the heartland institute? analysis of writing style shows that it was gleick himself who forged the fake document. so to repeat your meme, why would Gleick need to use forged documents to make his points? this is one incident from a long line of warmist activist-scientists having behaved very badly and illegally. you are making a huge fuss over a single hearsay point from Harrison Schmitt and calling it deception, but ignoring the elephant of wrongdoings from the other side.

Burden of proof is on the side of the skeptics. They have presented no consistent or credible explanation for current data so they have no theory. Its simple really.

You would defend Heartland

As for Gleick, he was stupid and paid the price. However he did us all a service is shedding light on the coordinated campaign that Heartland has conducted in attempting to discredit climate science and scientists over many many years. I personally thank him.

A Better head than mine observes that after sustained scurrelous attacks by the likes of Heartland such an incident was inevitable;

keeping-our-cool-while-planet-warms

Like many out there, I was saddened to hear about the role of Peter Gleick, a co-signatory on a recent op-ed about climate science, in the leak of the Heartland Institute e-mails.

I've worried for the past two years that an incident like this might happen. The segment of the climate science community that is active in outreach is subject to incredibly angry and personal attacks, starting but certainly not ending with the hacking of e-mails at the University of East Anglia. I'm certainly not that famous or public a figure, and even I often get e-mail and comments here on Maribo that make me wonder if I should have police protection. Perhaps it was inevitable that someone in the climate science community would, in a fit of frustration, respond to critics in-kind with similarly dirty tactics. We are human, after all. You can certainly understand why someone who's been unfairly attacked for years would be driven to fight fire with fire.

This is why I've been speaking and writing again and again and again about the importance, and the challenge, of maintaining perspective and humility when discussing climate change. At the risk of irritating regular readers by repeating this passage yet again, here is the conclusion from the recent BAMS paper about climate change and belief:

Reforming public communication about anthropogenic climate change will require humility on the part of scientists and educators. Climate scientists, for whom any inherent doubts about the possible extent of human influence on the climate were overcome by years of training in physics and chemistry of the climate system, need to accept that there are rational cultural, religious, and historical reasons why the public may fail to believe that anthropogenic climate change is real, let alone that it warrants a policy response.

The moderator of Saturday's jam-packed AAAS plenary discussion on science communication repeated the meme that scientists are in a "street fight". That may be true. But as I wrote last month, if climate discourse is a street fight, then we need to do more should not just* fight back with the same dirty tactics. If you want to win a fight, you need to be able to take a punch.

There is no doubt that planet is warming. The question is can we keep our cool long enough to find a solution?

http://simondonner.b...anet-warms.html

I am certain that your sympathes will be with the poor misrepresented Heartland Institute

Br Cornelius

Edited August 18, 2012 by Guest

[Little Fish]

Burden of proof is on the side of the skeptics.They have presented no consistent or credible explanation for current data so they have no theory. Its simple really.

the "current data" is within normal fluctuation over the past several thousand years. no one has been able to explain or "model" those previous fluctuations, so there is no evidence that the current warm period is due to man made co2. until science can explain and model successfully the climate system over the last several thousand years then we cannot attribute the "current data" to man's co2 emissions, that would be proof by lack of evidence, not proof by evidence. this is what you are saying - "until you come up with a better explanation than god as the creator, then the burden of proof is on you to show god doesn't exist". the rise in temperature estimated at 0.7C over the last 150 years has happened frequently over the last several thousands of years and happens all the time in that 150 year timeframe.

what is the condition that fasifies CAGW? what can we measure empirically, and how. saying it has warmed since the little ice age is not enough.

You would defend Heartland

As for Gleick, he was stupid and paid the price. However he did us all a service is shedding light on the coordinated campaign that Heartland has conducted in attempting to discredit climate science and scientists over many many years. I personally thank him.

do you even realise Gleick's Heartland document was fake? meaning it was a lie, so you thank him for lying? Gleick lies, and that somehow discredits the Heartland Institute? seems to me this "coordinated campaign" is just a paranoid conspiracy theory held by Gleick, so he makes up a "document" in order to make his fantasy appear real.

A Better head than mine observes that after sustained scurrelous attacks by the likes of Heartland

what scurrilous attacks? I seriously don't know of any. your link doesn't document any. can you show me anything that merits the label "sustained scurrelous attacks"?

I think all you are doing here is creating a demon in order to self censor opposing information.

[Guest]

the "current data" is within normal fluctuation over the past several thousand years. no one has been able to explain or "model" those previous fluctuations, so there is no evidence that the current warm period is due to man made co2. until science can explain and model successfully the climate system over the last several thousand years then we cannot attribute the "current data" to man's co2 emissions, that would be proof by lack of evidence, not proof by evidence. this is what you are saying - "until you come up with a better explanation than god as the creator, then the burden of proof is on you to show god doesn't exist". the rise in temperature estimated at 0.7C over the last 150 years has happened frequently over the last several thousands of years and happens all the time in that 150 year timeframe.

what is the condition that fasifies CAGW? what can we measure empirically, and how. saying it has warmed since the little ice age is not enough.

There is a current long term warming trend of at least a 100yrs. All external forcings which have been measured would indicate that this runs counter to a pre-existing downward trend and a decline in solar activity. What is causing this upward trend. You are effectively invoking an unknown magical forcing which science has not identified. Until this magical unknown forcing is identified and quantified occams razor prohibits us from assuming it exists when their is a better explanation in the form of CO2. CO2 has been identified and measured as a factor in all previous large climate swings and so it is inferred that it can cause the current changes in response to the rising atmospheric CO2 levels caused by burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are directly identified as been the cause of the additional atmospheric CO2 because of their Isotopic fingerprint.

But you know all this.

The burden of proof doesn't mean that a thing has to be established without any possible doubt - it means can it adeaquately explain the multiple strands of evidence which are brought to bare on the issue. The body of climate research established that burden of proof to the satisfaction of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

The skeptics have an incoherent set of false observations which do not create a coherent explanation for the empirical data and so cannot be said to establish a burden of proof. The statement that climate always changes in a truism, but fails to address the fact that all changes have causes and those causes have been established and have created an over arching climate narrative which explains historic events and can be used to infer future events.

But you know all that already.

do you even realise Gleick's Heartland document was fake? meaning it was a lie, so you thank him for lying? Gleick lies, and that somehow discredits the Heartland Institute? seems to me this "coordinated campaign" is just a paranoid conspiracy theory held by Gleick, so he makes up a "document" in order to make his fantasy appear real.

My understanding is that the body of documents were not faked and it is only supposition that says that the claimed document was a fake. For the sake of argument I will accept it was a faked. It doesn't change the fact that Heartland has coordinated a political campaign to discredit climate science and climate scientists. Gleick has cast a bit more light on those activities, for that I thank him, but regret him feeling it necessary to supplement the damning record of the Heartland institute with a faked document. For that he got his comeuppance.

what scurrilous attacks? I seriously don't know of any. your link doesn't document any. can you show me anything that merits the label "sustained scurrelous attacks"?

I think all you are doing here is creating a demon in order to self censor opposing information.

Are you for real ??

Do you really think an institution which fought tobacco regulation for decades is capable of honesty rather then paid advocacy for the highest political bidder.

By their deeds shall we judge them.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute#Disputing_global_warming

Br Cornelius

Edited August 18, 2012 by Guest

[Little Fish]

Are you for real ??

Do you really think an institution which fought tobacco regulation for decades is capable of honesty rather then paid advocacy for the highest political bidder.

By their deeds shall we judge them.

http://www.sourcewat..._global_warming

yes i am for real, there is nothing "scurrilous". the unsupported accusation of "scurrilous attacks" is itself scurrilous.

defending the right to smoke is a legitimate position, I know non smoking liberal types are disgusted by peopke wanting to smoke, but its a fact that it is a legitimate libertarian position.

your link doesn't even document anything that could be considered "scurillous attacks". nothing at all.

your sourcewatch link lists the lies in Gleick's hoax document. it doesn't say much for the credibilty of that website does it when those lies were immediately exposed as lies within days.

[Little Fish]

There is a current long term warming trend of at least a 100yrs. All external forcings which have been measured would indicate that this runs counter to a pre-existing downward trend and a decline in solar activity. What is causing this upward trend. You are effectively invoking an unknown magical forcing which science has not identified. Until this magical unknown forcing is identified and quantified occams razor prohibits us from assuming it exists when their is a better explanation in the form of CO2.

a few things here, we are in a solar grand maxima on the multi century timescale. to imply which you've done above, that solar activity has declined over the last 100 years is false. I know you will throw out graphs showing TSI and temperature diverging over the last few decades but land temperature does not respond immediately to TSI, furthermore there are different wavelengths within TSI and some vary over time much more than others. variance of Ultraviolet within TSI for instance is much bigger than TSI would indicate and very little research has been done. data is not reliable over the last 100 years to accurately state what the climate has done, its proxies and unreliable instruments, when you combine proxies and instrumental as many warmists have done, into a single graph you are looking for trouble. what you have described above is just a perception of how things work based on assumptions (climate models) and not based on empirical measurements. the "TSI" argument doesn't even cover the planetary and solar magnetic flux, cosmic ray theories. berilium 10 as a proxy for cosmic rays shows a very good correlation with estimated temperatures, so sun's magnetic activity modulating cosmic rays which in turn modulates low clouds affecting ocean temperatures which drives the climate system is a better hypothesis than co2.

CO2 has been identified and measured as a factor in all previous large climate swings and so it is inferred that it can cause the current changes in response to the rising atmospheric CO2 levels caused by burning fossil fuels.

this is a logical fallacy, correlation does not mean causation. when the oceans warm they release co2, so warming causes a rise in atmospheric co2, so any measurement of co2 and temperatures over millennial timescale does not prove causation, but you know all this already.

The burden of proof doesn't mean that a thing has to be established without any possible doubt - it means can it adeaquately explain the multiple strands of evidence which are brought to bare on the issue. The body of climate research established that burden of proof to the satisfaction of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

The skeptics have an incoherent set of false observations which do not create a coherent explanation for the empirical data and so cannot be said to establish a burden of proof. The statement that climate always changes in a truism, but fails to address the fact that all changes have causes and those causes have been established and have created an over arching climate narrative which explains historic events and can be used to infer future events.

that's your opinion.

My understanding is that the body of documents were not faked and it is only supposition that says that the claimed document was a fake.

the body of documents were not controversial.

hardly supposition, Heartland says it was forged, Gleick says he received it anonymously, writing style analysis showed it was written by Glieck, mainstream journalist commentary and analysis says it is unlikely to be real given the unprofessional style of writing and bizarre things it mentions.

there is no evidence the document was real, and plenty that says its fake.

For the sake of argument I will accept it was a faked. It doesn't change the fact that Heartland has coordinated a political campaign to discredit climate science and climate scientists.

disputing and refuting is not the same as discrediting. there is a tendency amongst warmists scientists to view counter and contrary science as ad hominem "attacks", just read mann's and gleicks twitter feed. a scientific disagreement is not an "attack". such behaviour is a sign that they are losing the scientific argument in my opinion.

Gleick has cast a bit more light on those activities, for that I thank him, but regret him feeling it necessary to supplement the damning record of the Heartland institute with a faked document. For that he got his comeuppance.

there is no "damming record", its just Gleick's paranoid imagination. he made up that crap because he thought that was what the heartland was up to, he didn't have any evidence so he made the evidence up, and shocking that warmists (and "sourcewatch") STILL believe it's true. Edited August 19, 2012 by Little Fish

[Guest]

I am bored so will shut up.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

One comment in response to Little Fishes defence of the Heartland Institutes paid advocacy of the smoking industry.

I have no personal objection to people smoking and have many friends who choose to smoke.

I do however have a strong objection to an Institution which spent decades denying the connection between smoking and lung cancer and other health effects.

If you cannot see that it is morally wrong to conceal and misrepresent scientific information which has saved many lives - then you are as morally bankrupt as the Heartland Institute itself.

Enough said.

Br Cornelius

[MID]

I am bored so will shut up.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Hopefully you'll do likewise.

Br Cornelius