I have an opinion on global warming!

"Dan Luke" wrote in message news:
...

"Tony Cox" wrote:

The "hatchet job" tone of your note & the reference you site
is *exactly* the problem that many of us have with the entire
"Global Warming" pseudo-debate -- people like you politicize
the whole mess to discredit people who disagree with your
religious orthodoxy.

Religious orthodoxy? You sound very much like a creationist attacking the
theory of evolution. What are your views on Intelligent Design, BTW?

What on earth has that got to do with anything?

I have not made up my mind, but the more I see of this kind of crap from the
deniers, the more I am moved towards the other side.

Calling someone a "bozo" and vilifying anyone who challenges
the orthodoxy sounds like someone whose mind is made up
to me. Did you actually read the vindictive comments in the
link you posted? And what do you think the "deniers"
are denying anyway?

Not made up your mind, indeed. Even the language you use
betrays the fact that you have.


Durkin is a "bozo" and Channel 4 is "tabloid". "Many
scientists", you say, have called it "pure propaganda",
as if we're supposed to agree that "truth" can somehow
be decided by majority vote.

Durkin *is* a bozo.

Can't you just dispense with the ad hominem attacks and
concentrate on the evidence presented in TGGWS?

The "expose" you quote goes on to say that eight of the scientists
interviewed "are linked to American neo-conservative and
right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of
millions of dollars from Exxon", as if that tenuous connection
(if even true) right there makes them irrelevant.

It makes them subject to obvious conflict of interest. Remember the tobacco
company "scientists?"

That depends on what their "links" actually are. Several scientists
in the documentary claim that they'd been attacked for exactly
what you are charging them with, and that they are not connected
in any way with the oil industry. They sounded quite convincing
to me. Do you think them liars?

And what do you think of scientists that get their funding from
the state? Are they by implication unbiased?


I took the trouble to view TGGWS on Google to see if what
your link says about the program is true.Their critique is quite
simply a nonsense.

1) Their fundamental claim is that Durkin says increasing CO2
is itself the result of increasing temperature. This claim was
never made.

2) They claim Durkin is "deeply deceptive" by portraying
a decline in temperature between 1940 and 1975, where
their supposedly-countering graph shows almost the same
drop (where GW orthodoxy predicts a rise).

3) They claim recent global warming related to CO2 is true
simply by reference to authority (the IPCC report), which
ought to be a red flag to anyone. Even to you.

Why is it a red flag to you?

Because thinking people are supposed to *question* authority,
not blindly accept it as gospel. One look at the brief that the
IPCC workshop participants were supposed to address is enough
for anyone to question its neutrality. It's the scientific equivalent
of
asking husbands when they stopped beating their wives -- the
question frames the answer the questioner expects to receive.

Do you buy the talk radio line that politicians
control the science behind the IPCC report? Or are you one of the conspiracy
theorists who claim that almost all the world's climatologists are in on a big
scam?

Oh for Christ's sake. This isn't a "majority vote" issue, dammit.
It doesn't make a jot of difference what "almost all" climatologists
think, just as it made no difference that "almost all" scientists in
the early 20th century thought Einstein was wrong. Science doesn't
work that way. Or at least it didn't until the current crop of scam
artists and "Scientainers" appeared.

Global warming as a result of human activity is simply a *theory*. It
is not fact. It is based upon models that are incomplete and subject
to revision. They make no attempt to model climate over the full range
of data available to them, preferring instead to explore a selected
range
to "prove" whatever particular point the authors want to make. The
public aren't frightened by a 10 ft rise in sea level? Well, then,
lets
just tweak a few parameters and make that 20ft & see if they'll vote
for higher gas taxes now.

You seem to think the that the validity of these frightening
predictions
ought to be resolved by name calling and innuendo. It may work for
you, but it certainly doesn't for me. I want proof, and that 'aint
what's
on offer.

Deniers are fond of attacking the IPCC report because it is a political
document, ignoring the fact that their are two stages to the report: the
initial scientific findings and then the final report that is "tweaked" by
politicians.

You don't have to be a "denier" (of what, exactly?) to criticize the
IPCC report; you need go no further than the absurd claims being
made for the fragile models they've devised. It all borders on junk
science.

If the NWS can't tell me with any certainty whether it'll rain
next Tuesday, why do you think climate models can reliably
tell me what the sea level will be in 70 years time?


In fact, it is the politicians who are attempting to *tone down* the language
of the latest scientific findings. The scientific authors are angry that the
politicians have tried to dilute the seriousness of their results by altering
the language:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ereport08.html

Oh now that's a good read. Tell me. If you come across a
scientific paper that has for one of its conclusions that "Global
warming could increase the number of hungry in 2080 by
between 140 million and 1 billion, depending on how much
greenhouse gas is emitted in coming decades.", doesn't that
register on your BS meter? What is "could"? What is "hungry"?
And what are the greenhouse gas levels we're talking about?

It registers on mine, but there again, I was involved for over 20
years in experimental research. I *know* scientific BS when
I see it. I also know, and can relate to, what academics have
to do to get ahead. I also had the joy once of having *my*
work used by politicians to further their particular aims, and so
I'm very sensitive to it. No wonder several scientist are now
clamoring to jump ship as they see their conclusions "enhanced"
to fit the agenda of others. They're quite a naive bunch, really,
and the poor fools were probably lead like lambs to the slaughter
by promises of scrumptious dinners and conference romance.



4) Their explanation of the 800 year CO2 lag is nothing new.
That's completely consistent with what the program claimed.

5) They confuse solar energy output with sunspot activity. Durkin
made no claim that solar energy output was changing or affecting
"global warming", so setting this up as a straw man to be viciously
dissected means, quite simply, squat..

The review then degenerates into carefully documenting the
supposed sinister links between the scientists interviewed and
the oil companies. It then quotes various "Scientainers" who bloody
well ought to know better for being outraged that their ill-considered
musings are being called into question.

No doubt you'll counter by helpfully pointing out that one of the
scientific challengers to this new secular religion was once hauled
up before his university authorities for sexual harassment.

"Hauled up?" Is that equivalent to "proven guilty?" How about a cite?

I was just giving you an example of a line of attack that would
be quite in keeping with your general comments before. I have no
idea if it is true or not, but clearly its something that you'd
consider
important or you wouldn't ask me for a reference. QED, as it were.


Or do you have something more relevant and substantial to offer?

I offer the suggestion that serious thinkers should avoid twaddle like "An
Inconvenient Truth" and "The Great Global Warming Swindle." Balanced,
rational sources are out there if that's what you're really looking for,
instead of something to stroke your prejudices.

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2326210.ece

When someone starts offering something from "The Independent"
as unbiased "non-twaddle", I just have to laugh. Didn't that newspaper
hire all the deadbeat hacks from the "Morning Star" after the collapse
of communism?

To cite this as "Balanced and rational" beggars belief. Just three
quotes
from "We Say" express the quality of this acticle.

"For the first time ever enormous amounts of extra
CO2 are being released" (nonsense: the major "step" inputs to the
ecosystem are volcanoes, and they've erupted thorough history).

"The Arctic is likely to be free of ice by 2050 for the first time in
millions of years" (nonsense: even if it is free of ice by 2050, which
is
pure speculation, this'll be the 2nd time in 800 years, not
"millions")

"It's hard to be entirely sure (about solar activity) because we have
been taking measurements only since 1978" (more nonsense: sunspot
activity has been monitored for over 400 years).

And so it goes on. "Balanced and rational" indeed. What rot. Go
watch TGGWS and tell me which parts you think are in error. Don't
rely on the poorly-researched ravings of some nitwit to form your
world
view.

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ps.com...
"Dan Luke" wrote in message news:
...

In fact, it is the politicians who are attempting to *tone down* the
language
of the latest scientific findings. The scientific authors are angry that
the
politicians have tried to dilute the seriousness of their results by
altering
the language:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ereport08.html

Oh now that's a good read. Tell me. If you come across a
scientific paper that has for one of its conclusions that "Global
warming could increase the number of hungry in 2080 by
between 140 million and 1 billion, depending on how much
greenhouse gas is emitted in coming decades.", doesn't that
register on your BS meter? What is "could"? What is "hungry"?
And what are the greenhouse gas levels we're talking about?

Quite! Sounds like Dan is channeling Paul Erlich circa 1980.

Dan your credibility just went to ZERO.