The Carbon Debate - Part II

[Mcveigh]

Of course you did.

How predictable. You realise John Cook has been exposed, don't you? How about seeking out the other side?

Dan, why don't you seek the "other side" any more? You say you changed your opinion on AGW when you started reading the "other side" but you seem to have stopped doing that since you "changed sides"

You come off very hypocritical you know?

 

[Dan26]

The Science, is just that. Science.

You don't seem to be paying much attention to the science.

So, because you're so in tune with the science, here is a list of scientists opposing AGW alarmism

* 900 peer reviewed papers supporting sketpical arguments against AGW alarmism

The scam that proves the "consensus" is bullshit. You will often hear that "97% of scientists agree." Where did that 97% come from? The 97% is really only 75 people. Yes, 75! Out of 77. They answered two questions. And the questions were worded so that even I would agree with them!

climate scam: 97% of climate scientists are in consensus is a lie

Ever hear how 2500 climate scientists all agree? I think we've all heard that one. Another convenient fabrication.

Climate Liars: The Political Elites' Myth of 2,500 Climate Scientists Has Now Shrunk To 25; Fallout From Climategate

To even suggest that all the scientists on this planet supporting AGW, are only doing so because some governments are dangling a carrot in front of their nose.... well its just completely disrespectful and deluded.

Most scientists are honest hard working people, but they are not studying the central question. Millions is dollars is being poured into finding a link between humans and global warming, and thousands of scientists are now trying to distance themselves from the alarmism which you blindly and unthinkably, religiously agree with.

This is a scientific debate, not a political one, and until empirical evidence is found that shows human C02 emisisons cause dangerous warming, the skeptical scientists (and there are tens of thousands) will continue to win the debate.

No one has ever been able to provide that one mystery peer reviewed paper that shows actual empirical evidence that human C02 emissions cause dangerous warming. That's because no such paper exists.

*(not that peer reviewed proves anything, by the way Science is not democratic. It only takes one person who is right to dissprove 100 who are wrong)

 

[Mcveigh]

Oh. Thanks Dan. Why haven't you said that before??

Off to worship at the local AGW church now, some scientist in a golden lab coat will be giving tonight's sermon.

 

[Dan26]

how do you know they are fake?

are you privy to some evidence the rest of us aren't, if so please share it with us. because all I've seen is a he said she said scenario.

The Heartland institute is launcing legal action because someone compromised their security and posted information pretending to be them, making them look as though they supported the alarmist side.

Why would Heartland do this on their own website on purpose? The documents were faked. Desmog took them and posted them, and Heartland asked them to be removed.

The documents were totally fabricated, by someone sympathetic to the alarmist cause. Where else do you think they came from? Heartland? What are you suggesting? Are you suggesting Heartland posted them to deliberately make themselves look bad and then decided to launch legal action to cover up their own sabotage effort?

Idiot.

 

[omit]

The Heartland institute is launcing legal action because someone compromised their security and posted information pretending to be them, making them look as though they supported the alarmist side.

Why would Heartland do this on their own website on purpose? The documents were faked. Desmog took them and posted them, and Heartland asked them to be removed.

the documents in question first appeared on Desmogblog. not on the heartland website.

The documents were totally fabricated, by someone sympathetic to the alarmist cause. Where else do you think they came from? Heartland? What are you suggesting? Are you suggesting Heartland posted them to deliberately make themselves look bad and then decided to launch legal action to cover up their own sabotage effort?

Idiot.

First - Heartland claims that only 1. i repeat ONLY 1 of the leaked documents is faked. which one? well they aren't telling us. but to say the documents are totally fabricated is even going against what the heartland instituted is telling us.

Secondly - Im not suggesting heartland posted them... in fact it's very clear that heartland didn't post them. They were first posted on Desmogblog

Thirdly - where did the documents come from? Peter Gleick, how did he first come into their possession... an anonymous whistle blower? we don't know. But Peter says a document appeared in the mail.

using an alias Peter was able to get Heartland to email further documents which he believed confirmed the validity of that one he received anonymously - after which he then distributed the documents

Finally - again what proof do you provide that the documents are fake?

 

[Dan26]

Secondly - Im not suggesting heartland posted them... in fact it's very clear that heartland didn't post them. They were first posted on Desmogblog

Yes, that's true, and they are clearly faked as Heartland have said they didn't come from them. Why would a document purporting to be from the Heartand institue, but is obviously not form the Heartland institute be anything other than a fake? The document contains information that Heartland simply wouldn't agree with. It's a fake.

Thirdly - where did the documents come from? Peter Gleick, how did he first come into their possession... an anonymous whistle blower? we don't know. But Peter says a document appeared in the mail.

His answer doesn’t quite put all the pieces together. The fake document has a timestamp just prior to DeSmog and others releasing it, so it is not the "anonymous document" he refers too.

So when will DeSmog retract it’s false claim the documents came from "an insider"? When will they admit they were fooled, didn’t bother to check the veracity, and don’t care about putting out accurate info.

Finally - again what proof do you provide that the documents are fake?

Well, they're not real. DUH!

Heartland posted the following:

"On or about February 14, 2012, your web site posted a document entitled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy” (the “Fake Memo”), which is fabricated and false.

On or about the same date, your web site posted certain other documents purporting to be those of The Heartland Institute (“Heartland”). Heartland has not authenticated these documents (the “Alleged Heartland Documents”)."

I'm noit saying Gleick was the man who faked them. But someone did. The faked document didn't get there by accident. It had to be faked by someone, and obviously that someone is a person with sympathies to the alarmist cause.

What proof do you want? The document exists. It's there. It was on the website. And it has beee exposed as a fake. The only piece of the puzzle we don't have is "who did it" But it was faked, as it purports to be from Heartland and it wasn't from Heartland, hence it is faked. It's not complicated omit.

The fact it is faked is not up for debate. The only question remaining is who the guilty party is who faked it.

 

[Dan26]

Global warming propoganda preached to year 8 students.

If that's too small for you to read, the entire text is reproduced here: http://thegwpf.org/best-of-blogs/5026-disgraceful-climate-indoctrination-in-australian-schools.html

A disgusted teacher exposed this, and thank God he did.

Some "highlights" from Andrew Bolt's blog:

We learn the only “shock jocks” and a few journalists - no real scientists, of course - disagree with the "overwhelming scientific evidence" that the world is warming because of man’s gases. These deniers include, well, you know who. Some deniers seem to be in the pay of “many large fossil fuel-based industries” who have “tried to discredit the work of scientists”. “Fortunately”, though “a new generation of world leaders” is “taking global warming seriously” - Barack Obama, Al Gore and Kevin Rudd.


This is not education, but propaganda. It is pure melodrama, short on facts and long on fancy.

Few “deniers” - an offensive term meant to evoke Holocaust denial - dispute that man’s emissions have a tendency to warm the planet. That is not where the main debate is at.

The dispute is about the extent of any warming, the danger of it, the likelihood of it being overwhelmed by natural influences, the true sensitivity of the climate to our gases, and the cost-benefit of trying to “stop” the warming we’ve seen - which actually halted 15 years ago.

These “deniers” include many reputable scientists, including some of the world’s leading climate scientists. To suggest they’ve been bribed to say what they do is a vile smear. If money does corrupt debate, it should be noted that the vast bulk of money goes to the alarmists.

As for those leaders who “fortunately” take “global warming seriously”, Obama is not doing anything seriously about it and Rudd was dumped after backing off his own plans.

There’s much more to say about this sludge. What is depressing is that it is taught as fact in our schools.

More here.........

 

[omit]

So you're evidence that the document is fake is because heartland say it's fake.
Heartland haven't stated which document is fake yet. So to say claim its a forgery because of the information contained in it is ****ing dumb. You don't know what document you are referring too

I can post a quote from Peter saying the documents are legitimate, it doesn't make it so

As I said before. It's he said she said. And the burden of proof is on heartland to actually provide evidence that the document is fake

 

[Dan26]

So you're evidence that the document is fake is because heartland say it's fake.
Heartland haven't stated which document is fake yet. So to say claim its a forgery because of the information contained in it is ****ing dumb. You don't know what document you are referring too

I can post a quote from Peter saying the documents are legitimate, it doesn't make it so

As I said before. It's he said she said. And the burden of proof is on heartland to actually provide evidence that the document is fake

Obvioulsy the document is fake. You're not stupid, omit. What are you even arguing this for? Gleik is just trying to cover his own ass, and potect Desmog.

One document, titled “Confidential Memo: 2012 Heartland Climate Strategy,” is a total fake apparently intended to defame and discredit The Heartland Institute. It was not written by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute. It does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics. It contains several obvious and gross misstatements of fact.

It's fake. How could it not be? If it doesn't represent Heartlands goals and beliefs, then it is faked.

If it's not faked you are saying it is true. How could it be true?!!!!!! It's a total fabrication discrediting Heartland, purporting to be from heartland Why would Heartand create and distribue a document made by them that discredits their own institiute??????????? Are you totlaly stupid omit? Are you really that utterly stupid?

Heartland said:

"Yesterday afternoon, two advocacy groups posted online several documents they claimed were The Heartland Institute’s 2012 budget, fundraising, and strategy plans. Some of these documents were stolen from Heartland, at least one is a fake, and some may have been altered."

It's a fake.

And the question is not whether it is fake (which it obviously is), but as to why a climate alarmists would stoop to such reprehensible depths, as to discredit a climate sceptical insitituation by deceit, theft, and vindictiveness.

If you can win the argument by science, they wouldn't have to resort to these unthinkable tactics. First Climategate, now this. It's abhorrent, omit and you know it. Don't defend the faker.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Let's just break the funding down shall we?

Entity...................................... Dollars
Greenpeace......................... $300m 2010 Annual Report
WWF....................................$700m 524 m
Pew Charitable Trust.............$360m 2010 Annual Report
Sierra Club ......................... $56m 2010 Annual Report
NSW climate change fund ......(1 random govt example) 750m
UK university climate fund (another random govt example) 360m
Heartland Institute.............. $7m
US government funding for climate science and technology 7 BILLION "Climate Money 2009"
US government funding for "climate related appropriations" 1.3 BILLION
Annual turnover in global carbon markets $120 BILLION 2010 point carbon
Annual investment in renewable energy $243,000m 2010 BNEF
US government funding for skeptical scientists $ 0

Top 5 Oil company profits 2001 - 2010: $1 trillion (that's $1,000,000,000,000)

Top 5 Oil company profits 2011: $137 billion.

Big Oil’s Banner Year: Higher Prices, Record Profits, Less Oil

 

[medusala]

Top 5 Oil company profits 2011: $137 billion.

So what? How much do they donate to sceptical groups compared to governments to alarmist NGOs like WWF? Compared to the funding of govt bodies headed by alarmists like the Met?

Drop in the ocean

Desperately clutching at straws.

 

[Windhover]

The question is not whetehr there has been global warming. There has been warming, on a wider scale for about 300 years, and the climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.

That's not the debate. We know we went through what was called the "mini ice age) in the 1700s, jsut as we know we went through the medieval warm period before that. None of those changes were due to humans.

The question is, whether human C02 emisisons are causing dangerous warming.

Danny, it is you who proclaim of Laenarts paper "another scare dies". I have explained in my post in reply that reading Laenarts paper as evidence that there will be no catastrophic changes arising from global warming is TOTALLY misconceived. First you do not understand that Laenarts is concerned with "surface mass" not "absolute mass". Secondly you do not understand that Laenarts himself recognises the importance of his work in contributing to (not rebutting) the important catastrophic conclusions reached by Rignot.

Perhaps you could attend to those two matters before you launch on your usual freewheeling assault on commonsense.

Of course you did.

How predictable. You realise John Cook has been exposed, don't you? How about seeking out the other side?

What I did Dan was go to the "disreputable" John Cook and discover that the question of Antarctic sea ice growth has been an accepted interesting scientific phenomenon with a relatively clear explanation consistent with AGW. For all your becoming roll of eyes it would pay you to attend to the 4 science papers linked rather than dismiss them out of hand because they are linked on a site you have problems with.

Do you have a point? Your point seems to be that sea ice is not changing much, or at least not at any level, that we should be alarmed about with an ever changing climate. Shock horror! Show me some empirical evidence that human C02 emisison casue dangerous warming. Show me one model that has been proven right, with a prediction? They have all been wrong.

Your characterisation of my point thus: "that sea ice is not changing much, or at least not at any level, that we should be alarmed about with an ever changing climate" shows the limit of your capacity to engage in debate. To do so it is necessary to make a genuine effort to understand what your opponent is saying.

Finally I note you did not respond to my reply to your denigration of particlar British research scientists (denigrated only because their research suggests that perhaps there is a teensy-weensy bit of evidence that things might not fair to well for marine life if AGW continues unabated). Is it because you have no defence to your outrageous slur or did it just slip your mind?

On another matter, I am interested to know whether you think omit is "not stupid", "totlaly (sic) stupid" or "utterly stupid". Your post at 984 seems to raise each as a possible, not necessarily consistent, state of your mind on this otherwise oblique subject.

 

[blured]

No one has ever been able to provide that one mystery peer reviewed paper that shows actual empirical evidence that human C02 emissions cause dangerous warming. That's because no such paper exists.

*(not that peer reviewed proves anything, by the way Science is not democratic. It only takes one person who is right to dissprove 100 who are wrong)

Such allegations need to be backed up with evidence not outright lies

The journal article i have listed below disproves your comments quite emphatically

Marine and freshwater Research, 2011, 62 984-99
Observed climate change in Australian marine and freshwater environments
Janice M Lough & Alistar J Hobday

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Top 5 Oil company profits 2001 - 2010: $1 trillion (that's $1,000,000,000,000)

Top 5 Oil company profits 2011: $137 billion.

Big Oil’s Banner Year: Higher Prices, Record Profits, Less Oil

The idea that "skeptical" scientists don't receive funding is a complete lie anyway, DOE have given considerable funds to the UAH researchers and ppl like Linzden. It only takes a cursory glance at any if their papers to see for oneself.

 

[Dan26]

Such allegations need to be backed up with evidence not outright lies

The journal article i have listed below disproves your comments quite emphatically

Marine and freshwater Research, 2011, 62 984-99
Observed climate change in Australian marine and freshwater environments
Janice M Lough & Alistar J Hobday

Listen to me closely.

There is categorically, factually, and emphatically NO empirical evidence that human C02 emisisons cause dangerous warming. None.

You can trawl the interent for hours searching for one, but you won't find it. The mystery peer-reviewed paper that shows EMPIRICAL evidence that human C02 emisions (that's human) cause dangerous (yes, that's dangerous) warming does not exist.

That doesn't in itself prove me right, anymore than it proves you wrong. But it does prove that is there is no real world empirical evidecne to support he "catastophic" AGW theory. All of the models have been incorrect.

You alamists must surely by now realise the absurdity of the alarmist claims.

My theory has always been that the supporters of alarmism on BigFooty are Labor voters and feel the "should" be alarmists, because it suits their party they vote for.

WRONG!

It doesn't matter who you vote for. You can believe in strong Labor values and still be a sceptic. After all, if you look at all the evdeicne from both sides, the sceptical side wins the debate easily. There is no contest anymore. Tht's why the alarmist sides runs away from debates, and the debates they do choose to engage in, they lose comprehensively. Al Gore won't dare debate Monckton, given Moncktons; 6-0 record in climate debates. He is petrified of the man.

Unfortunately this has become about ego. The alarmists don't want to back down. Rest assured, I won't be mocking you when you inevitably change sides. I will welcome you with open arms. It takes enourmous courage to put ego aside. So do it. Put ego aside. Don't be a gullible patsie.

 

[Dan26]

The idea that "skeptical" scientists don't receive funding is a complete lie anyway, DOE have given considerable funds to the UAH researchers and ppl like Linzden. It only takes a cursory glance at any if their papers to see for oneself.

The point is that alarmists receice much, much more. Thousands of times more.

And they are still losing the debate. Tells you something doesn't it? Carbon trading is set to become a trillion dollard world-wide industry. Do you realise how many people are making money out of this uslesss exchange of bits of paper?

 

[MeeSo]

Dan I take it from your rather specific question that you now believe that CO2 causes warming? That's an improvement at least. It took a while but it's good to know the sceptics have shifted the goalposts to focussing on uncertainty where they actually have an argument, even if it is not overly substantial, rather than the outright ignorance that used to pass for "scepticism"

Of course no one can provide empirical evidence that CO2 causes dangerous warming. We have no way of directly observing it unless we dump a heap of CO2 in the atmosphere and just see what happens or someone finds a spare earth floating around somewhere. We could of course wait and see and that would prove it one way or the other or we could take the "alarmist" view and look at the empirical evidence we do have and form a reasonable theory. Lets list the evidence.

We have empirical evidence of the absorption properties of CO2.
We have empirical evidence of an increase of CO2 in the atmoshpere.
We have empirical evidence that the increase of CO2 is due to human emmissions.
We have empirical evidence of a reduction in outgoing radiation.
We have empirical evidence of temperature rises and increased ocean heat content.
We have NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of any negative feedbacks big enough to offset the above.

Looking at that list what do you see? I see that unless some yet to be discovered negative feedback pops up or the sun's output suddenly drops permanently we will continue to warm until eventually we get dangerous levels of warming. Could be 100 years away. Could be a 500 years away but based on a combination of the empirical evidence we do and don't have it's a fairly reasonable assumption that we will get there eventually. Now if you have any empirical evidence of your own that you think I missed that disputes that assumption I'm happy to look at it. If you don't how about you stop calling everyone gullible patsies and wasting eveyone's time with your irrelevant political rambling until you find something substantial that can actually disprove the above.

 

[OldBlueFan]

If you don't how about you stop ... wasting eveyone's time with your irrelevant political rambling until you find something substantial that can actually disprove the above.

Good luck with that.

I think Port Phillip Bay would have to lapping at the steps of Fed square before you'll see Dan concede any of your well made and decidedly logical points.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Good luck with that.

I think Port Phillip Bay would have to lapping at the steps of Fed square before you'll see Dan concede any of your well made and decidedly logical points.

Makes no difference. No-one is even proposing changes that will prevent the inevitable, if it is ineveitable.

 

[blured]

Listen to me closely.

There is categorically, factually, and emphatically NO empirical evidence that human C02 emisisons cause dangerous warming. None.

You can trawl the interent for hours searching for one, but you won't find it. The mystery peer-reviewed paper that shows EMPIRICAL evidence that human C02 emisions (that's human) cause dangerous (yes, that's dangerous) warming does not exist.

That doesn't in itself prove me right, anymore than it proves you wrong. But it does prove that is there is no real world empirical evidecne to support he "catastophic" AGW theory. All of the models have been incorrect.

You alamists must surely by now realise the absurdity of the alarmist claims.

My theory has always been that the supporters of alarmism on BigFooty are Labor voters and feel the "should" be alarmists, because it suits their party they vote for.

WRONG!

It doesn't matter who you vote for. You can believe in strong Labor values and still be a sceptic. After all, if you look at all the evdeicne from both sides, the sceptical side wins the debate easily. There is no contest anymore. Tht's why the alarmist sides runs away from debates, and the debates they do choose to engage in, they lose comprehensively. Al Gore won't dare debate Monckton, given Moncktons; 6-0 record in climate debates. He is petrified of the man.

Unfortunately this has become about ego. The alarmists don't want to back down. Rest assured, I won't be mocking you when you inevitably change sides. I will welcome you with open arms. It takes enourmous courage to put ego aside. So do it. Put ego aside. Don't be a gullible patsie.

So you continue to imply the data in this journal is inaccurate?

Marine and freshwater Research, 2011, 62 984-99
Observed climate change in Australian marine and freshwater environments
Janice M Lough & Alistar J Hobday


I am confident the majority of sane Australians will believe the CSIRO is a far more respected, credible and accurate provider of information regarding climate science than you could ever hope to be Dan.

 

[Mcveigh]

Monkyton has a 6-0 record against himself...

 

[Windhover]

Makes no difference. No-one is even proposing changes that will prevent the inevitable, if it is ineveitable.

For once I can entirely agree with you. No one is proposing changes that will prevent "the inevitable" since, definitionally if any proposed changes could prevent "the inevitable" then "the inevitable" would not be inevitable.

And once this point is made you wrap it all up in the conditional for extra protection, just in case perhaps, contrary to all semantic understanding "the inevitable" is not, after all, somehow inevitable. Bravo.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

For once I can entirely agree with you. No one is proposing changes that will prevent "the inevitable" since, definitionally if any proposed changes could prevent "the inevitable" then "the inevitable" would not be inevitable.

And once this point is made you wrap it all up in the conditional for extra protection, just in case perhaps, contrary to all semantic understanding "the inevitable" is not, after all, somehow inevitable. Bravo.

I suppose your post was inevitable.

Neither is anyone doing anything to stop the incredible consumption of resources that the planet is currently undergoing. Gee I hope that doesn't have unpleasant side affects. Luckily we are doing our bit so it must be someone elses fault. Phew.

 

[Donners]

Find part III of this thread here:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=915045