Too funny not to share.

Another interesting read, with 'helpful flow charts.'  Takes a few minutes to follow it through, but provides a degree of clarity, salted with a bit of Scottish humor.

 

Nice try in moving the goal post. Your above reply has noting to do with your statement that I rebutted.

In gettng simplistic you miss the point. You are using high school level over simplification to rebut PhD level work. Were it the other way around then I would have to agree with you.

Nice, but because you are using a lower level of understanding again you miss the informaton you need. First the article talks of the four eruptions. Those were four super eruptions where ground earth was forced into the atmosphere blocking sunlight, lowering temprature. The average of 56 eruptions that happen daily don't do this. The volcano in Hawaii has been erupting for the last 20 years, I think, has never had an explosive eruption like the one Oregon.

 

Above is my quote. You never bothered to acknowledge it. You have read all four IPCC reports and their subliments and summeries, haven't you? That is thier conclusion on AWG that you believe in and support. If you have not read these reports then your arguments in this discussion are invalad because they are not based on the facts of the case.

I am doing that, one ignorant person at a time. as for the consensus of scientific opinion, that is being done as well by educating people they challenge the lies being told and more facts come out. This is why the 700 scientist that signed onto AGW has dwindled down to 200, while the 14 thousand scientists that oppose this view is increasing in numbers.

The release of the E-mails has caused further flap the three main people involved are being asked to step down because they fudged the records and broke the law. This is further proof that it is a hoax. In your eariler post you stated that BBC did not post the E-mails for some reason you believe is valid. For your information BBC has now admitted that they received the E-mails a month earlier from someone inside the institue. My speculation seems to be correct that someone is trying to save his reputation over there and leaked the information. When BBC did not do anything with it they put it out for everyone to see. The E-mails that you suggest were benign seem not to be the case. In one of the letters was sthe source code for thiere computer models once that was worked out it seems that the conclusion was never in doubt of AGW, The bottom line is they rigged the data to ensure we had AGW rather than gathering data and reporting the facts. You and your 90% of the world seem to have fallen for a hoax

Yes, a lot has happened in the last 50 years. We can now with some degree of accuracy predict the weather four days in advance rather than three. Watch your seven day forecast and if you watch every day you will see the predictions tighten as the day nears. If the best we can do is be close to the mark 4 days out and the other three days be in th ball park what makes you believe that these people can predict what the climate will be 100 years from now, or 10 years from now. According to the latest prediction (10 years ago) the average global temp will be up 10.2 degrees by 2010. In reality it is down 4.6 degrees meaning that we have 13 months to raise the global temperature by 14 degrees just to be accurate. I can't find a scientist anywhere that is willing to suggest this is possible at this time. If man is responsible for this global warming than we must have fixed it without doing anything. I am starting to hear rumblings that we can now expect to see this rise in global temp by 2020. they moved the goal post again.

Which statement is that? The one where I asked for one credentialed scientist they denies AGW and also has no ties to the oil or coal industry?

You responded with Roy Spencer as an example of a credentialed scientist that denies AGW and has no ties to the oil/coal industry. My response to your "rebuttal" acknowledged that although it's *possible* to find such a scientist, the mere existence of a few such isolated scientists does not disprove the rule. I also graciously stipulated to your submission of Dr. Spencer both to give you the benefit of the doubt but primarily because at the time I did not want to bother having to chase him down in order to expose his oil/coal industry connections.

However since you appear to think that this single example disproves the rule, you’ve made it worth my effort to “debunk” your “rebuttal."

So first from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist). The wiki article lists his credentials and experience in the field all of which seems to directly qualify him as a legitimate expert within the field of global warming. However there are a couple of “red flags” brought out in his wiki article.

For one he’s as much known as a proponent of intelligent design as he is as an AGW denier. I suppose how you take this will depend on your views on intelligent design but in my and many others opinion this alone would be sufficient to label him as a crackpot. However I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and stipulate that this doesn’t necessarily damn his scientific opinion on global warming.

However two other points were brought out in the article; one, he’s a member of The Heartland Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute) and secondly, that he’s a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute).

The Heartland Institute connection is particularly damning. Not only has The Heartland Institute received significant funding from ExxonMobil, it’s also been significantly involved in “opposing restrictions on smoking and criticizing science which documents the harms of secondhand smoke.”

“Heartland has been criticized for employing executives from such corporations as ExxonMobil and Philip Morris on its board of directors and in its public relations department.” The wiki article also documents funding received from both ExxonMobil *and* Phillip Morris by the Heartland Institute.

In an earlier reply when I was comparing the tactics between them I had documented a couple of “conservative think tanks” that were strong supporters of both the anti-AGW crowd as well as tobacco. Here’s another one for the list.

Additional documentation of The Heartland Institute funding from Philipp Morris and ExxonMobil as well as documentation of board members with connections to both companies can be found at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute.

And if this is not enough let’s take a closer look at the George C. Marshall Institute which “has been described by the Union of Concerned Scientists as a clearinghouse for global warming contrarians, and by Newsweek as a central cog in the denial machine."

The wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute) documents  oil industry connections in both funding *and* in management. Also http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute corroborates these assertions.

This is the original statement I made in reply #8 of this thread that you claim to have rebutted with the submission of Dr. Spencer. I submit that your rebuttal is thoroughly “debunked.”

Actually it *is* PhD level work that has been simplified for high school level consumption.

Since it appears that you need additional documentation here’s another one that’s says your claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity is total bullshit. In this case this is from the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory which is a U.S. Geological Survey sponsored facility that is perched on the rim of Kilauea Caldera and so should have a good scientific basis for its opinion which states the following. From http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html.

“Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.”

Yet another one of your claims thoroughly debunked.

By the way I don’t recall that *you* ever provided any documentation whatsoever as to *your* claim that volcanoes made man’s CO2 output negligible.

I’m not sure, what are subliments and summeries? Perhaps you mean supplements and summaries?

As I said *I* make no claim to be an AGW or GW or CC expert. It is sufficient to me that this is the “overwhelming scientific consensus.” I have no desire to read “all four” IPCC reports since I am an electrical engineer *not* a climatologist.

The arguments I present are *not* invalid because they are not *my* arguments they are the arguments of true experts in the field backed up by documented links.

Yet again where is *your* documentation of your “6 one hundredth of one degree over the next 100 years” claim. Don’t bother, because for every one link you could provide I could provide 100 counter links. While I have thoroughly debunked each of your claims at every step of the way I am not such a glutton for punishment that I will actually chase down 100 links for you.

I will admit one thing, with the obvious bullshit you’ve been spouting the only person you could convince would have to be ignorant to the point of being retarded.

 

Gee thanks for allowng me to believe that a scientist is a scientist. You also say that 90% or many others or most of the world yet only 700 scientist have signed onto this global warming thing while 14 thousand are vocally against. The head of the IPCC is not a scientist he is an economist. Of the 700 scientist that signed the report only 200 still hold that view so even a majority of scientists that signed the reports have changed their minds on the subject.

By your logic since the UN receives money from Exxon-Mobil the IPCC reports on global warming should be suspect. To further say that his scientific conclusions are suspect because of a belief in God is also silly. Of the 6 billion people on the planet over half believe in God. Meaningless as those figures are the represent the majority of opinion. There are over a million members of the flat earth society, they also believe in AGW that does not make them correct, there is a small minority of the society that disagrees with AGW, so even amoung people that are not interested in proven science there is disagreement.

What you suggest is that you have just as good an understaning of the topic at a highschool level as at a college level? You get the bare bone basics at one level and a more detailed view at the other. The devil is in the details. I used to teach grades 4, 5, and 6 to say that once the basics are learned that more information is not as important is a disservice.

As for the links you provided, they are nice and the ones I have are old and link back to your links so the information has changed in the last year to support your side of the argument. All that proves to me is the information is subjective not objective.

It might be 20 1 against one on this blog, but i can guarantee you that luckily, outside this your view is held by the great majority of people.

Thank you.

I usually stay away from JU specific threads simply because it's not worth the effort, but on occassion I get involved with a thread just to provide these folks a glimpse of how the other half lives. Once I do get involved my point isn't to try and convince anyone the error of their ways because as you see that's downright impossible. I respond only on the off chance that there are at least *some* reasonable people that may read the thread and for their sake I don't want to leave all the stuff they say unchallenged. I leave it up to folks like this to decide who is being reasonable and rational and who isn't.

So you're telling me that *last year* that volcanoes CO2 output was so significantly greater than the CO2 output from human activity that the "planet doesn't even know we're here" but now suddenly that has totally reversed to the extent that CO2 from human activity outweighs that from volcanoes by *150* times?

You can't be serious. Face it. You spouted a load of bullshit which is proven to be 100% wrong.

Uh no. First off there aren't 14,000 qualified climate scientists in the world so I'm sure your list is not limited to scientists actually *in* the field, if in fact most are even scientists at all. However I'm certainly not volunteering to go through a list of 14,000 on the off chance that you actually decide to provide a link to document your claims (that would be a first).

As I've quoted numerous times already "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions."

There is "no scientific body of national or international standing [that] has maintained a dissenting opinion." This is not a collection of individual scientists it's *every* "scientific body of national or international standing" and *none* of them deny AGW.

QED

As I stated above.  When all these national or internatinal organizations get the majority of their data from a small number of organizations like those now being identified as tricking the numbers and discarding Raw data, of course they will not have dessenting opinions.

Now that their data sources have been identifed as unrelyable, I think you will find these organization's commitment to the GW theory changing.  At least those operated by scientist and not politicians.

Did a bunch of searching for your list of 14,000 AGW denier scientists and couldn't find a thing, but perhaps my google fu isn't quite up to snuff.

The best I could find was a list of 400 (actually 413 to be precise) put out by Sen. James M. Inhofe  (R-ExxonMobil) which someone actually bothered to chase down and categorize.

Check out http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-47011101.

The quick summary of the article is that:

84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.

49 are retired

44 are television weathermen

20 are economists

70 have no apparent expertise in climate science

In the article you can click on each of these numbers and be taken to a list of each person that's in each particular category along with links to corroborating evidence.

Which report, you mentioned that there are four of them?

Do you *ever* provide *any* source for anything you say? If so please document this 200 out of 700 claim.

Please get back to me *when* that happens. In the meantime I'll be sure not to hold my breath.

Wow. This statement really stuck out to me.

In my experience, liberals think anyone who doesn't agree with them are "extreme right wingers".  

Given the amount of venom that gets spewed at me on a daily basis from around the net all it requires to be an extreme right-winger is to be skeptical about human-caused global warming and being opposed to government intrusion into our lives.

How much you want to bet that I pay more taxes than you do?

While I'm sure there are those here that pay more taxes than I do, I do in fact pay my fair share of taxes being in the top 5% of all earners.

Just because I'm liberal doesn't mean I'm looking for a handout.

You seem to get a lot of tax payers here on JU.

Most Web sites I frequent seem to be populated mostly by students. JU is the only site where I run into house wives, mothers, working dads, and people of different religions on  daily basis. It's no wonder the general tone is pro tax payer and anti freeloader.

The sad thing is that this is perceived as "extreme right wing". It should be the centre.

JU, an "extreme right wing" site, shows more tolerance for dissent than most "progressive" sites and certainly attracts more people of different religions than those sites. I don't think left-wing sites advocating tolerance and peaceful co-existence often spawn discussions between Jews, Mormons and Evangelicals about religion. My impression is that "tolerant" left-wingers simply look down on other belief systems and their adherents.

If JU is the "extreme right", I think we'll have to take a better look at the normal left.

 

What do you do?

 

And do you approve of handouts given to other people?

 

Not every liberal is looking for a handout. But everyone who is looking for a handout is a liberal, no?