Thursday, September 22, 2011

Latest poll on global warming: scientists are liars

From American Thinker:

It's goin' from bad to worse for the global warming fraudsters:


Shocking poll on global warming

Randy Fardal

Finally, a real consensus on global warming: It's a lie. Rasmussen Reports:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it's at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don't think it's likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it's Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here .)

The number of adults who say it's likely scientists have falsified data is up 10 points from December 2009 .

Fifty-seven percent (57%) believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009. One in four (25%) believes scientists agree on global warming. Another 18% aren't sure.

Republicans and adults not affiliated with either major political party feel stronger than Democrats that some scientists have falsified data to support theirglobal warming theories, but 51% of Democrats also agree.

Even a majority of Democrats!
Big surprise. A gang of transparently dishonest scientists and their media enablers can't maintain the fraud forever. Global warming is just the latest scheme by the far left to control your life and to ensure a steady stream of cash for the 'investors'. And thanks to independent media, and some saint who leaked the ClimateGate emails, and the internet, this fraud is unraveling at incredible speed.

The consequences for science are enormous. Consider:

1) Only one in five Americans will say that it's likely that climate scientists are telling the truth.

2) Climate scientists are among the most publicly visible scientists, and their credibility (for better or worse) reflects on all scientists.

3) Major scientific organizations (AAAS, NAS, etc) have lined up in lock-step in support of the fraudsters.

4) The American people, of whom 78% won't attest to the honesty of these scientists, are the folks who fund science.

I suspect that many mainstream cowards scientists who have been quiet about this obvious fraud will begin to speak out and dissociate themselves from climate science. There will be a price to pay to for apostasy. But when the Titanic is sinking, it's better to jump in the water, even if it's damn cold.

The proper response by the American public is to defund the whole climate scam, and take a hard look at funding for scientific quislings who collaborated with the fraud.

59 comments:

  1. Michael,

    The only thing that this poll proves is that Americans are scientifically illiterate.

    No, I'm wrong. It also proves that you are anti-science, with your comment that funding of the National Academy of Science, the body representing elite American scientists, should be reconsidered.

    Just because you can't get real scientists to seriously consider the pseudoscientific theory of Intelligent Design, is no reason to take your bile out on science.

    And opinion polls are not the way to determine truth in science, not even amongst scientists themselves. If you did a poll of scientists you'd probably get a majority for the Chicxulub meteorite impact being the cause of the K-T event, whereas most paleontologists think that it was the Indian Deccan traps supervolcano that did the non-avian dinosaurs in.

    However, the science of AGW is established. Greenhouse gases warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases, the Earth's temperature should be less than -18C. Increasing the levels of greenhouse gases will cause global warming, the only uncertainty being the amount and speed.

    57% of Americans being polled believing that there is significant disagreement within the scientific community means that 57% don't have the slightest idea what the scientific opinion is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @bach:

    [It also proves that you are anti-science, with your comment that funding of the National Academy of Science, the body representing elite American scientists, should be reconsidered.]

    NAS is a corporation chartered during Lincoln's presidency to act as "advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine." It does in fact represent "elite scientists", but that's not its job. Its job is to tell Americans the truth about science to help us make better policy decisions.

    The NAS was a strong and long-time supporter of eugenics, and it now has endorsed AGW fraud. It should be defunded. Better, the current members should be shown the door, and a new organization of honest scientists be developed.

    [However, the science of AGW is established. Greenhouse gases warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases, the Earth's temperature should be less than -18C. Increasing the levels of greenhouse gases will cause global warming,]

    Spare me the trite crap.

    [the only uncertainty being the amount and speed.]

    That's the issue. When I exhale, I warm the earth. The only uncertainty being the amount and speed.

    Amount and speed matter. That's the heart of the science. And there is great uncertainty. So your "the science of AGW is established" is b.s.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've never met a climate change denialist in my country.

    Lol America.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Egnor: 1) Only one in five Americans will say that it's likely that climate scientists are telling the truth.

    Does this establish that climate scientists are not liars? I don't think so. It establishes that the antiscience propaganda pushed by the oil companies and conservative politicians has been effective in misinforming the public.

    2) Climate scientists are among the most publicly visible scientists, and their credibility (for better or worse) reflects on all scientists.

    3) Major scientific organizations (AAAS, NAS, etc) have lined up in lock-step in support of the fraudsters.


    Add to the list the American Physical Society, of which I am a proud member.

    As to your allegations of fraud, the discussion in a previous thread indicates that you do not even understand the nature of the accusations and are unfamiliar with the history of the disputes. You just parrot the lies and half-truths propagated by the conservative media. Your behavior is frankly dishonest.

    4) The American people, of whom 78% won't attest to the honesty of these scientists, are the folks who fund science.

    I suspect that many mainstream cowards scientists who have been quiet about this obvious fraud will begin to speak out and dissociate themselves from climate science. There will be a price to pay to for apostasy. But when the Titanic is sinking, it's better to jump in the water, even if it's damn cold.


    I am a mainstream scientist and I stand with climate scientists. As far as I know, mine is the typical position among physicists. There is a small fringe community who disagree. If you wish to call them mainstream scientists, you have a highly distorted view of the world.

    As to the American people, it is indeed their money that funds science. But if their representatives decide to scrap the funding for science, it would be monumentally stupid. I don't think the American people are that silly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @bach...
    However, the science of AGW is established.

    Well, not quite!

    Just have a look at this video from the very serious and respectable (and government funded) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. bachfiend: However, the science of AGW is established. Greenhouse gases warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases, the Earth's temperature should be less than -18C. Increasing the levels of greenhouse gases will cause global warming,

    Egnor: Spare me the trite crap.

    This exchange sums it up nicely. What bachfiend wrote is entirely correct. The only response we can expect from Egnor is... well.. egnorance: the egotistical combination of ignorance and arrogance.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey oleg, have you seen those 50 million climate refugees?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Is that supposed to be a coherent argument, Mike? Try harder.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh, they're probably out looking for the melting Himalayan glaciers.

    Or the grossly exaggerated melting of the Greenland glaciers...

    Or the fraudulent 'research' about the 4 dead polar bears...

    Or Hansen's little mistake about the hottest years in the 20th century...

    Or the falling (not rising) sea level (see-- Obama did stop the rising of the seas; he actually reversed it!)

    Just your kind of science, huh oleg?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mike,

    There is good evidence that long-term exposure to American Thinker lowers one's IQ by about half. You are showing early signs of senility. How about you quit reading (not to mention parroting!) this bullshit? There are much more serious sources of information out there.

    How about looking at First Things for starters? Will Harper, a physics professor from Princeton, has an opinion piece there: The truth about greenhouse gases. He is a skeptic of AGW, but unlike that clown Randy Fardal, he is at least an informed skeptic.

    And when you are done reading that, why don't you read the response from climate scientist Michael MacCracken: The real truth about greenhouse gases and climate change.

    And when (and if) you finish this reading assignment, maybe, just maybe, we could have a real conversation about climate change.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Typo: it's Happer, not Harper. He happens to be a fellow of the AAAS and a member of the NAS. I should also mention that climate is not his expertise. He worked in optics and spectroscopy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. oleg:

    The fraud in climate science is obvious.

    How about giving me a detailed explanation of the failure of past scientific apocalypses-- eugenics and overpopulation-- to materialize.

    I like to take my frauds in sequence, beginning in the beginning.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Egnor: How about giving me a detailed explanation of the failure of past scientific apocalypses-- eugenics and overpopulation-- to materialize.

    We have already been around this bend. It's hard to take seriously someone who asks such silly questions. I pointed that out, but you didn't learn anything from that. What's the point of continuing the exchange?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pepe,

    I have just lost an hour from my life I'll never get back again. I'm not certain when this video was made or who did it. It doesn't appear to be recent because it is pre-4th IPCC report.

    A few comments. David Legates is an evangelical who has a philosophical view that humans don't have the power to change the climate because God wouldn't allow it. And if he's wrong? Jorgen Peder Steffensenen's interpretation of sudden temperature changes in the Younger Dryas has been disputed. Slallie Baliunas impression that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas is wrong. Without CO2, the global temperature would be less than -18C, and hence there would be no water vapor in the atmosphere and no greenhouse warming. John Christie's UAH data was later shown to match the warming shown by other satellite data sets, but originally, they'd made an algebraic error and put a minus instead of a plus sign. Dr Morner believes that water dowsing also works ...

    Michael,

    The 50 million climate refugees was, I admit, a hyperbole, put out by the United Nations University. But they included anyone who had to move even just a kilometre or two as a result of any climate change as being a climate change refugee.

    Most people when thinking of refugees would consider it to mean someone moving to a different country. But one of the examples they used was Inuit villagers having to move their villages inland because the reduction of summer arctic ice allowedvsummer storms to erode the land on which their villages are built.

    It's impossible to quantify. For example, is the Bangladeshi farmer moving to the city doing so for a better economic lifestyle or is it because his farm no longer supports him and his family due to increasing salinity owing to climate change.

    And the sea levels are still rising. The skeptics are insisting that with AGW sea level rise should be accelerating. The data seems to indicate that sea level rise may be decelerating recently, but you've managed to go one better in insisting that sea levels are now dropping (where's your data Michael?)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Okay...
    As usual my problem with the argument being put forward here is not substance (there is very little) - but logic, or lack thereof.

    The utterly confined ideology that is monism turns and folds on itself so frequently one cannot even find a pattern in the para-logia most of the time.
    For example Bach, a seemingly intelligent fellow, writes a statement that boggles the observant mind:
    "Without greenhouse gases, the Earth's temperature should be less than -18C."
    SHOULD be. Earth SHOULD be 'less than -18c'. Not could be or would be, but SHOULD be.
    I will not argue, although I could, that Earth's temperature would be lower should the atmosphere be changed to that of another world's or even removed, but that it SHOULD be so?
    That word intone purpose, law, or order of some sort.
    The Earth SHOULD be cold, uniform, material, and DEAD? Is this the Monist 'Kingdom Come'? An engineered frozen hell? It also seems to infer that life and the conditions for it are so unnatural they SHOULD not exist.
    Or SHOULD the Earth be alive, ever changing, and an eternal cradle for life?
    I'll take door number two, thanks!
    Dinosaurs? Bach, come on now!


    Then we have the ever courageous and brilliant Anon, who states:
    "I've never met a climate change denialist in my country...Lol America"
    What a font of wisdom. Perhaps that is because they don't have polls (or opinions) in your country? Climate change and AGW are not the same thing, Anon.
    Canadian LOL's at lame anti-American comments.

    ...all the while, poor Comrade Oleg is still obsessing over how his envisioned vast right wing (conservative) conspiracy to sell oil/goods has duped the populace into believing bad science is bad, and not just misunderstood.
    He writes:
    "Does this establish that climate scientists are not liars? I don't think so. It establishes that the antiscience propaganda pushed by the oil companies and conservative politicians has been effective in misinforming the public. "
    NOT liars? I think the suggestion is that they are. Wrong conspiracy, Oleg?
    But he is speaking from experience when he states:
    "I am a mainstream scientist and I stand with climate scientists. As far as I know, mine is the typical position among physicists." A typical physicist? Maybe Oleg DOES have a sense of humour, after all?
    The 'experts' are climate scientists, and they are somewhat divided - as illustrated by the public controversy and pursuant debate we see here.
    Most promote the AGW hypothesis, others are open to suggestion.
    I am not sure why the opinion of physicists are seen as important on this issue...well, any more important than that of say an educated Army Captain, Barber, or Engineer...or anyone, really.
    Perhaps you see yourself as a member of some sort of elite, Oleg?
    But to the point: It does not matter if there is a consensus among physicists on AGW, as they are not the source of funding. The taxpayer is. The taxpayer is unconvinced. Worse still, they are losing confidence in the role of science in general, as noted by the Doctor.
    That is a real matter, no?
    Maybe the baby and bathwater should be separated?
    There is SO much more para-logia here... but work and duty calls.
    I will continue later, should I get the opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Climate change is just an anti-American conspiracy.

    Why do they hate America? Why do they hate our freedom?

    ReplyDelete
  17. [The data seems to indicate that sea level rise may be decelerating recently, but you've managed to go one better in insisting that sea levels are now dropping (where's your data Michael?)]

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/weather-cycles-cause-a-drop-in-global-sea-level-scientists-find/2011/08/25/gIQA6IeaeJ_story.html

    ReplyDelete
  18. crusadeREX: For example Bach, a seemingly intelligent fellow

    No offense, Rex, but you are simply not equipped to judge bachfiend's intelligence. Don't overexert yourself. Go fly a kite.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Look at the data, folks.

    Here is a graph of the sea level rise over the 130 years. As with global temperatures, there are occasional dips on the scale of a few years (note the late 1980s). But the overall upward trend is unmistakable.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anon wrote:
    "Climate change is just an anti-American conspiracy."

    You and Oleg should get together, Anon.
    You could have your own little ww3 :P
    JK BOTH of you.
    Yours is an over simplistic view that smacks of Imperial Hubris.
    Don't fall for that fatalistic view.
    Sorry, Anon.
    I am a big fan of America AND Freedom, and I will happily note they are very much related/connected in the modern world - but they do not equate. America is a political and geographic entity. Freedom is an eternal principle. A Divinely ordained right of men. An instinct.
    Those God given rights are enshrined in your charter, as in ours - but those words can be burned or ignored. They are just the words of men.
    Look, what I am saying is that freedom is not an inherited trait. America is a fairly free place, currently.
    Freedom must be defended in America and all places, by the people and their custodians.
    I think your point, if I see it properly, would be more correctly stated as:
    "AGW is a tool for political and market forces in direct competition with America's prosperity and continued hegemony. These forces mean to strangle Americas efforts to sustain her position as a 'super-power' and therefore her positive influence on the freedoms of people worldwide."

    That I could somewhat agree with.
    If your asking, on the other hand, why people hate America - that is far more complex. It varies from jealousy and fear, to fairly justifiable reaction to mistaken US foreign policy.
    People hate for many reasons.
    Lots of folks love America too.
    Keep the faith, Anon.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @oleg:

    [No offense, Rex, but you are simply not equipped to judge bachfiend's intelligence. Don't overexert yourself. Go fly a kite.]

    Nasty comment, oleg.

    I think that crusadeRex makes very insightful comments, including the one you've just referenced. I learn a lot from him, more than I do from you.

    Keep the personal insults out of this.

    ReplyDelete
  22. And I suppose calling scientists en masse liars is not a nasty thing. It is, after all, not personal. What a hypocrite you are, Egnor.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Oleg states,
    "No offense, Rex, but you are simply not equipped to judge bachfiend's intelligence. Don't overexert yourself. Go fly a kite."

    "No offense"? Don't be scared, Oleg. Of course you meant offence. You just missed the mark, and instead provided me with more munitions.
    I can take some 'offense'. I actually enjoy a bit. Besides it's not actually good kite weather here today. I could go jump in a lake... but it's getting a bit on the cools side.
    Maybe I will fly in a Chinook instead? Is that okay? I may get hitch a ride to Borden this evening.
    Bach is a big boy, he can defend his own position and tone, and usually comes up with something better than 'you're stupid'.

    But let's be frank here, Oleg.
    You think a person like me, educated as I may be, is excluded from such a conversation because of my position. Because I am MILITARY, right Oleg?
    You see me as 'blue collar'. Daft or ignorant, or both.
    Maybe you're right?
    After all, what does a simple warrior know about the daily workings of scientist? What would I know about these things? My rank, experience, and degrees aside, I am just an expensive weapon or tool for my government.
    You, on the other hand, are an initiate of SCIENCE!
    So why should my lowly and violent opinion matter?
    THAT is your feeling; the thrust of your comment, isn't it Oleg?
    Bach is just too bright for me to understand.
    (Until he disagrees with you?)
    That I am inept and incapable of understanding your arguments due to some caste-like prejudice?
    Well, tough shit kid. You're going to hear my side for as long as the good Doctor is willing to put up with it. His tolerance of you seems to indicate that could be a while.

    Scientism anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rex, if you go around questioning other people's intelligence, don't be surprised if someone else points out that you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I don't care who you are in your life and how many degrees you have. Your comments are the only thing that I judge you on.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @oleg:

    As a (presumably pubicly-funded) scientist, you need to understand the employer-employee relationship.

    You are an employee. People who pay taxes are your employers. If you don't want their resources, just say so.

    Don't insult them, and don't assume that your tiny narrow field of expertise means that you're more intelligent than they are. Specialists of various sorts are some of the dumbest people I know.

    As for my disdain for climate science and its enablers, the field is deeply corrupt. There are obviously some good people of integrity in it (Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, among many others), but there are many horrendous scientists and genuine frauds. Every participant in the CRU emails should be out of science and many should be criminally prosecuted.

    West Point has an honor code that should be applied to science: 'I will not cheat nor tolerate those who do'.

    The behavior of many climate 'scientists' makes me sick.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @oleg:

    "don't be surprised if someone else points out that you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer."

    You have no justification for that kind of rudeness. Hyperbole is no problem-- we all do it-- but gratuitous personal directed attacks on the intelligence of individuals who are participating in these comments is out of bounds.

    I detest elitism, because it's rude, and because it's a lie.Please stop.

    I highly value your comments and those of crus and of everyone here. This must not be personal.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Egnor: As a (presumably pubicly-funded) scientist, you need to understand the employer-employee relationship.

    You are an employee. People who pay taxes are your employers. If you don't want their resources, just say so.


    9 months of my salary is paid by my employer, which happens to be a private university. 2 months are paid from federal grants. That, of course, does not make me an employee of the feddle gummint. The money does come from federal taxes and I am grateful to the public whose hard work makes my research posible. That does not mean that I cannot criticize a particular member of said public when he or she makes silly, poorly informed statements about climate science.

    As to the specific member of the public, crusadeREX, that's not even relevant. Not a single Canadian penny goes to fund my work. There is no conflict of interest here, real or perceived.

    As for my disdain for climate science and its enablers, the field is deeply corrupt. There are obviously some good people of integrity in it (Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, among many others), but there are many horrendous scientists and genuine frauds. Every participant in the CRU emails should be out of science and many should be criminally prosecuted.

    There we go. Those climate scientists with whom Egnor agrees are honest, the rest are liars. This is not even an argument. It is a tamper tantrum.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The behavior of creation 'scientists' makes me sick.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @oleg:

    [Those climate scientists with whom Egnor agrees are honest, the rest are liars.]

    Not true. Curry and Lindzen affirm many aspects of AGW theory with which I disagree.

    But they conduct themselves as genuine scientists, insisting on standards of conduct and on a health skepticism about prevailing theories.

    It is the conduct of the AGW hysterics that appalls me. Apocalyptic screeds, calling people who question them "deniers" with the obvious intent of comparing them to Holocaust deniers, wacko predictions, hiding evidence, deleting evidence, rigging peer review, evading FOIA requests, etc.

    That is not science. That is fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  30. “Well, tough shit kid. You're going to hear my side for as long as the good Doctor is willing to put up with it.”

    Unless, like me, Oleg just skips the majority of your ramblings.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
  31. @Oleg,
    I think you may need to reread that comment.
    But, hey what the hell...right?
    Perhaps you see my observation that your monist philosophy is warping your objectivity as an indication of stupidity?
    The inference could be made... But, I would not make it. I am much too polite, and see no need here.
    I have seen plenty of usually good, intelligent, and respected people do very wrong and evil things.
    I don't see a suggestion of stupidity, rather a question of how an seemingly intelligent mind can make an assertion that is counter to logic. The inference is that monism is an Achilles heal.
    SHOULD be is a loaded phrase. I did not intend to suggest Bach was not intelligent, rather his argument was enigmatic when combined with his fluency and ability to engage.
    SHOULD, eh?
    You SHOULD be more careful about letting your elitism hang out, Oleg.

    You write, honestly now:
    "I don't care who you are in your life and how many degrees you have."

    I know. We all know. You make that clear in every conversation we have. But at least we are communicating now, eh? :P
    I get it.
    You have no use for a man like me.
    WHO I am is not important. My position is all that matters.
    Luckily for you, men like me find plenty of uses for the likes of you, Oleg.
    Luckily for you and those like you, men like me DO care who and what you are in your life. Your whole way of life, in fact!
    We defend it.

    @ALL,
    I claim no expertise in climate change or AGW. I never have made such claims. My degrees (noted above) are not related to climate science directly (some history correlates). My own experience has come in the form of military observations and considerations in the Northern Polar regions. I have seen some of the changes first hand, and I am NOT convinced they are man-made, or even significantly influenced by humanity.
    I am convinced there is a change taking place.
    This is NOT a professional opinion, as I am not a climatologist. My professional opinion can be expressed as such:

    "The shift in the polar ice cap has led me to believe Canada needs to be prepared for added security considerations in this region. Specific considerations should be given to the NW Passage. The passing vessels and their security within her waters, and of resource exploitation (fuel and foods) will need to be conserved and guarded jealously."

    ReplyDelete
  32. Egnor: It is the conduct of the AGW hysterics that appalls me. Apocalyptic screeds, calling people who question them "deniers" with the obvious intent of comparing them to Holocaust deniers, wacko predictions, hiding evidence, deleting evidence, rigging peer review, evading FOIA requests, etc.

    The "hysterics" are the invention of the conservative smear machine, which is your only source of information on the subject. Read the IPCC reports and point out anything hysterical in them. Read the science papers and find anything that can be characterized as hysterics. There is nothing of the sort.

    "Hiding evidence" is pure, unadulterated bullshit. I explained that to you several times already, yet you keep peddling this silliness. It is impossible to have a constructive conversation with people like you because they are unable, or unwilling, to listen.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Unless, like me, Oleg just skips the majority of your ramblings. "

    That's more like it. :P
    If you're going to piss down a pant leg, take a page from KW book! At least their is an element of flair to his sneer. One simple line is all he affords.
    Kudos, KW.
    Thanks for reading.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @anon:

    "The behavior of creation 'scientists' makes me sick."

    It doesn't make me sick, although I disagree with creation scientists on many points.

    Science is the evidence-based study of nature. It presupposes certain ethics-- the respect for evidence, the affirmation of transparency and replication of results, the independence of the process of peer review,etc.

    Creation science is right about the fact that God created the universe, and that His agency is evident in nature. They may be right about some other things (special creation of species, for example). I think they're wrong about the age of the earth, geology, etc.

    Climate science is less science than:

    1) A political movement to amass power. With the fall of communism, leftists had some time on their hands.

    2) Organized crime. Algore is a great example-- hawking fraudulent science while making a personal fortune off of carbon trading.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Mike,
    Heard, recognized, and understood.
    Thanks.
    I will cease and desist.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "1) A political movement to amass power. With the fall of communism, leftists had some time on their hands.

    2) Organized crime. Algore is a great example-- hawking fraudulent science while making a personal fortune off of carbon trading."

    Oh look, a conspiracy theory.

    ReplyDelete
  37. crus:

    None of my critque was directed at you. Your comments have always been appropriate and insightful.

    Oleg stepped out of bounds. There's no problem with hyperbole, anger, screeds, whatever. I do a lot of it myself.

    Oleg's "not the sharpest knife in the drawer" is too far. It's elitist, rude, and manifestly not true. It mistakes limited technical knowledge with genuine insight.

    I really appreciate your comments and insights, which are very deep.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thanks, Mike. :)
    I try, mate. I know mine is not the typical academic approach, but I do enjoy the discourse. I truly appreciate your noting my contributions to these yaps we have on your most excellent little blog. It is my pleasure, Doctor.

    Truthfully, I see such an attack as an admission of weakness. Last bastion style defence.
    Oleg could ONLY call me stupid. In his eyes it was the ONLY way out. He was cornered, ideologically. But, no worries Mike. We're a thick skinned (and sometimes skulled) bunch up this way. It'll take more than Oleg's impatience and/or elitism to chase me off ;)
    SHOULD Oleg have done it? :P
    Maybe we should ask Bach?
    JUST KIDDING FOLKS!!!

    ReplyDelete
  39. "jewsdid911"?
    What type of nic is THAT?

    ReplyDelete
  40. I missed an Olegism!

    "As to the specific member of the public, crusadeREX, that's not even relevant. Not a single Canadian penny goes to fund my work. There is no conflict of interest here, real or perceived. "

    A) I am a member of the military and the public. Two very well known sources of scientific funding.
    B) The point was not specific to myself, or my nation. It was a general point, and you have failed to address it. Perhaps you would care to do so now? "Should scientists have to answer to those who pay the bills?"
    C) You are not the one being accused of a conflict or fraud. Your evidence of innocence and lack of conflict is what is truly 'not even relevant'.
    You are a researcher or student in an unrelated field, if have correctly remembered your credentials.
    On a personal, but not so nasty note: Why is this subject so important to you Oleg? What makes you so passionate about AGW?

    ReplyDelete
  41. CrusadeRex,

    The Earth's temperature without greenhouse gases can be calculated using the Stefan-Bolttzmann equation, and assuming that the albedo of the Earth is 0.30 (its current value) then that gives a global temperature of -18C. With that temperature, there'd be a lot of sea ice so the albedo would be higher and the temperature lower.

    Michael,

    OK, you're right about the recent drop in global sea levels. I still find it difficult to ignore the trend, with some years having an increase greater than the average, some less and some even dropping.

    I still find it difficult to ignore what we know about the physics of greenhouse gases. We know how objects emit radiation. We know how substances absorb, transmit, reflect and re-emit radiation. We know what the Sun's spectrum is at the top of the atmosphere and its spectrum on the Earth's surface, as the gases in the atmosphere absorb or reflect the Sun's radiation. We can measure the Earth's radiation and calculate the amount transmitted through the atmosphere and the amount absorbed by the greenhouse gases as they absorb various frequencies of the Earth's infrared radiation. So increasing the level of greenhouse gases must increase global warming, it's just a matter of physics. The amount of heating and its speed is uncertain because it's not certain how quickly the retained heat 'sloshes' around the Earth's atmosphere and oceans to reach equilibrium, because the Earth is large and complex and very difficult to model.

    I still don't think that we can say that we have avoided the overpopulation bullet. We have been lucky in having a large source of cheap and abundant energy in the form of fossil fuels which has allowed us to manufacture enormous amounts of fertilizer from oil and natural gas to boost the global food productivity.

    But what happens when the oil and natural gas run out? We are currently burning them at an accelerating rate and we are having to access sources in increasingly difficult locations, at increasing expense and risk.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Bach,
    Good morning!
    Thanks for the explanation. The problem I have with it is that the Stefan-Bolttzmann equation could not exist without the stable Earth for those esteemed folks to have been born on.
    It has never been practically tested - there is no means to. Also, the equation and consequent extrapolations are all based on broad assumptions made by modern science. Assumptions that may well be dispersed with in the future. Further, the assumptions that ARE testable invariably fail (ie sea levels, ice cores, trees).
    But, thank you for explaining what you meant.

    PS.
    I still think your using the term 'should' implies the conclusion was reached long before the 'data' was dreamt up.
    Allow me to clarify that.
    I do not mean YOU personally and alone, Bach. Rather the entire AGW mindset and INTENTIONALLY by folks behind the curtain making the big $$$.

    ReplyDelete
  43. crusadeREX: The problem I have with it is that the Stefan-Bolttzmann equation could not exist without the stable Earth for those esteemed folks to have been born on.
    It has never been practically tested - there is no means to. Also, the equation and consequent extrapolations are all based on broad assumptions made by modern science. Assumptions that may well be dispersed with in the future.


    (* facepalm *)

    ReplyDelete
  44. Make that a double facepalm:

    "When the Fail is so strong, one facepalm is not enough."

    Although it's sad to see people with a working brain believe in destructive conservative propaganda, it's good fun to see them make fools of themselves, proudly displaying their ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  45. @crusadeREX
    Excellent video. Thanks!

    You are the only one who has commented on this video, the others prefer throwing s**t at each other.

    This is what distinguishes us Canadian… we consider what other people have to say!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Pépé: You are the only one who has commented on this video, the others prefer throwing s**t at each other.

    FAIL

    ReplyDelete
  47. @oleg
    FAIL

    My moniker is Pépé, not Pepe! That makes a lot of difference and proves your lack of culture.

    As for your comment, it's the same old c**p from AWG pseudo-scientists...

    ReplyDelete
  48. Pepe,

    I commented on the video. Didn't you notice? I wrote that it's an hour I'll never get back.

    CrusadeRex,

    The Earth has weather, because it's complex, with its large oceans, complex distribution of continents, ocean currents, prevailing winds, etc. Weather results in a system not in equilibrium as added heat sloshes around the system, the atmosphere, the land and the oceans, trying to reach a balance which it never achieves.

    Venus has climate, but no weather, because it is much simpler than the Earth. Conditions are always the same, everywhere.

    The Earth's climate isn't stable. If it were, we wouldn't be here. I know that you'll disagree with this, because you disagree with evolution, but humans only evolved because of climate change. 3 MYA North and South America joined at Panama, rerouting the Gulf Stream northwards, causing Africa to become drier and the jungles to contract and the savanna to expand forcing hominids to adapt to evolve to become us in time.

    We have done all our specific evolution in an ice age (which means there's ice at both poles). Humans have only been around for 2 glaciations and almost went extinct during the last glaciation 75,000 years ago following the eruption of the Toba volcano.

    The present interglacial period has been very good for humans. We have gone from a few million to 7 billion in only 10,000 years. The present interglacial period is different to the previous 50 or so interglacial periods because it has lasted much longer (the previous one's lasted only a few thousand years each).

    Bill Ruddiman, a retired paleoclimatologist, has developed the theory that this is due to humans seizing control of climate 10,000 years ago as a result of the development of agriculture, with land clearing and the beginning increase in CO2 and methane levels.

    But our future depends on having enough food, energy and fresh water. Even without climate change, we still have problems if we don't have the energy to make the fertilizers to grow enough food. If we deplete the aquifers so that intensive agriculture in drier regions isn't possible. If there's no diesel to fuel the ships transporting food from areas where it's plentiful to areas where it's not due to episodic drought.

    Perhaps all of these potential problems will be solved. But it's only science that's going to solve them and it's only governments, exercising our collective will, that will set up the economic conditions allowing the solutions to be found.

    With energy currently being relatively cheap and abundant, there are no market forces driving the search to find alternate more effective sources of energy. Market forces didn't cause nuclear power to be developed. Governments invested in it initially to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. Pure market forces will only occur when the cost of energy goes up.

    Currently energy costs around 10% of GDP. What we need to do is to become more efficient at using the energy we will have so that we do more with the same amount of energy and the proportional cost stays the same as fossil fuels become more expensive due to declining supply and increasing demand, and alternate energy sources, which are more expensive, take up a progressively larger role.

    We just won't be able to do the same things we are doing now. Humans are adaptable. What we did in the 19th century, we didn't do in the 20th, and I'm confident that what we do in the 21st century won't be the same as what we did in the 20th.

    Relying on early 20th century technology, coal fueled power plants, which are inefficient and only manage to convert 30-50% of the contained energy into electricity (the rest being wasted as heat) is not a good idea (the current nuclear reactors are even worse, they harvest just 1% of the contained energy, the remainder being left as radioactivity in the waste product, which then has to be safely stored for hundreds of thousands of years).

    ReplyDelete
  49. Pepe,

    Sorry, my keyboard on an iPad doesn't allow me to put accents above letters. I'd like to be able to spell your name correctly, but it's not possible, sorry. Blame Apple for not making the keyboard larger, with more characters, but then there'd be no space to read text on the screen.

    ReplyDelete
  50. When you don't like what the science tells you, then invent a conspiracy theory that all scientists are liars.

    Scientists. You know, those guys who love NOTHING more in life than proving their peers wrong. Suddenly they've all banded together, put aside decades of professional rivalry, and have secretly pulled the wool over the American public.

    After all, LOOK AT HOW THE OCEAN LEVELS ARE FALLING! OMG!

    http://sciencedude.ocregister.com/2011/08/24/nasa-sees-drop-in-global-sea-level/136345/sealevelgraph580/

    It's all a conspiracy of those evil scientists! Yes, I'm sure that is the answer.

    And the Moon landings were a hoax. And it was dynamite ignited by Hillary Clinton that toppled the World Trade Center. And the Elders of Zion are real....

    ReplyDelete
  51. Wow, the antiscience crowd athies are out in numbers for this one huh. No surprise, they'll swallow anything BUT the truth.

    First class sciolist bachfiend leads the herd:
    "The only thing that this poll proves is that Americans are scientifically illiterate."

    Yes, anyone who doubts Darwwin & his beloved disciple Dawkins is necessarily scientifically illiterate. Um, how many years have we been hearing this inane drone BS from imbeciles?

    Too many

    "...with your comment that funding of the National Academy of Science, the body representing elite American scientists, should be reconsidered."

    The NAS is the elite? ROTFLMAO.

    What kind of nincompoop ignoramus still believes that!?

    "...can't get real scientists to seriously consider the pseudoscientific theory of Intelligent Design, is no reason "

    LOL and shakin' my head in disbelief on this piece of codswallop from the radiation contaminated zone.

    There are exactly zero first class intellects in the whole Darwinian community, none.

    ID has many. Many with 2 and even 3 PhD.'s.

    Even ex-world-class thinker, S. Hawking, has totally lost his mind claiming that nothing created everything.

    Once again, the atheists provide more than enough evidence to satisfy any thinking man that they are out of it completely.

    A large percentage of scientists today are such money hungry, fortune and glory seeking SOB's that they deserve no credibility at all. Politicians or pimps is the more appropriate name for them.
    And no one more so than the climate liars.

    "The science is established."?!?

    This can only mean one thing: bachfiend you have been brainwashed and are in dire need of de-programming services.

    I can do no better than to cite one of this class of "scientist", R. Lewontin,
    "Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths." -The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of Books, 22 October 1981, p. 13.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Pépé,
    Canadian, eh? Should have guessed by your brilliant wit and comments, Pépé! :P
    You just cannot fake culture and we are blessed with much of it in this land.
    I actually posted that video on my own blog and social network pages. Very well made.
    Also, I did not see it air on Newsworld, so it was a nice treat. Cheers!

    Bach,
    Love it. All very probable and well deduced from currently popular theories etc etc. All that was missing was the dinosaur feathers and mating trills. You are, of course, correct on my not agreeing with much it. It's scifi.
    You know what I am going to respond with, I am sure.
    We only have limited and fragmented ideas about how these worlds work - never mind our own. To judge any of these extremely limited sources of information as final or even close it seems like fiction at best. To apply these ideas in terms of planetary engineering on Earth is madness in my view.
    All that said, I can see how your reasoning works. It is flawed, but I can see WHY you come to the conclusion that we have simply cropped up between the ice.
    We were lucky again. We are VERY lucky beings in your view. Being military, I am not a big fan of luck. It is a very rare commodity and often of the wrong type. I would not go so far as to say I don't believe in it...but I am sceptical when it is called upon for explanations, especially in serial.
    We need ALL good luck, ALL the time (from pond-scum to ice age mammals to Blogger) for your scenario.
    In my scenario there just has to be a purpose; a function.
    Climate change is constant and cyclical.
    Whatever the driving purpose of it, assuming a certain gas or activity of humans is responsible is jumping to conclusions not yet supported (actually oft countered) by the data in the field.
    As for you concerns about energy efficiency, I tend to agree - but not on grounds of AGW. Rather I see it in terms of resource conflicts.
    There needs to be a conscious shift toward sustainability - not a rush.
    It will take time and sacrifice.
    The way I see it, much of this activity will have to take place in the developing world - and that could prove very troublesome from a security/enforcement standpoint. But with time, goodwill, sacrifice, hard work, and maybe even some limited bloodshed I think it is doable.
    Kyoto was not the way.

    @Oleg & Troy
    You boys get those palms washed up properly before you put them near your face. We would not want you to get those pimples pregnant!
    JK. GB you both.

    And with these words I wish you all Bonsoir, Laila Tov, Buenas noches, Gute Nacht, and Good Night!

    ReplyDelete
  53. "And the Moon landings were a hoax. And it was dynamite ignited by Hillary Clinton that toppled the World Trade Center. And the Elders of Zion are real...."
    @RickK >>>
    Did you not notice the schmuck on this page called 'jewsdid911'? This guy is arguing on your side. Do whose the crazy now?

    BTW We Jews are Theists.
    As one Jew, I would really like it if you did not you did not cite the blood libel for your climate arguments and attacks on the Christians.
    Will your humanism permit that, Rick?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Gary:

    "There are exactly zero first class intellects in the whole Darwinian community, none.

    ID has many. Many with 2 and even 3 PhD.'s."

    Bwahaha. I guess you mean Sternberg (2 PhD's) and Dembski (3). Who else? Or were you just making up that there are "many" ID, um, professionals with multiple PhD's?

    ReplyDelete
  55. crusadeREX,

    If there is a light chance that you are wondering what caused the double-facepalm reaction, it was your casual dismissal of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The law that has been thoroughly tested both theoretically and empirically.

    Perhaps you were not doubting the Stefan-Boltzmann law itself but rather its applicability in estimating the mean temperature of a planet without an atmosphere. Again, that is completely unfounded. Mars barely has an atmosphere. You can compute its mean temperature using the equations supplied in the above-mentioned Wikipedia article and compare the result to the data taken on its surface. You will find pretty good agreement.

    I can't think of any other reason to dismiss bachfiend's comment the way you did. Hence facepalm. This is a typical reaction that I have to your posts. This is why I usually skip them. I should do that more often.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Strictly speaking, Dembski has two PhDs: in math from U. Chicago and in philosophy from U. Illinois (Chicago). Plus an M. Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary. In fact, he has a total of seven degrees from these three institutions if you count his bachelor's and other master's degrees on the way to doctorates. I am sure they make for an impressive display on the wall of his office.

    The degrees indicate that Dembski received a good education. Good for him. The question is what has he done after all of that excellent education?

    Dembski's technical work was hailed by his Discovery Institute colleagues who called him the Isaac Newton of information theory. But it did not impress any scientists, either information theorists or biologists.

    He has written a bunch of books for the conservative Christian audience. His latest apologetics tries to reconcile the concept of the original sin with an old universe by positing that the effects of sin travel backwards in time. It reads like bad science fiction.

    ReplyDelete
  57. @crusadeRex
    Canadian, eh?

    You bet! And VERY proud of it...

    Thanks for posting the video on your site. I do hope it will help people realize that AGW scientists don't possess universal truth!

    ReplyDelete