Eaarth

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

What motivates the deniers, I wonder?

I wouldn't call it the motivator, but the lack of proof for such a far-reaching conclusion is not going down well with me.

If GW ultimately can't be proven, it's going to seriously backfire.
In the heads of many, there won't be any need for conservation anymore.

Do you trust that we know the structure of the atom, or the speed of light, or evolution, or that the planets orbit the sun, or what causes gravity? Do you *really* know that these are all true, and can we prove beyond all doubt that they are true?

While we don't know everything there is to know about the atom, most of it can be proven by tests that can be reproduced.
Matter fo fact, parts of the atom that couldn't be proven to exist at first, appeared in theoretical studies based on tests showing there had to be something else.
The others can rather easily be proven.

You can hope to prove GW-theory someday, but 2010 in the northern hemisphere isn't going to do the acceptance of the theory much good ... and that's the area where the real drive - and the money to fund it - is.

We trust science because it is the best explanation, and it fits the data the best.

Warming isn't the best explanation for the coldest, whitest winter in decades, and hardly fits any data.

Climate generally does not change -- but it is changing now.

That's the basic flaw.
The climate has always been changing, and it always will.
It's just people who are really looking for stability, and expect they'll get it.

But, if you think you can prove that any of these scientists are faking it,

There's a lot of money going round in scientific research Neal.
And the fear of climate change has been increasing the budgets.
Big money tends to corrupt.
The scientic-fic world is not exempt from that, far from it.
I often see people screaming about Big Oil, Big Money, Big Auto, Big Whaterever.
I hardly ever see anyone raging on about Big Research, but an entire industry and community lives off subsidized research, so it's essential to keep the money flowing to keep the community happy.

Do they need to fake results ?
No real need to.
They just publish what fits the part and keep out dissonant voices.
That's what Climategate was all about.

Data gets corrected.

Measuring stations get relocated.
Or have been (almost) swallowed by expanding cities, accounting for temp. increases.

Don't worry about CO2.
Worry about atmospheric dust.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

What you or I think of any particular paper matters not. What matters is if that paper convinces the people who actually know all about global climate change, and who have read 100's or 1,000's of papers on the subject, and have done related work.

But we're trying to tell you that it's not a scientifically driven movement, but a politically driven one. Science has been subverted to show one and only one outcome, and you're buying into it.

Worse yet, you're effectively treating AGW as a religion. You ask us to take things on faith, you appeal to the authority of those who must know oh-so-much more than us knuckle-dragging mouth breathers, and you refuse to entertain anything that might throw doubt on your beliefs. And, yes, they are beliefs, Neil.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Of course the polar caps refreeze in the winter; I mean really? What the data show is that it is melting more and more in the summer, and freezing less and less in the winter.

And it's obvious you did not study the data. Well, coming from a guy who gets his scientific education from a television show, I guess it's par for the course.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Have you ever watched a NOVA program? What are you worried about -- you get to see the actual in the moment work that they are doing, you get to hear the actual scientists speaking about what they are working on, you get to see the actual data they are collecting.

Yes, it was one of my favorite programs when I was a 12 year old.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

A science documentary is incredibly interesting to me, because I am very curious about how our world works. Seeing the passion that these people have for their work makes it all the more interesting.

Then go out and do some of this work. Passion isn't science, by the way. Science, true science, is filled with lots and lots of things the average person would consider to be boring or tedious. Science is also filled with all sorts of history where an idea, which was accepted by the mainstream, was overturned due to evidence that disproved that idea.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

...I promise I have not implemented any evil mind tricks to hypnotize you... Though if I could, don't you think I would have already?

I suppose that's more benign than -

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Nothing is perfect, but none of the big questions are in doubt. None at all. This is not me saying that -- it is the scientists.

And the dissenters? They are not real scientists?

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

If you believe that any science is real, then you have to also trust this science.

This is an intellectually dishonest statement, if taken at face value for science. However, in a religious context, it makes sense to you.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Anthropogenic global climate change is real, and the scientists are not making it up. It is already affecting things all over, and more change is coming -- you'll see.

Here's a news article filled with 8 failed predictions about catastrophic global change.

C'mon, Neil - prove me right about you treating AGW as more of a religion than a scientific theory.

[Arragonis]

Its been interesting over the past few weeks watching the 'scientists' spin themselves out of the 'mild winters are all we will ever see' predictions of a few years ago into the 'extreme cold is a consequence of global warming' pronouncements now.

You have to wonder about scientists though, sometimes.

When the most vocal champion of AGW, Nasa's James Hansen (i.e. the bloke who names the hottest year - go figure how independent he is ?) decides to FLY to the UK to give an hour's worth of court evidence in defence of protesters who were trying to shut down a UK power station despite the CO2 involved and despite the potentially life threatening consequences there may have been for people affected by that station closing - then you have to wonder how serious this problem really is. Has this moron never heard of video conferencing or perhaps writing a submission for the court from his desk ?

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

What motivates the deniers, I wonder?

Sorry, I have to take issue with this phrase.

You see the 'denier' sobriquet was originally used in relation to treating people who argued against the theory of AGW in the same way as we treat those rather strange people who deny the reality of the holocaust as a historical event. It was followed by the suggestion that there should be "crimes against humanity" charges for all prominent non-believers. As someone who has read a lot about history and in particular that period, this link is something I find particularly offensive. Now of course the people who originated that phrase, realising that it alienated so many undecided people, now try to spin this phrase as someone who "denies science".

I don't deny science. I deny that science has changed this theory into a proven fact. I refuse to allow my society, country, government to commit us all to Pascal's Wager on the truth or otherwise of AGW, and in the mean time commit billions of my fellow humans to starvation or to be unprotected from natural disasters because that action may raise the levels of a trace gas in the atmosphere.

Note the 'may' there - that is as certain as the science is by the way...

I refuse to do so on the limited, cherry picked studies of people with vested interests in research of this kind or who stand to make billions from artificial trading schemes which I will end up paying for by not being allowed to do the things they will be permitted to do forever.

I refuse to do so when the so called gold standard of science, peer review, is twisted only to allow research to be published when it supports one side and is used to do everything to try and prevent any studies which may call that science into question.

Just a thought, and in the interests of this debate, the science and the technology you think may be involved, do we have a thread about how much energy and CO2 we are make / use ?

Can such a thing be calculated seeing as some of my energy comes from Hydro, some from Coal and some from Nuclear - the mix changing minute by minute. As for renewables they are are waste of time - 0.4% of peak demand in December, pointless.

So thats (just for starters)

- No driving, public transport for all.
- No flying.
- No TV, no puter, no leccy, no interweb.
- No heating, except what you can make yourself.
- No supermarket. Thats none at all, not even one visit a fortnight
- No local doctor with access to drugs, or local hospital.

I suppose in short are you living a life with 1700-1800s level of energy usage ?

No ?

Thought not.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by euromodder

If GW ultimately can't be proven, it's going to seriously backfire.
In the heads of many, there won't be any need for conservation anymore.

Actually in the heads of many there's no need for any conservation in the first place, but they can hardly wait for anything that provides them any excuse to justify their gluttony.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

What motivates the deniers, I wonder?

Debunking the so-called "science" and exposing the tactics of a political movement pitched toward brain-dead sheeple.

It is certainly easier to convince yourself that you are not doing anything wrong...

Right and wrong are moral concepts. When your political tactic isn't effective you switch to a moral plea. Or, if that doesn't work, an emotional one. This is all part of the nature of politics, nothing more. And it is very obvious what your game plan is. The more you try to advance it with all the methods you subscribe to, the more we will expose it.

****

You are confusing weather with climate. Weather changes all the time; no duh. Climate generally does not change -- but it is changing now.

Climate must be changing because you said so? You have just described your position, which is the intent to equate weather with climate. "Global warming" was an attempt aimed at convincing useful idiots in years that were warmer than the norm. The movement also tried that with "global cooling" forty years ago. Now "climate change" means that if the target of the sales pitch (the useful idiot) feels either too hot or too cold, it's time for him to "believe" the "scientists" and be converted to 'the way, the truth and the light'. (The first step is to get the gullible fool to buy the book Eaarth. I assume you are working on a commission basis, Neil. )

++++

I think it's great that we all have our opinions about science. If you want to jump in on the importance of the Higgs boson, or the tube worms that eat scorching hot chemicals around volcanic vents, or on life on Mars, or on Pluto not being a planet anymore, or on spectroscopy and lasers, or on organic chemistry synthesizing a glaucoma drug from Calabar beans, or how supernovas create all elements heavier than iron (all the gold in existence came from supernovas!), or about dark matter, or how evolution has changed birds who eat from bird feeders, or how to cure cancer, or discuss an ancestor of birds that had four wings, or reconstruct the the temperature of ancient oceans based on the fossil record, or why the megafauna died out except for musk oxen (which are not as closely related to bovines as they are to goats), or why so many bats are dieing of "white nose disease", or why we are seeing bee colony collapse, or just how do they use lithography to make CPU chips, or on earthquake detection, or on the life cycle of the soil, or about horseshoe crab's copper-based blood (which has benefited ALL of us reading this, believe it or not!), or any other of a myriad of subjects that I find fascinating -- then the more opinions, the merrier.

Yep. Neil loves to argue and churn it out by the yard, because as long as you engage in a dialog with him he has an opportunity to convert you. Have you noticed that he doesn't ever argue with me, or address my points? I'm not here to be converted. I'm here to debunk what he is promoting. If you go back to the first page of this thread you will realize that he is promoting a book.

But, if you think you can prove that any of these scientists are faking it, or that they can't possibly know what they are doing, or that you or Glen Beck or Michell Bachmann or Megyn Kelly or James Inhofe -- can any more tell Percy Julian (the genius organic chemist) that he was barking up the wrong tree, or that Pluto should still be considered a planet, or that dark matter really doesn't exist -- any more than you or they can say that the science that shows that anthropogenic global climate change isn't real -- then you need to think again.

We don't need to prove anyone wrong - those who propound this nonsense need to prove they are RIGHT.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Actually in the heads of many there's no need for any conservation in the first place, but they can hardly wait for anything that provides them any excuse to justify their gluttony.

When their wallets and their bank accounts are empty, their behavior will change, as they will have no other option. Over time this will happen. "This too shall pass."

Now we are discussing economics of a base and realistic sort, rather than a quasi-scientific chataqua meant to serve a political end.

Remember, the cure for the gluttony of some is not to impose a starvation diet on all.

[NeilBlanchard]

When science is faked, it is found out; like with the claim to have made human clones, or cold fusion. Faked science hurts all scientists (like Pildown Man), so there are plenty of people who would call them on it -- if they were faking it. There is a lot of overlap, so archeologists, geologists, chemists, oceanographers, limnologists, dendrochronologists, volcanists, ice scientists, biologists, atmospheric scientists -- all these people would know if it was a fake.

The data is still there to and can be verified. Ice cores are stored at Ohio University. The ANDRILL ice cores still exist; and continue to be drilled. Every glacier in the world can still be sampled. The fossil record is there for all to see. The chemistry and spectral analysis can be checked and replicated.

The people who decry evolution have no idea how integrated it is into so many different scientific fields, that it is simply ludicrous to try and "remove" it. Same for climate change -- understanding it; how it works and the affects it has, are part and parcel to many different fields of science.

You simply cannot "remove" it from the accepted body of knowledge. It is integrated into many other fields.

Conspiracy theories require extraordinary proof. Do you think they faked the moon landings as well? That would be a simpleton's task compared to faking this...

Accusing the messenger of personal failings doesn't work, either. Are you calling me a fool and a stooge? Have you even glanced at my online record? I'm guessing I have at least 20,000 posts all over the Internet, and as many emails. I have put my name on every single one of 'em. Check my record; and then if you still feel like calling me a fool, then you've got bigger problems than me. Read my blog, look at my CarBEN EV open source design -- I am a serious, concerned, civil person, and I don't appreciate being accused of being a shill.

Most of the deniers are funded by the huge profits of interested parties. Not some promise of future profits, but money that is already being made exploiting the Earth's precious resources.

If you ever dare to watch the NOVA program about the ANDRILL project you can see how rich they are all getting for almost freezing to death. You'd think that as long as you are coming up with some get rich quick scheme that they would try something less risky and difficult?

Watch it, you might just learn something more about the actual scientists you are so sure you know all about...

****

We have no proof that our theory of gravity is true. The same data could be explained by other theories -- but the one we have works the best. Could it be Intelligent Falling?

We have no proof of the existence of Pangaea, and the data could be explained by other theories -- but the one we have works the best.

We have no proof that atoms are actually made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons; or that there are a myriad of subatomic particles we call quarks, etc. The same data could be explained by other theories -- but the one we have works the best.

We have no proof that the universe is infinite and expanding. The same data could be explained by other theories -- but the one we have works the best.

We have no proof that evolution causes one species to become another species. The same data could be explained by other theories -- but the one we have works the best.

****

Science is about asking questions about the unknown, and trying to answer them. We will never have absolute truth about what is causing the rapid climate change we are seeing in the data. Anthropogenic climate change is the best theory we have to fit that data; and the implications are very serious. It will make us all uncomfortable.

But, we can choose to change before we are forced to. Isn't that what our knowledge and intelligence is for?

[t vago]

AGW and evolution are two different things.

AGW and gravity are two different things.

AGW and plate tectonic theory are two different things.

AGW and (insert name of actual scientific discovery) are two different things.

I don't care one whit about your online presence, Neil. You haven't published a scientific paper at all about AGW, so by your own rules, you should quit talking about AGW.

I am not being paid one red cent by "interested parties" or any other bugaboo phantom you care to mention. Your high priests, on the other hand, are making tons of money off of useful idiots who continually press the "I Believe in AGW" button regardless of the evidence against AGW.

Your continually presenting one episode of a television show as proof of AGW implies that you are unable to actually debate AGW on its merits. Likewise your continued pleas to authority. Likewise your your emotional pleas. Likewise your subtle and not-so-subtle belittling of AGW skeptics as "deniers." This is not how one would go about defending a workable, credible scientific theory, but it is a way to defend a religious belief.

Against the catastrophic AGW fraud unearthed at the University of East Anglia (one of only two official inputs to the IPCC report), against the discrediting of Michael Mann (creator of the infamously wrong "Hockey Stick" graph supposedly proving AGW), against evidence showing the cryosphere is actually growing since 2007, against one of AGW's own proponents admitting that the Earth hadn't warmed since 1995, and against engineering-level calculations showing that temperatures would not rise as much as predicted by AGW even in a worst case scenario, you choose to belittle us skeptics anyway.

Oh, and it doesn't need a conspiracy to push a bad idea. Galileo, for instance, was persecuted by the Catholic Church for the high crime of stating that the Earth somehow revolved around the Sun. Once a wrong religious belief becomes accepted, it takes a lot of effort to discredit it.

[NeilBlanchard]

Why is a quart of horseshoe crab blood worth about $15,000?

Crash: A Tale of Two Species - Video: Full Episode - Horseshoe Crabs, Red Knot Shorebird | Nature

Why is their blood copper based, instead of iron based like most other life? How have they survived 350 million years? How will more acidic oceans affect them? Why should we care if they live or die?

You and I have benefited from horseshoe crab blood. How? Watch the video.

Can we have horseshoe crab blood without horseshoe crabs?

[JasonG]

OOOH big letters !

I like that scientific proof.
Glad to se you putting AGW and evolutionary theories in the same group.

Un-subscribed