By Stanislav Mishin
For years, the Elites of the West have cranked up the myth of Man Made Global Warming as a means first and foremost to control the lives and behaviors of their populations. Knowing full well that their produce in China and sell in the West model and its consequent spiral downward in wages and thus standards of living, was unsustainable, the elites moved to use this new “science” to guilt trip and scare monger their populations into smaller and more conservatives forms of living. In other words, they coasted them into the poverty that the greed and treason of those said same elites was already creating in their native lands.
What better way to staunch protests at worsening economic and life conditions than to make it feel like an honourable job/duty of the people to save “Gia”. At the same time, they used this “science” as new pagan religion to further push out the Christianity they hate and despise and most of all, fear? Gia worship, the earth “mother”, has been pushed in popular culture oozing out of the West for a better part of the past 1.5 decades. This is a religion replete with an army of priests, called Government Grant Scientists.
From start to finish, a load of crap.
I don’t know Heath. Some things he says I agree with, while others I don’t. I think some of it is factual, and some of it is paranoid delusion. I would put this guy on par with Alex Jones. He’s another one that says some things I agree with but with the same breath says things that are just nutty. So I will ignore this like I ignore Jones.
I’m starting to realize (to my horror) that some of what seems nutty is turning out to be cutting-edge truth, poorly articulated, or not fully realized. It takes diligent research to discern the nutty from the obscure reality. Misinformation abounds these days (probably always did, but we used to all just take Cronkite’s word for what was real).
What I found fascinating about this article, and others like it is that Pravda has gone from making fun of our capitalist foibles to criticizing our socialist inclinations.
Funy you should name Cronkite as an example of useless talking head/s. He was actually the most honest newsman of his time, and would probably be fired for that if he was working today.
Of course there is truth in these statements, never mind the Ruskies would gladly use AGW as an excuse to take over their old empire, if they could. The interesting bit is that the Russians blame the “West”, the Americans (at least some of them) blame the “left” or the Democrats, the Brits are split, and a possible explanation is that the “West” borders with France to the West and Poland to the East. Why the Democrats would be siding with Central Europe is another matter (socialists in disguise?). If the world “socialist” is replaced with “German” part of the puzzle may be solved.
The thing is that I think it is the UN that has been trying to create the hysteria about AGW to push their Agenda 21, not the US. If that were the case why were the Kyoto protocols not ratified? It just doesn’t wash. Besides you need go no farther than the Club of Rome and Maurice Strong to see what the origins of AGW are. Strong is UN. IPCC is UN. Agenda 21, UN…. It is all an attempt by the UN to create a world government. They already see themselves as a world governing body, they want to make that solidly permanent.
So I just can’t buy into the notion that it is elites from the West that are behind it when there is overwhelming evidence that it is the UN.
‘How are they to explain that Russia and Eastern Europe are projected to have the coldest winter in 20 years?’ – Pravda
Well, they could say something like, ‘the recent and sudden onset of unusually cold weather in Russia and Eastern Europe is further evidence that the delicate climatic balance that has been in force for countless generations, and that has given us the stability that has enabled our CO2-releasing industrial civilisation to develop in the first place, is now being threatened by that very civilisation. The cold weather is being caused by the disruption to the ocean currents (ex. the Gulf Stream), the interface between the warmer equatorial regions and the cooler temperate latitudes, and the increasing precipitation (especially acid rain) and cloud cover (resulting in the reflection of more heat back into space), which in turn will, no doubt, lead to the positive feedback loop of more CO2 being sequestered in the atmosphere, which will in turn lead to both the increase of temperatures in most countries across the globe due to the presence of that CO2 but also, ironically and due to the increase in cloud-cover, a cooling effect in some regions.’
I just made this all up, but does it sound convincing? Would anyone recommend me for a job at the U.N. Ministry of Propaganda?
Forget the UN, you should write a book. As long as it seems to support AGW you should get raving reviews from the NYT.
You made up an established theory/scenario that many people have already heard about? Ok Peter… You might not be ready for the UN, but Fox News perhaps.
No, I meant ‘made up’ as in ‘improvised’, just cooked up on the spot – okay, never mind, it doesn’t matter. I wouldn’t work for FOX ‘News’ if they gave me the highest salary imaginable.
I think this whole website is just ridiculous. Global warming has been proven, time and time again. But what you’ve all done here is just take a bunch of political crap and turn it into an arguement. And you’ve even managed to rule out all scientific evidence by bringing money and… what a surprise, more politics into it. Bravo, you’ve managed what, to try and stop us from being conservative? Where’s your proof here? You’re all just finding whatever you can to complain about. Especially considering that all of you are problably adults. I thought all you guys were supposed to be the smart ones, the rational ones, but apparently us kids are the only ones who really care about our only planet. This is the world you are leaving for all of us, and generations to come, yet you’re trying to prevent people from keeping our home clean and liveable. Congratulations. I hope you all get sucked up by a tornado or something
Ah, to be a kid again – back when I knew everything! Those were the days. After you have spent a few more years in the adult (real) world, you’re going to realize how little you know and how much less you knew back when you thought you knew everything.
You think I am just some random kid who thinks he knows it all? Sure, I made some accusations on all adults as a whole and other things , but this is not just some small arguement to me. This topic is huge. I really don’t care what anyone else thinks at all. I believe that global warming is happening. Our one and only planet matters to me. Along with the life that is living on it. And even if some stupid hoax was leading me to believe it, I would still care. Cause even if the goverments or whichever organization you all believe made this up, really did, by doing something about it, I would at least be able to help clean up the planet in my own little part. I know I’m still young, and inexperienced still, but this is my opinion. That’s all I really have to say to you.
Perhaps it is because you are still so young, and therefore do not really understand as much as you think you do, but there is no ‘proof’ that global warming is even occurring at this point in time (by the way, it is evidence that scientists are interested in, not proof). The attribution of a non-existent phenomenon to the sins of mankind is, therefore, misguided. You claim that we are the ones who should know better, but it is rather obvious to me that all you are doing here in this comment of yours is parroting the (unjustified and misguided) concerns of your teachers and parents. In other words, I don’t believe that you are using your own mind to judge whether or not the hysteria surrounding this whole issue is warranted. Has it ever occurred to you that there may be, just possibly, an ulterior motive behind the propagation of the concept of AGW? Do you honestly believe that scientists and politicians, because they are so ‘smart and objective’, never tell lies, distort the truth to suit their own, unstated agenda, or make honest mistakes?
I think these are the people that know better: The CIA, U.S. Navy, Pentagon, NSA, the Vatican, the European Union, the British Conservative Party, Exxon, Shell, BP, 968 university presidents, 97% of the PUBLISHING climate scientists, and all (as in every single one) scientific societies, academies, societies, knitting bees and cooking clubs in the world.
What do you know?
Oh I see what you did there. You pulled a (You’re too young to think for yourself and have an opinion) card. Well yes maybe I am still young, and inexperienced, and yes, so called “smart” scientists can make mistakes, and distort the truth for a nice big payday. And I’ll even admit to the fact that I talked a little too much about the “scientific proof” from sources that I problably cannot rely on. But this topic, this arguement, this opinion, comes from me. It comes from knowledge of other people, from my own experiences, and even from things like nature documentaries and news programs. But this is my opinion that I’ve built up from what I believe to be true. And to be perfectly honest, I believe it extremely offensive that you would even try to tell me that my opinion is not even my own. That it’s all hysteria from my parents and teachers. You don’t know my freakin parents. They don’t talk to me about global warming. It’s a subject that most prefer to just ignore and try to deny. Or just not think about. But this here. This is me. And I believe that it is happening. I remember when my hometown would get snow every winter. It was my favourite part of the year when I was a little kid. I remember warm summer days. Now? Over only about 7-8 years I have been able to see the difference. We don’t get snow in the winter anymore. We get rain. And more rain. And it’ll snow for a day and rain again. And the summers? They’re excruciatingly hot. When I watch the news I don’t see saddening car crashes and things like that. I just see Hurricanes and Tornado’s and storms all around the world. And even if I didn’t believe climate change was real, wouldn’t it be nice to at least clean up some of our pollution and find cleaner ways to live? I certainly think so. Anyways I’ve been getting a little off topic as I’ve been going along, but I’ve seen so many things that would be considered evidence (more like proof for me and problably others), of our impact on the Earth.
Oh. I see. The weather’s different than you remember as a kid? That’s the case for everyone alive and everyone who’s ever lived, everywhere for all time. 10 years of weather history does not indicate a climate trend. Take a look at climate records over the long haul and you’ll see the only constant is change. Temps go up, temps go down. Same as it ever was. If the climate didn’t change (in cycles, it would seem), the Great lakes wouldn’t exist – they’d be hundreds of miles of glaciers. What caused the last great ice age, and what caused it to recede? SUVs? Factories? Too much hard work?
What causes climate change on Mars? The planet was warming at about the same pace as the Earth during the 1990’s. Must have been Viking I and Viking II causing that. Now that Spirit and Opportunity have been wandering the surface, we must really be heating that planet up.
Destroying the economy and robbing the poor and middle class are the results of every government-sponsored plan to “mitigate” climate change. It’s not about living cleaner, or cleaning up pollution. It’s about money. Our air and water are cleaner now than 100 years ago, but here’s the thing: Carbon dioxide isn’t pollution. Its what you exhale. It’s what plants “breathe” to produce oxygen through photosynthesis. It’s what gives Coke it’s fizz. Carbon dioxide is involved in everything we do, so a tax on carbon is just a tax on everything to line someone else’s pockets.
You’re OK with getting fleeced for a lie, because it will clean up your corner of the world? No it won’t! The plan to “combat climate change” is to tax CO2 emissions, which means taxing productivity and the air you breathe. That just raises prices. How does that clean the water, air, etc, or stop hurricanes and tornadoes, or make the weather behave like you think it did for a couple years when you were a little kid?
Cap and Trade, carbon taxes, subsidized wind and solar power all serve to take money out of the pockets of working people. The irony is that the poorest places on earth are also the most filthy, polluted places. Climate change mitigation plans will create more poverty, and thus, more REAL pollution – the kind that makes people unhealthy.
“Global warming has been proven, time and time again.”
It has? Really?!?!? Where exactly was it “proven” once? What was the “proof”? Was it a computer modeling scenario? I’ll bet that is exactly what you’re talking about. They are always coming out with computer models that say the same thing because the data they use is corrupt. Computer models only compute parameters and data that are input into the model. If you tell a computer that there is a technologically advanced race of beings living on Mars that want to invade Earth, then the computer model will say that invasion is imminent! The same thing happens when you tell a computer that a doubleing of CO2 will cause 6 deg. C. of warming. When in reality the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is nearly to the point that it can’t absorb any more heat than it already does, and doubleing, or even trippleing the amount of CO2 has a negative exponential return. That means simpley that the amount of heat that can be trapped by CO2 can only increase if you add more heat from the source, which is the Sun.
It’s amazing how many of these global-warming alarmists seem to give the impression that they believe computer modelling scenarios are infallible. They obviously haven’t quite grasped the concept of GIGO yet.
No- you mean what you wrote was original to you vs. copy/paste. Great and all that, but still an established and well known theory re: ocean currents and climate change. And yes, I agree Fox sucks it big time. It is a masterpiece of a modern day propaganda machine. Except that with a logical brain it can be seen as such, but it works for a sizable portion of the population unfortunately.
And yet there has been no warming for 16 years!
In reality, warming continues unabated.
In reality, mean global temperatures continue to drop. Simply stating something as a fact does not make it so.
We know that anthropogenic global warming hasn’t even slowed down. We’re seeing unabated global sea level rise, record low Arctic sea ice, accelerating meltdown of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, rapid accumulation of heat in the world’s oceans, shifting climate zones, intensification of the hydrological cycle and literally thousands of other physical and biological metrics revealing a rapidly warming planet (IPCC 2007).
We are far beyond the point where merely phasing out greenhouse gas emissions would be enough to avert serious climate chaos. Now we need to actively pursue geo-engineering techniques, of which the most appropriate would be sequestering several hundred billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, in order to reduce the massive planetary energy imbalance and bring global warming to a halt. If this can be done at all, it can only be done by a worldwide wartime-scale operation, fuelled by zero-carbon energy sources. Governments should be allocating whatever funds are required and working together to research and then implement the best available geo-engineering techniques.
We have a planetary emergency and denial of the problem at this point is extremely irresponsible and immoral – indeed, I would say criminal.
Which reality is that Icarus62? Because the one I live in the UK’s Met office is the organization that has said that there has been no increase in global average temperature for 16 years. Not exactly a denizen of AGW deniers. I think you should maybe do a little research into the facts before you go making statements that are demonstrably false.
The Met office said no such thing, in fact, they made the unusual step of refuting this untruth made by a less-than-honest journalist.
What did Mark twain say? “A lie will be half-way round the world before the truth puts its pants on”.
What exactly did the released data show? I’ll grant that there was no report issued, but there was a release of data that showed temperatures only rose 0.15deg C. over the last 140 years. Right? Well, that is a far cry from the 0.6deg C. per decade warming that was predicted over 2 decades ago. It’s not even close. 0.15deg C. of warming does not even rise above the signal to noise ratio for 1 decade of warming let alone almost a century and 1/2.
The lie that has made it all the way around the world already is the one that you buy into.
Temperatures rose by 0.8 degrees Celsius over 140 years actually. Where did you get 0.15 from?
Okay, it says ‘For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS).’ That, as it says, was between 1979 and 2011, not ‘over the last 140 years’.
Ok, ok, Peter. I was mistaken. You’re right, I mixed it up. But it makes my point even better. Thanks for pointing that out.
Wasn’t talking to you, and you missed my point, again. Look up the word theory sometime in case you don’t know.
There is no ‘reply’ that I can click on Icarus’ comment (19 Jan.), so I will respond here.
‘We know that anthropogenic global warming hasn’t even slowed down.’ – false.
‘We’re seeing unabated global sea level rise…’ – Really? Where? Which Pacific islands have sunk recently? Has Bangladesh disappeared?
‘…record low Arctic sea ice…’ – debatable, to say the least.
‘…accelerating meltdown of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets…’ – wrong again.
‘…rapid accumulation of heat in the world’s oceans…’ – Define the term ‘rapid’. How fast? The accumulation of heat in the world’s oceans you are automatically assuming is a bad thing here, but is it? The cyclic nature of virtually all of the processes that involve the transfer of heat between the differing aspects of the Earth’s biosphere guarantees that such phenomena will continue to occur, regardless of how, why or if the human race decides to ‘intervene’ in these processes to either encourage them along or, as you no doubt would rather do, discourage them.
‘…shifting climate zones…’ – please be more specific here. ‘Shifting’ how? Are the climate zones expanding, contracting…? What?
‘…intensification of the hydrological cycle…’ – again, specific details are required here. What exactly do you mean by this statement? How, exactly, is the hydrological cycle ‘intensifying’? Too vague, just like the expression ‘climate change’.
‘…literally thousands of other physical and biological metrics revealing a rapidly warming planet (IPCC 2007).’ – Literally thousands? ‘Literally’? This claim, from an IPCC report, is meaningless outside of the context from which it was taken. Again, it is too vague, because there is nothing specific here; it is just a slogan.
‘We are far beyond the point where merely phasing out greenhouse gas emissions would be enough to avert serious climate chaos.’ Ah, yes. The sales pitch. We’re doomed, we’re doomed! Unless… (and this is where the prophet of doom offers the way to salvation).
‘Now we need to actively pursue geo-engineering techniques, of which the most appropriate would be sequestering several hundred billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, in order to reduce the massive planetary energy imbalance and bring global warming to a halt. If this can be done at all, it can only be done by a worldwide wartime-scale operation, fuelled by zero-carbon energy sources. Governments should be allocating whatever funds are required and working together to research and then implement the best available geo-engineering techniques.’ – All of which is impossible because, a) we do not actually have the ability to do any of this, and b) we do not know, within any reasonable degree of certainty, what the actual outcome of such a massive (and costly) geo-engineering project would be. It is fantasy, and dangerous fantasy at that. Dream on.
‘We have a planetary emergency and denial of the problem at this point is extremely irresponsible and immoral – indeed, I would say criminal.’ – Oh for God’s sake, grow up! If you think you can make us feel guilty for our ‘sinful ways’ (ex. driving a car, using electricity), well you can just get – you know what.
Don’t you see Peter? We have to come together as a planet now and fight this threat to the world. What we need to fight this is a central world government. Yes we need to unite all nations under one banner. A United Nations world. Hmmmmm……. Now, what organization is there that could step in and take charge?
I’ve examined the Met Office article that was linked by Drewski on the 19th of Jan., and a few of their claims and statements are… let’s just say, ‘interesting’.
Quote: – ‘As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.
Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.’ – end quote.
This raises a number of questions, one of them being the question of how, precisely, a ‘starting or end point’ is actually determined. They mention the ‘multi-decadal timescales’ they use due to the ‘inherent variability in the climate system’, which is another way of saying that the simplistic linear correlation between atmospheric CO2 increases and rising temperatures that is often presented to the general public is, at best, misleading, due to the fact that such a simple correlation does not reflect the ‘inherent’ (i.e. natural) ‘variability’ (i.e. non-linear and indeterminate) observations that are actually made in the real world (as opposed to those computer climate models).
Quote: – ‘The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.’ – end quote.
Interesting, but vague. One would have thought that, apart from the fact that the time-scale they base their observations and conclusions on (which they mention in the article – a 0.8 degree C rise in 140 years) is too brief a period of time to establish a proper trend of this nature, the determination of the causal link between the industrial release of CO2 into the atmosphere and the resultant rise of 0.8 in mean temperatures cannot be properly discerned due to the complicating factors that other causal agents (such as cloud cover, sunspot activity) introduce into the overall patterns discerned by the research that was conducted.
Quote: – ‘We have limited observations on multi-decadal oceanic cycles but we have known for some time that they may act to slow down or accelerate the observed warming trend. In addition, we also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by “external forcings”, such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade – but this is an area of ongoing research’ – end of quote.
So much for the science being ‘settled’. There is so much doubt and uncertainty expressed in this paragraph that to base national policy upon these observations would be an act of short-sighted folly. That’s not to say that they are wrong regarding their conclusions here of course, but before any government can seriously ask its citizens to make huge sacrifices to their living standards we will need to have information that is far more substantive than this. The trends that have been discerned by the Met Office, and others investigating the phenomenon of global warming, clearly show that the apocalyptic forecasts that we are often subjected to via the mainstream media are wrong, unless we assume that the trend showing a 0.8 degree C increase over the 140 year period of time for which we have reliable records does not continue, but instead gets worse. Judging by this article alone however, we have no reason to suspect that it will.
Considering that the risk to society is so great and the prevailing reason for this threat are fuels that cause smog and lung disease, prop up despotic regimes, and getting more dangerous and expensive to locate would lead a rational nation to look for alternatives. When would you begin to say that the risk is too great? — when there is a 1% chance of runaway warming occuring? How about a 5% chance? Remember that civilization as we know it hangs in the balance. What about 30%? The vast plurality of climate scientists are 90 to 95% certain.
When do you start to say “Hang on, this is too dangerous, we have to change.”? Personally, I put my faith in the scientists that make their living studying this thing and considering there is NOT ONE scientific organization, anywhere in the world, that disagrees with the Anthropogenetic Global Warming Theory, then I believe what they have to say.
If I am wrong, then we have a civilization — with the expected hiccups and convulsions — that was forced into using cleaner renewable energy. If I am right, then we will have a civilization of endless war, famine and displacement.
People ARE looking for alternatives, but the alternatives on offer now (ex. solar, wind) are both too expensive and too inefficient. Nuclear reactors would be an almost ideal replacement for the coal-fired plants, but they have had a very bad press. Too many people seem to think that one of these things can go off like an atom bomb, which is both not true and patently silly; they just do not work that way. Alternatives to fossil fuels will have to be found in any case, but not because they are heating the planet, but because they will eventually run out. Research into fusion, a source of energy that has all of the advantages of fission but none of the disadvantages (like waste), is the hope for the future.
Energy conservation can only take us so far, and it will be of no use to the planet if in the process of trying to implement draconian conservation measures of dubious worth the people of the industrial West are driven into permanent poverty. The time to start, the time to say ‘this is too dangerous, we have to change’ is now. We have to change our consumption patterns, our inability to control our numbers (over-population is the central environmental concern – or at least it should be – because all else follows from it; greater numbers equate to greater stresses being placed upon ecosystems – ex. overfishing), and the problem of species extinction, which is an issue that we don’t hear enough about. The belief that one can have perpetual economic growth on a finite world is also an issue that should be addressed, but that seems to be a taboo topic.
Drewski- I’m sorry to say you miss their point which is they believe there is not only no warming going on the planet may even be cooling, but either way it is totally unconnected to human activites. They will never agree that there is any kind of tipping point for that reason- to them, there is NO POINT period. Get it now? They even like to argue with the fence sitters like me, for no apparent reason other than the sake of arguing. Although I have said that I will always, when necessary, side with the majority, since that is the only logical and sane thing to do when all else seems equal, and for overall safety vs. recklessless. There are those more obvious situations in history like Germany in the 30’s etc. I would not have sided with the fascist majority, then or now. But those examples in real life seem to be few and far between (thank you very much).
Germany in the 30’s? You see, this is one of the things that so irritate us ‘deniers’ – the inflammatory language, the hyperbole, and the odious analogies. I’ve heard warmists say that those who disbelieve in the AGW should eventually be put on trial for their disbelief, because such disbelief hindered efforts to control the climate. Absolutely crazy.
Yeah right. If you were a German in the 30’s you would too have sided with the fascist majority. It’s easy to say now that you wouldn’t have. But you prefaced that by saying:
“Although I have said that I will always, when necessary, side with the majority, since that is the only logical and sane thing to do when all else seems equal, and for overall safety vs. recklessless.”
If you were the age you are now in 70 years from now you’d be saying something like: “There are those more obvious situations in history like AGW in the first years of the century etc. I would not have sided with the concensus warmist majority, then or now.” I bet.
[profane personal attack deleted – tsk. tsk. I’ve been busy, but I’m still keeping an eye on – moderator]
It was a relevant example, with nothing to do with your climate change denialism per se. I was referring it to believing a majority, in this case of scientists. And providing a vivid example of when I wouldn’t believe in the majority. That is all. Please refrain from your own hyperbole and rush to argue, another thing I did mention against you deniers specifically, and which you rushed to confirm. In that sense you fall firmly in their category of mentality. I bit too sensitive and quick to take offense eeven when there is no reason to do so.
You don’t seem to understand that truth isn’t determined by a majority vote, it isn’t decided democratically. The majority have been wrong before, you shouldn’t accept an idea simply because the majority do, even if they are scientists; that’s just lazy.
What I find fascinating that almost everybody with these conspiracy theories affected the same way by their mental illneses and biases, namely there is always a mastermind behind the curtain who pulls the strings, and these humble folks always debunk these conspiracies from the confort of their armchair.
And it’s mainly for attention it seems.
What absurd is that from all of the things, you choose climate change, which is so evident, many of us are already feel it’s impact on a daily basis, and the science behind it is already proven. It’s a fact.
The sea ice and the glaciers are melting, the snow cover has decreased, permafrost soils have warmed. Extreme weather events causing damage costs across the whole world, it’s getting more intense and frequent.
Growing human activity is a key factor in this, we don’t have to agree in this, but you can’t deny our right to adapt to the situation the best we can as the extent and speed of the change is becoming more and more evident.
And we need to adapt quickly, as a forest owner I can state that the rapidly changing bio-climatic conditions are already affecting our forests, but the impact of the climate change is much more wider than that.
Instead of sitting still in you confortable armchair writing and citing nonsense to the public, you should just go ahead and look for yourself, ask about it, and research it, you are going to find that you currently neither have the knowledge, nor the experience to speak about this subject.
Yet another person who believes that science concerns itself with ‘proofs’; educational standards have truly taken a nosedive over the last 40 years or so. The fact that there are so many gullible people who, even now after this whole fantasy has been exposed as the politically-driven and fraudulent nonsense that it is, still believe that sinful mankind needs to be contrite and submit to the dictates of Almighty Gaia, is more evidence that religion, and muddled thinking in general, are a long, long way from being replaced by clear-thinking, honest reasoning.
‘The sea ice and the glaciers are melting, the snow cover has decreased, permafrost soils have warmed. Extreme weather events causing damage costs across the whole world, it’s getting more intense and frequent.’ – AAAaaaaaarrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhh……….!!!!!!!!!!! PANIC, PANIC, PANIC, PANIC!!!!!! (Is that the appropriate response to your message of gloom and doom? Are you happy now?).
Why should honest, ordinary folk self-flagellate, sacrifice, abstain from reproducing in order to appease Gaia and, at the same time, completely ignore the hypocrisy of rich, energy-hungry celebrities (like Alphonse Gore and those useless Hollywood actors) telling poor people to live without the basic necessities whilst they live like kings in order to simply feel ‘worthy’ as human beings? The purveyors of panic like to keep people fearful, for when someone is afraid they are easier to manipulate and control. This is not ‘conspiracy theory’, but fact. First it was ‘the Evil Soviet Union’ and ‘Reds under the beds’ between circa 1945 and 1990, from the 1970’s we had ‘environmental concerns’ (do you remember ‘global cooling’?), then Japanese economic prowess, then ‘terrorism’, and now it is the turn of Iran (WMD’s again?!) and China (military modernisation and self-confidence) that are the favoured bogey-men to replace Osama and Al Qaeda. It just never ends, does it? Eternal vigilance (i.e. fear and war) being promoted in order to keep the ruling-classes in control. I suggest you read Orwell’s ‘1984’ and Crichton’s ‘State of Fear’. Yes, they are novels, I know, but although they are works of fiction the way they portray their respective societies is eerily reminiscent of how societies are structured today, so you may actually learn something from them.
‘Instead of sitting still in you confortable armchair writing and citing nonsense to the public, you should just go ahead and look for yourself, ask about it, and research it, you are going to find that you currently neither have the knowledge, nor the experience to speak about this subject.’ – The irony of this comment, the sheer gall. You must have had yourself in mind when you wrote this, for it is blatantly obvious that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
No one is saying that the climate isn’t changing. It has been constantly changing for 4 1/2 billion years. What is at issue here is can the current changes be attributed to AGG’s. It doesn’t matter how quickly the climate changes either because sometimes it does change rather rapidly, and it has done so many times long before the industrial revolution. And if every man woman and child were to disappear from the face of the Earth today, and all human activity came to a screeching halt the climate would still change. That’s what it does, all by itself.
You said: “The sea ice and the glaciers are melting, the snow cover has decreased, permafrost soils have warmed. Extreme weather events causing damage costs across the whole world, it’s getting more intense and frequent.”
All of that is debatable, but for the sake of argument let’s say that it is all true. My question is, how do you know for a fact that anthropogenic production of CO2 IS the cause of it? Could it not be true that these changes were happening naturally? I ask that because it has all happened before naturally. Many times, and long before anyone, including the most fervent AGW believers, think that humans had any influance.
So, how do you know it isn’t natural?
No it’s logical- when it comes to science. It is the non-emotional and sensible approach. I’m not saying it’s always the correct choice, but it makes the most sense intellectually. Again- only if it also fits intellectually, obviously. I realize there are examples of the majority being quite wrong in the past, but that occurred more often long ago when there was little correct knowledge to begin with and much mythology. Saying it’s lazy is itself a lazy statement/indictment. You see my reasoning above. It is logical, thought out, not lazy. How you can take the word of the non-majority (nevermind, I’ve heard it all). I could call your choice lazy if I wanted to. I could say it is mainly emotion-based, ideological-based, politcally-based, etc. You are smarter than to throw out the lazy card. And again correct me if I’m wrong but what in science isn’t majority based? Nothing, that is believed to be fact anyway.
I like evidence. And when I looked into AGW I found that all of the evidence is from computer model projections. So I looked into computer models and found them to be flawed. You always call me illogical but my approach was methodical and very logical. I didn’t just go along with the crowd.
When a majority of scientists happen to believe a particular explanation for a given phenomenon, this majority, in and of itself, has no special meaning; all it means is that the explanation that is accepted by that majority is more persuasive to them than current alternative ones, due to that evidence seeming to confirm their previous hypothesis(es) regarding the phenomenon in question. In other words, the hypothesis that was formulated in order to account for (fill in the blank) prior to the collection of the evidence that would support it, and based upon the information, experience and data that had been accumulated from phenomena that were similar to the one under consideration, is the best one thus far that has not yet been falsified. If the evidence, after a sufficient amount of it has been accumulated, contradicts the most likely explanation for the given phenomenon, that explanation is either modified or discarded completely, and it makes no difference if the explanation that seemed to have the most evidence in its favour was also the most popular one; popularity is never a consideration. Evidence, self-consistency, simplicity and explanatory power are all that matter – nothing else should ever come into it.
Anyway, the point that I am trying to make here is that the commonly accepted notion amongst the general populace that if a majority of scientists believe in (whatever) then it simply HAS to be true, is patently wrong. The attitude of, ‘After all, they are experts aren’t they, so they must be correct’, should never be adopted by anyone for any reason, and to attempt to argue that because one isn’t a specialist in a particular field of enquiry that therefore one must accept the word – i.e. take it on faith – that what is being disseminated is the truth and nothing but… well, that’s just stupid. We all have minds, we should use them.
It should also not need to be pointed out, because it is rather obvious, that due to the constant input of new information and data, grand over-arching theories like AGW are constantly being ‘tweaked’, and for this reason alone the belief that ‘the science is settled’ is both irresponsible and inexcusable. Those who try to argue that it is ‘settled’ (ex. bureaucrats and politicians, who usually know absolutely nothing about science) reveal their appalling ignorance when they do so. I would like to believe that most people are smarter than either bureaucrats or politicians (it’s a nice thought), but the evidence that I have seen thus far suggests otherwise, so I won’t believe it. Too many people are far too easily sucked in by con artists.
I agree. The scientific method is largely ignored by those that proclaim that the science is settled. Consensus is stagnation. There is no advancment of knowedge when the majority rules, and dissention is labeled heritical. Look at Copernicus, Gallilao, Newton, Einstein, ect. It was once a consensus that the world was flat. And that the universe revolved around the world. Scientific knowledge does not advance by people saying that “everyone thinks that this is how it is so it is so.”
Just to clarify, I meant that ‘taking things on faith’ was stupid, not that you are. Potential for misunderstanding there.
But you guys are taking things on faith just as much as you suggest I am doing. All I’m saying is the obvious- facts are, at the end of the day, majority based. I can’t think of a real example of it being otherwise, in reality. You have yet to offer up a real example. Your chance to correct my simple yet powerful statement. I am arguing this aspect right now- not AGW itself, etc. However, it does go back to why I say I believe the majority and why I do. When and if it tips the other way I may agree with the “new” majority, I don’t know for sure because that hasn’t happened yet. We all live our lives doing this and so to call me lazy for it is a bit ridiculous and over-the-top. For a minority to disagree is fine, even healthy in some cases.
I don’t take anything on faith. In the beginning I did. I believed it all at one point. And then I heard Eyeore speak. (For those of you who don’t know Eyeore, he is the clinically depressed donkey in the Whinnie the Pooh stories. And it is the name I have assigned to Al Gore.) And, at first, I believed him. But there was something that I just could not put my finger on about what he was saying. Something just didn’t seem to be right. I was afraid. And one day I realized that that was exactly how he wanted me to be, afraid. And, silly me not wanting to be afraid, I decided to start doing some research into the subject. And the first thing I found out was that at least one thing Eyeore said was a complete lie. And that was “The debate is over, and the science is settled.” It turned out that the debate was just getting started, and the science was in its infancy.
And from there I started to look at just what the other side was saying about it, and I was pleased to see that they used facts, and scientific findings to support their views, and they wern’t trying to scare the crap out of me to support them.
As far as supporting the majority…..
I’ll tell you a little story which was instrumental in forming my opinion on a majority. It was 8th grade chior class. For our concert we were doing a medley of various square dance tunes, and the teacher had a dozen of us out in front doing square dancing. There was one point in the dance that everyone screwed up, and we practiced it over, and over until we got it down. Well, come showtime we got to that point in the dance, and everyone botched it. Everyone but me that is. I got it right. But, because everyone else made the exact same mistake it appeared to the audience that there was one guy out of step with everyone else. Me.
Your cute anecdote does not answer my question, at all (was: show me a real example of “fact” being a non-majority based concept, with regard to current science, physics, math, whatever). There may be such an example for all I know, I just can’t think of one. My point being: to dismiss that as a basis for decreeing a fact a fact is pretty darn crucial, if not necessary.
And your first paragraph also doesn’t rebut my other point. I take it on faith that the majority of scientists are correct, and you take it on faith that the minority is correct. Both sides point to science (or the lack of it), data, etc. So we CHOOSE which one to believe based on faith they we/they are the correct one.
In this case, I do not take it on faith that the minority is correct. I have determined through my own studies that CO2 can not cause the predicted global warming that is claimed by alarmists. Look up black body radiation. Look up diminishing returns of CO2 absorption. Do some Effing research and you will find a plethora of knowledge that refutes the consensus.
It is easy to say that there is a consensus view that AGW is something that we should all be afraid of when there is a bunch of people, including a former vice president that says we are supposed to be afraid, says that we should be afraid. Is it illogical to question that? Is it illogical to wonder if those that claim to have my best interest at heart really do? The answer is a simple one for me. I question everything. Perhaps that is my failing.
Ok. Do these qualify as an answer?
One of the first instances of the uses of the phrase appears in the July 1, 1979 issue of The Washington Post on the safety of the artificial sweetener saccharin. “The real issue raised by saccharin is not whether it causes cancer (there is now a broad scientific consensus that it does)” reported the Post. …Thirty years later, the National Cancer Institute reports that “there is no clear evidence that saccharin causes cancer in humans.” …
Similarly, the Post reported later that same year (October 6, 1979) a “profound shift” in the prevailing scientific consensus about the causes of cancer. … One of the more important [new] findings was that increased dietary fiber appeared to reduce significantly the incidence of colon cancer. … In 2005, another big study confirmed that “high dietary fiber intake was not associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer.” …
In its June 1, 1984 issue, The Washington Post reported the issuance of a massive new report by the White House science office supporting the scientific consensus that “agents found to cause cancer in animals should be considered ‘suspect human carcinogens,’” and that “giving animals high doses of an agent is a proper way to test its carcinogenicity.” Although such studies remain a regulatory benchmark, at least some researchers question the usefulness of such tests today.
The December 17, 1979 issue of Newsweek reported that the Department of Energy was boosting research spending on fusion energy reactors based on a scientific consensus that the break-even point—that a fusion reactor would produce more energy than it consumes—could be passed within five years. That hasn’t happened yet. …
An article in the June 8, 1981 issue of The Washington Post cited a spokesman for the American Medical Association opposing proposed federal legislation that would make abortion murder as saying, “The legislation is founded on the idea that a scientific consensus exists that life begins at the time of conception. We will go up there to say that no such consensus exists.” It still doesn’t.
In the years prior to 1985, several publications reported the scientific consensus that acid rain emitted by coal-fired electricity generation plants belching sulfur dioxide was destroying vast swathes of forests and lakes in the eastern United States. … In 1991, … study … actually reported … “Acid rain was not damaging forests, did not hurt crops. …
Interestingly, the only mention of a scientific consensus with regard to stratospheric ozone depletion by ubiquitous chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs) refrigerants was an article in the October 6, 1982 issue of the industry journal Chemical Week. That article noted that the National Research Council had just issued a report that had cut estimates of ozone depletion in half from a 1979 NRC report. … “The steady state reduction in total global ozone…could be between 5 and 9 percent.” Such a reduction might have been marginally harmful, but not catastrophic. … [But] the discovery of the “ozone hole” over Antarctica … quickly led to the adoption of an international treaty aiming to drastically reduce the global production of CFCs in 1987.
You never published my comment 🙂
No matter, go quick, you can grab some funds for your little campaign against science. Turned out others already doing just that, so maybe you can get something too.
It wasn’t on this end Mr. F. For whatever reason a previous post of yours did not appear, it was not an intentional act by the adminstators of this site. It was probably nothing more than an error on your ISP servers, your computer, or our servers. I don’t know where it went but it was never here. Please try again so that we can read it.
He may have published his errant comment under a different name. There were 5 comments in the moderation queue when I approved this one. A couple were from unfamiliar commentators (which is usually why a comment is held).
So creepy rich people funding AGW scepticism is bad, but creepy rich people funding AGW alarmism is good?
“Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, while skeptics have received a paltry $19 MILLION by comparison.”
I realize you don’t think you take your opinion on faith, yet in reality you do, as do we all. To say otherwise is very arrogant and elitist. Do you think no body who believes in global warming has not done their home-work as you claim you have done? Sure they have, and can point to their own set of data and facts to back them up. It comes down to this- we believe (for the most part, if not in all ways) what we want (choose) to believe. And I didn’t ever say that what was once considered “fact” by the majority was never proven wrong. What I said was it is the majority who deem it so, either way. And I did say that there were probable examples of that not being the case, but I couldn’t identify any. If your examples above do that, and not all do in my opinion, then so be it. Nothing in life is absolute. But we can end this debate- it has gone as far as I think it can. To question everything is not a failing. To be so absolute in your opinions (arrogance) however perhaps is a failing.
That is utter nonsense. The vast majority of people who believe in global warming believe it precisely because they have done no research whatsoever. They get their information from the local or national news once or twice a day and don’t have time to look at the issue, or any other issues for that matter. Look at the Texas A&M study that was posted here a while back that said the more you know about global warming the less personally responsible you feel, and the less concerned you are about it. The ones who conducted the study were surprised at the results. They thought it would be the opposite. What does that tell you? Come on man, most people think Benghazi was some guy over in Lybia who did something bad. All that people get from the local or national news is CO2 is a pollutant, the planet is warming from CO2 from our cars, factories, and cow farts (ok that’s methane, but you get my drift.) No, if you ask most people why they believe in global warming they are going to say that that’s what they say on the news, in movies, and the entertainment pages. And I’ll bet more than a few of them will cite An Inconvenient Truth too. They will have no sets of data or facts to back it up. In fact most people probably don’t even know what a set of data is! I’m not saying they are stupid. I’m saying that they are uninformed, underinformed, and misinformed. They are purposefully kept ignorant, yet they have faith that the networks truly want to inform them.
Now there are some, like our friend Drewski, who do all of their research at the “anti-anti” websites like Skeptcal Science, ect. That exist only to counter real scepticism. They will have some data sets, and facts to back up what they are saying. And that’s fine, we can debate those. And they may be the people of which you speak. But they are a small minority of people that have taken time to do some research. And given the number of people there are who do believe in AGW, I would have to say that yes, I think people who believe in global warming have not done their home-work. And the few that have are reading the cheerleader websites.
You said: “Show me a real example of “fact” being a non-majority based concept.” I showed several, and you said: “I didn’t ever say that what was once considered “fact” by the majority was never proven wrong.” I will answer that only by asking a question. When a consensus of scientific thought says one thing is a fact, and it turns out that it is not, was not the actual thing that turned out to be the fact begin as a non-majority based concept?
To your last question: once again your own lack of logic or common sense is showing. At the time of consensus the concept was deemed “fact”, thus it was fact. When that changes, it may be based upon a new consensus, or not, if not then it is an example of what I was asking about, which is very rare, if not nonexistant. That is all I was saying. Nothing more nothing less. You may continue to argue this further as you wish. But I am done with it- it’s a dead horse. As to your claim that most people on the believer side don’t do any “research” I don’t argue that, but to assume that your skeptic sources are true and otherwise reputable is an opinion, yours, as well as others who choose to believe in those sources vs. other more mainstream sources. Again, you may be right about AGW, and your own “research” and comprehension of it may be excellent. But it is still the scientific minority view.
Is a fact a fact when it is a false fact? I say no. Was it a fact that the Earth was flat, and that bleeding several ounzes of blood from a person cures a fever? It really goes to show that consensus does not equate fact.
Truth is truth. What is, is. What isn’t, isn’t. We may not always know what the truth is, but it’s there, unchangeable and waiting for us to find it. Consensus doesn’t make fact… merely widely held belief (Catholicism is a widely held belief, as are Islam, Judaism and Buddhism – depending on what part of the world, or social circles you live in, the “facts” change). When facts contradict, someone’s wrong. There is an objective truth and the objective of this website is to reveal it (insofar as global warming is concerned). A common expression in the world of politics is, “you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.” It’s easy to ridicule people who thought the earth was flat, now that we’ve put satellites in orbit around our spherical planet. Someday, people will ridicule the religion of anthropogenic global warming, too, I imagine, but for now it’s the dogma (rather than fact), just as a flat earth at the center of the universe was once the accepted and taught dogma (rather than fact).
Rob, you must have been sleep-deprived or something when you wrote this, because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You seem to be saying that a belief that was, or is, held by a majority – the consensus view – is a ‘fact’ precisely because the belief in question happens to be held by that majority, and for no other reason. I hope you don’t really believe this.
Yep. Prove me wrong, or try to. Neil gave it a good shot. Again- I didn’t say that it was an absolute rule, but it is damn close, if not the rule in use. List any exceptions to this that you can. And Dan I explicitly mentioned that it is too easy to include archaic examples such as the flat world view. I’m talking about modern notions of fact. I still contend it is majority based, right or wrong, that is all. Sheesh. You guys are in such oppositional defiance mode you can’t concede anything ever it seems. So Dan, yours is a fail. Now’s Peter’s turn.
If you are unable to accept the existence of objective truth (rather than consensus-based notions of truth), then I’d say you’re hopeless.
Okay, now it’s my turn. An example of a fact ‘being a non-majority based concept’, and one that is not as archaic as the flat-earth theory. I’ll give an example that is fairly well-known, even amongst those who do not specialise in this area of science; it is, however, the most likely explanation for the phenomenon that is observed.
You no doubt have heard of the twin-slit experiment, or Young’s interference fringes (named after the first experimentalist to perform it, in 1801 by Thomas Young). It was this experiment that finally established that light, and later other forms of EM radiation, was a phenomenon that displayed wavelike (hate that word, but I’ll use it anyway) behaviour. That seemed to settle the issue for quite some time until the early 20th century, with the introduction of QM by Max Planck, whereby he put forth the idea that what appears to be ‘wavelike’ in nature in fact is the action of packets of energy known as ‘quanta’ (a term that HE invented, NOT that fraud Deepak Chopra!).
Anyway, to get to the point, it turns out that more sophisticated versions of the Young experiment, using individual photons of energy, produced a result that was counter-intuitive, and apparently nonsensical. In order to account for this bizarre result (the result that light can, depending upon the circumstances, behave as either a wave or stream of particles) two interpretations of this result were formulated: the Copenhagen interpretation, and the Many-Worlds. With me so far? Good.
The majority view, the interpretation that is, even now, most readily accepted, is the Copenhagen one (this is the view that light can behave with the characteristics of either a wave or a particle, depending upon the experimental setup – that is, the experimenter somehow determines the outcome). Then, during the 1950’s (I think it was ’56 or ’58 – can’t remember) the idea was put forth that the unusual and counter-intuitive result of this experiment is evidence for the existence of parallel universes, within which the photons in this world interact with those of a nearby parallel universe, thus producing the interference pattern characteristic of wave phenomena.
Okay, now my point is this (finally, I hear you say!). The Copenhagen interpretation is the more popular of the two, with far more support even now. However, it is most likely the wrong one. Why? Simply because, the Many-Worlds interpretation is the one that is the more coherent and self-consistent, not to mention the more logical of the two possibilities.
Now, I don’t expect you to take my word for this, and so I encourage you to really look much further into it. The Many-Worlds interpretation is slowly gaining ground, and this is due to the fact that evidence is slowly accruing in it’s favour, which in turn means that it is the more likely interpretation that reflects reality as it actually is.
So there you have it – an example of what you were looking for. Or is it? Let me know if it isn’t.
“In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy……the list of consensus errors goes on and on.”
Well done, but neither of you has proven me wrong, outright. Plate tectonics for example, was not deemed “fact” until a majority of the scientific community deemed it so. I could be mistaken about THAT, but I doubt it, even Neilio’s attempt above pretty much proves my point for me. My proposal remains very modest and seemingly clear but alas we are designed to argue I guess no matter what. It even seems a serious waste of time and effort at this point and I am sorry I brought it up. There are undoubetedly some very esoteric theories that most “scientists” don’t even touch or approach out of their own ignorance of the subjust, whatever it may be, as per Peeter’s worthy example. But that much I conceded from the beginning. This is a definite dead horse that I loathe to continue beating.
I think I see what is going wrong here. You seem to be confusing the meaning of the word ‘fact’ (i.e. the objective existence of observable reality that is in no way, shape or form dependent for its existence upon sentient observers, or their opinions about it) and ‘opinion’ (i.e. what can readily be agreed upon as constituting that very reality that has thus far been elucidated). The two are not the same. Plate tectonics occurred long before anyone could say that it was happening for sure, and this applies to everything else about reality that we can name, like the Earth – not flat, but spherical (well, actually an oblate spheroid, but I won’t be pedantic about it).
Well, anyway, I won’t ‘flog this dead horse’ if you don’t want me to, although I don’t think it’s actually quite dead yet – I still see signs of life 🙂
Ha ha, it’s one of those odd miscommunication situations that I find fascinating. That said- I am not confusing fact with opinion, quite the contrary. I am saying opinion (majority) ascertains fact, right or wrong as time/history may prove it to be. And since I am out-numbered here, I bow to the majority and will at this point agree to agree rather than disagree, cuz this is not enlightening anyone about anything, or so it seems.
Well, how about this? Is AGW fact, or theory?
Omg. Really? How many times have I stated, IMO, it is Fact DUE TO THE MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS ALSO BELIEVING IT TO BE TRUE, in other words, fact. Notwithstanding my “fence-sittingness”, I’ve made it clear, or so I presumed as much, that push come to shove my position is as just stated. Thus my foray into the above lengthy and somewhat absurd discussion into what makes facts facts. And you call me flakey.
I do believe that you have an erronious idea of what fence sitting is. I have alway suspected as much but you have just confirmed without a doubt that you are not on the fence.
My Dear boy, my positoin hasn’t changed nor have I ever been shy about stating it, as I have just above, once again. Hats off to you for such fine sluething and clear-headedness. Or not.
Well, that is just ridiculous. I can’t count the number of times that you’ve stated that you are on the fence on the issue of AGW. So on those many occasions that you stated so, were you misunderstanding what on the fence means, or were you being less than honest?
Ridiculous is a good word alright. Do the words and/or meaning of “push come to shove” understandable? I would think you’d like to give some credit (!?) for fence-sitting rather than total belief in AGW, but I know I know, you’d also rather imagine that I am being dishonest and/or messing with such an innocent and bright youngster as yourself, and your bright and strong beliefs. It’s a no-win situation with you as I’ve learned many many times over, so I now close another chapter on this trite little saga.
Equivocate all you want. Evade all you want. The fact still remains that you have misrepresented yourself. You have stated many times that you were undecided about AGW in order to present yourself as being an objective observer. A disinterested third party to give observations and opinions unfettered by the rigidity of any one-sided point of view.
I guess you did not understand my question. So I will put it into the simplest terms possible. Are you not smart enough to know what on the fence means? Or are you a liar?
Here is your consensus. Believe it or not.
So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)
The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?
So you are arguing, now, that the consensus is not in favor of AGW? So then it is Fact? If so, you are making my argument again for me with regard to that particular aspect. And if that is true, then I would once again side with the majority, or the “deniers” in this case. But as I am on the fence, still, due to all the conflicting data, then there is where I remain, for now. Now you may lash out and call me a liar I suppose.
No, I’m not arguing. I’m telling you that the consensus that you have chosen to rely upon to inform your position on AGW never existed. It was the conclusion of a survey. And not a very good survey at that.
And I am telling you that “sitting on the fence” does not mean that you believe one side over another, because believing one side over another means that you have left the perch on the fence, and made a decision to join one side or the other. You can’t be on the fence and support either side. On the fence means neutral, or undecided. Deciding to support one side over the other means that you are no longer neutral, or undecided.
Whatever you say. You never back down or give an inch, good little soldier that you are. Nuance is lost on the Right-minded (left brained). This is what, if nothing else, we have proven here, over and over again. Sadly though, because I already knew as much long before I began visiting this little echo chamber.
Nuance? No. A nuance is a subtle or slight degree of difference, as in meaning, feeling, or tone; a gradation. What you’ve done is not a nuance. What you’ve done is try to say that you are in support of the AGW theory because a so called majority, or consensus, of scientists says it is so, all the while you are maintaining a position on the fence. Which is not possible because you are off the fence, and on the, IMO, wrong side. There is no gradation to being on the fence. You either are or you are not. Oh, I’m sorry I forgot, you don’t do black and white. That’s probably why you don’t understand. What did you snag a shoelace, and are dangling on the side of the fence? I suppose that can be expressed as a nuance of being on the fence. All be it a foolish position to be in.
Righto daddyo. Anyways, what is your current expert calculation on the numbers of scientists for and against AGW? Because as some point I may have to say push come to shove I agree with the “deniers”. And that will be another “foolish position” to be in I guess, or not…?! Many in the public wisely state they can’t decide which way to go on this subject. Sometimes it is the wisest people who occasionally say “I don’t know.”
So if the majority says they don’t know, you say you don’t know. If the majority says it’s bunk, then you say it’s bunk. And if the majority says it’s a fact, then you say it’s a fact. That about sum it up? Wow that takes no courage whatsoever.
Majority of SCIENTISTS’ opinion, yes, either way. (Read much?) And now my “courage” is in question too? Wow. It actually takes just as much if not more courage to say “I don’t know.” I’m done responding to your sophomoric circular and offensive responses. Look up the word sophomoric even if you think you know it.
Hey you’re the one that says you’ll go whichever way the majority goes. It’s just my opinion that it’s a guttless approach. Take from it whatever you will.
I did. Had to correct your misinterpretation though, out of propriety. And thanks again for allowing me to take from it whatever I will, you generous scamp you.
Yeah, right! SCIENTISTS. You’re solo on everything else? Phttttt. Right.
Huh?! Nevermind… take your Flintstones vitamin today?
I’m waiting to see if a majority of people took theirs today, before I take mine.
It surely must be nice to brave AND clever.