You probably didn’t hear about a rather topical debate concerning man’s role in global warming that took place in New York City Wednesday night.
Want to know why the media will likely ignore this fascinating event? Well, because the panel of skeptics beat the believers.
How large was the victory?
Well, before the debate took place, the tough New York crowd was polled, and the results showed that they believed global warming was a crisis by a margin of 57 percent to 30 percent. However, after the debate, this changed to the crowd feeling it wasn’t a crisis, with skeptics topping believers 46 to 42 percent.
So much for consensus, huh? As reported by Marc Morano at the EPW blog (emphasis added throughout):
Just days before former Vice President Al Gore’s scheduled visit to testify about global warming before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists Wednesday evening ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an audience of hundreds of people.
[…]
After the stunning victory, one of the scientists on the side promoting the belief in a climate "crisis" appeared to concede defeat by noting his debate team was ‘pretty dull" and at "a sharp disadvantage" against the skeptics. ScientificAmerican.com’s blog agreed, saying the believers in a man-made climate catastrophe “seemed underarmed for the debate and, not surprising, it swung against them."
The evening was not without well-timed jabs at hypocrites like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his adoring fans in Hollywood who preach to the populace the need for a change in energy usage while they use the planet’s natural resources at a staggering clip:
"What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of their hypocrisy. I’m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his house. But it is a very serious point," quipped University of London emeritus professor Philip Stott to laughter from the audience.
The audience also applauded a call by novelist Michael Crichton to stop the hypocrisy of environmentalists and Hollywood liberals by enacting a ban on private jet travel.
"Let’s have the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets. They must get their houses off the [power] grid. They must live in the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously?" Crichton said to applause audience.
My sentiments exactly. And, Crichton appeared to really want to drive this hypocrisy home:
"I suddenly think about my friends, you know, getting on their private jets. And I think, well, you know, maybe they have the right idea. Maybe all that we have to do is mouth a few platitudes, show a good, expression of concern on our faces, buy a Prius, drive it around for a while and give it to the maid, attend a few fundraisers and you’re done. Because, actually, all anybody really wants to do is talk about it."
"I mean, haven’t we actually raised temperatures so much that we, as stewards of the planet, have to act? These are the questions that friends of mine ask as they are getting on board their private jets to fly to their second and third homes. [LAUGHTER]"
University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott stated:
"In the early 20th century, 95% of scientists believe in eugenics. [LAUGHTER] Science does not progress by consensus, it progresses by falsification and by what we call paradigm shifts."
"The first Earth Day in America claimed the following, that because of global cooling, the population of America would have collapsed to 22 million by the year 2000. And of the average calorie intake of the average American would be wait for this, 2,400 calories, would good it were. [LAUGHTER] It’s nonsense and very dangerous. And what we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes."
"Angela Merkel the German chancellor, my own good prime minister (Tony Blair) for whom I voted -- let me emphasize, arguing in public two weeks ago as to who in Annie get the gun style could produce the best temperature. ‘I could do two degrees C said Angela.’ ‘No, I could only do three said Tony.’ [LAUGHTER] Stand back a minute, those are politicians, telling you that they can control climate to a degree Celsius.”
“And can I remind everybody that IPCC that we keep talking about, very honestly admits that we know very little about 80% of the factors behind climate change. Well let’s use an engineer; I don’t think I’d want to cross Brooklyn Bridge if it were built by an engineer who only understood 80% of the forces on that bridge. [LAUGHTER]”
And, MIT professor Richard Lindzen declared:
"Now, much of the current alarm, I would suggest, is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate."
"The impact on temperature per unit carbon dioxide actually goes down, not up, with increasing CO2. The role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is not directly related to the emissions rate or even CO2 levels, which is what the legislation is hitting on, but rather to the impact of these gases on the greenhouse effect."
"The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but temperature in the middle of the troposphere, about five kilometers. And that is going up even slower than the temperature at the surface."
Any questions about why the media ignored this New York, New York debate? After all, to paraphrase Frank Sinatra, if you can make your point there, you can make it anywhere!!!
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Well this is NYC, I belive th
March 16, 2007 - 10:04 ET by Clear thinkerWell this is NYC, I belive the second most liberal city in our country.
PS... I loved the Prof from MIT using the word 'ignorance'.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
This is why Al Bore needs t
March 16, 2007 - 10:07 ET by The Wicked ConservativeThis is why Al Bore needs to shut the debate down. His lies will wither in the light of casual observation, let alone scrutiny.
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realizes that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.
- Ronald Reagan
TWC,I think Gore should go
March 16, 2007 - 10:17 ET by MightyMouthTWC,
I think Gore should go a few steps further, to wit: Give back his Oscar and refund every movie goer who paid to see his sham of a movie!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
These two verses from the B
March 16, 2007 - 10:11 ET by DyneThese two verses from the Book of Mormon immediately sprang to mind after reading about this victory. They apply very well to this whole debate (emphasis mine)
1. And now it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had made an end of speaking to my brethren, behold they said unto me: Thou has declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear.
2. And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified... wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.
I applaud the debate team.
By the way, did anyone else see this article about this winter being the warmest on record, despite the numerous snowstorms and record low temperatures in the US? Here's a little fact for the AP, only half of the planet experiences winter at a time.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” - John Adams
Coldest Winter?
March 17, 2007 - 07:44 ET by ecnirPDid I miss something? Winter's still going on, last I checked my calendar. You know the other side's desperate when they have to issue news articles about the game when we've just come back from the half-time break.
I'll say it again, the AGW war has turned, just like the temperatures.
The media ignored it because
March 16, 2007 - 10:13 ET by HumanEventsThe media ignored it because they didn't think it even took place (remember, to them "There is no debate!")!
That's really awesome. A good opportunity for the skeptics to lay out the facts, as well as citing the many instances of hypocrisy of people like Algore on how their lifestyles greatly contradict their rhetoric. And it effectively generated a lot of hearty laughter from the audience.
And wasn't it pathetic that the excuses made by the gw side was that their side was "pretty dull" and "seemed unarmed". Come on! The facts and data just aren't on your side! As if you'll ever be armed (although, perhaps the spin deception machines will be working overtime now to come up with better talking points)! That's like a football coach once saying about his team getting blown out, "We just weren't prepared for the game." Well why not! You had a week to do just that, duh! No, the other team showed they were much better than your team, coach. And the skeptics did likewise to the "believers"! Ra Ra Ra!
"Comparatively, we wer
March 16, 2007 - 10:17 ET by Dave in Texas"Comparatively, we were pretty dull," Schmidt wrote.
From Websters for "dull":
1: mentally slow : stupid
Hey! I actually find myself agreeing with Gavin Schmidt! Who'da thunk it?
Funny, when we're clearly w
March 16, 2007 - 10:18 ET by liberal_bug_zapperFunny, when we're clearly winning the debate, they ignore it. When we don't participate in the debate, they say we're losing it. I don't believe this group of people (leftists) can ever be honest. It's just not in their nature.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
"Let’s have the NRDC (
March 16, 2007 - 10:21 ET by dscott"Let’s have the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets. They must get their houses off the [power] grid. They must live in the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously?" Crichton said to applause audience.
Thank you Noel for posting thins, it's nice to know people are listening and that I'm not the fringe thinker on this issue. If you are going to talk the talk, then you had better walk it as well. All the people of means (rich and famous) who believe in Global Warming should get off the electric grid, stop flying private jets and buy an electric or hybrid car. There is no reason why they all can't do this, and it shouldn't take special legislation to force them to do so. If the wealthy do these three things, then the US will become energy independent with no adverse effects on the general population. There is no need for a carbon tax or high fuel taxes that would hurt the poor and middle class. Better yet, they will strike a blow at Petro-dollar sponsors of terrorism.
For the rest of us (95% of the population with 30% of the personal wealth), whether you see the issue of energy consumption in terms of national security or global warming, buy a diesel on your next purchase then you can use all American Biodiesel.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
global warming
March 16, 2007 - 10:31 ET by DontabLets not rest on our laurels, its but one small step in the right direction. Miles to go before I sleep.
Gorbal warming is a sickness, not a science.
I wonder if there is any vide
March 16, 2007 - 10:56 ET by EvokeI wonder if there is any video footage of this out there?
Not footage but the transcrip
March 16, 2007 - 19:45 ET by danboNot footage but the transcript. I'll try to read t tonight.
If you find the footage. Please send it to me.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Sorry. Looks like I did't lea
March 17, 2007 - 09:52 ET by danboSorry. Looks like I did't leave the link to the transcript.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
I wonder if there is any vide
March 16, 2007 - 10:57 ET by EvokeI wonder if there is any video footage of this out there?
I read the Scientific Ameri
March 16, 2007 - 11:17 ET by Challenger GrimI read the Scientific American link on it and couldn't help but notice it was pretty biased in it's own right. The author called the skeptic side's science "suspect" yet never questioned any of the zealots' science. He also said at the conclusion: "Listen closely. Obscured by the rhetoric was
significant common ground: global warming is real, it is a problem
(though how big remains debatable) and it is primarily an energy
problem." Now that's a pretty healthly bit of spin to me. Sure both sides said the world is getting warm, but if you consider it "not a problem" (or even beneficial), I don't see how that leads to "GW is a problem, just not a big one". The blogger's OWN ARTICLE pointed ou that the skeptic side was NOT claiming that warming was a problem: "For example, Lindzen argued that in a
warming world we might expect less severe weather as a result of the
decreased temperature difference between the poles and the equator. And
he noted that India has warmed in recent decades yet its agricultural
yield has increased. (Perhaps Prof. Lindzen is not familiar with the Green Revolution?)"
Does that sound like there was common ground that global warming is a problem? This is always the biggest problem of bias in my view: the inability to even see you contradicting yourself. (my favorite example: SW3 Obi-wan: "Only a Sith believes in absolutes" followed shortly by "The Sith are evil!")
Finally, there was a moment where I wondered if the blogger was going to see the light: "When Stott took the microphone he chastised
everyone for their hypocrisy. Humans have been changing climate by land
clearing and farming since they evolved; scientific consensus is not
infallible (remember eugenics?);" That is correct: There's almost no telling how humans have impacted climate throughout our ENTIRE existence. But also, ANY organism impacts the climate by their existence. The evolution of plants helped change the earth's environment into something we could live in. So I'd like to ask all global warming alarmists to think about it a moment. Should we just start wiping out whole populations/species, even people and races to try and bring climate change "under control"? Explain in details exactly what the end goal is for all our efforts.
What the hell gang, i thought
March 16, 2007 - 11:44 ET by PKWhat the hell gang, i thought that the scientific method was to publish results of experiments designed to prove/disprove a theory in a form whereby another investigator at a remote site could reproduce the results independantly.
what is this "consensus" bs.
where are the published results. where are the results of agreement or disagreement.
all we seem to have are a bunch of dead frogs that later on were found to have frog virises.
all we have are a bunch of results based on what sounds good not what is proven.
all we have are a bunch of rice bowl issues.
a hundred years in the future they will trace the beginning of the end of the "global warming" scam to the day the guys found out that algore was buying his "carbon offsets" from a company he owned.
And Al didn't even buy the ca
March 16, 2007 - 11:59 ET by dscottAnd Al didn't even buy the carbon credits, it was an "employee benefit". Talk about empty rhetoric. If he actually believed what he espoused, then he wouldn't lead the lifestyle he lives. Intuitively, the reality of any issue is how people live in response to their beliefs. We can rest assured that AGW is a hoax because people like Al Gore demonstrate the falseness of it. If Al Gore and all the rich people actually believed AGW, then they within their means would address the issue. Get off the electric grid, stop flying in private jets and buy electric and hybrid cars.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Nice point about the employee
March 16, 2007 - 14:17 ET by Al CzervikNice point about the employee benefit. I didn't know that.
Is it just me, or does the spike in the hockeystick graph correspond to when Al Gore built his house? :)
I used to read Scientific Ame
March 17, 2007 - 10:17 ET by danboI used to read Scientific American long ago. That was one of the places I read about the approaching ice age. Believe it was either the late 60's or early 70's.
They were predicting a return of glaciers in the Presedential range, as Mt Washington. I recall it as I was hoping to spend some time hiking the AT and might get to witness some of it.
In the debate. I liked the response by Lindzen to Schmidt:
"I think it‘s a little bit difficult to know how to respond, to be told that, uh, one shouldn‘t attack scientists while you‘re attacking scientists,"
The warmers were definately out-classed.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Well, it looks as if the sn
March 16, 2007 - 13:01 ET by Tim the EnchanterWell, it looks as if the snowball has started rolling down hill. A few more weeks of this, and it will be an avalanche!
BTW- any speculation on what the pols will try to frighten the populace with next after AGW is dead and buried? Rust never sleeps.
"The first Earth Day i
March 16, 2007 - 13:18 ET by Dave R"The first Earth Day in America claimed the following, that because of global cooling, the population of America would have collapsed to 22 million by the year 2000.
Interesting tidbit there. I was not aware of that prediction. Guess I need to brush up on my Earth Day history.
Nice to see yet another torpedo has slammed into the good ship Algore (soon to be the Dr. Algore?) It's got to be taking on water by now. Maybe a few more direct hits and the whole darn thing will go down.
This Republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
Actually one of the original
March 16, 2007 - 16:41 ET by danboActually one of the original climate modelers was also working on a model to explain and predict war. Tells me a little about these modelers.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
More Doom and Gloom from the left
March 17, 2007 - 10:17 ET by ahusserJust last week an article was published in our local news. I believe it was an AP article about a Stanford scienctist (definitely unbiased lol) who predicted that gw will cause billions of people to die, mostly poor people, because of disease and famine. Gee what ever happened to the amazon rain forest, the ozone layer, alar in apples, acid rain I guess these causes went out of fashion.
But millions are already dyin
March 17, 2007 - 10:29 ET by danboBut millions are already dying due to poor water, the fact that their hands have been tied by the environmentalist in combating malaria and other mosquito bore diseases. Dying due to poor nutrition that could be improved by their getting more tractors, electricity etc.
Then there's that african medical clinis that was given solar generated electricity. The doctors can't run both the refridgerator and the light at the same time. They have to turn one off to use the other.
Poverty, is killing these people. And we wish to kill more by depriving them of the african dream. The ability to rise above poverty and earn a good living and pull themselves up.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Danbo, Liberal Democrat rally cry for the US...
March 17, 2007 - 10:33 ET by acaiguanaDanbo, Liberal Democrat rally cry for the US...
We're Doomed. Doomed I tell ya, Doomed. Doomed.
And we're all gonna die... Die I tell ya, Die...
Die, death, disease, famine, die....
Die...
Doomed.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
As the inscription on a noted
March 17, 2007 - 10:56 ET by danboAs the inscription on a noted Key West hypocondriac's grave says: "I told you I was sick"
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Interesting Debate in NYC
March 17, 2007 - 00:37 ET by securityHelp refuting gw
March 17, 2007 - 10:08 ET by ahusserThere has been a running thread about gw in my local newspaper for about a month. The paper of course is liberal so the pros get more space by about a 3 to 1 margin. According to the true believers the debate is over and the consensus is that global warming is happening, and it is human caused. These accolytes have been on the mountain and seen the truth revealed by al "the guru" gore. Since the debate is over any scientist who is skeptical or just flat out doesn't believe even with evidence to the contrary is not given any credence even lumped in with the tobacco lobby, and anti-regulation (big oil, auto) evil corporate crowd. I have written a letter which they accepted stating that true believerhood is dangerous. I need some credible arguments and sources to refute these idiots. Check out fredericknewspost.com (Frederick MD, just north of DC, home of Camp David) check out the letters from 3/15 and 3/17 they'll get your blood boiling. As an aside on the following page of the op ed letters on 3/15 was this headline: " Melting Ice sheets could radically alter coastlines" and on the next page "Climate crisis receives help from automakers, congress". The left changes public opinion through constant bombardment and ridicule of those who oppose them. A good example of this is the war in Iraq.
ahusser
Frederick MD
ahusser
March 17, 2007 - 10:19 ET by RJWell, hell, you live near the heart of Gorbasm Country. Wouldn't expect anything different. Suggest you laugh at them. Combine with factual rebuttals. Measure success by strength of return screeching.
P.S.
March 17, 2007 - 10:52 ET by RJP.S. I looked in on that forum and couldn't find the environmental thread, but the site seemed to be pretty much populated by meatheads....a local version of DUmmie, KosKids, etc. Suggestions above remain the same. ;^>
Gore's toxic mines on his farm
March 17, 2007 - 11:51 ET by RJSince the meatheads in your newspaper have elevated Gore to enviornmental god status, and since he's such a hypocrit, he makes an easy target. If you want to play with their heads, a little research focused on him (or just reading the threads here) could provide what you're looking for.
Here's an item to start you off:
"Gore made $500K in royalties from Toxic Mines"
Before being shut down in 2003, mines on Al Gore's farm in Tennessee were guilty of discharging thousands of pounds of toxic waste into a nearby river.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/17/93301.shtml?s=ic
Other areas to look into are selling carbon credits to himself or his big carbon footprint. There's lots of material out there.
Typical leftist hypocrite alr
March 17, 2007 - 12:14 ET by bigtimerTypical leftist hypocrite alright...aren't most of the dem's in the dem party?
We have one of the largest silver mines in our area that has been trying to open and the law-suits just keep coming year after year by the environ's like Gore and his crowd, but hey if they can make the moolah it is A-OK..they know it won't be reported in the news, they also know the republicans will make no hay about it, being as weak-kneed and scaredy cats that they are.
They have shut down our mills and our mines...for years here!
Then the dem's in our area don't understand where the economy went...and keep voting dem's...they are some of the most uninformed people I have ever met, and they will not listen if you try to inform them of just a little bit of reality, now will they read, if at all it is the liberal rags here ...
Gets old...but I keep writing the paper, get some things published now and then.
A quick reply
March 17, 2007 - 12:34 ET by belagHere's my first response. This is just a quick 10 mins reading of your report and the links related to it.
I haven't yet read completely the transcript. (this transcript is linked at the SciAm site which you've linked - I don't know if it's completely accurate). If any of the people here have seen the transcript, do let me know.
May
I mention one truism. If you want to know about what happenned, read
from the primary source, not about a secondary source reporting on it.
So read the transcript.
1. "because the panel of skeptics beat the believers"
I agree, in that debate, the panel of skeptics beat the believers. That's quite clear from the polls.
2. "So much for consensus, huh"
May I clarify - the consensus I referred to was scientific consensus. I don't want to sound demeaning, but clearly, as noted in the debate, audience was general, not scientiic.
I am not saying that the general public is stupid,
it cannot differentiate the arguments presented to it. But, to be very
clear, what I referred to in my numerous posts, the consensus I'm
talking about was scientific consensus, namely the people in the
scientific community. And that's not what the audience was. So that
debate, doesn't show that there was no scientific consensus.
Can
the general public learn anything from such debates? Is what they
believe relevant? Of course it is. The United States is a democracy.
Nothing can happen unless the general public agrees on it. I will
elaborate it further in the next points.
3. The realclimate site and the Scientific American site - Again, you say they appeared to concede defeat. Well, if you go to their site, they say quite a different thing.
Their argument was, I'm not talking about whether their argument
is right or wrong. Their argument was, the skeptic team was highly
polished, good debate skills. The believer team was "pretty dull" and
"at a sharp disadvantage" from the very beginning.
Again, read
the primary source for these quotes. Scientific American and
realclimate. If you're quoting somebody, read what he himself says, not
another person's quotes.
Again, you might argue, well is it the skeptic's fault for being
more charismatic, more forceful than the believers? Of course not. But
the debate teams were chosen by the organizers. If they had Crichton,
why not have anti-Crichton? As noted by SciAm and realclimate.
4.
The hypocrisy of the politicians - Well, many people have complained
about my so-called ignorance or cop-out against the hypocrisy of Al
Gore and others.
Since, I didn't respond to one single question
about Al Gore (I gave my reason repeatedly). I shall discuss Al Gore in
a future post soon, when I talk about the solutions to global warming.
My old thread is pretty dead now, so I don't think there will be any
more major posts there. I'll be happy to revive it any time people wish.
5.
Global cooling and other consensus - Now, Phillip Scott claimed that it
was a consensus on global cooling. I have documented numerous times to
the contrary, but listen to what Richard Lindzen (the skeptic's team)
has to say in the transcript.
Brian Lehrer-
"But wait, on—do you agree on this 1970s global cooling thing,
that that was media hype, Richard Lindzen?"
Richard Lindzen -
"Actually, I do not disagree with Richard on that." - Richard Somersville.
He accepts that the global cooling was no consensus but media hype.
About
the 80% correctness of global warming. Now, I've no idea where he got
this 80% number from - he says it's the IPCC, there's no mention there.
IPCC claims "very likely" which means 90% or more - they mention this
explicitly.
I have already mentioned that science is not 100% certain - the
theory of gravity is not 100% certain. I'm not saying that AGW is as
certain as theory of gravity but it's certain enough that the
scientists have called for mitigation proposals.
6. Richard
Lindzen's points - His claims of temperature dependence of CO2 have
been debunked elsewhere. I have linked it in my previous post.
Ya know belag, I had you all wrong. I do apologise - ACA
March 17, 2007 - 12:43 ET by acaiguanaYa know belag, I had you all wrong. I do apologise - ACA.
I misunderstood what you were actually saying and where you were coming from.
You believe in the 'consensus' idea.
OK.
We disagree that 1) there is a 'consensus' among the scientific community and 2) that such a 'consensus' has any real value with respect to the political issues of global warming or to the reality of global warming (man made).
I totally disagree that 'man made' global warming has any relative impact to the degree, rapidity or impact of Global Warming.
I agree that the earth is warming. So what?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
"my old thread is pretty dead now"
March 17, 2007 - 13:18 ET by RJ"my old thread is pretty dead now"
Planning to take over another thread, belag? Does anyone need any further clarification of his attitude and intent?
belag, the thread is for a variety of thoughts and ideas, not for your personal control. If you intend to attempt to overwhelm here with volume as you did there, forums are available. I suggest that's where your lengthy and didactic posts belong.
Reply
March 17, 2007 - 15:14 ET by belagI'm planning to take over another thread? I only replied in one thread to keep clutter to a minimum. If people want to avoid me, just avoid that thread with 254 comments.
<edit> That number only came about because I replied to each and every post which addressed me. You think replying to points is a bad thing?
<end edit>
I have no idea how many people read newsbusters.
If 10 people post here that I shouldn't post another reply, I will stop posting.
If you don't want to read my lengthy posts, don't read them. I believe concision and soundbites are not good things. You don't speak in soundbites if you're making a point. You justify your assertions.
Until 10 people tell me I should stop posting, stop telling me I'm not welcome. You don't speak for the people here.
Nice try, belag, but no cigar
March 17, 2007 - 17:03 ET by RJNice try, belag, but no cigar. You called it "my thread" and yes, you took it over. Now, don't let your head swell any bigger than it already is, because any poster here could do the same thing....but we don't.
You may, in your self-impressed vision, think you're here to lecture and "educate" posters, but that's not the case. I repeat, if you intend to continue taking over threads, you should use the Forums. They are designed to handle exactly what you practice.
I repeat: belag, the thread is for a variety of thoughts and ideas, not for your personal control. If you intend to attempt to overwhelm here with volume as you did there, forums are available. I suggest that's where your lengthy and didactic posts belong.
RJ When you have magical thin
March 17, 2007 - 17:52 ET by danboRJ When you have magical thinking. Like:
Well I guess that's the shinning light of Houdini. Could be just a projection rather than a real knife. I guess there were a lot of dead cavemen. (No disrespect to the more intellegent geico caveman.) because they didn't know to run when they saw a saber toothed tiger coming at them. After all they didn't know to trust their vision till a scientist developed a theory of light.
In the case of plate tectonics it didn't exist when Wegner postulated it in the early 20th century. It didn't become real till the 60's when a consensus developed in geology. (Scientist are also prone to fads.)
And being there are annomalities that plate tectonics doesn't seem to eplain. Those annomalities don't exist because the consensus view is plate tectonics. At least till geologist revise the theory.
The problem is not the hypothesis. The problem is the planet isn't living up to the theory.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
danbo, I just PMed belag as
March 17, 2007 - 18:05 ET by hydrodynDMdanbo,
I just PMed belag asking him about that post (rather than replying since it looked like that topic was dead).
I was thinking that his views about observations and theory would make for a great defense in court.
"Your honor, the defendant doesn't understand Maxwell's Equations and
so clearly, his eye-witness testimony can not be trusted".
Another protest
March 17, 2007 - 19:25 ET by belagAnother protest.
I did not say that. You asked for my general views of science. I mentioned that what I was saying would seem far out. This is exactly the thing I was mentioning.
You can argue that defence, but if the jury was comprised of scientists, you'll get 0 votes (because of the 2nd reason)
Ditto if the jury was of normal people (because of the 1st reason).
I don't understand why you got this impression, but if you want I can discuss it more, PM or otherwise.
My main point was: behind every "fact" is a theory. You may not need to understand the theory.
I was periodically checking b
March 17, 2007 - 21:10 ET by danboI was periodically checking back to see how you responded. I couldn't help but scratch my head.
At my age, I've seen a good bit. Can't say I'm suprised anymore. But I do occasionally get amazed.
There's an old ethnographic study of the Nacirema. (Forgot the journal, pre mid 60's) Nacirema is American spelled backwards. It was written from the viewpoint of an alien. Describing our culture. And trying to make sense of it. Pretty funny.
It was written to remind us of the limits of our science. And the need to be very careful.
Sometimes I think we've forgotten studies as the Nacirema.
Amazing. I found it. American Anthropologist 1956. Here.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
A protest
March 17, 2007 - 19:07 ET by belagA short protest.
Read the 4 posts before that. Look at that statement in context.
I did read them. You said it.
March 17, 2007 - 19:40 ET by danboI did read them. You said it.
Go tell your friends. Being no one at newsbusters has been able to quote a source you will accept. There is a consensus at Newsbusters that anthropogenic global warming is real.
You make almost as much sense as the average warmer. And unfortunately, some of their scientist.
Ya know. If by chance. Every member of a jury was a scientist. I or a non scientist. I don't think they'll be considering the theory of light.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
One short reply
March 17, 2007 - 21:12 ET by belag"Ya know. If by chance. Every member of a jury was a scientist. I or a
non scientist. I don't think they'll be considering the theory of light."
Exactly my point. Read what I say. You don't even need to know the context. Just the lines you quoted.
Now, when people didn't understand how light works - they just accepted it as a fact - since they didn't know any better. - The layperson
When, now, people do understand how light works - they still accept it as a fact - since they know it's verified, respectable theory - The scientist
Yep. Yawn. "The urge to
March 17, 2007 - 21:29 ET by danboYep. Yawn.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Back in January, in a city bu
March 17, 2007 - 22:24 ET by UnsaneBack in January, in a city built on the oil industry, I nearly polished off a pack of dark chocolate M&Ms (my favorite!), when I saw I had two red ones and two green ones left.
My eyes and brain tell me I have four left, but I realized that in this age where all science and mathematical facts are determined by consensus, I decided to begin a long project where I can get the consensus on how many M&Ms I have left.
Next, I will lobby to get Principia Mathematica and Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion to be put to a referendum in as many states as possible...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Agreeing to disagree
March 17, 2007 - 15:42 ET by belagI guess we have to agree to disagree on the 2 basic points. If I've not convinced you yet, nothing I can say can do so now. (that was for ACA btw)
You might track back to our p
March 17, 2007 - 16:12 ET by NL207You might track back to our previous discussion. I think I answered your questions about why that paper was all wet.
Maybe now you will understand what a positive feedback engine is and why they simply do not exist for very long in nature.
It should also be reasonably clear to you now that solar irradiance is the dominant term in the global warming equation, completely overwhelming the greenhouse gas term.
The next thing I want to get through your skull is the relative magnitudes of the CO2 component of the greenhouse gas term compared to the sum of the other greenhouse gas components. Maybe then you will start to really question the AGW alarmists as they should be questioned.
"Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for about 60 to 70 percent of the natural greenhouse effect. Humans do not have a significant direct impact on water vapor levels in the atmosphere"
Personally, I think this is a conservative estimate of the influence of water vapor. The reference assumes a concentration of less than 1%. There is data floating about that suggests it is more like 2%, which would make water vapor the source of over 90% of the greenhouse effect Recall that over 70% of the earth's surface is covered by water. There is NO SHORTAGE of water vapor around this planet.
A short reply
March 17, 2007 - 17:25 ET by belagIf I may respond, no, you didn't answer my questions. You just claimed
it. You gave the definition of damping (which I knew btw) and claimed that this is the positive feedback. It's not. Find me one statement in the paper (or anywhere else) which says that.
That's just faulty understanding on your part.
Regarding the water vapour comment, I will not answer it till you post the next line in your source together with your quote. After that, if you still insist, I'll answer your question.
The paper describes a feedbac
March 17, 2007 - 17:47 ET by NL207The paper describes a feedback loop. They say "A is a positive function of B and B is a positive function of A". This is the mathematical definition of a feedback loop. It is in fact clear the authors of that paper either don't know what they described is a positive feedback loop, or they have some reason for not identifying the mechanism they described as a positive feedback loop.
You could post the quote yourself. You have the link. What's more, everybody else here can see the link as well. So why do you think anything is hidden? Just for your information, cattle flatulence also increases the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. So are you going to claim that we should go about stuffing corks in cow backsides as well?
Next line
March 17, 2007 - 18:13 ET by belagThe reason I asked you for the next line is not to say that you've hidden it from others. My concern was that whether you've read it yourself.
"However, as human activities increase the
concentration of other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (producing
warmer temperatures on Earth), the evaporation of oceans, lakes, and
rivers, as well as water evaporation from plants, increase and raise
the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere."
Make your own conclusions.
You are presuming that any wa
March 17, 2007 - 21:06 ET by NL207You are presuming that any warming contributions produced by humans are once again the dominant terms in the equation. Increases in solar radiation will cause the same effect on water evaporation. In fact, warmth will have a diminishing effect as relative humidity increases and winds play a major role as well. It is also quite plainly impossible to distinguish increases in evaporation due to increases in solar insolation, increases in temperature due to any greenhouse gases or increase due to any other causes.
The plain and simple fact remains, that water vapor is the principle greenhouse gas by at least an order of magnitude, yet it does not even appear on many tables of greenhouse gases and their concentrations issued by "climatologists" such as this one.
I ask you this: Why do you suppose these Global Warming researchers in this paper referenced above don't have water vapor in their table when the other paper conservatively estimated it as 60-70% of the total greenhouse effect? I will speculate that they are intentionally distorting the discussion by omitting that datum.
Now, back to this reference. Given its satements about water vapor, especially the relative quantity of it compared to all the other greenhouse gases, what do you think the actual truthfulness of this statement from the same source is:
"Since the 1700s, human activities have substantially increased the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
I think the above statement is a load of bulls***. Humans can at most have caused a 35% increase in CO2, assuming humans are indeed responsible for 100% of the increase, which paleoclimate data actually contradicts, and have introduced trace amounts of a dozen or so other gases that in total with CO2, in terms of concentration, represent in aggregate no more than 100ppm in the atmosphere. This total pales in comparison with the water vapor load which some sources variously report as a little less than 10,000 ppm and others to as much as about 20,000 ppm. You are discussing a net human contribution that is about about 1% of the previous total. This is "Substantially increased"? I think not!
Pope Al of the Hot and Falling Sky.
March 17, 2007 - 12:39 ET by onceadadI am sitting here looking at a foot of snow that just finished falling on St.Patrick's Day.
Al is not a scientist. C02 is not pollutant.
Eric the Red discovered Greenland a thousand years ago. It was in fact...GREEN! He went into the woods and found a big COLD/HOT switch. Being an evil white man, he THREW THE DAMN THING! Well, the rest is history.
Since the hippies took over, we've been getting hysterical about something every twenty minutes, mostly the ENVIRONMENT and the evils of breathing while not PC.
We have several godless assholes as clergy in our new church. Al Gore is the pope. The PC Greenies Vatican, is the UN.
Jo Stalin said...He who controls Hollywood, controls the world.
Did you see the self important actors ordain Al the other week? They all received "Carbon credits to lessen their carbon footprints." Al looked as if he swallowed Mikey Moore, God what a cow! Carbon Footprint? You insufferable indiots!
I used to live in Virginia and went to visit Monticello a few times.
I knew a couple of the guys Al missed. I did not recognize Alexis de Tocqueville though. What do you expect from a divorced father?
January 17, 1993: In a tour of Monticello, Gore asked about a row of busts: "Who are these people?" The New York Times explained the curator "helpfully identified the unfamiliar faces: 'This is George Washington on the extreme right,' with Benjamin Franklin close behind." TV coverage? Zero.
I have to close now. Got to go and fire up my snow blower.
Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.
Another shot
March 17, 2007 - 17:12 ET by belagYou know, I cannot resist having another shot at the consensus
issue. Maybe this is not for ACA, maybe we've agreed to disagree
forever. But let me try a bit more.
Since I am a non-expert and
I'm talking to a bunch of non-experts (correct me if I'm wrong), let me
approach this from another angle.
My aim is to either convince you or provoke a debate about the fact (which I believe) of serious man-made global warming.
Although
a majority of Americans (about 70% or more depending on how you ask the
question) think man-made global warming is real (I refer to a recent
Time/ABC/Stanford Univ. poll which gave around an 80% figure), a lot of
people (also around 70%) think the weather in the past few years has
become worse (I suspect Katrina had a role in that).
It's a virtual scientific consensus that global warming for now, is of the order of 0.6 deg C. This is hardly noticeable. Katrina (the hurricane, not the disaster) was not caused by global warming.
People seem to have the right idea (imho of course) but not the right reason. That's a serious problem.
There
seems to be a lot of misinformation regarding the idea. As
mathematicians say, the theorem is correct, but the proof is wrong.
I
think the misinformation is part of both Democrats and Republicans.
That's one of the reasons I don't want to defend Al Gore (more on him
in a future post).
PS - On a side note, while I heatedly
replied to RJ, I do recognize the fact that my posts have been much too
long. Trying to shorten them.
Please take your obsession to a Forum
March 17, 2007 - 17:22 ET by RJRather than hijacking another thread, please take your obsession to a Forum. That way, you may go off-topic as much as you wish. Your posts will be seen just as if they were on a thread and you will get all the traffic you desire.
Am I one of the hijackers?
March 18, 2007 - 11:19 ET by onceadadIt sure looks as I may be in the wrong by jumping in here like this. My bad. What do you expect from a GLOBAL WARMING blasphemer.
In the home, my keeper reads to me. I love the P.D. James mysteries. Here is a quote from one of them: "I can understand the poor and the stupid voting for Marxism or one of it's fashionable variants. If you have no hope of being other than a slave, you may as well opt for the most efficient form of slavery."
Chow
I will concede the point that
March 17, 2007 - 17:47 ET by saw the lightI will concede the point that the earth has warmed since 1900. By how much? 0.6 degrees Celsius may be correct. But the next questions are: Why and So What?
Why? I am much more likely to believe that natural variations in climate are the reason, especially since Mars is also experiencing warming. Unless NASA included a huge petroleum fuel cell in the rover, I don't think you can blame carbon dioxide. Some scientists I have read believe that the earth is now entering a period of cooling that may last 25-30 years (don't ask for a link - tried it once, screwed it up). That's be beauty of science. There can be a myriad of opinions, none of which are taken as fact, including man-made global warming.
So What? The earth was considerably hotter during the Medieval Warm Period. What was the cause then? Methane released from the permafrost? Smoke from the iron forges? The climate of the earth has seen ebbs and flows in global temperature since its creation. Why do we think that we can take a 100 year snapshot and determine the changes were caused by our burning of fossil fuels?
Consensus is not fact. Consensus is not science.
"People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news." - A.J. Liebling
Facts, consensus etc.
March 17, 2007 - 18:42 ET by belagSaw the light, these exact points I try to address (with evidence) in my series of long posts on the issue. If you want, you can read them on the old post (it's the one with 254 comments - but you only need to read my first one). If you want, I can PM you them. If you want I can post them here.
Here are the salient points (without evidence)
1. The danger of global warming is not now, but in the future.
2. This danger is real and man-made.
3. We don't only have the past 100 year data but the past millenium (with more certainty) and earlier (with less).
4. Scientific consensus is not science. Scientific consensus is what gets into the textbooks after the science is done. And the science supports what I say.
Belag. Someone should ask,
March 17, 2007 - 21:25 ET by radiofitz34Belag. Someone should ask, what is the cost of freedom? If you're saying we should accelerate our efforts toward replacing the internal combustion engine in vehilcles, I'd agree with that. The technology is now here to take that route.
But I find it discomforting to scare todays kids with this GW panic when they feel helpless to do anything about it. What we are seeing now with the increased anti-global warming debate is an effort to at least balance the scales a bit. Many people blogging here would like to see environmental improvements. Myself included.
It's just that we hate it when are told we have to think or believe a certain way. We want more evidence without the so-called experts selling us a bag of goods.
I for one don't buy this global warming threat. It's like a bad ad campain. Same as if we buy enough widgets, we can save the world. Well my belief is that there's only one that can save the world and He already did it about 2000 years ago. In our lives, it's up to us to follow through with it.
The cost of freedom
March 17, 2007 - 21:42 ET by belagI appreciate your problem. You're being told by a bunch of experts that the world's gonna end. You don't believe it.
What kind of evidence would you like? What would convince you one way or the other?
I don't recall mentioning a
March 17, 2007 - 22:08 ET by radiofitz34I don't recall mentioning a problem Belag. I know the world as we know it will end at some point. I have no idea when. As far as evidence goes, I have enough evidence. It remains to be seen whether or not if comes to fruition but I believe it will. A prophet has to be right 100% of the time. An expert is usually cut some slack.
I guess that's why I believe in Jesus and you don't. Don't worry though friend it's never too late to understand it. This world is temporary just like our lives are temporary. Of course that doesn't mean we should try to screw it up (meaning earth) but to believe does make one sensible about the future.
Jesus and other things
March 17, 2007 - 22:22 ET by belagThat's true. I don't believe in Jesus. I'm not a Christian. How did you know btw?
If you're saying that nothing I'll say will convince you, I wish you goodbye.
You may not be a Christian, b
March 17, 2007 - 22:31 ET by UnsaneYou may not be a Christian, but you still walk around impaled to that cross of guilt.
It is clear from your posts that you are religiously devoted to man-made global warming being a fact, and demand that we completely destroy the world's most advanced and productive economy to assuage your personal guilt. Just like all the others.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Well Belag, feel free to PM
March 17, 2007 - 22:36 ET by radiofitz34Well Belag, feel free to PM me. I don't pretend to know everything. Lots of stuff I don't know. I'd be willing to see what you have to say. Anyway, the door is open at any time. Fitz
Do you believe in anything supernatural?
March 18, 2007 - 10:37 ET by onceadadDear Belag,
The greatest people in our (American) history were devoted believers in a Supernatural Being.
If you do not believe, why do you think you are smarter than, say Ben Franklin or George Washington?
In the forward to his book Witness, Whittaker Chambers wrote, "Man without mysticism is a monster."
Whittaker Chambers is one of the most despised men in the twentieth century. Do you know why? He fell out of grace with the Communist Party.
Communists don't ex communicate their detractors, they vaporize them.
Here is a short list of heretics who have either been killed outright or had their characters assassinated. Joe McCarthy, Nixon, Ronald Reagan, any Republican who isn't pro abortion, BUSH, etc.
I cannot remember the early Communist who split with the party and was assassinated in Latin America. Two former Communists were recently poisoned in England and an American was shot in front of his home for speaking out against the evil religion.
If you have the courage, please Google (Death by Governments.)
The dead that governments( mostly Communist) have slaughtered, if each was five feet tall, would circle the globe, ten times.
Marxists want to make things FAIR. That is impossible. They pit one group of people against another, then choose sides. Some are more equal than others.
Best,
DM
Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.
Communism, religion etc.
March 18, 2007 - 11:10 ET by belagFirst, I did not say I am smarter than them. I was specifically talking about global warming. They did not know about global warming in their time.
I am not a Christian. Just as I respect your idea of how God is, I expect the same from others.
I am not a communist. That term has been so used and misused by the Soviet Union and the United States that it has no relevance to what I say. Believe me, I know how cruel both the govts are/were.
I am not a Marxist.
I'm talking about issues. Not a religion. Not a political ideology.
My brother is a liberal
March 18, 2007 - 11:04 ET by onceadadHi Belag, My brother is a liberal and cannot listen to any dissenting opinions about the religion. I can tell when I am making him uncomfortable, he will say...Not to interrupt you, but is your bird feeder safe from squirrels? Or some other heavy diversion. ANYTHING BUT THE TRUTH! I couldn't care less what you believe, except for the fact your religion is shoved into every orifice of my body, every second of the day, all day, every day, ad infinitum. If my spelling is incorrect, please get over it. I'm too lazy to look up the real spelling. The truth, or reality, if you will is not a concensus. I quit the Yahoo clubs because the second I would post reality, my spelling, syntax and intelligence were questioned. You folks worship the intellect and science. Howard Dean is the head of the DNC. He is an intelligent man. But, he hasn't an ounce of human decency. And I quote, "I hate Republicans and all they stand for." Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.
Another comment
March 18, 2007 - 11:19 ET by belagAnother comment: I'm not a Democrat.
Again, I'm talking about issues. I don't hate Republicans and all they stand for. A Republican can have as much an opinion as a Democrat can.
I have been listening to every opinion on this board. In fact, that's why I came here. If you see "my" old thread (the Al Gore one with 260 comments) - I've responded to each and every one of the dissenting views. That's primarily why it's so long.
May I mention, in that post, in 260 comments. Nobody commented on 80% of my post. 0 comments on the "global warming swindle" movie I referred to. 0 comments on John Cristy. 0 comments on the AGU report.
I think you'll find that people are not listening to what I say, rather than the opposite.