My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[freeztar]

It seems this thread has taken a turn for the worse.

 

Let's all try to get the thread back on track with good science.

 

Flying Binghi, this means that (as I've asked you to do in the past) you must provide legitimate sources for your claims. If you are asked specific questions by other members, it's generally a good idea to address them. You are not required to, but continually avoiding pertinent questions by changing the subject and presenting non-scientific (or industry-biased science) is disingenuous at best, and at worst can put you in direct violation of the site rules. Please follow the site rules and support your claims (with valid sources). We've already been through this before...

Furthermore, can you please change your signature to something less inflammatory. Thanks.

If you have questions about any of this, please send me or another staff member a private message.

 

Eclipse Now, please refrain from posting "quack quack" in your posts as it is incendiary and not helpful to the discussion.

 

To everyone, this thread is being closely monitored and we expect everyone to follow the site rules, remain calm and courteous, and stay on topic with valid science. Failure to do so can lead to infractions which can inhibit your ability to make posts on Hypography.

 

Thanks! ;)

[Essay]

I'll second that, though the quack-quack is more of a clever rhetorical device, fairly innocuous, and just as cute as FB's avatar--always bringing a little smile.

===

 

Hiya Binghi,

 

I agreed about the signature (once I took the time to decode it); but more than that, it's very annoying to have in my peripheral vision as I'm reading nearby text. Please change it to anything stationary (or at most, with minimal movement).

 

BUT....

in reference to Bryson's comment about the "first 30 feet:"

 

I don't really expect you to answer the question about "what happens to the heat after the water vapor absorbs it,"

but I do expect that maybe you won't rely on the opinions of folks who think that simply pointing out that the heat gets absorbed means that the heat is no longer a problem--as if it's gone--out of the equation.

 

...and, as with the "CO2 percentage" comment;

...both "answers" shout a lack of comprehension regarding the mechanics of planetary heat loss.

 

So it's hard to put much stock in the conclusions of sombody who doesn't know about "the rest of the story" --as Paul Harvey would say.

 

~ ;)

 

p.s. But I am looking forward to hearing about the Heartland Inst. conference.

CSPAN often airs Heartland productions, so I'll be looking for it there.

[Flying Binghi]

I agreed about the signature (once I took the time to decode it); but more than that, it's very annoying to have in my peripheral vision as I'm reading nearby text. Please change it to anything stationary (or at most, with minimal movement).

 

No problemo Essay,

As noted, the many praying were the many AlGorian worshippers.... seems their number are in sharp decline anyway, so i will cut back to one - if that still annoys, then no problem, i will change it.

 

In keeping with the thread title (and to back up the claim of declining AGW adherents) heres a news report -

 

(sundry extracts)

Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.

 

Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN’s IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.

 

One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.

 

...Three of the five leading scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue.

 

...Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical. His harshest words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of fact.

 

“Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth… The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken.”

Japan’s Society of Energy and Resources disses the IPCC - says “recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity” Watts Up With That?

 

 

(edit; apparently somebody thinks the site i used to source the story is a "conspiracy theory website" WUWT has surpased 9 million hits.....)

[Eclipse Now]

Hi FB,

I think you forgot to read this bit.

 

Flying Binghi, this means that (as I've asked you to do in the past) you must provide legitimate sources for your claims. If you are asked specific questions by other members, it's generally a good idea to address them. You are not required to, but continually avoiding pertinent questions by changing the subject and presenting non-scientific (or industry-biased science) is disingenuous at best, and at worst can put you in direct violation of the site rules.

 

Please follow the site rules and support your claims (with valid sources). We've already been through this before...

[Flying Binghi]

both "answers" shout a lack of comprehension regarding the mechanics of planetary heat loss

 

Essay, reading the Bryson interview i got the feeling they were the 'off-the-cuff' gut feelings of a man who had spent a lifetime in study of the subject. Often those 'gut feeling' comments are the most truthfull ....though, that is my impression.

[freeztar]

Essay, reading the Bryson interview i got the feeling they were the 'off-the-cuff' gut feelings of a man who had spent a lifetime in study of the subject. Often those 'gut feeling' comments are the most truthfull ....though, that is my impression.

 

"off the cuff" "gut feelings" are not valid in science.

[Eclipse Now]

'gut feelings' hey?

Words cannot express what 'gut feelings' I have when I read the following reports.

 

Eclipse Now: GW — Proof of a "Denial Machine"

 

This is my (very incomplete) collection of articles proving the anti-AGM conspiracy perpetrated by the likes of Exxon and friends. Sometimes 'gut feelings' are right, but only when backed by solid scientific analysis, good reporting, and a bit of history. The denialists have been caught with their pants down, and I've been too busy to document the latest stuff! (There's been a whole bunch of reports documenting the downright FOUL public FUD campaigns that fossil fuel industries have been running).

 

Try this one for starters, where Exxon even admit it, and promise not to do it again. We can believe them, can't we? No really... ;-)

[Flying Binghi]

"off the cuff" "gut feelings" are not valid in science.

 

freeztar, My reading of Bryson WECN May 2007 suggests he said to look with your own eye's - i.e., open them to the real world evidence. The computor print-out might say now is hotter then 600 years ago, though on the ground we have real world evidence suggesting otherwise.

 

This comment would tend to back up Bryson; (quote) Knut Espen Solberg, leader of ‘The Melting Arctic’ project mapping changes in the north, said the remains uncovered in past weeks in west Greenland may also be new evidence that the climate was less chilly about 1,000 years ago than it is today. ( Gulf Times ? Qatar?s top-selling English daily newspaper - Europe/World )

[Flying Binghi]

Heres the latest from that nutter site WUWT :naughty:

 

There is a considerable amount of misinformation propagated about the greenhouse effect by people from both sides of the debate. The basic concepts are straightforward.

 

The greenhouse effect is real. If there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, earth would be a cold place.

 

Temperature increases as greenhouse gas concentration increases. These are undisputed facts.

 

...learn about the feedbacks. That is where the disagreement lies.

 

 

Full article via -

A short primer: The Greenhouse Effect Explained Watts Up With That?

[Eclipse Now]

My reading of Bryson WECN May 2007 suggests he said to look with your own eye's - i.e., open them to the real world evidence.

 

I wish the sceptics would.

 

The computor print-out might say now is hotter then 600 years ago, though on the ground we have real world evidence suggesting otherwise.

Fail.

 

This comment would tend to back up Bryson.... bla bla bla

sorry, not interested in playing "fetch that stick" (or "debunk yet another critic and their Exxon funding").

 

You never reply substantively to my posts... why should I treat yours any different?

 

Meanwhile, I'm amazed you haven't quoted the Leipzig declaration. :naughty: That's about your level of "authority" isn't it?

 

Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change - SourceWatch

 

The Leipzig Declaration emerged from a November 1995 conference, "The Greenhouse Controversy," cosponsored by S. Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project and the European Academy for Environmental Affairs in Leipzig, Germany. It has been widely cited by conservative voices in the "sound science" movement and is regarded in some circles as the gold standard of scientific expertise on the issue. It has been cited by Singer himself in editorial columns appearing in hundreds of conservative websites and major publications, including the Wall Street Journal, Miami Herald, Detroit News, Chicago Tribune, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Memphis Commercial-Appeal, Seattle Times, and Orange County Register. Jeff Jacoby, a columnist with the Boston Globe, describes the signers of the Leipzig Declaration as "prominent scholars." The Heritage Foundation calls them "noted scientists," as do conservative think tanks such as Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Heartland Institute, and the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia. Both the Leipzig Declaration and Frederick Seitz's Oregon Petition have been quoted as authoritative sources during deliberations in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

 

When journalist David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times investigated the Leipzig Declaration, however, he discovered that most of its signers have not dealt with climate issues at all and none of them is an acknowledged leading expert. Twenty-five of the signers were TV weathermen - a profession that requires no in-depth knowledge of climate research. Some did not even have a college degree, such as Dick Groeber of Dick's Weather Service in Springfield, Ohio. Did Groeber regard himself as a scientist? "I sort of consider myself so," he said when asked. "I had two or three years of college training in the scientific area, and 30 or 40 years of self-study." Other signers included a dentist, a medical laboratory researcher, a civil engineer, and an amateur meteorologist. Some were not even found to reside at the addresses they had given. [2]

 

A journalist with the Danish Broadcasting Company attempted to contact the declaration's 33 European signers and found that four of them could not be located, 12 denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who did admit signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an expert on flying insects. After discounting the signers whose credentials were inflated, irrelevant, false, or unverifiable, it turned out that only 20 of the names on the list had any scientific connection with the study of climate change, and some of those names were known to have obtained grants from the oil and fuel industry, including the German coal industry and the government of Kuwait (a major oil exporter).[1]

[edit]

[freeztar]

My reading of Bryson WECN May 2007 suggests he said to look with your own eye's - i.e., open them to the real world evidence. The computor print-out might say now is hotter then 600 years ago, though on the ground we have real world evidence suggesting otherwise.

 

This comment would tend to back up Bryson; (quote) Knut Espen Solberg, leader of ‘The Melting Arctic’ project mapping changes in the north, said the remains uncovered in past weeks in west Greenland may also be new evidence that the climate was less chilly about 1,000 years ago than it is today. ( Gulf Times ? Qatar?s top-selling English daily newspaper - Europe/World )

 

It's called the medieval warming period and is well documented.

 

From the link you posted:

 

"He also said that modern climate change, blamed mainly on human emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, was bringing erosion to archaeological sites on Greenland"

[Flying Binghi]

It's called the medieval warming period and is well documented

 

Yes, Bryson does cover it on several occasions

 

 

"He also said that modern climate change, blamed mainly on human emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, was bringing erosion to archaeological sites on Greenland"

 

freeztar, IMO, perhaps one must say that to ensure further funding ....:naughty:

 

I think "The Deniers" by Lawrence Solomon covers it fairly well.

[Eclipse Now]

Ahem...

 

Oh the irony that you should say that so directly after I quoted this...

 

After discounting the signers whose credentials were inflated, irrelevant, false, or unverifiable, it turned out that only 20 of the names on the list had any scientific connection with the study of climate change, and some of those names were known to have obtained grants from the oil and fuel industry, including the German coal industry and the government of Kuwait (a major oil exporter).[1]

[edit]

 

Freeztar, why do you reply to his links when he won't reply to ours? You're encouraging him... it's cruel. :)

 

Oh, it's too painful to watch! I think I'll concentrate on other threads for a while. Watching FB try and dodge every rational discourse put to him is a little too :) for my liking. As a matter of fact, lately it's been getting... :naughty::eek_big:

 

Meanwhile, FB doesn't care because every time one of us posts, it just gives him another excuse to reply with one of his 1000-links-to-garbage-troll-science.

Meanwhile, FB just sits there with his :lol: on, ignoring everything we say, and proverbially giving us the :D:D:D

[Flying Binghi]

Freeztar, why do you reply to his links when he won't reply to ours? You're encouraging him... it's cruel.

 

Oh, it's too painful to watch! I think I'll concentrate on other threads for a while. Watching FB try and dodge every rational discourse put to him is a little too for my liking. As a matter of fact, lately it's been getting...

 

Meanwhile, FB doesn't care because every time one of us posts, it just gives him another excuse to reply with one of his 1000-links-to-garbage-troll-science.

Meanwhile, FB just sits there with his on, ignoring everything we say, and proverbially giving us the

 

Did'nt my WUWT reference answer most of your questions ?

 

Hmmm, near my knock off time - better go and see if my pay check from big oil has arrived .....:naughty:

[Eclipse Now]

Now now FB,

I received infraction points back then too because I lost my temper with you, and guess what? I apologised to the moderator involved and took a break from the thread. I just knew you were exactly the sort of troll that gets under my skin, and I felt ashamed of my behaviour on the list and applied a ban of a few months to myself.

 

Have you apologised to the moderators? Have you had a break from this thread? Or are you "getting too much out of it" (as trolls do when they are the centre of negative attention)?

 

This could have been a really interesting thread discussing some of the finer parameters of the REAL climate debate, which appears to be how serious is it going to get and who has the most exact models and latest data? It could have focussed on areas where people had real, genuine questions, and were prepared to actually engage with the answers. (Instead of just shouting "Audit Audit Audit" in response).

 

Repeating the same tired old cliché's with an incredibly stubborn resilience to anything scientific is not going to win friends in a debate this sensitive. We are talking about the future of our kids here.

 

So after my self-imposed break, I came back 50 pages later (or whatever it was) and find you still going hard, still behaving exactly the same way, and still ignoring important questions put to you. This is fulfilling all the classic behaviours of a "troll". We've all asked you to try and watch your posting style, and I even posted a PM in this regard. Yet now that you are finally facing some of the consequences of your own behaviour (as I admit I did a few months ago) you want the moderators here to apologise to you? Wow.

[freeztar]

Flying Binghi's post has been deleted and he has been banned.

 

Hopefully we can continue with climate science discussion without running into such problems again.

 

Carry on folks. :naughty:

[InfiniteNow]

This could have been a really interesting thread discussing some of the finer parameters of the REAL climate debate, which appears to be how serious is it going to get and who has the most exact models and latest data? It could have focussed on areas where people had real, genuine questions, and were prepared to actually engage with the answers.

If it makes you feel any better, POM, I did this pretty consistently for like the first 600 posts. You can always go back and review them, even though they were like a thousand posts ago. :singer: