Attention, Global Warming Cultists
By Mitch Berg
That “global consensus” that y’all have claimed for the hypothesis of Man-Made Global Warming?
It does not exist. Never did.
Not to say it couldn’t – but y’all are going to have to start acting more like scientists and less like brow-beating propaganda-whores to create it.
That is all.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Mitch, you are just a tool of Big Oil.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
What a big bag of crap, Mitch. First, 90% of scientists is the claim, not 100%, it’s simply YOUR exageration that it’s a ‘global consencus’ or more correctly I suppose, global consencus can of course mean the vast majority, without meaning absolute. In fact, your fraud here is in suggesting that ‘global concensus’ MUST mean unaninimoty. No one credible EVER claimed there weren’t open questions, however, unlike YOU and your peers, whom disparages the sceintific method (vis a vis ID vs. evoloution) – there is VAST support for ONLY accepting something which withstands the scientific method. This report suggests that not all answers are known, my reply, no kidding. That said, the BIG questions ARE in fact answered, and have subscribed entirely to the scientific method. Your claims to the contrary, are bull, and nothing else. The only orthodoxy here, is yours. You refuse to accept vast amounts of scientific research, and instead insist upon clinging to outlier data to claim, “SEE SEE, IT”S ALL BUNK”, when it isn’t, it’s just, like any science, a living body of work. Get over yourself.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I see Peev is in fine form after speaking with me this morning.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
BTW Mitch, just an FYI, the results of this report have been out there a couple of days, perhaps rather than relying upon your ultra-biased hate blogs, you should read from some balanced sources.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Wow, Peev… you must have been foaming nad chomping at the bit all weekend to rant like that today!
So, Peev agrees that the so-called consensus is nonsense. Victory!
May 19th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
ScaifeNet has spoken! There is no such thing as global warming. Pay no attention to the polar bear behind the curtain!
May 19th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
No one credible EVER claimed there weren’t open questions
Better inform Al Gore (since he…you know…will have to….inform himself) that there was no global consensus…or is it concensus….or consencus?
And then we have this quote: it’s simply YOUR exageration that it’s a ‘global consencus’ or more correctly I suppose, global consencus can of course mean the vast majority, without meaning absolute.
followed a few lines later by this quote: That said, the BIG questions ARE in fact answered, and have subscribed entirely to the scientific method. Your claims to the contrary, are bull, and nothing else. “
$1397: New Dell laptop with dual free webcams from QVC
$0.00: Forgetting to run to Walgreens to refill the lithium and Xanax prescriptions
http://tinyurl.com/47nf2l: Priceless.
Get over yourself.
Physician, heal thyself.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
It’s well understood that the clowns of the world are unable to see the qualifier “man made” when it precedes “global warming.”
True fact that also factually true!
May 19th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Peevish (and angryclown), the story I’ve consistently been told is that there are no published climatologists not in the pay of “Big Oil” who reject the hypothesis. So yes, the 100% claim has been repeatedly made.
So nice of your side to make the consensus argument, thereby conceding that the scientific evidence isn’t there, by the way.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
peevish:
Believe it or not, the “all the facts are in” attitude of most Warmies has nothing in common with the “scientific method” at all.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
You’re missing it… Peev sides with us. That’s why he’s so angry and hatefilled… it stings when he admits we’re right.
Peev’s reading this right now!
May 19th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Well, it looks like you got their attention, Mitch.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
gee Mitch you’ve kicked sand on the religion of ac and peev – you’ll burn in hell for sure.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
May 19th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Badda, don’t forget to turn off yer tags.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
“The debate is over.” – Al Gore.
“No Al, it’s not.” – 31,000 scientists.
I hear the price of carbon credits just took a bit of a tumble.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Incoming Message…..ScaifeNet Priority Alpha…….Downloading……Decoding……Message follows….
To: All ScaifeNet Minions
From: His Royal Scaifeness
RE: ManBearPIG
Accord has been reached with the Nobel Comittee…Next year’s honoree will be L. Ron Hubbard.
In return, all ScaifeNet affiliates will forthwith cease and desist denying the existence of ManBearPig.
Yes, I’m totally cereal…..Excelsior!!!
RMS
End Message…..End transmission
May 19th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
It ain’t science to you kooky wingnuts unless you hear it from Jesus.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
What a big bag of crap, Mitch.
This just in: The American Socratic Debate Society wants you to speak at their 2009 convention.
Congrats on the high honor.
First, 90% of scientists is the claim
OK, Peevish – SHOW ME THE CITE that documents agreement on the part of “90%” of scientists that global warming is man-made.
I’ll give you a hint. You can’t. I mean, not just in the sense that “you never really come through on these challenges”, but also “because no such documentation exists”.
it’s simply YOUR exageration that it’s a ‘global consencus’ or more correctly I suppose, global consencus can of course mean the vast majority, without meaning absolute.
“The debate is over” – Algore.
In fact, your fraud here is in suggesting that ‘global concensus’ MUST mean unaninimoty.
Rubbish, and very sophomoric to boot. There is no “global consensus”, merely a constant, Goebbelsian refrain that there is.
No one credible EVER claimed there weren’t open questions,
Algore and his cult claim exactly that; that there are no substantial questions or disagreements on the central hypothesis. To them (and the huge industry that’s built up around this pseudo-religion), Global Warming is primarily man-made, period.
You did see An Inconvenient Truth, right?
however, unlike YOU and your peers, whom disparages the sceintific method (vis a vis ID vs. evoloution)
Not just a sophomoric strawman, and not only wrong, but one that will make you look like an idiot to boot.
I dont’ give a rats ass about ID vs. Evolution, inasmuch as Evolution doesn’t contradict an allegorical view of the Genesis story. Your strawman is rejected.
And it’s a simple fact, Peev, that I have both more background in and respect for actual science and the scientific method than you do.
That said, the BIG questions ARE in fact answered, and have subscribed entirely to the scientific method.
That sentence is both factually void, AND meaningless. “The big questions are subscribed entirely to the scientific method?” That sentence is devoid of any actual meaning. I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here.
Your claims to the contrary, are bull, and nothing else.
A sentence that comes as close to science as you have gotten in this entire febrile post.
The only orthodoxy here, is yours.
And – let me guess – I have four fingers pointing back at me?
This next bit is just priceless:
You refuse to accept vast amounts of scientific research, and instead insist upon clinging to outlier data to claim, “SEE SEE, IT”S ALL BUNK”, when it isn’t, it’s just, like any science, a living body of work. Get over yourself.
1) If it’s a “living body of work”, then it’s not incumbent on me to “accept vast amounts of research”, even IF that research existed!
2) My post wasn’t “outlier data”; it wasn’t “data” at all. It was a list of scientists who reject the notion that GW is man-made.
You clearly have no idea what you’re writing about.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
you hear it from Jesus
The guy who does my lawn?
He says you’re full of it, too.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Mr. D,
I didn’t forget… I merely did it very badly. That’s another double-dumbass on me.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Peev yarbles on about global warming
His repeated strawmen are rather alarming
But the real concern
That I can discern
Are my brain neurons he’s constantly harming.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I’ve heard from Jesus. He wants Clownie’s DNA back. Something about “helix abuse”.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Q1: If nobody ever claimed there was consensus on AGW, then why are all the Warmists claiming that there is consensus on AGW?
A1: Because if any doubt is permitted, the religion takes a hit and the sale of indulgences plummets.
Q2: If (and this is mere speculation) the 18,000 scientists that Al Gore likes to quote believe in AGW, and 31,000 scientists say it’s bunk, is there consensus?
A2: Only if Peeve says so, and right now he’s denying it.
Q3: Did Peeve actually read the summary document, completely debunking the whole premise, top to bottom, with 132 peer-reviewed scientific studies?
A3: Heh. You have to ask?
Q4: What would any halfway intelligent person conclude from reading the summary document?
A4: That there is absolutely nothing wrong with the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic (that’s manmade to you) Global Warming except that it isn’t catastrophic, it isn’t manmade, it isn’t global, and it isn’t warming.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Shorter Ewing: “C’mere you little nutjob….smack!..now go sit by your dish.”
May 19th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Somebody should tell John McCain the news.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
We’ve been trying, DFL Rick… you might have heard.
May 19th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Try harder. Get him to come out as a full denier and we may carry Mississippi.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
“full denier”?
Sounds like RickDFL likens “Man Made Global Warming With Cataclysmic Consequences” to the Holocaust.
Is that true RickDFL?
May 19th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Hey Peeve- I know this is an old one, and it`s been posted many places, but please explain what happened to the glaciers that were over Wisconson 10,000 years ago. I seem to remember they melted long before Mr. Ford thought about cars. Untill you can explain what happened and fit it in with your “theory”, man-made global warming is bullshit. It`s really quite a simple question that`s never been answered, so it won`t go away. Remember, the rules of this game among people with half a brain says that before spending trillions of dollars, man-made g.w. must be proven- no exceptions.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Sounds like RickDFL likens “Man Made Global Warming With Cataclysmic Consequences” to the Holocaust.
Nah, he’s just got to hold on to his MMGW fraud because it justifies hatred for capitalism and liberty. Science be damned.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Peev,
Since you are positing yourself as the champion of the scientific method, tell us – why is it that the computer models that are used to support the notion of manmade global warming can’t even successfully predict the past?
May 19th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
it justifies hatred for capitalism and liberty.
IN the same way that “supporting voter IDs” is the same as being a racist, obviously.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Let me try, if I may, contribute a newish idea to the debate.
The American people will not accept diminished economic expectations unless doing so is a neccessary response to a clear & present danger. Man-made global warming (if it exists) is not a clear & present danger. As individuals, Americans will pay lip service to making sacrifices to save the planet — but they will balk when they realize that they, personally, will pay a price.
Everyone figures that people better off than they are is should be the ones to have their lifestyle take a hit.
This is a democracy. The working and middle classes are the groups that award elections. Any serious attempt to slow economic growth will hit them hard. They won’t like it, and if any pol succeeds in making it happen he or she will get kicked to the curb as hard as Jimmy Carter was in 1980.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I’m pro global warming.
It’s really for the penguins. Once I saw “March of the Penguins”, I realized that global warming would make it so the penguins wouldn’t have to walk so far for fish. One simply cannot be against global warming, but for the penguins.
Plus, the temp can go in one of two directions, up or down. Cold sucks. I’ll take warmer.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Keep it up boys. Every post in a few more votes in the box for us come November.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Then why are you arguing with us, RickDFL?
If it’s an unuasually cool summer and ‘the gales of november came early’ the people may well cast their vote for the candidate who says they have to shiver in the dark to prevent the world from getting too hot.
This is a democracy. We always get the government we ask for.
May 20th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Every post in a few more votes in the box for us come November.
So in other words, it’s not about science? Just about keeping hysterial stoked by cynical propaganda?
That’s loathsome!
And typical of liberals!
May 20th, 2008 at 8:12 am
[...] Mitch Berg highlights a petition in which thousands of scientists state their opposition to the theory of anthropogenic global warming. [...]
May 20th, 2008 at 8:15 am
A person with half a brain said: “Remember, the rules of this game among people with half a brain says that before spending trillions of dollars, man-made g.w. must be proven- no exceptions.”
Among people with a full brain, the rule is to take reasonable action to prevent the possibility of a global catastrophe, even if you wingnuts like the idea of palm trees growing in St. Paul. Kinda like how a non-idiot buys a car seat for his kid, even though the odds of getting in an accident are less than 100%.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Terry:
“Then why are you arguing with us, RickDFL?”
Who is arguing. You are on the top of the IDS saying saying “it it totally not that far down” and I am yelling “jump”.
Mitch:
“So in other words, it’s not about science? Just about keeping hysterial stoked by cynical propaganda?”
No the science is conclusive in our favor and the broad public now supports our position. Scientifically, there is no point in further debate with people who are willingly and proudly ignorant. Politically, letting the extreme deniers maintain control of the GOP, helps elect more and better Democrats. The worst possible result would be for us to seek some squishy compromise with you.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:11 am
“Among people with a full brain, the rule is to take reasonable action to prevent the possibility of a global catastrophe.”
And taking trillions of dollars out of the economy and sentencing millions of people of the Third World to ongoing poverty, misery and death is not exactly “reasonable.” Reasonable would be finding new sources of energy that can be delivered to my door for less than what coal and gasoline now cost, but that do not “warm the planet.” I would happily buy this new energy, whether I believed in AGW or not.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:25 am
RickDFL said:
“Scientifically, there is no point in further debate with people who are willingly and proudly ignorant.”
A convenient statement for one who treats science as magic and is unable to debate in the first place (much less “further”). *shrug*
May 20th, 2008 at 10:34 am
angryclown may be an authority on brands of seltzer water, but on what is “reasonable action”?
No.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:05 am
No the science is conclusive in our favor
But we’ve shown you that it is, in fact, not!
Admit it, Rick. This is a matter of faith, not science, to you. And there’s nothing wrong with that – just quit stomping your feet and proclaiming things “incontrovertible” in one breath (a very unscientific thing to do, especially when the evidence has been controverted pretty seriously!) and then trying to wrap yourself in science (and condescendingly so!) the next. It just doesn’t work.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:12 am
I t hink DFL Rick called us heathens.
May 20th, 2008 at 11:19 am
That, or “bitter gun-toting Jesus freaks”.
Ironic, innit?
May 20th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Bitter? Check. Gun-toting? Check. Jesus freaks? Check. Pretty fair cop, don’t you think?
May 20th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Non-bitter, gun-toting (yaaay) jesus freak, in my case, who majored in Biology (for a while), and has spent the last 15 years working in one variety of engineering (read: applied science) or another, and who knows the difference between “scientific consensus” and “zealots trying to browbeat people into compliance”.
May 20th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Mitch:
I know we all take liberties with grammar in a blog post, but you really should not put a word like ‘incontrovertible’ in double-quotes and attribute it to me, when I never used the word in this post or on this topic. I said the evidence is “conclusive” (see how the quotes go around a word I actually wrote before this) and it is. Before you try to summarize the state of scientific research on global warming, you really out to learn how to summarize accurately a simple blog post.
But then simple fraud is par for the course when it comes to your petition.
http://timlambert.org/2004/05/oregonpetition
May 20th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
you really should not put a word like ‘incontrovertible’ in double-quotes and attribute it to me
Even by your lax standards, your last post is self-indulgent; the difference between “incontrovertible” and “the science is conclusive in our favor” isn’t even semantically interesting.
The “the broad public” used to believe black people were inferior.
“Scientifically, there is no point in further debate with people who are willingly and proudly ignorant. ”
And there we have it; “our” science is right, “theirs” is ignorant.
You are the anti-scientist, Rick.
Thousands of scientists, every single one of them more qualified on this topic than you, put their professional reputations on the line (against that invincibly intelligent general public, woo hoo!) to show the world that there is a debate.
And that Lambert link is a joke. I may have to fisk it tomorrow. If you think you cemented anything by posting it (other than a reputation as an anti-intellectual who routinely mixes up “science” and “writing condescending rhetorical checks you are demonstrably ill-equipped to cash”), I’m buggered if I can figure out what it would be.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Seriously, Rick – did you really appeal to public sentiment as some sort of objective standard on global warming?
My head is still reeling over that one.
The worst possible result would be for us to seek some squishy compromise with you.
I agree! I am much more interested in embarassing and humiliating all of you cultists.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Mitch wrote:
“the difference between “incontrovertible” and “the science is conclusive in our favor” isn’t even semantically interesting.”
I will leave that to readers, but Karl Popper, David Hume, and plenty of others would disagree. There is conclusive evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow, but the proposition is not incontrovertible, since it would be controverted by the sun not rising.
““our” science is right, “theirs” is ignorant”. Again with the non-quotes. More accurately, ours is science, yours is not.
“Thousands of scientists, every single one of them more qualified on this topic than you, put their professional reputations on the line . . . to show the world that there is a debate.”
Well not all of them:
bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/11/now-im-denier-now.html#links
“I may have to fisk it tomorrow”
and Troy’s Mom may let him step up from velcro to lace-up shoes, but I ain’t holding my breath.
May 20th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
“did you really appeal to public sentiment as some sort of objective standard on global warming?”
Er No. It is called reading, try it sometime. I carefully distinguished the scientific question from the political state of public sentiment.
If public opinion was still against GW while the science continued to support GW, there would be more need for scientific debate to inform the public. But now that scientific debate has won over the vast majority of Americans to the truth, there is little need to waste time on full on denires like you. Indeed, leaving the GOP in your grip is actually helpful.
“I am much more interested in embarassing and humiliating all of you cultists”
I suggest you start with John McCain
May 20th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Again… you haven’t been listening DFL Rick. We’ve “started” with John McCain quite some time ago. Years, in fact.
May 20th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Er No. It is called reading, try it sometime.
Put something up worth reading, maybe…?
I carefully distinguished the scientific question from the political state of public sentiment.
Irrelevant (and wrong); you posited it another reason we should get behind MMGW.
If public opinion was still against GW while the science continued to support GW, there would be more need for scientific debate to inform the public.
And now that science (as opposed to activism using science and anti-intellectual, anti-scientific browbeating as a prop) is divided, we need to have the scientific debate to inform the public.
Why does that terrify you so?
Because nothing scares a fascist like a debate.
But now that scientific debate has won over the vast majority of Americans to the truth
Not a truth, though, which is the point here. Your “science” on this subject begins and ends with stomping your feet and yelling about what a bunch of idiots the “deniers” are.
Which is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, anti-democratic, anti-enlightenment, anti-everything good.
May 20th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
“If public opinion was still against GW while the science continued to support GW, there would be more need for scientific debate to inform the public”
So, by Rick’s eminent logic, if the science actually DENIED GW, as it does, there would be a need to inform the public that had been convinced to believe GW did exist, would there not? Mitch, you’ve offered a great public service. It’s too bad we have so many people still willing to deny the truth that AGW is a myth.
May 20th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Mitch:
“you posited it another reason we should get behind MMGW.”
Really where? Please use a direct quotes.
“we need to have the scientific debate to inform the public”
Well then do some science, publish it is a peer-reviewed journal, and we will have a debate.
May 20th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
RickDFL said:
“Well then do some science”
More proof that RickDFL thinks science is magic.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Better yet, Rick, I’ll make a hysterical movie and market it through a none-too-bright media and a clacque of fabians-masquerading-as-scientists to a credulous and scientifically-illiterate public!
Better idea, Rick – since I don’t have the time or money to get a PhD in climatology, why don’t you learn a little about how science works, so you can act more like an empiricist and less like a snake-handler high on the holy spirit?
May 20th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Mitch:
“since I don’t have the time or money to get a PhD in climatology”
So you want a debate where you don’t have to contribute anything. Typical conservative nanny stater with a hand out.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Er No. It is called reading, try it sometime. I carefully distinguished the scientific question from the political state of public sentiment.
This is the same technique RickDFL used to determine that the heritable portion of IQ is neglible, despite all the published, peer-reviewed papers that say otherwise! And the results, too, fit his left-of-center preconceptions! Amazing!
I don’t care if rickDFL’s scientific credentials are crap. I propose that we name him Egghead in Chief!
May 21st, 2008 at 7:22 am
Hmm…RickDFL is very Clavinesque…
May 21st, 2008 at 8:00 am
Terry:
“This is the same technique RickDFL used to determine that the heritable portion of IQ is neglible, despite all the published, peer-reviewed papers that say otherwise!”
Man Terry you are really, and I mean really, obsessed with this issue. Do you feel a deep need to lay the blame on your ancestors for you current condition? Kids looking at you with that sullen ‘thanks for giving us the losing ticket in the genetic lottery’ look?
Funny how you keep referring to this mystical stash of published peer-reviewed papers, but never actually cite them or provide links.
But I suppose you are right, basing our views on science does give Democrats a significant advantage.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:50 am
It is amazing that those who want to say that AGW is real can only do so by COMPETELY IGNORING the conclusive science presented, in this very post that they are commenting upon, and continuing to say that there is no science against their position.
The simple fact is that there is NO science even close to proving that Catastrophic Anthropogenic (that’s manmade, for those from publlic schools) Global Warming DOES exist. There is evidence of a warming trend from about 1970 to 2001, but no evidence that it was caused by CO2, and no evidence that the CO2 was manmade, and no evidence that it will continue to get warmer except for some computer models that start with ASSUMING that human activity will cause CO2 to increase, and that CO2 increases will cause warming! That isn’t science, that’s called how to lie with statistics.
Before commenting and making complete Democrats of yourselves, read the cite provided to you! Their scientific conclusion is that curbing manmade CO2 is essentially irrelevent to global climate (and the IPCC almost agrees), while having huge negative economic impacts AND reducing biodiversity. That is, curbing CO2 HARMS the environment! So, tell me again what you want to do?
May 21st, 2008 at 9:28 am
So, tell me again what you want to do?
Rick wants you to drink the kool-aid and agree with him that earth is flat.
BTW, here is some bedtime reading for you, Rick. From someone who knows a thing or two about climate.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3151
Care to debate AGW with Dr. Ball, Rick? Oh, he does not have enough credentials, you say? Anything he says must be wrong because it does not agree with your point of view? That damn kool-aid must be some potent stuff!
Ah, who am I kidding?
May 21st, 2008 at 9:33 am
J. Ewing:
“the conclusive science presented”
If anyone in SITD has cited a published peer-reviewed paper against AGW, I missed it. Please cite such a paper.
The paper attached to the petition is neither and includes some elementary scientific errors.
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM
As for the rest, keep it out. Lets make sure the GOP continues to get associated with the lunatic fringe.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:48 am
You didn’t touch my link, did you Rick? Plenty of references there. What do you need, for Dr. Ball to call you personally?
BTW, the entire algore AGW arguement is based on misleading and false data. But you would have to read the article to know that…
May 21st, 2008 at 9:51 am
What do you need, for Dr. Ball to call you personally?
Dr. Ball needs to be in Wikipedia!
May 21st, 2008 at 11:03 am
It would not help. RickDFL would simply change his requirements when it suited his faith. Then he would say something like “Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner”.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:16 pm
“The paper attached to the petition is neither and includes some elementary scientific errors.”
Thank you for establishing the standard for this discussion. I hereby reject the entire UN IPCC report because it, too, is a summary of other referenced scientific works, and some few of them contain nit-picking little errors. It seems the basis for judging the evidence FOR AGW is that it be “false, but accurate,” while the data against is “imperfect and therefore completely wrong.”
Face it, Rick, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that manmade CO2 will create a catastrophic warming 100 years from now, because there CAN’T be. The future is not known.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:40 am
If anyone in SITD has cited a published peer-reviewed paper against AGW, I missed it. Please cite such a paper.
Rick, I introduced you to Dr. Ball, as per your want. But, as I suspected, factual, scientific truth paralyzed your two typing fingers. That is if you even attempted to open the link.
So, Rick, next time you opine on the subject and start citing religious propaganda, a la Inconvinient UnTruth, be mindful that the retort will be just two words – Dr. Ball. Since you have been given the link, you will be expected to know who we are talking about.
Class dismissed.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:39 am
JPA:
You moron, Dr. Ball’s paper is not peer reviewed, nor is ‘The Canada Free Press’ a scientific journal. Much of the material he cites is not peer-reviewed. Nor is he a scientist. His advanced degrees in Geography are humanities degrees not from the scientific faculty. He published a handful of peer-reviewed articles (none on climatology) many years ago. He could not hack real science, so he took up a lucrative career as a denier. Of course, he worked hard to conceal his funding from the oil industry. Moreover he misstated his own scientific credentials in public.
More details here:
http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:14 am
Looks like Troy is still stuck with velcro shoes, Mitch never got around to fisking Tim Lambert’s demolition of the Oregon petition.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:18 am
So, Rick – you ignorant slut – you still did not read Dr. Ball’s article. You refuse to address the facts he brings up. Instead, you careen headfirst into an ad-hominem attack. Hmm, I see a parallel here with SWVFT…
Oh, and algore’s advanced degree in… in… in what is it exactly? makes him an uncontested, unquestionable authority on AGW. Riiiight…. And Dr. Hansen’s lies – yes LIES, – are taken as gospel by blind minions such as yourself, but hey, his credentials are impeccable!
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:26 am
Mitch, you were so right! Rick culled his anti-Ball screed directly from Wikipedia!
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:45 am
JPA:
“you still did not read Dr. Ball’s article”
If I did not read it, how would I know “much of the material he cites is not peer-reviewed”. I feel no need to debunk ever crank you find on the internet.
“Oh, and algore’s advanced degree in… in… in what is it exactly? makes him an uncontested, unquestionable authority on AGW”.
Nobody says Al Gore is a scientific expert on GW. Unlike Dr. Ball, he cites real scientific research, done by real scientists, published in real scientific journals. Moreover, real climate scientists confirm his presentations, while Dr. Bell can not even get his ravings published.
“And Dr. Hansen’s lies – yes LIES, – are taken as gospel by blind minions such as yourself, but hey, his credentials are impeccable!”
If you can document such instances, I suggest you report them to the appropriate professional or government body.
“Mitch, you were so right! Rick culled his anti-Ball screed directly from Wikipedia!”
If any information I cited is false let me know. Otherwise quit acting like looking up the facts is some sort of unfair advantage. Maybe you Republicans are having so much trouble lately, because citing a reliable reference source now is taken a point against someone in a debate.
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
claim by P.D. Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that the global average annual temperature increased 0.6°C ± 0.2°C in some 130 years.
This is “real scientific research, done by real scientists, published in real scientific journals? you are citing as gospel? Please discuss the level of confidence of P.D. Jones’ statement, and why any real scientist would dismiss that “finding” as statisitcally insignifcant indication of, well, anything!
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Rick says:
Mitch never got around to fisking Tim Lambert’s demolition of the Oregon petition.
Right before saying:
I feel no need to debunk ever crank you find on the internet.
Um, yeah.
Look, Rick – you approach MMGW with what can only be called religious zeal; you toss “peer review” around as if the lack (permanent or temporary) is dispositive evidence of lack of credibility, which is merely lazy except when you combine it with your comorbit habits of condescenscion and the claims that your authorities are the only authorities – which is logically vacant in general, to say nothing of this particular argument.
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
This religion might get more respect, and perhaps some excellent tax benefits, if it were less aggressive in attempting to control what non-believers do.
It is unfortunate that they have Rick”DoSomeScience”DFL speaking for them here. Speaking of which, shouldn’t you be heading over to KMart soon RickDFL?
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:09 pm
JPA:
Mr. P.D. Jones is a firm supporter of AGW
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/jones-mann.html
“While there are differences between the reconstructions due to the factors mentioned above, all, even the least similar, are in agreement in showing the strong increase in temperatures since early 19th century, with the highest temperatures in the past 1000 years occurring at the end of the 20th century. The robustness of this result is clearly supported by the range of data and methods used to generate these reconstructions. Since only one of these reconstructions extends back to the early part of the previous millennia, results are more tentative, but suggest the recent warming could be unprecedented in nearly 2000 years.”
In plain English, you are a nut.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Mitch:
“you toss “peer review” around as if the lack (permanent or temporary) is dispositive evidence of lack of credibility”
It is.
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:04 am
with the highest temperatures in the past 1000 years occurring at the end of the 20th century… /snip …but suggest the recent warming could be unprecedented in nearly 2000 years
P.D. Jones postulates that “reconstructions” from past 2000 years (note – NOT data) out of a total of approximately 5,000,000,000 constitutes an “unprecedented” trend. Can you spot a scientific conundrum here, Rick? Even a non-scientist like you should!
And yes, the absolute authority of P.D. Jones. Speaking of peer review: “We can’t reproduce Jones’ results because he refuses to disclose which stations he used and how the data was adjusted. To a request for information from Warwick Hughes, an Australian climate researcher who has long studied the global temperature record, Jones wrote, “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” (Jones’ reply to Warwick Hughes, 21. February 2005; P. Jones later confirmed this to Alex von Storch.) “
I think Jones’ statement above is a clear indication of the depth of depravity of AGW zealots, never mind the absolute disregard for scientific method.
Who’s the nut now, Rick?
June 5th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
For the record about Mr. Hansens’s cherrypicking of data, in case I need to rub Rick’s nose into this bit of trivia:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/print.html