[Proculation]

oxygen needs a price: tax the trees. those bastards.

[N_Fiddledog]

fifeboy fifeboy:

I have posted this several times before and get no response from anyone.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

I'll make you a deal. I'll read, and give a hopefully thoughtful response to your link, if you'll extend me the same courtesy on the ones I'll link you to at the bottom.

The survey deals with two questions, and from the predominant yes votes draws the conclusion there is a consensus on anthropogenic global warming.

The first question is have global temperatures generally risen since the pre-1800s.

OK, now take the most-hated, supposedly oil financed, blowing cigarette smoke in teenagers faces, global warming skeptic, scientist on the face of the earth. I don't know. Will Fred Singer do? He will answer yes to that question. Skeptics say there was warming as the globe came out of the little ice age in the time frame mentioned.

The second question asks "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

Take somebody like say, Freeman Dyson. He's one of the great scientific minds of our time. In response to interview questions he's made comments suggesting he's skeptical of stuff like the efficiency of computer models as forecasting tools. This has earned him the label of climate skeptic, and dispersions like "alzheimer's ridden old fool not up to his former greatness". In other words you guys tell us he's one of ours now. We'll take him. Now Dyson might answer yes to that question. He attaches much importance to land usage as an influence on temperature. I'm not sure if he's thinking global temperatures, but I think he is. That's not CO2. That's land usage. Another well known scientist branded by you guys with the skeptic label is Roger Pielke Sr. He's also favorable to the idea of human land usage affecting temperatures. And he does think it's most likely global. I assume he would answer yes to that question also.

There's a guy named Warren Meyers who runs a site called climate skeptic. He's very public and loud about accepting the IPCC estimate of 1 degree of warming per doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere minus any climate feedbacks. In fact I don't hear a lot of guys out there in the skeptic community objecting to that. Nevertheless would Meyers answer yes to that question? I think he might depending on what he interprets as "significant contributing factor".

So what's the problem? Your survey guy is saying there's a consensus on those 2 questions. I as a climate skeptic am going to tell you he's most likely correct.

OK here's where the problem is. It's the ol shell game. It's snake oil. That's not the part of the insinuated consensus skeptics have a problem with. .7 of a degree of warming over the 20th century is not unusual, and not dangerous. It's the opposite. 1 degree of warming per doubling of CO2 minus feedbacks, as well as other human influences could be seen as significant.

Where the consensus argument begins is when you start talking the predominance of positive feedbacks in the climate system. Try to find yourself a consensus of scientists who want to stake their reputations on the idea positive feedbacks are the dominant forcing in the natural world. I'll save you some time. You can't do it. The guy who did that survey couldn't do it. If he could, he would have. He knows what you don't. The argument begins with climate sensitivity. This you see is what will supposedly cause a crisis of warming. And that's where you lose scientists from the supposed consensus - when you ignore negative, natural world feedbacks, and start talking dangerous, crisis level, human caused global warming from positive feedbacks.

No offense, but your guy is relying on the ignorance of the average person who reads that PDF to sell the idea there's an AGW consensus. There isn't, because he left out the most contentious part of the premise this consensus is supposed to champion. His survey makes a good headline for the mainstream media, but it's meaningless.

OK, your turn.

The guy I mentioned earlier who runs the blog called ClimateSkeptic is offering a series on the report this thread is about. Here's how it begins.

$1:

The first thing one needs to recognize about the GCCI report is that it is not a scientific document — it is a 170-page long press release from an advocacy group, with all the detailed, thorough science one might expect in a press release from the Center of Science and Public Interest writing about the threat to mankind from Twinkies. By the admission of the Obama administration, this is a document that has been stripped of its scientific discussion and rewritten by a paid PR firm that specialized in environmental advocacy.

Here's the links. Not to worry. The articles are short.

Intro

So much for that whole commitment to science thing we were promised

Climate Must be Dead Stable Without Man

Warming and Feedback

I am calling Bullshit on this one

[sandorski]

commanderkai commanderkai:

sandorski sandorski:

Because.

How very enlightening

I remember when you used to actually post and discuss on this site, now you're basically the watered down version of your former self. I don't know if it was the Obama election that contented you to life, or something, but sheesh.

You don't need me to explain why, everyone already knows, including yourself.

[martin14]

Ahhh, now its more like Benoit

[sandorski]

martin14 martin14:

Ahhh, now its more like Benoit

Why should I explain the Obvious?

[martin14]

because.

[sandorski]

martin14 martin14:

because.

Well, I'm not going to in order to spare the thread another run around that every thread concerning the issue ends up becoming. Whether one agrees on Carbon needing a Price or not is one, but why most agree that it does is as well known as 2+2=4.

[N_Fiddledog]

So in other words, you don't want to make a statement you know will be proven wrong.

For example, the claim people want a price on carbon is as clear as 2 + 2 = 4 is wrong. It's more like saying 2 + 2 = 5, and would be just another in the many examples of the bad math of climate alarmists.

Most people do not agree carbon needs a price. A recent Rasmussen Poll discovered...

$1:

Sixty-three percent (63%) of adults now say finding new sources of energy is more important than reducing the amount of energy Americans currently consume. However, 29% say energy conservation is the priority.

Source

A recent gallup poll showed skepticism by the public on what they're being told by the media concerning global warming is growing.

Another poll found only 18% of Americans are willing to pay 50 cents or more in additional taxes per gallon of gas to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Even the alarmist ABC did a poll, and discovered Global Warming is on the bottom of Americans list of priorities.

The coming Waxman-Markey, cap and trade bill this bogus report supports will create the most expensive tax in the history of man. Put that up for a referendum, and you'll see how little people want a "price on carbon".

[martin14]

sandorski sandorski:

Well, I'm not going to

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

fifeboy fifeboy:

I have posted this several times before and get no response from anyone.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

I'll make you a deal. I'll read, and give a hopefully thoughtful response to your link, if you'll extend me the same courtesy on the ones I'll link you to at the bottom.

The survey deals with two questions, and from the predominant yes votes draws the conclusion there is a consensus on anthropogenic global warming.

The first question is have global temperatures generally risen since the pre-1800s.

OK, now take the most-hated, supposedly oil financed, blowing cigarette smoke in teenagers faces, global warming skeptic, scientist on the face of the earth. I don't know. Will Fred Singer do? He will answer yes to that question. Skeptics say there was warming as the globe came out of the little ice age in the time frame mentioned.

The second question asks "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

Take somebody like say, Freeman Dyson. He's one of the great scientific minds of our time. In response to interview questions he's made comments suggesting he's skeptical of stuff like the efficiency of computer models as forecasting tools. This has earned him the label of climate skeptic, and dispersions like "alzheimer's ridden old fool not up to his former greatness". In other words you guys tell us he's one of ours now. We'll take him. Now Dyson might answer yes to that question. He attaches much importance to land usage as an influence on temperature. I'm not sure if he's thinking global temperatures, but I think he is. That's not CO2. That's land usage. Another well known scientist branded by you guys with the skeptic label is Roger Pielke Sr. He's also favorable to the idea of human land usage affecting temperatures. And he does think it's most likely global. I assume he would answer yes to that question also.

There's a guy named Warren Meyers who runs a site called climate skeptic. He's very public and loud about accepting the IPCC estimate of 1 degree of warming per doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere minus any climate feedbacks. In fact I don't hear a lot of guys out there in the skeptic community objecting to that. Nevertheless would Meyers answer yes to that question? I think he might depending on what he interprets as "significant contributing factor".

So what's the problem? Your survey guy is saying there's a consensus on those 2 questions. I as a climate skeptic am going to tell you he's most likely correct.

OK here's where the problem is. It's the ol shell game. It's snake oil. That's not the part of the insinuated consensus skeptics have a problem with. .7 of a degree of warming over the 20th century is not unusual, and not dangerous. It's the opposite. 1 degree of warming per doubling of CO2 minus feedbacks, as well as other human influences could be seen as significant.

Where the consensus argument begins is when you start talking the predominance of positive feedbacks in the climate system. Try to find yourself a consensus of scientists who want to stake their reputations on the idea positive feedbacks are the dominant forcing in the natural world. I'll save you some time. You can't do it. The guy who did that survey couldn't do it. If he could, he would have. He knows what you don't. The argument begins with climate sensitivity. This you see is what will supposedly cause a crisis of warming. And that's where you lose scientists from the supposed consensus - when you ignore negative, natural world feedbacks, and start talking dangerous, crisis level, human caused global warming from positive feedbacks.

No offense, but your guy is relying on the ignorance of the average person who reads that PDF to sell the idea there's an AGW consensus. There isn't, because he left out the most contentious part of the premise this consensus is supposed to champion. His survey makes a good headline for the mainstream media, but it's meaningless.

OK, your turn.

The guy I mentioned earlier who runs the blog called ClimateSkeptic is offering a series on the report this thread is about. Here's how it begins.

$1:

The first thing one needs to recognize about the GCCI report is that it is not a scientific document — it is a 170-page long press release from an advocacy group, with all the detailed, thorough science one might expect in a press release from the Center of Science and Public Interest writing about the threat to mankind from Twinkies. By the admission of the Obama administration, this is a document that has been stripped of its scientific discussion and rewritten by a paid PR firm that specialized in environmental advocacy.

Here's the links. Not to worry. The articles are short.

Intro

So much for that whole commitment to science thing we were promised

Climate Must be Dead Stable Without Man

Warming and Feedback

I am calling Bullshit on this one

OK, read them. Nothing changes. My call is for more science to be done, in a non-political atmosphere. You, like George Bush, assume that anyone who isn't with us is against us. I have not made up my mind about AGW, but I am curious about it and the science that can and should be done. Your articles are opinions about the data used by scientists who have declared for AGW. Interesting but just opinions. It needs to go into the big bag of information being used by scientists to analyse their data.

My article just shows that some guys research project found more scientist than not think AGW is a "real thing." Keep it in the hands of science and out of the hands of politicals is what I am asking for.

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

My call is for more science to be done, in a non-political atmosphere.

I agree. I don't agree if you're suggesting that's what's happening these days. That report Obama is flashing to support cap and trade is political advocacy. It's not science.

[ManifestDestiny]

sandorski sandorski:

martin14 martin14:

because.

Well, I'm not going to in order to spare the thread another run around that every thread concerning the issue ends up becoming. Whether one agrees on Carbon needing a Price or not is one, but why most agree that it does is as well known as 2+2=4.

Yep people you to say the world was flat too.

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

$1:

My call is for more science to be done, in a non-political atmosphere.

I agree. I don't agree if you're suggesting that's what's happening these days. That report Obama is flashing to support cap and trade is political advocacy. It's not science.

I would agree, but so is your stuff. Any more we will begin to sound childish.

[N_Fiddledog]

Wanna see how bad that GCCI report really is?

Did you read that bit at the end of the article.

$1:

Federal law requires comprehensive reports on global warming's effects every four years. An environmental group sued to force the Bush administration to issue an early draft of this report last summer because one had not been written since 2000.

There was an interesting story concerning that "early draft". The guys who wrote the report had to make it public. Naturally the skeptics were all over it. They discovered this picture in the report.



it was presented in the original report as proof of the terrible flooding that had been happening in America as a result of global warming.

Turned out that photo was a photo from a guy who specializes in photoshopping normal scenes into a flood scenario. The report writers found it at istockphoto.com. The real house there was never even flooded. The full story is HERE

The skeptics screwed up though. They revealed the fraud too early. They should have waited until Obama had the report in his hot, little hand, and was waving it in front of the TV cameras as scientific evidence.

As it was once the scam had been revealed the writers were able to ditch the photo quick, before the hoax was made public in the official reveal.

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Wanna see how bad that GCCI report really is?

Did you read that bit at the end of the article.

blah...blah...blah....

As it was once the scam had been revealed the writers were able to ditch the photo quick, before the hoax was made public in the official reveal.

No doubt, but this is just another example of what I hate about this global warming debate. And I am sure you think it's only global warming pro'ers who do this kind of thing. Leave it to the scientists.