Blitzer did not challenge Matalin's assertion that global warming is "a largely unscientific hoax" and a "political concoction"
SUMMARY: On CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer did not challenge Republican strategist Mary Matalin's assertion that global warming is "a largely unscientific hoax. And it's a political concoction." As Media Matters for America has documented, numerous scientific organizations share the consensus view that the Earth is warming.
On the February 20 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer failed to challenge Republican strategist Mary Matalin's assertion that global warming is "a largely unscientific hoax. And it's a political concoction." In fact, scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) share the consensus view that the Earth is warming, and human activity is responsible for much of that warming.
In its latest Assessment Report, the IPCC wrote:
There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.
Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gases] concentrations. It is likely there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica).
[...]
Anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has likely had a discernible influence at the global scale on observed changes in many physical and biological systems." [italics in original]
By contrast, when former Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK) said, "I don't believe the Earth is melting because of carbon emissions" during the July 20, 2007, edition of The Situation Room, guest host Miles O'Brien (now CNN's chief technology and environment correspondent) said: "Oh, well, you're not paying attention to the science, J.C." After Watts said, "You have got science on both sides of that issue," O'Brien added: "No, you don't. No, you don't. The scientific debate is over, J.C." Moments later Watts said: "Well, Miles, that's your position." O'Brien replied: "That is science. And the science is done."
Media Matters for America recently documented a number of other myths and falsehoods about global warming that have been perpetuated by the media since the release of the film An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, May 2006).
From the February 20 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Here was a quote that jumped out at me from the National Review on February 5th, Super Tuesday. Remember? It seems like a long time ago.
MATALIN: Yes.
BLITZER: "I don't think he [Sen. John McCain] rests comfortably anywhere that conservatives would call home today. If it was true yesterday, it's not true for tomorrow's issues. The ones that he has chosen to take a lead on are the ones that conservatives either don't prioritize or flat-out loathe."
MATALIN: Like --
BLITZER: Like what?
MATALIN: -- some global warming issues. But he's going --
BLITZER: They loathe that?
MATALIN: Because it's a largely unscientific hoax. And it's a political concoction.
BLITZER: But he believes with [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-CT] -- he's co-sponsoring legislation on that.
MATALIN: He's going to have to put together an energy policy that has elements of conservation but productivity, and reduces our dependence on oil. He has said that. Some of the other issues, though --
BLITZER: But on global warming he's a true believer.
MATALIN: But he's not going to prioritize that, because that's not where the country is right now. And you haven't heard him prioritizing that.
What you've been hearing him say since he's achieved the nomination -- [former Arkansas Gov. Mike] Huckabee's [R] inertia notwithstanding -- is to prioritize security issues. And on those things, there are no Republicans or conservatives or independents or even Democrats that doubt him on that.
From the July 20, 2007, edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
O'BRIEN: What do you think, J.C.?
WATTS: Well, I -- I can't --
O'BRIEN: Would you recommend that?
WATTS: I can't speak for John McCain.
But I think John McCain, the difference in John McCain and [former Vice President] Al Gore [D], when it comes to the environment, is, John McCain believes that we should conserve energy. We should turn our lights off if we're not using them. You know, don't waste energy. But I'm not so sure that he believes that it's because the Earth is melting, and which is the Al Gore position.
O'BRIEN: Oh, he -- no, he's been out there early and often on capping carbon emissions. I mean, he is one of the -- ironically, for a Republican, he's been really in the vanguard on this.
WATTS: Even -- but, you know, that's not a popular position in the Republican Party. And I think science would support, you know, what I would say about it.
Well, like I said, I can't talk for John McCain, but I can talk for me. I don't believe the Earth is melting because of carbon emissions.
O'BRIEN: Oh, well, you're not paying attention to the science, J.C.
WATTS: Well --
O'BRIEN: You're definitely not paying attention.
WATTS: You have got science on both sides of that issue.
PAUL BEGALA (CNN political analyst): No.
O'BRIEN: No, you don't. No, you don't. The scientific debate is over, J.C. We're done. We're out of --
[crosstalk]
WATTS: Well, Miles, that's your position. That's not -- that's not --
O'BRIEN: No, no, no, that's not -- that is science. That is science. And the science is done.
WATTS: Well, it's political science.
O'BRIEN: Yeah, no, no.
WATTS: It is political science.
That's kind of like when the retards in Texas gave Hussein Obama a standing ovation for blowing his nose...I kid you not.
I guess the reason Wolfie didn't challenge Matalin is because even he is too embarrassed to keep up the global warming idiocy.
Remember...the Arctic sea ice is disappearing because of global warming...WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!.
...what? You mean the Arctic sea ice is actually growing?
...but...but that can't be true...Uberdouche hasn't mentioned it
Stranger wrat:
>>I guess the reason Wolfie didn't challenge Matalin is because even he is too embarrassed to keep up the global warming idiocy.
You mean the idiocy supported by virtually every climatologist in the world? Do you man global warming, that has not been refuted by a *single* peer-reviewed paper? Instead of discussing the science, you link to a right-wing blog. When you can show me *one* peer-reviewed paper that refutes global warming, then you can at least start the debate. Until then, you are just another blow-hard denialist.
But what can I expect from somebody who thinks that Clinton murdered Vince Foster.
You mean the idiocy supported by virtually every climatologist in the world? Do you man global warming, that has not been refuted by a *single* peer-reviewed paper?
Really? Virtually every climatologist? ..and it's not been refuted?
Please back this up. I'll wait
...amazing
Stranger escribeir:
>>Really? Virtually every climatologist? ..and it's not been refuted?
What are you living in a cave where you are so busy with you silly Clinton conspiracy theories that you don't read newspapers?
link
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by
the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations
Environmental Program, the IPCC is charged with evaluating the state
of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. In its
most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the
consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being
affected by human activities: "Human activities . . . are modifying
the concentration of atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or
scatter radiant energy. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over
the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in
greenhouse gas concentrations."
The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions.
...
Despite recent allegations to the contrary, these statements from the leadership of scientific societies and the IPCC accurately reflect the state of the art in climate science research. The Institute for Scientific Information keeps a database on published scientific articles, which my research assistants and I used to answer that question with respect to global climate change. We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated. There, the message is clear and unambiguous.
>>Really? Virtually every climatologist? ..and it's not been refuted?
What are you living in a cave where you are so busy with you silly Clinton conspiracy theories that you don't read newspapers?
link
So...ummm..you do know your link is from 5 years ago right. That's like waaaayyy before it was shown that the 1930's had the highest temps ever, right?
You did know that, righjt?
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by
the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations
Environmental Program, the IPCC is charged with evaluating the state
of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. In its
most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the
consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being
affected by human activities: "Human activities . . . are modifying
the concentration of atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or
scatter radiant energy. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over
the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in
greenhouse gas concentrations."
The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions.
Dear Lord,
Now it's like you're trying to make yourself look foolish. The IPCC is made up primarily of buraeucrats, not scientsists, right?
In fact, scientists who had their names attached to the IPCC report without their approval sued to have their names taken off, right?
You did know that, right?
Then there's that pesky fact that over 19,000 scientists signed the Oregon Petition:
The Oregon Petition was the fourth, and by the far the largest, of five prominent efforts claimed to show that a scientific consensus does not exist on the subject of global warming, following the 1992 Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming, the Heidelberg Declaration and the Leipzig Declaration.
...OK where's that consensus?
...wow, the ignorance...it hurts
Ya might wanna check this out too.
.Be sure to read all the way down to the part where James Hansen is discussed. He is the liar from NASA who said 2006 was the warmest on record.
His study was completely torn apart and shown that he deliberately used fake data to come to his fake conclusion.
Oh...and guess who he gets his money from..I'll give you a hint...it sounds like Seorge Goros
The Oregon Petition is an extremely unimpressive support for your position. It contains a large number of fictional names, duplicate entries, corporation names and names that couldn't be verified. Scientific American took a random sampling of those on the list with Ph.D.s and found that only 11 of the 30 (36%) of them would still sign the petition today. Of those 11, only 3 had scientific experience in fields relevant to climatology. In all, of the 19,000 signatures, SA estimated about 200 could reasonably be described as climate researchers. If the statistics of the survey hold true, only about 73 of those would still sign the petition today.
The adjustment that moved 1934 back to the warmest had to deal only with the United States. The US represents less than 2% of the earth's surface. The heat the US experienced in the 1930s was a local phenomenon. The adjustments made no difference in the list of the warmest years globally, where all of the top 10 have been since 1995.
BTW, Hansen was instrumental in detecting and correcting the records for the US. It's an outright lie to claim that the corrections exposed lies on his part. Hansen has become a target of the right-wing smear machine ever since he reported to the press that the Bush administration was attempting to influence what public statements government scientific bodies were allowed to make. He has also gone on record condemning the deceitful way the right has misused the adjustment to the 1998 US data (as you did) to claim it has a scientific significance that it doesn't.
In all, of the 19,000 signatures, SA estimated about 200 could reasonably be described as climate researchers. If the statistics of the survey hold true, only about 73 of those would still sign the petition today.
The scientists are in a very difficult position. It is hard to get funding if you are on the side of truth about the global warming hoax..
...furthermore, there is a movement by the global warming fascists to throw those who disagree with them in jail..
..these people have families to take care of and they're being extorted..
...nonetheless...the fact that 72% would still sign the petition today sort of blows the "scientific consensus" idiocy out of the water...dontcha think?
Scientists can't get funding...
Unsupportable crap. Research gets funded to get information. The scienctists don't know in advance if the data will support a particular position. If the research ended up not supporting GW it could get published. Period. It's not as though someone seeks funding for the express purpose of supporting or attacking GW. The very idea is ignorant.
Dontcha just love this scientific conspiracy garbage? I've been reading it for years about evolution and it's idiotic.
Throw disagreers in jail...
Even more nonsense. Can you back that up?
nonetheless...the fact that 72% would still sign the petition today sort of blows the "scientific consensus" idiocy out of the water...dontcha think?
Where the hell from my post did you get that 72% number? Only about 200 of the 19,000 qualify as climate scientists. Of those 200, the survey indicates that only about 73 individuals, not percent, would still sign the petition today. So, of the 19,000 petition signers less than 4 tenths of 1 percent are both qualified to make judgments and would sign the petition again.
Is that the quality of reading comprehension you bring to all your research? It's no wonder you're so deluded on so many topics.
Scientists can't get funding...
Unsupportable crap. Research gets funded to get information. The scienctists don't know in advance if the data will support a particular position. If the research ended up not supporting GW it could get published. Period. It's not as though someone seeks funding for the express purpose of supporting or attacking GW. The very idea is ignorant.
Nope..not quite so ignorant. There are many, many documented cases where scientists are reporting that they cannot get furnding unless they can tie there otherwise unrelated topic to global warming
.
Throw disagreers in jail...
Even more nonsense. Can you back that up?
Sure can
72% would still sign the petition today sort of blows the "scientific consensus" idiocy out of the water...dontcha think?
Where the hell from my post did you get that 72% number? Only about 200 of the 19,000 qualify as climate scientists. Of those 200, the survey indicates that only about 73 individuals, not percent, would still sign the petition today. So, of the 19,000 petition signers less than 4 tenths of 1 percent are both qualified to make judgments and would sign the petition again.
Sorry...mistead...went over it a bit too quickly...but there is so much idiocy to deal with and there is just one of me.
First of all, you don't need to be a climatologist to be able to review a study to dtermine whether or not proper statistical methodology had been used...statiisticians and scientists from other fields can surely do that.
OK..so the 73 out of 200 comes to about 31-1/2%. Still way out of the range of consensus, dontcha think?
Those with views opposed to belief in anthropogenic causes are harassed, have there funding cut, are threatened with jail etc.
This does not mean however that I will accept your figures on face value. I'm quite sure that closer scrutiny will undermine your argument further.
One scientist/broadcaster called for politicians, not scientists, who ignore the problem to be thrown in jail, and promptly states that he didn't mean that literally. I don't think a single scientist is likely to find that intimidating.
There are many, many documented cases where scientists are reporting that they cannot get furnding unless they can tie there otherwise unrelated topic to global warming
And yet, you still haven't supported it.
OK..so the 73 out of 200 comes to about 31-1/2%. Still way out of the range of consensus, dontcha think?
That's only a percentage of those who originally chose to sign the petition. Think of them as a percentage of all of the thousands of qualified climate scientists who refused to sign the petition in the first place. I'd say it amounts to a tiny minority.
This does not mean however that I will accept your figures on face value. I'm quite sure that closer scrutiny will undermine your argument further.
Go for it.
One scientist/broadcaster called for politicians, not scientists, who ignore the problem to be thrown in jail, and promptly states that he didn't mean that literally. I don't think a single scientist is likely to find that intimidating.
Umm...no he did not state that he did not mean it...nice try. I think quite a few of these scrwany, milquetoast little bookworms are very intimidated
There are many, many documented cases where scientists are reporting that they cannot get furnding unless they can tie there otherwise unrelated topic to global warming
And yet, you still haven't supported it.
OK..so the 73 out of 200 comes to about 31-1/2%. Still way out of the range of consensus, dontcha think?
That's only a percentage of those who originally chose to sign the petition. Think of them as a percentage of all of the thousands of qualified climate scientists who refused to sign the petition in the first place. I'd say it amounts to a tiny minority.
Who said it was presented to them to sign?
This does not mean however that I will accept your figures on face value. I'm quite sure that closer scrutiny will undermine your argument further.
Go for it.
OK...when I have time I will. You kind of remind me of the Black Knight in Monty Python's The Holy Grail..you just don't know when to say when
Stranger wrat:
>>OK...when I have time I will. You kind of remind me of the Black Knight in Monty Python's The Holy Grail..you just don't know when to say when
Oh really? Do you think if you declare yourself the winner of the debate, then you have won?
Again, Stranger, I am waiting for you to show me the *science* the supports your position. Singing a petition means nothing. If those scientists can prove that global warming is not real, then they should present a peer-reviewed paper.
You cannot show us any science that backs up your position. You have no argument.
My link shows that there are over 635 papers supporting global warming. What have you shown so far.
Nothing. You have no argument. So maybe in the wing-nut world you can declare yourself the winner, but that is not going to fool anyone here.
My link shows that there are over 635 papers supporting global warming. What have you shown so far.
OK...show me this link that shows 635 studies that natural temperature variances are somehow caused by human activity instead.
Really...I want to see it.
stranger wrat:
>>Really...I want to see it.
I have already shown you the link. It was the first one.
Like I said, stranger, you have absolutely no argument. You can't show even *one* peer-reviewed paper that supports your position.
(sigh) I was so looking forward to the cornucpoia of studies that show that man has caused global warming...not the sun.
As for you demand to see peer reviewed studies that show that man does not cause global warming...well...that's not the scientific method. A negative cannot be proven. The burden of proof does not fall on the skeptic, it belongs to the claimant.
The arguments of the global warming crowd have been disproven. One that stands out spectacularly is the relationship between CO2 and temperature, which is something that the global warming fans use to hang their hats on as proof of anthropogenic cause of warming.
In his pile'o crap movie, Gore shows that graph which shows the correlation between the two. (It was something bright and shiny for the less than smart people to ooh and aaah at) Correlation, however, is not causation.
In this case science has shown that increased global temperatures cause increased CO2...not the other way around, with a lag time of hundrerds of years.
Stranger wrat:
>>As for you demand to see peer reviewed studies that show that man does not cause global warming...well...that's not the scientific method. A negative cannot be proven. The burden of proof does not fall on the skeptic, it belongs to the claimant.
Sorry, stranger, but I am not falling for your sophistry. You can't provide *one* peer-reviewed paper that refutes global warming. Not one. You have no argument. Trying to pretend that we have something to prove is beyond absurd at this point. I have linked to show you that there are over 600 peer-review papers showing global warming is real and man-made. You have done nothing to refute those articles.
Nothing.
Oh, and I am not asking you to prove a negative. The theory of global warming, like any theory, is falsafiable. If you can show why any of these more than 600 papers are false, please do so.
You can't.
And I'm not going to bother explaining the lag behind Gore's graph. That has been explained already. If Gore is really wrong, then it would be easy to show this in science, wouldn't it? But no one has. You see, that is why the burden of proof is on you. Because if I don't make you show why the scientist are wrong by citing other science, you will spout bullsh*t all night long. It will never end. As soon as I show you why one of your ideas is wrong, you will simply post another. Don't believe me? What have I already done with the blog you linked to! You pretended that you weren't proven wrong and just raised another argument.
Again, stranger, put up or shut up.
Sorry, stranger, but I am not falling for your sophistry.
Sophistry? I think not
You can't provide *one* peer-reviewed paper that refutes global warming. Not one. You have no argument. Trying to pretend that we have something to prove is beyond absurd at this point. I have linked to show you that there are over 600 peer-review papers showing global warming is real and man-made. You have done nothing to refute those articles.
Just where the heck is the link to see these mysterious studies?
Oh, and I am not asking you to prove a negative. The theory of global warming, like any theory, is falsafiable. If you can show why any of these more than 600 papers are false, please do so.
Cuz I don't know where the hell they are. They probably are based on the false premise that CO2 is the cause of warming anyway
And I'm not going to bother explaining the lag behind Gore's graph.
Cuz you can't. You'd look like a doofus if you tried.
That has been explained already.
Indeed it has been..and every explanation of it shows the same thing
If Gore is really wrong, then it would be easy to show this in science, wouldn't it? But no one has.
Sure they have...and looky, the studies are even peer reviewed
You see, that is why the burden of proof is on you. Because if I don't make you show why the scientist are wrong by citing other science, you will spout bullsh*t all night long. It will never end. As soon as I show you why one of your ideas is wrong, you will simply post another. Don't believe me? What have I already done with the blog you linked to! You pretended that you weren't proven wrong and just raised another argument.
You haven't proved me wrong. That's kinda the point, you psycho dork
Again, stranger, put up or shut up
Just slowly back away from the keyboard.You're looking silly
stranger wrat:
>>Cuz I don't know where the hell they are. They probably are based on the false premise that CO2 is the cause of warming anyway
Oh please! All the best scientists in the world are wrong! And all the 635 papers I linked to in my first link (the one you tried to dismiss) are all wrong; but stranger, an anonymous poster, is right!
No, I'm not playing goose chase all night. There is a ton of bogus science and bad argumentation out there. I am asking you to disprove a positive. I have linked to 635 papers. You have not provided me one link to real science to disprove these papers.
Put up or shut up, stranger.
Oh please! All the best scientists in the world are wrong! And all the 635 papers I linked to in my first link (the one you tried to dismiss) are all wrong; but stranger, an anonymous poster, is right!
No, I'm not playing goose chase all night. There is a ton of bogus science and bad argumentation out there. I am asking you to disprove a positive. I have linked to 635 papers. You have not provided me one link to real science to disprove these papers
OHMYGOD...I jus figured out where you got your 635 scientific studies nonsense. It was in that WaPo oped column you linke to, right?
The best scientists in the world? There aren't even any named, let alone what is in there studies.
Wow...so you don't even know what you're basing your argument on.
Let's break this down, shall we. The whole premise of the global warming argument is predicated on the disproven causality link of increased CO2 causes increased temp (go ahead and read the last link in my previous post. it deals directly with that...and it's even, even peer-reviewed and has charts and graphs and big words and everything!)..
...AND...The increase in temperature that the GW nutjobs are whining about -less than 1degree F in the last century- is well within the normal range of measured historical fluctuations..AND..the majority of that increase happened prior to 1940 and the resultant release of CO2 gases of the post-WWII industrial explosion...AND...temperatures have actually dropped since 1998..and on...and on..and
stranger wrat:
>>OHMYGOD...I jus figured out where you got your 635 scientific studies nonsense. It was in that WaPo oped column you linke to, right?
Yes, the column that linked to several major scientific bodies that support the consensus views. Yes, that columns. And that column that pointed out that there are *635* papers that support global warming, and none that refute it.
All your argument amounts to tap dancing around this inconvenient fact. Not able to refute the best scientists in the world, or produce evidence of even *one* peer-reviewed paper, you have resorted to rhetoric and name calling for the whole thread.
That may work in the freeper world, but that doesn't work here.
And no, you never linked to any peer-reviewed paper that backed up the bizarre conclusions you are reaching. I guess if you think you include links that everyone will be fooled, like when you included a link to a right-wing blog at the beginning of this discussion that said the opposite of what you said it did.
You see, you are just spreading the same bullsh*t that all the denialists spread. You think if you post it enough, it becomes fact. It doesn't.
The score so far is the side for global warming: 635. The side against: 0.
Put up or shut up, stranger.
Yes, the column that linked to several major scientific bodies that support the consensus views. Yes, that columns. And that column that pointed out that there are *635* papers that support global warming, and none that refute it.
1) You have NO IDEA what's in those studies.
2) There is NO SUCH THING AS CONSENSUS IN SCIENCE.
All your argument amounts to tap dancing around this inconvenient fact. Not able to refute the best scientists in the world, or produce evidence of even *one* peer-reviewed paper, you have resorted to rhetoric and name calling for the whole thread.
1) You HAVE NO IDEA WHO AUTHORED THE STUDIES. How in the world can you call them the "best scientists in the world"?
2) I have shown you studies that refute the basic claims of GW. You simply choose to ignore...or more probably...don't understand them
3) calling you a moron isn't name calling..it looks pretty darned accurate
That may work in the freeper world, but that doesn't work here.
Not quite sure what the heck this means.
And no, you never linked to any peer-reviewed paper that backed up the bizarre conclusions you are reaching. I guess if you think you include links that everyone will be fooled, like when you included a link to a right-wing blog at the beginning of this discussion that said the opposite of what you said it did.
I sure have...read the links...
You see, you are just spreading the same bullsh*t that all the denialists spread. You think if you post it enough, it becomes fact. It doesn't.
Nope...I showed the science which backs up what I contend.
Hilariously...you keep referring to a link that does not show, list, link to, or even provide the merest abstract of any study whatsoever..
...yet that is your "proof". You really are making a fool of yourself,
The score so far is the side for global warming: 635. The side against: 0.
Put up or shut up, stranger
OK, Clownboy..explain to me, based on all your readings of these studies you cannot find, your conclusion as to just how man is causing global warming
temperatures have actually dropped since 1998
Now you're just playing games with words. Yes, 1998 was a spike year for global temperatures making it the warmest ever. However, the seven years of 2001 through 2007 have been in the top eight warmest. Get it? Besides 1998, 2001-2007 are the warmest ever recorded.
Only an idiot would consider that to be insignificant. No offense intended, of course.
Now you're just playing games with words. Yes, 1998 was a spike year for global temperatures making it the warmest ever. However, the seven years of 2001 through 2007 have been in the top eight warmest. Get it? Besides 1998, 2001-2007 are the warmest ever recorded.
1) Your data is James Hansen. Hansen was caught manipulating the data in the study that concluded 1998 was warmest on record. It is not.
2) It is not concerned with only US temps, it is for the entire planet. Read the second line of the NASA report of jan. 16, 2008
2) The entire data set of the refuted report had to be reanalyzed because Hansen refuses to reveal his algorithms.
3) Hansen has received over $700,000 from George Soros
4) 5)1998 was not the warmest year. It is second behind 1934.
6)There still is a net decrease in GW temp average since the dubious 1998 baseline, even though 2007 temps are close to 1998
7) Even given the fact that there was a less than 0.7degree GW temps increase in the last century, the majority of that came prior to 1940...before the post-WWII manifold increase in the man-made contribution to CO2 levels...
8)...AND...that less than 0.7 increase in temps is well within the range of historical fluctuations.
9)...AND.. here's the kicker...it has been shown...THROUGH SCIENCE...that
increased CO2 levels do not cause increased temperatures...in fact...it has been demonstrated that it is the other way around..here's a study...and here's a video that explains that study
...now...since the whole global warming scam is based on the false premise that increased CO2 causes increased temps...
...how is GW caused by man?
Only an idiot would consider that to be insignificant. No offense intended, of course.
Oh..and here's a great comment of Scientific American's article on the Oregon project from Tech Central Station, a science and technology blog:
SciAm reported on the Oregon Petition against Kyoto back in October 2001, but rather than being encouraged by the extent of professional opinion supporting an optimistic reading of the evidence, the publication sniffed through the names until the editors found six (unnamed) signatories who apparently have since changed their minds.
..notice the "unnamed" part?
stranger schrieb:
>>A negative cannot be proven.
I know this debate is over, but I just want to add that you have absolutely framed the debate in the wrong way. No, one cannot prove a negative. But I wasn't asking you to prove a negative. I was asking you to disprove a positive, namely that CO2 produced by man heated up the earth. That is a positive.
If I tell you that you can't disprove there is a God, then I am asking you to prove a negative, something you can't do. (Can you go everywhere in the universe?) But if I state that God is omniscent, omnipotent, and kind, then I am stating a positive, which can be disppoven, and I just read a philosophy paper doing just that.
If we accept your definition of what it means to prove a negative, then we can argue that gravity doesn't exist. I can state that things fall to earth at 32ft/s^2, and the so-called sceptic can say that gravity doesn't exist, because you can't prove a negative. So unless you believe that nothing can be proven, including gravity, then you are wrong to say you can't prove a negative in this case.
If I tell you that you can't disprove there is a God, then I am asking you to prove a negative, something you can't do. (Can you go everywhere in the universe?) But if I state that God is omniscent, omnipotent, and kind, then I am stating a positive, which can be disppoven, and I just read a philosophy paper doing just that.
We're not talking matters spiritual here. We're speaking of the physical observable world. You're trying to compare apples to kumquats.
Oh..and you shouldn't just Google something and regurgitate things you don't quite understand. Philosophy paper, my arse
If we accept your definition of what it means to prove a negative, then we can argue that gravity doesn't exist.
It's not my definition..and you would be stupid in arguing that it doesn't because we have measurable empirical evidence to prove the existence
sceptic can say that gravity doesn't exist, because you can't prove a negative.
The skeptic can say that..but he is not proving it ..right, Skippy
So unless you believe that nothing can be proven, including gravity, then you are wrong to say you can't prove a negative in this case.
Wow...you have no idea what the heck you're talking about. You obviously do not have any grasp on the concept
stranger wrat:
>>We're not talking matters spiritual here. We're speaking of the physical observable world. You're trying to compare apples to kumquats.
Sorry, stranger, but I am exactly right. I am making a positive statement that CO2, pout in the atmosphere by man, causes the earth to heat up. In the same way, Galileo claimed that things fall to earth at 32ft/s^2. Both are positive statements. Both are falsifiable, which is why they are accepted as science.
But no one has falsified global warming through a peer reviwed paper. No one.
And just as we have measurable empirical evidence that proves gravity, we have the same evidence that proves global warming. I have linked to 635 such papers.
Put up or shut up, stranger.
I have linked to 635 such papers.
Ummm...no you have not. Here's your link...Now where are those studies again?
But no one has falsified global warming through a peer reviwed paper. No one.
Completely, abjectly, demonstrably, and positively UNTRUE!!!!!
The hypothesis of man-made made global warming is predicated on the false premise that because we are pumping more CO2 (a greenhouse gas)into the atmoshpere...temperature is increasing.
There is a correlation between CO2 and temp, but it is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what the GW scaremongers want you to believe...here's your PEER REVIEWED STUDY. that shows that fact
...now which of those 635 studies that you cannot find...none of which you even have a summary, let alone an abstract of..written by you-have-no-idea-whom...and reviewed by you-have-no idea-whom...written you-have-no-idea-when..and whose conclusions you-have-noclue-about?
Inquiring minds wanna know.
After you've taken your Ritalin and are able to keep your attention on something for a few minutes, watch this short clip of real scientists explaining the CO2/temperature link.
Be sure to stay with it because the money shot is at the end.
stranger schrieb:
>>Oh..and you shouldn't just Google something and regurgitate things you don't quite understand. Philosophy paper, my arse
Oh, and I read the philosophy paper in the library. That's a place with books. I liked the paper, because it showed that God cannot be ominscent, omnipotent, and all-loving, because the terms contradict themselves. If God were omnipotent and omiscnet, there wold not be evil. The author did a good job brining up the arguments for such a God, and then showing why they were wrong.
See, that is a positive statement that the author could refute.
So yes, I read the paper.
As has already been pointed out to you, that scientist/broadcaster did state that he didn't mean it literally. And, as I pointed out, he only suggested it for politicians. Any intimidated scientists exist only in your mind.
Are you now trying to pretend that there are a lot of climate scientists who would have signed the petition if they'd had the opportunity? The way that petition was padded with unqualified names, I find it hard to believe they passed on any scientists who could have rescued its credibility.
You haven't come up with a fact-based counter-argument to anything I've presented. I think any objective observer can see who's playing the Black Knight role in this exchange.
One scientist/broadcaster called for politicians, not scientists, who ignore the problem to be thrown in jail, and promptly states that he didn't mean that literally.
Well..he didn't actually, but you're not the type to let pesky facts bother your good time.
Stranger wrat:
>>Well..he didn't actually, but you're not the type to let pesky facts bother your good time.
From your very link:
"When asked for further comment, Dan Maceluch, a spokesman for Dr. Suzuki, said that he did not mean the statement to be taken literally."
I guess this is what we expect from someone who thinks the US is the world, who can't calculate a percentage, and who thinks Clinton murdered Vince Foster.
Again, strange, show us the peer reviewed science. Put up or shut up.
When asked for further comment, Dan Maceluch, a spokesman for Dr. Suzuki, said that he did not mean the statement to be taken literally."
Oh...a spokesman said it, and not Suzuki...it's called damage control
I guess this is what we expect from someone who thinks the US is the world, who can't calculate a percentage, and who thinks Clinton murdered Vince Foster.
Sorry about the percentage calculation...heavily dosed on cold and flu meds...and you'd have to be an idiot to not think the Clintons had Foster murdered....prove they didn't:)
Again, strange, show us the peer reviewed science. Put up or shut up
Actually, what you're asking for is proof of a negative. The scientific method does not allow for it. What is out there aplenty is proof that the claims by the global warming nut jobs is nothing but a pack of lies
Stranger wrat:
>>Oh...a spokesman said it, and not Suzuki...it's called damage control
Oh, is that how you are spinning it? So if his spokesman said he is not to be taken literally, then that obviously the scientist means something else. Because spokesmen are hired to say the opposite of their bosses, right? And that does nothing for your argument that somehow the scientists were threatened with jail.
>>Sorry about the percentage calculation...heavily dosed on cold and flu meds...and you'd have to be an idiot to not think the Clintons had Foster murdered....prove they didn't:)
Ha ha! You really believe this lunancy and you expect to be taken seriously? I mean, seriously?
>>Actually, what you're asking for is proof of a negative. The scientific method does not allow for it. What is out there aplenty is proof that the claims by the global warming nut jobs is nothing but a pack of lies
Oh good grief! Having lost the argument, you are going to start attacking science? First, we are not asking to prove a negative. We are asking that you look at the data and show how it is incorrect. Global warming, like any scientific theory, is falseafiable. You only have to show how it is wrong. But no one can.
You must really be desperate to cling to your belief that global warming is not real. No, there is not plenty of evidence out there. If there were, then there would be peer-reviewed papers, which there are not. And calling the best scientist in the world "nut jobs," just reveals your desperation. Do you believe that the earth is the center of the solar system, too?
PS Sorry about the flu medicine, or whatever your excuse was, but not really. You see, you come on here insulting and acting like an ass, so you don't get a free pass when you make such a stupid mistake.
Oh, is that how you are spinning it? So if his spokesman said he is not to be taken literally, then that obviously the scientist means something else. Because spokesmen are hired to say the opposite of their bosses, right?
No..the spokesweasel was put out by the global warming freaks who realized Suzuki blabbed a tad too much..
...the curtains were pulled back so to speak
stranger wrat:
>>No..the spokesweasel was put out by the global warming freaks who realized Suzuki blabbed a tad too much..
Oh yes. You have as much proof of that as you do that global warming is not real. You love to make things up, don't you.
Again, stranger, I'm still waiting for that science that backs up your position.
Put up or shut up.
You must really be desperate to cling to your belief that global warming is not real. No, there is not plenty of evidence out there. If there were, then there would be peer-reviewed papers, which there are not.
Fer Chissakes, you psycho-dork....for the billionth time...you do not prove a negative..
...the so-called "facts' about how man has caused global warming through CO2 emissions has been thoroughly debunked...time and time again..
..get it through that thick skull...again the "facts" have been debunked...there are no..and can be no *peer reviewed* studies showing man did not cause global warming.....refutationof claims man have caused it can and have debunked ...THROUGH SCIENCE..
...I kinda know now what it's like to be a teacher in a "special' school
stranger wrat:
>>Fer Chissakes, you psycho-dork....for the billionth time...you do not prove a negative..
I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you to prove a positive, as I pointed out in an earlier link.
>>..the so-called "facts' about how man has caused global warming through CO2 emissions has been thoroughly debunked...time and time again..
And this is funny. If you can't prove a negative (which I am not asking you to do), then why do you try to do just that. And sorry, stranger, these links are not science. I want real science, in the form of a peer-reviewed paper. Several times you link to articles that are either bogus or don't say what you say they do. You want me to run around on a goose chase all night. Sorry. I'm not falling for the same old trick of the moving target argument.
I want real science. I have given you 635 peer-reviewed papers.
You have given me none.
Put up or shut up.
stranger wrat:
>>Fer Chissakes, you psycho-dork
>>...I kinda know now what it's like to be a teacher in a "special' school
I like the name calling here. Do you think it substitutes for an argument?
Stranger: This does not mean however that I will accept your figures on face value. I'm quite sure that closer scrutiny will undermine your argument further.
Bill: Go for it.
BOOM...and this is just the very first link I clicked on
Stranger schrieb:
>>First of all, you don't need to be a climatologist to be able to review a study to dtermine whether or not proper statistical methodology had been used...statiisticians and scientists from other fields can surely do that.
No, you don't. But if you want your opinion to be taken seriously, then it helps to be a climatologist, just like it helps to be a doctor if you are going to state an opinion on a broken bone.
OR: you can actually look at the data to reach a conclusion and publish that conclusion in a scientific journal. But *NO* scientist or any other person has done this to date. That is why I'm challenging to you to find just *one* peer reviewed paper that refutes global warming. You can't do it. You would rather link to a bunch of denialists than show me science. But I'm not going to be fooled.
You can't show me a single peer-reviewed paper that backs up your postition.
You simply are wrong.
just like it helps to be a doctor if you are going to state an opinion on a broken bone.
Once when I was skiing, I swerved to hit a another skier who popped in my way suddenly and I hit a trail marker. It was my forearm that took the brunt.
I took off my jacket and saw i had broken my arm. The ski patrol guys showed up asked me what the matter was and I told them about my broken arm. They looked and agreed that my arm was broken.
None of us were doctors.
stranger wrat:
>>None of us were doctors.
Wow, getting pretty deperate aren't you? That is the best you can do to show that global warming is not real? As I said in my post, anyone can write a scientific paper. But no one has! Yo have no argument.
Put up or shut up, stranger.
stranger schrieb:
>>Those with views opposed to belief in anthropogenic causes are harassed, have there funding cut, are threatened with jail etc.
God you are a liar! As BillJ pointed out, one scientist calling for politicians to be jailed doesn't amount to scientists getting threatened with jail. If I make a speech tomorrow and say that all politicians who support mimes should be put in jail, does that mean that mimes are threatened with jail?
Now I know why you think Clinton murdered Vince Foster. You will grasp as the flimsiest evidence to support ridiculous conclusions.
Have you figured out how to read your own links yet? Have you figured out how to calculate a percentage?
The Oregon Petition is an extremely unimpressive support for your position. It contains a large number of fictional names, duplicate entries, corporation names and names that couldn't be verified. Scientific American took a random sampling of those on the list with Ph.D.s and found that only 11 of the 30 (36%) of them would still sign the petition today. Of those 11, only 3 had scientific experience in fields relevant to climatology. In all, of the 19,000 signatures, SA estimated about 200 could reasonably be described as climate researchers. If the statistics of the survey hold true, only about 73 of those would still sign the petition today.
Amazing...you used Wikipedia, didn't you?...and then even misrepresented that.! ...
...I'm embarrassed for you
...go ahead...paste the rebuttals from the petition organizers..you won't?..cuz it undermines your argument?..Oh..ok
Stranger wrat:
>>So...ummm..you do know your link is from 5 years ago right. That's like waaaayyy before it was shown that the 1930's had the highest temps ever, right?
Wow. And you are accusing me of ignorance? First, where is the link that shows 1930 was the hottest year ever? This is laughable.
Second, as is pointed out below, the Oregon petition is bogus. And even if it weren't, let me repeat my assertion: I only want you to show *one* peer reviewed article that refutes global warming. Just one. You see, that is how science works. It doesn't work by having scientists sign a petition; it works by scientist presenting facts. And that is why you have no argument.
You are simply wrong. The consensus is that global warming is real and man-made.
When you can show me even *one* peer-reviewed paper that refutes global warming, then you can start the debate.
Stranger wrat:
>>...OK where's that consensus?
.>>..wow, the ignorance...it hurts
None of your links even work. You are really making a fool of yourself. You claim that the IPC is just a bunch of burocrats, but if you had even bothered to read my link (why is that a surprise that you didn't when you can't even read your own links?), you would have seen that other scientific bodies have reached the same conclusion.
Oh, you might want to use the trash talking for when you are actually right. Otherwise, it makes you look like even more of an ass.
***
[from original link]
in recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and it answers yes. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.
Stranger wrat:
>> I guess these guys...and the thousands of others had better turn in their diplomas
Yes, they do. They have not produced any peer reviewed science refuting global warming. That is how science works. None of these scientists are climatologists, but more importantly, none of them have produced scientific papers to back up their views.
Again, stranger, produce just *one* peer reviewed paper that refutes global warming. You can't do it.
You are simply wrong.
But what can I expect from someone who thinks Clinton murdered Vince Foster?
Uh oh...someone had better tell these scientists about the "consensus".
Apparently they didn't get the memo.
The Inhofe 400 is also debunked. Dozens of them are retired, that is not up to date on the science. Dozens are weathermen, economists or other disciplines not qualified to render judgments. There are quite a few who have stated publicly and in writing that they believe GW is a problem that we should act to address. A very large number have strong links to oil, coal and gas companies.
What's really interesting is that Inhofe's list of 400 came years after the supposed 19,000. Apparently scientific opposition to GW is rapidly shrinking.
What's really interesting is that Inhofe's list of 400 came years after the supposed 19,000
just make it 19,400 then
So now you're trying to make your case by giving goofy replies? On the off chance that you aren't intending to be silly I'll give a straight-forward answer.
The Oregon Petition was from 8 years ago. The Inhofe 400 was barely over a year ago. The signatories weren't meant to be cumulative. Do you honestly think Inhofe would reject signers of the earlier petition for his?
Face it, the scientific consensus is solidifying as the dissenters become swayed by the volume of evidence supporting the consensus opinion.
Face it, the scientific consensus is solidifying as the dissenters become swayed by the volume of evidence supporting the consensus opinion.
GFer Chrissakes..you're as thick-headed as Funnypants. THERE IS NO SUCH CONCEPT AS CONSENSUS IN THE SCIENTIC METHOD!!!
The ignorance...it's obviously willful!!!!
...and the list of skeptics just grows and grows:
Testing my strength again, I see...
Stranger wrat:
>>...what? You mean the Arctic sea ice is actually growing?
You see, this is the problem with you denialists. It is your religion that global warming is not happening. You base that on a belief, not science, and then you run off to the web finding every article that supports your view, ignoring the fact that the science says global warming is happening. So you denialists are easily fooled, so gullible that you believe what your links tell you.
The article that this right wing blog links to states:
"'The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that's a significant increase,'" he said."
You see that? It is thicker from just *last* year! It doesn't say it is increasing overall.
And then:
"But he added that it's too soon to say what impact this winter will have on the Arctic summer sea ice, which reached its lowest coverage ever recorded in the summer of 2007."
You see, the very article you indirectly links to undermines your argument.
But you will continue to post garbage here all night. That is why I'm telling you to post one, just one peer reviewed article that refutes global warming.
You can't do it. You are simply a blowhard who will fall for every right-wing conspiracy theory there is, like Clinton murdering Vince Foster. Embarrassed yet?
You base that on a belief, not science,
Nope...it's science.
Are you telling me that increased CO2 causes increased temps?..cuz science says the opposite
Are you telling me that increased CO2 caused the less than .7 degree Celsius increase in temperature last century? ...cuz science says the opposite
Are you telling me that we are experiencing a net worldwide decrease in glacier mass?...cuz science says the opposite
Are you telling me that we are losing ice in the polar reions?...cuz science says the opposite
Are you telling me that we are experiencing the warmest global temps in modern history?...cuz science says the opposite
Are you telling me that man-made global warming is causing sea levels to rise?...cuz science says the opposite
stranger wrat:
>>Are you telling me that increased CO2 causes increased temps?..cuz science says the opposite
Sure stranger. Just keep telling yourself that. I guess if I state the earth is flat, that makes it true. You are simply making assertions, not stating facts. My link shows that 635 scientific papers support global warming.
You have not provided *one* peer-reviewed paper that shows the opposite. Instead, you link to a bogus petition; show you can't caluculate a percentage; link to a right wing blog that links to an article that *refutes* your argument; and assert that your own source states something it doesn't. Oh and then declare yourself the winner of the debate.
I guess you don't get embarrassed easily. But what can I expect from someone who thinks Clinton murdered Vince Foster.
You have not provided *one* peer-reviewed paper that shows the opposite.
Cuz that ain't the way of the world, Slappy. One of basic tenants of the scientific method is that a negative cannot be proven. The burden of proof does not lie with the skeptic, but rather with hypothesizer.
The man made global warming theory has been deconstructed and shredded to pieces. It is up to the global warming nutcases to fabricate more "proof"...which will then be shot down too
stranger schrieb:
>>The man made global warming theory has been deconstructed and shredded to pieces. It is up to the global warming nutcases to fabricate more "proof"...which will then be shot down too
Really you are pathetic. Yes, this is how science works! Now, over 600 papers have been produced that show global warming is real and man made. And where are those other scientific papers which have shredded them?
They don't exist! Or they exits in your own mind. And you must be desperate to call the best scientist in the world "nu jobs." But then, you have made so many mistakes in this discussion, nothing surprises me anymore. You thought 1930 was the hottest year, you thought the article you cited said the arctic ice was getting thicker when it said the opposite, you can't calculate a percentage, you don't read your own links--and so on.
Again, stranger, put up or shut up.
Yes, this is how science works! Now, over 600 papers have been produced that show global warming is real and man made. And where are those other scientific papers which have shredded them
They do? Really? Synopsis please
stranger wrat:
>>They do? Really? Synopsis please
So this is how you are going to try to defend you argument, with silliness? My first link gave the synopsis of the 635 papers. I guess when you have no argument, you just say the same thing over and over and hope no one will notice.
Again, stranger, put up or shut up.
Having a cold spell recently. One of Stranger's weaker clones has been throwing out Global Cooling as a gotcha phrase. It was a bit stuning, but He's been elusive to reply to recently. As has been noted on another thread its a bit frustrating when you explain carefully and the explainee has been listening more to an inner voice than your words.
We've already had a, once every 500 years, flood this season. I'm really hoping the weather warms up slowly or we might have another one.
It was a bit stuning, but He's been elusive to reply to recently.
Where?...When?
Gee...I don't suppose you're simply lying....again
Please show me my lies. I'm always trying to improve. A careful reread of my post might show you that I wasn't referring to you but one of your fellow travelors, ie a clone.
Its futile I know regardless of how sucessful efforts are to reduce human effects on the climate. You'll never believe it to be other than a progressive con. Your brain is set, that other lesss harmful power producers exsist is irrelivent. Unlike people, idology has no direct effect on the climate. However much you might believe and yell at it.
>>Having a cold spell recently. One of Stranger's weaker clones has been throwing out Global Cooling as a gotcha phrase.
That's one of their favorite talking points. Cooling is happening but it's weaker than warming. Cleaning up particles in the air reduces it and speeds up warming.
Maybe Matalin and Strangy could team up to write a paper on Global Warming. Set up a little lab and buy one of those dinner plate size analog thermometers at Wal-Mart, hang it on the propane tank under the trailer awning.
They could both get a clipboard, and write down the temperature at a certain time each day, comparing data, and averaging out any discrepancies due to not recognizing numbers.
If they started the experiment in July, and continued it through, say, January, I bet they could show a definite cooling trend.
The best part is how easy it would be to get their paper reviewed by their peers; Just walk down to the corner and wait for the short bus in the afternoon, have their peers look it over.
They could both get a clipboard, and write down the temperature at a certain time each day, comparing data, and averaging out any discrepancies due to not recognizing numbers.
...don't have to...scientists are doing just that...AND MORE....and it shows that the highest temps were in the 1930's...before the post-WWII industrial boom and the resultant CO2 emissions.
..and science is showing that Anatctic ice is a record thiskness..and that Arctic ice growing again....
..and that CO2 does not cause an increase in temps, but that the reverse actually happens...and that James Hansen was caught in fraud, funded by Soros..
..and that the majotity of the 1 degree rise in global temps ocurred before 1940.
...and that more glaciers are growing than receding..
..and that warming did not cause snow on Kilimanjaro to melt.
..and on...and on...and on...and on...and on...and on....
So you are going to cough up those peer reviewed studies? Oh, thats right, THEY DONT EXIST.
"So you are going to cough up those peer reviewed studies? Oh, thats right, THEY DONT EXIST."
SOLON
Here you go: LINK
I am sure it is some right-wing hack denier.
Solon is right, this link says nothing to dispute GW. In addition, it says nothing that disputes human influenced GW. Did you stumble across some web site that told you this was a peer-reviewed article disputing man-influenced GW and just took their word for it? Not a good idea.
This article takes issue with particular methods of measurement used. That's all there is to conclude from it.
Oh Look!
Another peer reviewed study: Here
McKitrick is an economist not a scientist and the Cato institute where Micheals is from is a well known libertarian pro industry thinktank. McKitrick belongs to a free market institute of the same type called the Fraser institute in Canda. This seems to deal with how the closing of weather stations effects the average temperature as it skews the data selected
This one was peer reviewed but apparantly contains a glaring error here is what Real Climate says about it
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/
It strikes us as odd, to say the least, that, after one of the "most rigorous peer reviews ever", nobody involved (neither editor, nor reviewers, nor authors) seems to have caught the egregious basic error that the authors mistakenly used degrees rather than the required radians in calculating the cosine functions used to spatially weight their estimates**. This mistake rendered every calculation in the paper incorrect, and the conclusions invalid — to our knowledge, however, the paper has not yet been retracted. Remarkably, there were still other independent and equally fundamental errors in the paper that would have rendered it entirely invalid anyway. To the journals credit, they published a criticism of the paper by Benestad (2004) to this effect. It may come as no surprise that McKitrick and Michaels (2004) was published in Climate Research and was handled by none other than Chris de Frietas.
So peer reviewed by highly suspect and strongly disputed. Give that one a maybe still far from proof Global Warming is a hoax, that still has not been shown with a peer reviewed article by the way
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html
Oddly enough, the other paper also attempted to cast doubt on anthropogenic global warming. Both papers were reviewed by the controversial Chris de Frietas. The year before Pat Michaels' paper was published, the chief editor and 3 additional editors had resigned in protest because the "review process had utterly failed".
Since then National Academy of Sciences of 11 countries signed a statement saying “Climate Change is real” and we need "to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change". Naomi Oreskes has read the abstracts of every single one of the 928 scientific papers containing the words "global climate change" from 1993 to 2003. None of them disagreed the existence of human driven climate change. For a complete rundown of the consensus please go here.
Its hard to get past that when saying there is no consensus on Global Warming.
Solon,
I don't think any of these papers that I've linked here were written to show that global warming is a "hoax". Even I can't dispute that climate change is real. But what they do is point out that there is a lot of hysteria and misinformation about the root cause and the solution. The skeptic in me has come to the following conclusions:
Goodfellas wrat:
>>Even I can't dispute that climate change is real. But what they do is point out that there is a lot of hysteria and misinformation about the root cause and the solution. The skeptic in me has come to the following conclusions:
Well, the papers you link to is absurd. It mixes up degrees and radians! And yet you are touting it as reliable?
>>1. Global Climate change is real. The climate has been changing for
ever and will continue to cycle through ice ages and warm periods.
No. The current change will much more dramatic than the normal cycles of ice age and warm periods. The predictions are either catastrophic or very catasrophic. Like I said, like to *one* peer reviewed paper that refutes global warming. Papers that mix up radians and degrees--well, they don't exactly refute it, do they?
This one is peer reviewed, however it also neither challenges whether GW is occurring nor challenges human influence on it. All it seeks to challenge is the magnitude of the current warming trend.
So, we're still waiting for peer reviewed research that challenges the consensus opinion that human-influenced global warming is a reality.
Please go ahead and continue trying, though.
BillJ-MN wrat:
>>This one is peer reviewed, however it also neither challenges whether GW is occurring nor challenges human influence on it. All it seeks to challenge is the magnitude of the current warming trend.
Which paper is that? The post you respond to is so far back, I can't trace it. I'd like to have a look at it myself.
Oh Look!
Another peer reviewed study: Here
It can be easy to lose track on some of these threads.
Thanks, Bill. For the sake of the debate, here is a link from realclimate showing the problems with McKitrick's work:
link
The argument itself is very technical, but in the comments, the author of the blog states his reasons more simply:
Response: Even without technical training or a statistical background, you should have an adequate basis for discerning which of the two parties is likely wrong here. Only one of the parties involved has (1) had their claims fail scientific peer-review, (2) produced a reconstruction that is completely at odds with all other existing estimates (note that there is no sign of the anomalous 15th century warmth claimed by MM in any of the roughly dozen other model and proxy-based estimates shown here), and (3) been established to have made egregious elementary errors in other published work that render the work thoroughly invalid. These observations would seem quite telling. -mike]
I like the conclusion to this PEER REVIEWED paper:
'CONCLUSIONS
There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that in -
creases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide
and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause
unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape.
There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other
minor green house gases as has been pro posed (82,83,97,123).
We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if
the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been
much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic ef -
fects. Warmer weather ex tends growing sea sons and generally improves
the habitability of colder regions.
As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty
vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be re leased
into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the
health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
The United States and other countries need to produce more en -
ergy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally
sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.
Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed
the Earth, and the extrapolation of cur rent trends shows that it will
not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, how -
ever, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to
grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also
flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.
Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the at -
mosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas
from be low ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for con -
version into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment
of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our
children will therefore en joy an Earth with far more plant and animal
life than that with which we now are blessed."
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON
The sources I'm looking at for the paper you quote here at length state that it was formatted to appear to be a published peer-reviewed paper, but that it never actually underwent peer review.
I haven't researched the other two, but i couldn't help but notice one of them had mostly the same authors. I'll check it out more thoroughly later.
This should be simple for you to clarify. What scientific body performed the peer review process on that paper?
Stranger wrat:
>>Careful. You're gonna make their heads go 'splodey
Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough already? Have you figured out how to calculate a percentage yet, or even how to read your own links?
And no, none of the papers quoted by Goodfellas refutes global warming. The last one he quotes is just an embarrassment to him. He cites an old hoax. Apparently, you denialists can't even keep up with the propaganda.
FunnyPants,
You and I both know that there is no link or study I could site that would make you think for a second about changing your viewpoint.
In the words of your great leader algore: "The Debate Is Over".
That's nonsense. You cited two studies that were peer reviewed, but neither of them disputed human-influenced GW. Your third one didn't meet the peer review standard.
We could be swayed by significant scientific evidence, but you've failed so far to provide us with any.
Goodfellas wrat:
>>You and I both know that there is no link or study I could site that would make you think for a second about changing your viewpoint.
What is that supposed to mean? The science is on my side. Motivation is a weak argument. Let me put the same challenge to you as to stranger. There are over 600 peer-reviewed papers showing global warming is real. Is there a reason I should doubt these papers and listen to a denier like you who links to studies that are either bogus or don't show what he thinks they show?
Goodfellas wrat:
>>I like the conclusion to this peer reviewed paper
Do you? Because IT WAS NOT PEER REVIEWED. This paper is a hoax and has been debunked a long time ago.
link
The article that accompanied the petition was written in the style and format of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal.[5] Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said that it was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article…is a reprint and has passed peer review."
link
[May 3, 1998:] Global warming is not happening. So claim Arthur Robinson and others in a review of the published literature entitled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," which was mailed earlier this year to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists.
...
The authority of the article is open to question as it has not undergone peer review.
Funnymanpants scrawled:
"...Do you? Because IT WAS NOT PEER REVIEWED. This paper is a hoax and has been debunked a long time ago. ..."
Then you had a link to a Wikipedia article. That's your source?
Trust me...EVERYTHING from Wikipedia is suspect. I suppose next you're going to tell me that 9/11 was an inside job. But, hey - everyone loves a conspiracy.
Goodfellas wrat:
>>Trust me...EVERYTHING from Wikipedia is suspect. I suppose next you're going to tell me that 9/11 was an inside job. But, hey - everyone loves a conspiracy.
Wow. Nice way to weasel out of an embarsassment. I actually provided *two* links. Now you have made the statement that the paper is peer reviewed. You prove it. I have shown why it isn't. If your best defense is that wikipedia is suspect, then I am guessing you have no defense whatsoever.
And comparing my argument to 9/11 is simply a smear and illogical. How exactly is my argument, backed up by the best scientists in the wold, the same as citing a conspiracy theory?
stranger escribeir:
>>don't have to...scientists are doing just that...AND MORE....and it shows that the highest temps were in the 1930's...before the post-WWII industrial boom and the resultant CO2 emissions.
God you are ignorant. You come on the boards all full of piss and vinegar trying to show us up, and then you make a fool of yourself. The hottest temperatures were nto before 1930. That is simply a fact. There was one hot year in the US, but contrary to what you right-wing reactionaries might think, the US is not the world.
Again, stranger, enough of your idiocy. Show us the *science* that supports your view point. You have given us lots of rhetoric, but we really want to see the scientists. I want to know why I should take your point of view seriously when the best scientists in the world say that global warming is real and man-made. Why should I listen to them rather than a bl*w hard like you, who can't even get basic facts right, who can't even calculate a percentage.
Round after round after round, of an inane and pointless debate, in which nothing said is proven, and nothing gets done.
Whatever several comments might appear above and below this one, serve as an example transcript, of the worthless debate about "climate change" "global warming"...
That is, unless any of those comments actually mention FUEL EMISSIONS, and the Regulation of them... in which case the argument is on point, and raised to the level of substantial. Otherwise...
Are the extraordinary levels of HAZARDOUS FUEL EMISSIONS we produce, a "largely unscientific hoax"? Are they a "political concoction"?
So long as people bicker about "climate change" and "global warming", and neglect the true focus of HAZARDOUS FUEL EMISSIONS, is how long nothing gets done, or even said, on the matter.
That's why I like to call it "global weirding." In other words, the climate will fluctuate to extremes. I like it better than "global warming," which gets stranger's panties in a bunch.
Oh, and I guess since this is such a strong issue for him, he won't be voting in this election, because no one this time around is toeing the "global warming is a myth" line.
I like it better than "global warming," which gets stranger's panties in a bunch..
and every other sentient beings' on the planet
I love this excerpt:
O'BRIEN: You're definitely not paying attention.
WATTS: You have got science on both sides of that issue.
PAUL BEGALA (CNN political analyst): No.
O'BRIEN: No, you don't. No, you don't. The scientific debate is over, J.C. We're done. We're out of --
[crosstalk]
WATTS: Well, Miles, that's your position. That's not -- that's not --
O'BRIEN: No, no, no, that's not -- that is science. That is science. And the science is done.
WATTS: Well, it's political science.
O'BRIEN: Yeah, no, no.
WATTS: It is political science.
Yeah, it's all politics. To me, that means "yeah, anything we say politically doesn't actually happen, or isn't even real."
Goodfellas schrieb:
>>Of course I mean "...many OF the the heretofore "non-existent" peer reviewed papers..."
You mean the heretofore "non-existent" papers that in fact don't exist? The ones you thought you found were either not peer-reviewed, or they did not refute global warming.
That is a very good site, though very technical. You almost have to have a degree in climatology to follow the discussions.
Funnymanpants etched:
"That is a very good site, though very technical. You almost have to have a degree in climatology to follow the discussions."
So..then...the debate is NOT over. If that's what your saying, then we have found common ground - no matter how shaky.
Goodfellas wrat:
>>So..then...the debate is NOT over. If that's what your saying, then we have found common ground - no matter how shaky.
No. When there are 635 papers showing one thing, and no papers showing the opposite side, then then debate is over. Sorry. Unless you want to start arguing that the earth is the center of the universe by claiming there is a debate, no matter how weak.
FMP escribier:
>> then then debate is over
Just to clarify here, I don't think people should stop debating global warming, no more than they should stop debating gravity. (Seriously. Einstein had to revise Newton's theories to explain abberations in the planets' motion.) But I don't think we should place bogus science on the same level as good science. Also, saying that we don't need to do anything about global warming because there is a "debate" is dishonest, because one can create a debate about anything.
one can create a debate about anything.
That's undebatable.
Funnymanpants,
Look...I want to be clear that I never said that global warming doesn't exist. Nor have I ever said that human activity does not contribute to climate change. I DO however disagree with the idea that we can switch to florescent light bulbs, or paper grocery bags, or "bio-fuels" and somehow reverse the inevitable course of climate change. That does not mean that I am in favor of rampant pollution, conspicuous consumption or wasting of natural resources. But I think there are more pressing issues in the world: poverty, disease and starvation in Africa and elsewhere in the world. THAT is where we need to concentrate our research, talents and innovation. But instead we waste our time, talent and resources on 'carbon-taxes' and useless protocols that could lead to our own economic ruin.
But hey...that's just me.
Goodfella wrote:
"Look...I want to be clear that I never said that global warming doesn't exist."
But in a previous post, he wrote: "For all you "deniers" like me,..."
Goodfella's response: Okay..you got me. - that was hyperbole to make a point.
Goodfellas wrat:
>>Look...I want to be clear that I never said that global warming doesn't exist.
Then why did you link to bogus studies to try to do just that, and then why did you do so in a triumphalist way? Why did you deny the obvious, that the third study you linked to was a hoax, and then raise a dishonest defense, claiming you just weren't going to trust my link? It does seem that you were trying to do that.
>>But I think there are more pressing issues in the world: poverty, disease and starvation in Africa and elsewhere in the world.
One could argue that we can tackle more than one problem at a time. I'm not necessarily making that argument. I will say that you are simply wrong in under estimating the effects of global warming. Poverty, disease, and starvation will increase catastrophically if we don't do anything about global warming. The number of refugees GW will create alone is frightening. We can't even began to tackle these problems if the environment is unstable. Our whole economy--our whole world--relies on a stable environment.