Question – do any neuroscientists read this blog? I have an idea for a short series of posts but I don’t want to embarrass myself in front of professionals.
Also, the latest casualty of global warming appears to be the Pacific trade winds.
[S]ince the mid-1800s, the Walker current had weakened by 3.5% and was expected to fall by 10% by the year 2100. Any drop in the strength of winds has a larger effect on ocean currents, and calculations show that the flow of the ocean has dropped by 7.5% because of the slacking trade wind. The study appears in the journal Nature today.
The weakening of the Walker current is one of the most consistent predictions of climate change models. “One of the most robust predictions of climate change is that this Walker circulation should slow down, so we wanted to test that prediction to see how good the models are. Right now they are the only thing we have to guide us into the future,” said Dr Vecchi.
Chat about whatever.
If Mexico signs that drug bill, and the riverbank of the Rio Grande River on the Mexican side is indeed Mexico, than can we expect Riverboats of Refer to spring up, ala casino boats in America?
There’d be Coke Cruises, Toke Trips, Refer Rendevous, “ice” fishing….the whole Mexican economy becomes Drugs R’ Us!
Pure genius. Not to mention, how strung out will Spring Breakers be when in addition to a hangover, they’ve developed a coke addiction, meth habit, and have track marks all over their arms??
The Other Steve
Still not sure what to think… People should read this:
Why not? At least then the state could tax it and make some money for improved services. Like drug counseling. People ARE going to do what they want do to reguardless of regulation anyway.
I like that graph notice the nice smooth curves up until the big spike during the industrial revolution.
Well, you’ve come to the right place ……….
I’m no neuroscientist, but I do know this: when a woman’s eyes follow a balloon around the room, she’s got a good chance for a full recovery, no matter how little of her brain she has left.
Post Of The Day.
Maybe Krista will be here today and take a peek at this, since she’s a believer in 9 people deciding what’s best for all of us. Seems though that support is rapidly dwindling and the issue may finally be put to a national vote.
Which, of course, Krista will remind me that some states will then gleefully shut down Planned Parenthood clinics so that evil white pseudo-doctors can round up the preggers, take their rusty coathangers out of mothballs, and get down to the bizness of creating an abortion black market.
OH, THE HORROR OF IT ALL!!!!
I got a great quote from this psycho wingnut Machete
His hatred of immigration and immigrants is so great that he even hates the Statue of Liberty .
The Right Wing blogosphere in all it’s pathetic glory.
It’s a civil rights issue. Civil rights are decided by the Constitution, not by public opinion.
Mother Earth is being destroyed by man! Life on this planet is heading toward apocolypse. Oh, wait
I blame Bush
Much better to wait until it’s too late to fix the problem.
Take those 60 scientists and multiply them by ten and then you’d still be far behind the consensus of the scientific community. You scoff at this consesus at your peril. Your children will suffer because of your insatiable appettite for George Bush penis.
I currently work as a research assistant in cognitive psychology, and the main thrust of my research is fMRI. I’m no expert, but take that for what its worth.
And don’t worry, I’ll be sure to point at you and snicker behind your back no matter what you post.
Commission air(Bird Flu)
Cinco de Mayo
Cinco de Mayo is a date of great importance for the Mexican and Chicano communities. It marks the victory of the Mexican Army over the French at the Battle of Puebla. … Over, the years Cinco de Mayo has become very commercialized … Oddly enough, Cinco de Mayo has become more of Chicano …latino.sscnet.ucla.edu/demo/cinco.html – 3k – Cached – More from this site – Save
I thought you lefties had such respect for the scientific method.. at least that’s what you say when you rightly skewer the IDers for disregarding science. Yet on the environment, when there is no scientific consensus on the cause of global warming, you demand that the “problem” be fixed.
What was it, back in the 1970’s or 1980’s, Americans were being warned of the coming “ice age”. Many of those same people are no doubt warning us now about global warming. Do you see even a teensy credibility problem there?
Yep, we do. And virtually every credible scientist working in the area maintains that global warming is a reality. It’s largely the pseudo-scientists this administration borrows from oil companies and other buddies who disagree with the evidence.
The Other Steve
Mrs. Anderson, my 2nd grade recess teacher is warning us about Global warming?
I thought she died 10 years ago.
This is disturbing.
The Other Steve
Given that I live in Minnesota, I welcome our new Global Warming masters.
If you lived here in the winter, you would too.
Now I KNOW you’re just being ignorant. Spoof? Every single scientist ever published in a peer-review journal (note: this means you cannot quote your Pastor, who claims to have a B.A. in Biology) AGREES in global warming, and greenhouse gases.
Every.fucking.one.of.them. Prove me wrong, I dare.
Global warming, global shwarming. It’s cooler than the historical average for this date where I am right now.
Frankly, though, both sides are wrong. The Republicans are wrong to pretend there is no such thing as global warming, but the Democrats are wrong too, because the earth isn’t always getting warmer. For example, the temperature often decreases after the sun goes down in many locations.
Myth. I have challenged maybe a dozen rightwingers to support that claim with one bit of peer-reviewed literature and so far nobody has delivered. Popular Science might have sandwiched such a story in between a special on the military’s new microwave guns and a do-it-yourself automatic flushing toilet, but it went right past any journal with credibility.
People call this sort of internet rumor “zombie wingnuttery” because it doesn’t matter how many times you kill it. Wait a week, put up a climate thread and there it is again.
WTF That doesn’t make any sense. Those 9 men said with Roe V Wade basically “hey its up to YOU to make the decisions.”
You know… Kinda like a FREE country. Just because all the ‘Christians’ aren’t behaving and staying away from the clinics doesn’t mean that it should be illegal. Things are Illegal for a REASON, almost entirely because they contribute to social disorder. Give me a good reason why abortion clinics contribute to social disorder?
The Other Steve
Does Hallmark have a card for that?
Otherwise it’s not an official event.
Looks like we’re being treated to the peevish prick Brian today. Just so everyone can fill out their scorecards…
The Other Steve
You’re talking to Brian. Of course it makes no sense.
He wants to depoliticize abortion, by overturning Roe v Wade.
Sorry, Tim, but many meteorologists forecast unusually harsh winter storms in 1977 and 1978. You coastal elites may not call that an “ice age” but out here in what you call “flyover country”, we like a weather man who means what he says and says what he means. And when he says “unseasonably cold temperatures and record snowfall”, well, the layman’s term for that is “ice age”.
The Other Steve
I saw in the news that Germany is trying to change their low birth rate. I think we have a similar problem in America, where people who ought to have children are not, and people who ought not are.
I’d like to run my proposal for a new childbirth tax cut past ya all.
One parent has a high school degree – $1000 tax credit
One parent has college degree – $2500
One parent has a masters degree – $5000
One parent has a doctorate – $7500
One parent is sports star, hollywood star, or political pundit – $50,000 tax penalty
I’ll second that amendment.
That has to be the weakest dodge that I have ever seen. If I understand you correctly you want to take some mulleted local weatherguy and call him exactly the same person as modern-day climate scientists. Next you argue that unusually harsh winter storms in 1977 and 1978 correlate with the term ‘ice age’ based on the opinion of people who don’t understand the term. So weatherguys are the same thing as climate scientists and weather equals climate, because somebody somewhere says that it does.
Help me out here Darrell. Nobody who can spell makes that dumb an argument in good faith.
Funny thing Darrelll, even if the global warming isn’t real (I’m pretending, for your sake) there are many other good, motivating reasons to take action… You know, pollution being unhealthy and all, mercury in the food chain, running out of fuel…just to name a few.
Or we could do nothing, wait until the earth is hot enough to support dinosaurs again, and in another 100 million years or so, we’ll have all the oil we need again!
Yeah, well that “myth” made Newsweek back in 1975 warning us of an impending ‘ice age’. Similar alarmist reports in Time magazine as well.
Global warming, imminent ice age, what’s the difference? Bush made it happen
GIven the lack of consensus in the scientific community, with 99 percent believing in cataclysmic climate change and 1 percent believing in their Bush-funded payroll, I expect the White House will initiate another study to determine if another study can determine how many studies can be issued before another Category 5 hurricane smashes into Chesapeake Bay and wipes out Virginia/Maryland/DC like the wrath of God.
CO2 is being declared the big ‘pollution’ problem.
“Do something!” “We must do something now to preserve survival of life as we know it even if we’re not sure what the causes are!”
The Other Steve
Wait a minute. You expect me to listen to Newsweek? I thought they were junk journalism?
That’s what you were saying when they reported on Iraq.
The Other Steve
As opposed to having too much Oxygen, which would be really bad, right?
We’re not really sure if mercury cause cancer. May I break a thermometer over your steak and test it out?
Newsweek is not peer-reviewed literature, and I strongly doubt that any of the scientists cited actually concluded that global cooling was a danger. You still have bubkis, Darrell.
Newsweek is not peer-reviewed literature
And even if were, the peers would just be people who write for Time.
The US media doesn’t freak out over the latest round of shark attacks because professor Samuel Gruber of U. Miami picked up the phone and sounded the alarm. The media freaks out because two or more attacks happenconsecutively and a bunch of dim bulbs decide to gin up a story. Same with your chunderheaded confusion of climate with weather – we get a couple of bad winters and the Nancy Drews at popular periodicals think they have a story. Go back to Luciferanne or wherever you are copying your information, Darrell, and find some evidence of real experts actively sounding the alarm. Or let me save you the time – you won’t.
Reality based community, meet reality
2,600+ physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and other environmental scientists have signed a petition saying that global warming alarmism is junk science with the Oregon petition. In total, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed this Petition . From the petition itself:
I could point out that I’m actually a believer in each individual deciding on what’s best for themselves. But you seem to be in your Hostile McAngry persona today. So I’ll wait until you’re not so obviously trying to bait me before engaging in any sort of debate with you. Let me know, ok? That’s a good fellow.
Tim, were the 17,000+ scientists who signed the Oregon petition cited above “peer reviewed” to your satisfaction?
Environmentalists were screaming about an imminent “ice age” coming in the 70’s, now it’s pseudoscientific baloney over global warming.
Oops, the OISM petition is a hoax. See here and here. Back to Luciferanne!
You continue to use deceptive semantics. If by “environmentalists” you mean every credulous nutbag on planet Earth, sure, some thought that the Earth would cool. Others thought that aliens would come and save us from nuclear armaggeddon. I could similarly argue that “conservatives” believed in the ’90s that UN black helicopters were coming to take away. Since the black helicopters never came, everything any conservative says today is automatically suspect. Same logic. The trouble with you, Darrell, is that you don’t argue honestly and you never admit an error.
Neither one of those links demonstrates the Oregon petition was a “hoax”. How honest of you to characterize them as such
The petition presented itself as a product of the NAS when in fact it was nothing of the sort. You continue to behave dishonestly, Darrell, and frankly your tactics are an embarrassment to your own allies.
One problem of course is that the processes that creates CO2 also produces other things like CO, TBF, formaldehyde, and other particles.
Tim, did you happen to check your second link. It’s a wild-eyed extremist site accusing those who they disagree with as “murderers”. Doubt me? From the site:
That’s right, your “credible” source accuses her of murder because she disagrees with their extremist environmentalist position. Let me emphasize again, your source accuses her of MASS MURDER for chrissakes
Feeling like a whackjob yet? you should
I’m not the one quoting whackjob sites which accuse their ideological opponents of “mass murder”. They also accuse Fred Sietz as a “felony accomplice”
What’s next Tim, you gonna start quoting sources which refer to President Bush as the “World’s greatest terrorist” and then pretend you have a point to make?
I’ll just quote from Tim’s first link.
But that doesn’t say the petition was a hoax, right Darrell? Nope, they just sent out a fake article to see how many people they could trick into signing the petition, but it’s still ok to cite the number of signatures on the petition, right? Because technically the word “hoax” doesn’t appear at that link.
Here is a classic description of OISM’s “list:”
Actually, too much oxygen would be really, really bad. It’s a corrosive poison. If atmospheric concentrations of oxygen were high enough everything would be burning. Most life on Earth had to develop a number of special adaptations to mitigate oxygens effects. We’re lucky enough to have found a way to utilize it’s reactive properties to fuel our hyperactive metabolisms.
I’ve read that some of the scientists who signed the petition have changed their minds, and many still stand by the petition.
At least they’re not claiming the other side is guilty of “mass murder” over an ideological disagreement as Tim’s source has done
Note Darrell dodge #2b – guilt by association. Another in a long, long list of fallacies that Darrell spins in an effort to “win” arguments.
withdrew its membership. Since then many other corporations have followed BP s lead and left the coalition. This exodus reached a fevered pitch in the early months of 2000 when
all announced their exodus from the GCC. Since these desertions, the GCC restructured and remains a powerful and well-funded force focused on obstructing meaningful efforts to mitigate climate change.
Too fraudulent for big oil or the US automakers, but not for Darrell?
Wow, I really screwed the formatting pooch on that one.
I have as many sources as you want, Darrell. If you don’t like one then I will find five more. The account is always the same – OSM sent a mass mailer to practically every scientist in existence accompanied by a paper falsely representing itself as having been published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and written by nobody with any climate experience whatsoever.
This is your main personality flaw, Darrell. When wrong you get mad and strike back with fallacies, jackalopes, personal attacks and anything other than admitting that you were wrong.
The Oregon Project petition was headed up by Frederick Seitz
yeah, a real nutjob. You people will smear anyone, including smears of “murder”.. who disagree with your dogma. Some scientific method you have there for searching the truth
About the number who still believe in the petition, Scientific American checked it out:
But not all the scientists have disavowed the petition, right Tim? So we still know there’s “a lot” of them out there. It has the ring of truthiness.
I’m not going to pay TimesSelect for the privilege of reading this entire article…
Pretty classic Darrell stuff, though. The “Dan Rather was right!” folks have nothing on him.
Hey I’m not just relying on the Oregon petition.. that’s why in my very first post I cited the more recent study which found ”
And you people will defend anyone, even a guy who collects petition signatures by distributing a phony, doctored article.
But yeah, if someone anywhere in the world made an over-the-top smear against him, that means he must be a great guy!
Frederick Seitz has no relevant experience in climate. You can call him a nutjob if it makes you feel good, Darrell, the rest of us will call him unqualified for the field in which he is commenting.
Steve, the NAS, as far as I’ve seen, never disavowed the Oregon petition’s conclusions, the only thing they disassociated themselves from, was the mistaken impression that the NAS had endorsed the petition in the first place, since Seitz had been President of the NAS
If you can demonstrate where the NAS has disassociated themselves from Seitz’s conclusions, you might have a point. But you don’t, and you know it, so you try and decieve
Darrell’s general strategy of argumentation is to google up 10 arguments in hopes that you will only debunk 9, which makes him correct yet again.
Like I said, Darrell loves the guilt-by-association fallacy.
Apparently I might have a point.
Why can you never admit that you’re just plain wrong?
Darrell, your Telegraph link is useless. It doesn’t provide any reference to the original letter, nor to the the study to which it seems to refer. Lacking that, there’s no way to determine who funded it, who wrote it, what it’s methodology was or if it even appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. You’re basically saying “hey, there are some guys who agree with me, nevermind who they are or how they came to their conclusions, this proves I’m right.”
In fact they have.
That was in the early 90’s, which is ancient history in climate science terms. Since then they have done numerous research surveys which reflect the growing consensus in the field.
Thanks for that citation, as it reinforces my point. In the example you quote, of the 30 scientists who signed the petition and responded, ony 8 of them said they would not stand by it today. Hardly a consensus in favor of your assertion Tim. The petition states, and I quote verbatim:
Steve, you linked to a pay-per-view site only. Yes, it appears I was wrong about the NAS official position, but I was right on the larger point, that many of the scientists who signed the petition still stand by what they signed.
In other words, it was not a hoax as Tim asserted, even if he had to use extremist sources accusing their opponents of mass murder in order to try and make his point
Yes, I agree that Scientific American’s survey, performed several years ago, was far from a complete repudiation. It is even possible to see the survey as accurate in 1998 and completely, totally wrong today. But in fact at best the petition reflects a minority view among relevant researchers and contravened the established knowledge at the time that it was written.
This adds up to 8 on Planet Darrell.
Eight said they don’t stand by it, but most of the rest either could not be confirmed to exist or didn’t have expertise in relevant fields. Would you ask a biologist to give their expert opinion on semiconductor manufacturing?
A scientician is a scientician, right?
Tim, from your link provide:
From the book Abrupt Climate Change, Ocean Studies Board (OSB), Polar Research Board (PRB), 2002
I forgot to add that by giving itself false credentials the petition certainly qualifies as a “hoax.” That some of its signatories agreed with it anyway does not change that.
Any evidence to back up that assertion?
Strategery: Argue visciously about one specific study or scientist to avoid the fact that there is a consensus among the experts. Quote qualified scientists that are being paid by Exxon to show that your side has experts too. Ignore the consequences of being wrong (if we are wrong, we hurt the economy, if Exxon is wrong the world is destroyed)
Extrapolating from Scientific American’s numbers, only ~200 out of thousands of researchers with relevant experience signed the petition in good faith. That is a minority. If physicists and chemists and materials scientists signed the survey as well that only means that whatever number of physicists, chemists and materials scientists have uninformed opinions. I could have told you that.
Are you actually arguing that the majority opinion among climate experts is that global warming doesn’t exist, or isn’t being caused or quickened by man?
The problem is, there IS NO CONSENSUS. Yet you and your side dishonestly argue there is.
Did the petition claim to be blessed by the NAS? I didn’t read that. Are you sure?
Answered on my very first post on this thread
Fine, there is no ‘consensus’ because there are scientists that dissent.
But, are you actually arguing that there isn’t a strong majority opinion on my side?
yes, if true, it would be a minority. However, in keeping with the scientific method, is there existing evidence the scientific opinion on the remaining researchers? No?
Then please answer again. Your first post appears to me to quote one person saying that the causes can’t be determined.
No, the guy included a fake article that was doctored to look like it came from the official, peer-reviewed journal of the NAS, that’s all. It’s not like he used the words “this petition was blessed by the NAS” or anything, so you’re right, the petition is basically valid.
It was actually the consensus of 60 scientists, but who’s quibbling over numbers with you reality-based types?
Apparently yes, if he agreed with the predetermined line.
I’m declaring Darrell the winner of this thread simply because he ran the clock out on you guys…
He’s a waste of time.
It still doesn’t answer the question about what you believe. What do you believe the majority opinion among experts is?
Do you actually believe that, among climatologist, global warming is thought to be ‘junk science’ or a ‘liberal scare tactic’?
That’s all I am asking. You can answer, or snark.
You have a scan of that article? Was there a NAS seal or logo on it? Because the article you cited doesn’t say
Judging from what was written, you and I don’t know if it was “doctored” or not.
This is especially interesting coming from Moon-owned UPI:
I surrender. “Fake but accurate” carries the day again.
It appears that we are pumping oil out of the earth at as high a rate as we can. We are pumping natural gas at a good clip too. Then we burn it all.
Hence, we are burning the earth as quickly as humanly possible.
Is it beyong the realm of possibility that it may be harmful?
I think it’s clear that there is no significant consensus on mankind’s impact on climate change
Fine, but there is a very signigicant majority opinion that the climate is warming rapidly, and that man is responsible.
I don’t see how it is possible for CO2 not to be increasing since we are burning the earth as efficiently as we can, releasing CO2.
At the same time we are burning the earth, there is another change that is caused by man. Changes in land usage changes the environment.
We use more of the earth to farm, and that affects the environment. We clear forests for farm land, which affects the climate.
We have to accept that we are changing the world and learn how to cope.
I call bullshit. Show us your source for that assertion, especially the “man is responsible” part. My problem is that so many on your side assert that position, as if it’s proven fact.. then run like hell when asked to back it up
I can’t really take a stand on this issue until I hear the official position of Bob Jones University.
Intermittently, yes. I could close my eyes with a little forewarning.
According to Tim’s source, I am defending an accomplice to mass murder
From the very same article cited:
Fine. Call it what you want.
The Republican War on Science and Scientists.
If you want to believe that a majority of the experts have studied the situation and concluded that there is nothing to see here and if there is it isn’t our fault…….go for it. For every article I show you that backs up my statement, you can pull one from an Exxon funded study saying that a set of 1.2 million experts say it is hogwash. I don’t want to play.
I hope like hell that you and your scientists are 100% correct, because I would like my kids to live a long and happy life. I don’t want global warming to be real. I want it to be a liberal scare tactic being used to win elections. (or whatever our motivation is supposed to be)
Truth is that the scientific community has left this debate years ago. They have moved on to what are we going to do about it. They are exasperated by the inability of the rest of us to listen. Instead we look for somebody to tell us to keep driving our Hummers.
Just to be clear, I asked you to provide citation to backup a unsubstantiated assertion.. I assume this is your way of admitting it’s not possible to do that
You’re going to believe whatever you want to believe.. facts be damned
An obviously misleading statement. Nobody talks about A influencing B unless the influence is significant. I’m sure that there is some way that a dog farting in China influences the amount of frost on my car’s windshield ten months from now, but scientifically-speaking it does not. Spencer is taking advantage of semantic differences between scientific speech and ordinary speech. You know, “it’s only a theory.”
Exactly. Everything influences the climate. There are some influences we can control, like human activity. We should focus on that one.
Climate change has been modeled repeatedly, and each model has a different outcome. There are too many variables to expect anyone to accurately predict what is going to happen.
But through the wonders of science, they can predict possible outcomes. They can discover probable influences.
The scientific community has a majority opinion that:
-the climate is changing
-the rate of change is alarming
-increased C02 levels are a probable negative influence
-Human activity is a probable cause of increased CO2
-More bullet points are probable
We can wait to see if their probabilities turn out to be accurate, or we can try to keep the planet habitable even if they are correct.
Like boxing a glacier…
no, the glacier will actually disappear one day.
Tim, you should know that there is lots of talk (and studies) concerning all sorts of influences on the atmosphere, including the environmental effects of cow flatulence. That doesn’t mean that their influence is “significant”, if significant can be reasonably quantified
The question is, where is the consensus which contradicts the summary of those 60 scientists quoted in my first post?
Look, I think by any reasonable judgement, I have made a number of valid points here. What exactly do you disagree with and why, or are you content to snark from the sidelines?
Where is the consensus?
peer reviewed journals
Don’t worry, when you see Al Gore’s movie, then you will believe.
Here is more Global warming “science” for Tim F.
Climate Change On Jupiter
SUVs Destroying Jupiter Now
The Other Steve
Can you repeat them again? Perhaps an executive summary?
From the very same article:
The Other Steve
Paul L. – Wow that newsbusters site is pretty cool. Just when I think my spoofing might sound batshit insane, you come along and give me some fantastic talking points.
Have you seen the Rapture Index website?
It’s a wonderful source of moonie quotes too.
Maybe it might be because Global Warming is a now gospel to Scientific community’s experts (like the population bomb in the 70-80s) and they will brook no descent.
My link was bad. Here it is.
The larger point seems to be that you can get some small number of scientists to sign a petition saying “I’m personally not convinced yet,” and you can get someone from an Exxon-funded think tank to laugh it all off, but there’s a notable absence of actual peer-reviewed papers questioning the consensus in favor of climate change.
I have DailyKos and Media Matters for them.
To argue a study done by the IPCC that included references to 928 different peer reviewed studies, you use one quote about the study from Roy Spencer. Roy Spencer of Tech Central Station and the Heartland Institute.
Exxon Funding since 1998
Tech Central Station: $95,000
Heartland Institute: $435,000
I think it is worth pointing out that Darrell thinks that we have scientists misinterpreted while Paul L thinks that scientists are in evil cahoots. That at least should count to Darrell’s credit.
There seems to be a consensus on climate change. The main point of contention is on “how much are humans influencing the climate, and is there anything we can and should do about it?”
Exxon-funded think tank = Evil liars who will not be happy until the earth is a burnt out cinder
Greenpeace/Sierra Club-funded think tank = High minded truthtellers who are saving the planet.
Don’t ever, EVER, link shit like that again. I had no idea that was out there, and now I have to deal with knowing it exists.
My favorite, the cartoon blog-ad link to “Mark D Roberts, the RAPTURE GOPHER”
I suppose he ‘digs’ until he finds rapture related goodies the the MSM misses?
There “must” be a global conspiracy to keep those anti-consensus papers from getting through the peer review process. There “must” be, right?
Hell no. Think it through. Sierra pays for science that backs up their agenda. Exxon pays for science that increases their profits.
Do you really believe that Exxon is hiring scientist to get to the ‘truth’? That is absurd, they aren’t in the scientific research business. They are hiring scientist, and funding them, because they have an agenda.
Don’t trust scientists that have an agenda before they start the study. It is crippling to the scientific process.
Not all scientists Tim just the one’s pushing the latest grant-getting fad like the Global Warming/Population bomb.
What about this scientist.
The Skeptical Environmentalist
Lomborg criticizes the way many environmental organizations make selective and misleading use of scientific data to influence decisions about the allocation of limited resources. The Skeptical Environmentalist is a useful corrective to the more alarmist accounts favored by green activists and the media.
On the payroll of the energy companies?
And the Greenpeace/Sierra Club have not agenda?
Are you willing to wait 25 years to be 100% sure that we are a leading cause of RAPID climate change?
No one is saying that climate change is caused solely by man. The climate is constantly changing. The problem today is that it is changing much more rapidly than it has in the past.
If we aren’t causing it, we are in a world of trouble, because we can’t stop or slow the change.
Spencer simply pointed out the obvious, that her study was pointless.. that human activity affects the atmosphere to some degree is a benign and uncontroversial position. Just as some studies point to the atmospheric impact of cow flatulence
What is unsettled and unproven is “how much” is man impacting the environment, whether that impact is significant, and what should we do about it. To cite from Tim’s source above, I’ll quote again from one of the books/studies which Tim recommended
What’s hilarious are the environmental alarmists who skewer IDers over lack of scientific method, but who themselves refuse scientific method on the subject of mankind’s influence on global climate change.
Amusing that Darrell keeps leaning on the “scientific method” when he has a total of zero peer-reviewed studies that go against the consensus on climate change.
Amazing how those lefty groups keep funding peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study, while Exxon and friends aren’t able to produce more than a few petitions and snarky comments, but they’re all equally biased, right?
In the 1970’s, environmentalists warned us: “Are you willing to wait 25 years to be 100% sure that we are the leading cause of the RAPIDLY approaching ICE AGE?”
Yes. The climate changes on its own. If we are in the midst of a natural cataclysmic climate change, there is nothing we can do anyway. But, we have spent the last 120+ years burning the earth as efficiently as we can. That changes the air around us, it has to. We are pumping CO2 out.
We are clearing forests. We are polluting the water. We are changing the use of land all over the world.
Maybe it is a coincidence, but after we pumped the CO2 in the air, the earth has started to warm and change at an alarming rate. It could be a coincidence, but I somehow doubt it.
It will never be proven that we are responsible for 5% or 95% or the change, we have to go on the best info we have. Right now, the best evidence we have is that we are probably causing the earth to change in a way that may kill us.
(I know that global warming isn’t simply CO2, but that was the example used way up thread, and I have just stuck with it)
1) there was not a consensus opinion that there was a rapidly approaching ICE AGE
2) climatology has improved over the past 36 years, along with the rest of science. Tech revolution: satellites, computers, etc.
You are right Steve, scientists will always admit that they are wrong even if it affects their income.
Australians Win Nobel For Linking Bug To Ulcers
“Moreover, they showed that ulcers could be cured altogether by killing the bacteria with antibiotics. Hitherto, ulcers had been considered uncurable. Instead, patients’ symptoms were treated with a lifetime of drugs to reduce the acidity of the gut.
The pair’s claims provoked a fierce backlash from the medical establishment, which held to the dogma that ulcers were brought on by stress and lifestyle, and could not be cured. By revealing a simple cure, the researchers also threatened to destroy huge and lucrative global markets for the existing anti-ulcer drugs, which simply eased symptoms.”
Amusing that Steve leans on the “peer review” aspect of the climate studies themselves, when in fact the only pertinent issue is one woman’s study of those studies.. a study which was never peer reviewed.
Steve, I assume you are too ignorant to see the irony in your post.. the irony that the “study” you lean on so heavily regarding scientific consensus on climate change, the one you cite from Naomi Oreskes.. you don’t even realize she isn’t even a scientist herself, but a history professor
But thanks for playing
Well if you “doubt it”, that must be so. You’re as anti-science method as any IDer, although you’ll never admit it
cub, there have been numerous changes to our atmosphere over the earth’s existence. Was it just a coincidence that the ice age which killed the dinosaurs occurred before man?
I blame Bush for the ice age
Peer reviewed studies ARE the only ones that are relevant. If they can’t make it through that process, they weren’t done correctly. The peer review is not set up to look at the study’s conclusion, it is to review the process.
PaulL cites the inability of the scientific community to prevent accurate science from winning through, as evidence that it is preventing the “real” climate science from getting through. Where do these loons come from?
Somebody needs to read more carefully. The relevant point is not the studies themselves or whether or not they were peer reviewed, the point was that you, Steve, Tim, and others are leaning on a study of those peer-reviewed studies on climate change which was made by a non-scientist HISTORY TEACHER.
And her study wasn’t even peer reviewed. Do you understand now?
Zombie wingnuttery. Darrell still has not produced a single expert warning about the dangers of global cooling. He has produced laughably weak arguments equating meterologists with climate experts, weather with climate and Newsweek with peer-reviewed journals. But so far, nothing that actually backs up his claim.
Even if Darrell agrees today that the claim is bogus, which I doubt will happen, it will pop right up again next week like a B-movie zombie. You can count on it.
Prof. Oreskes analyzed 928 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals. Not one of those papers contradicted the scientific consensus on climate change.
Of course Prof. Oreskes is not an authority on climate change per se; she studies the history of science. That’s beside the point. Show me where she was wrong. Show me one of the 928 peer-reviewed papers that actually did contradict the scientific consensus. Just one.
If you can’t point to even one instance where she was wrong, then attacking her credentials doesn’t amount to much, does it?
So the “medical establishment” conspired to block the study from being published, right? Those claims never saw the light of day, just like all the peer-reviewed studies that contradict the consensus on climate change, right? It’s hard to imagine how they won the Nobel Prize, what with the suppression of their views by the Stalinist scientific community and all.
That is silly.
I ‘doubt it’ because I am not a scientist. I haven’t spent my life studying climate change. I don’t have a scientific method.
Because I am not scientist, I am forced to leave science up to them. I trust their majority opinion as being the most reasonable explanation to date.
If the scientific explanation was “I doubt it”, then their science would be on the same level as the IDers.
That makes no sense. I was saying that there are obvious influences that we have had on the climate, is it a coincidence that the climate changed. I doubt it.
I don’t “doubt it” because of my great scientific mind, I doubt it because the actual scientists believe that we are influencing the climate we live in.
Oh, I see what Darrell is saying. Peer-reviewed studies are valid, but no one is allowed to talk about what is in a peer-reviewed study unless they themselves are being peer-reviewed. Fortunately, none of his comments have been peer-reviewed, so we can safely dismiss them.
And it only took 20 years for them to admit they were wrong. From the above link
“The controversy is euphemistically alluded to in the Nobel citation, which credits the pair with “tenacity and a prepared mind [to challenge] prevailing dogmas”.
Warren, a pathologist from Perth, first noticed in 1982 that strange, curved bacteria frequently colonised the lower part of the stomach in biopsies from patients with ulcers, and that the bugs always lived close to sites of inflammation.
Marshall, a young clinical fellow, became interested in Warren’s findings and together they initiated a crucial study of biopsies from 100 patients. From these, Marshall eventually learned how to grow the bacteria in the lab, and named the species Helicobacter pylori.
They established that the organism was almost always present in patients with gastric inflammation, duodenal ulcers or gastric ulcers.
Next, the pair proved that patients could be cured, but only by eradicating the bacteria with antibiotics. Notably, Marshall proved in 1985 that the bacteria caused gastric inflammation by infecting himself, then curing his condition with antibiotics. “
Tim, by repeating your exact words zombie wingnutter, you are revealing the weakness of your argument. I produced a scan copy of Newsweek article which cited several different opinions and studies from that time. I understand that Time magazine did a similar article during that time period.
I am too young to tell you the general opinions at that time, but if Newsweek and Time did big feature articles on global cooling back in the 1970’s, It’s not “zombie wingnuttery” to conclude that scientific opinion at that time was probably leaning toward global cooling, although I admittedly don’t know for sure. At a minimum, it seems a number of scientist leaned toward the coming ice age theory, judging from the Newsweek article
But feel free to keep calling me a ‘zombie’ if that makes you feel empowered and all
Lets start with the WH study just out.
Then Here and here and here and here and here. I could literally come up with dozens more if you want but not right now time is short.
, which held to the dogma that ulcers were brought on by stress and lifestyle, and could not be cured. By revealing a simple cure, the researchers also threatened to destroy huge and lucrative global markets for the existing anti-ulcer drugs, which simply eased symptoms.”
Medical estalishment? BigPharma? Who pays scientists for results and enjoys ‘lucrative global markets for the existing anti-ulcer drugs, which simply eased symptoms.’
Her conclusions are already shown to be wrong by an actual scientist, not a History teacher:
On one hand we have a history teacher making conclusions about climate change which you rely upon.. and on the other side we have her conclusions disputed by a principal senior scientist at the University of Alabama-Huntsville.
Darrell, don’t confuse naming a tactic with naming a person.
You have cited two popular periodicals which have never been known for their science acumen. Think of a simple analogy which I described above – Time and Newsweek regularly freak out over shark attacks. Why is that? If you go over the publications of experts like Samuel Gruber at U Miami you won’t find any evidence of increased shark fatalities and you will not find any evidence that he or his colleagues are sounding the alarm. And yet here are these breathless articles with quotes from experts – EXPERTS – warning people about getting bitten by sharks.
If you still cannot follow the analogy, just ask and I will try to make it simpler. Suffice to say that you still have nothing whatsoever showing that this group of global cooling cassandras included any experts in the field. If you want to use the uncredentialed nimrods who were worried about cooling that’s fine, now pardon me while I use the black-helicopter conspiracy nuts to dicredit everything ever said by a rightwinger.
I don’t see anywhere that Spencer – who works for an Exxon-funded think tank – disputes Oreskes’ conclusion. He just shrugs it off by saying the conclusion doesn’t really prove anything.
It’s easy to show that Oreskes was wrong. Just show me one of the 928 peer-reviewed studies she analyzed that actually cuts against the consensus on climate change. That’s all it would take to prove her wrong. But you can’t do that, so you’d rather just dismiss her as “a history professor,” which automatically makes her wrong and the Exxon-funded professor who doesn’t even disagree with her correct.
Darn some of my links are broke. :( Try this its the PDF file
and the abstract
HEY DARRELL–LINK ME A PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL THAT DISAVOWS GLOBAL WARMING OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Sorry guys. I just can’t take his obfuscation any more.
I understand your point, but I disagree with it. Why? You would never see a major science report in either Time or Newsweek these days on global cooling, because that isn’t prevalent scientific opinion.. they would get mocked and ridiculed by the scientific community for reporting such a thing. Their magazine competitors would no doubt use such an article as a basis to skewer them over their lack of scientific justification for writing such a thing.
As I understand it, Newsweek and Time endured no such criticisms from the scientific community in the 1970’s after writing their highly publicised reports, because (presumably) they were reporting what was generally accepted mainstream scientific thinking of that time, or at least not too far away from mainstream scientific thinking at that time. Furthermore, the 1975 article quoted NAS, Columbia university study, and a study done by the NOAA, so it was far from an unsubtantiated opinion piece
I don’t see how that thinking on my part in any way constitutes ‘zombie wingnuttery’ as you characterize it. Do you have any evidence that the coming ice age was not mainstream scientific opinion in the 1970’s?
Punchy, try to disagree pleasantly. If for no other reason do it because angry swearing just makes the other guy feel good, counteracting the general purpose of posting it. I normally wouldn’t give a rat’s ass but it gets on my nerves when it’s a conversation to which I’m a party.
Go fuck yourself Punchy.. and learn how to read you half-wit
Darrell, the scientific community doesn’t run around ridiculing popular periodicals that get science wrong. Besides the general sociological separation of powers that prevents researchers from getting too politically involved (sue me), the effort would kill us. If I scrubbed every Science Times article that got some point of evolution wrong there wouldn’t be an article about evolution left in the paper. If somebody asks, sure we will tell them but denunciations usually aren’t out thing.
As to whether the research cited in the two articles reflected current thought at the time, I don’t know. They would not have a very hard time cherry-picking friendly data points to push a particular agenda if that is what they wanted to do. If their alarmism (which sells subscriptions, you might recall) reflected popular thinking among experts then they should not have a very hard time finding a credentialed expert sounding the alarm. I do not believe that they did.
Asking me to prove a negative? You know better than that. If you make an affirmative statement it’s your responsibility to support it.
I love it, you disagree with Spencer, so you feel obligated to smear his credibility as an “Exxon-funded” professor. How honest of you. What exactly does one have to do in your book to be characterized as just an Exxon-funded prof?
I’ll bet Exxon got him those medals and awards. Bastards
Sorry, Tim, just want to see the article in a peer-reviewed journal. That’s all.
Show me Nature. Science. JACS. Anything. I’m DYING to see some proof that credible scientists (those not employed by oil companies) have PUBLISHED (not signed petitions) research disawowing global warming.
Look, as a general statement, I don’t disagree. But as I understand it, the Newsweek article was huge news at the time in 1975, which puts it in a different class. If it was some side article from a no-name writer in Popular Mechanics read by only a few, you might have a point. But I understand the Newsweek and Time articles were highly publicized articles in their time, and they both warned of a coming global freeze.. which, if that was far out of the mainsteam scientific opinion of that time, that would seem to attract dispute from the scientific community, would it not? At least some significant scientific dispute you would think
But I didn’t disagree with Spencer. In fact, I just said that he doesn’t dispute Oreskes’ conclusion – and neither do you, apparently, since you can’t identify a single one of the 928 studies she analyzed that contradicts the consensus on climate change.
What Spencer is doing is something called “minimizing” – and yes, big shock here, the fact that you get big funding from Exxon does make you more likely to shade the issue of climate change!
If I used your own argumentative device, and rattled off the distinctions and awards of a dozen scientists who you think are full of crap on the issue of climate change, would you change your mind? I kinda doubt it. So why rattle off Spencer’s awards in an attempt to make him into some kind of unimpeachable source?
If “science” wanted to denounce the articles, what medium would they use? Television is about the only medium even more vapid than the newsweeklies. If newspapers ran a bit about scientists protesting, which may have happened for all I know, you would have a hard time proving it today. I don’t think that either of us is naive enough to expect Time and Newsweek to correct itself.
The best thing to do is find scientific review articles from the relevant time period. Contemporary reviews (as opposed to research articles) often include some reference to a particularly relevant popular culture phenomenon; for example Jurassic Park comes up fairly often in paleontology and cloning literature. You can scan through the PNAS archives from the time (not sure whether they are publicly accessible) to see what the experts were saying to each other. I will do it from here and let you know if I find anything.
Because you had characterized him as just an “Exxon funded” prof (your exact words) to smear him as being some some bought-off corporate hack rather than an accomplished atmospheric scientist.
Strawman? Darrell, you said this:
I’m asking you to back up that claim. Show me evidence of “no consensus”. Show us ONE article in a peer-reviewed journal–the only kind scientists give credibility to, for very good reason–that claims global warming is not taking place. That’s all I want–for you to back up your outrageous claim.
Get some reading comprehension. The debate is not whether there is currently a global warming taking place (starting just after 1975 when we were warned about a global cooling trend at that time), but what impact does man have on climate change.
I love the hyperbole from those on the left who skewer IDers over not following scientific method.. but when scientists shoot holes in their pseudo-science baloney on how man is destroying the environment, we can’t have that. hypocrites
And we’ll never know since you support the regime thats saying there is no problem so there’s no reason to continue looking into the issue.
Occams Razor. The groups who say global warming isn’t being caused by man are the people who would pay out the ass to fix the problem if we signed on the the Kyoto Accords. All the chewbacca-ness thats gone on inthis thread was cool but skipped around the central point of the argument. The people who would be adversely affected by Kyoto are blocking the study of mans affect on global climate.
How many peer-reviewed studies has this “accomplished atmospheric scientist” published that contradict the consensus on climate change? Just wondering, since I think the answer is zero.
Tell us how studies of man’s effect on global climate have been “blocked”.. I smell a juicy leftwingnut conspiracy theory
Do you blame Bush? I do.
There is no consensus on causes of global climate change
Heh. Okay class, what are the chances that Darrell will “back up an outrageous claim?” Or answer a simple, straightforward question that might have an embarassing answer?
Please review last weekend’s lessons and draw your conclusions. Darrell just makes shit up, extrapolates the general from the specific, conceals his own agenda and his own views, and sings spuds.
You’ll get more straight info from The Onion than you will from this lying weasely sumbitch … surely everyone knows this by now?
Once again we are forced to wonder, why in the world do they let this asshole post here?
Maybe we should lock you two in a room and see who walks out.
So the AMA and doctors is in bed with BigPharma? Good to know.
Can I ignore the AMA’s current opposition to obesity and smoking?
They are tools of BigPharma right? Trying to get me to buy diet pills and non smoking patches. Those clever evil bastards.
Here is a test to see what you would support to help reduce greenhouse gases/global warming. (Let’s assume it is real)
Will you support the following:
1) Replace all coal electricity generating plants with Nuclear Power.
2) The endangered species act/requirements for a environmental impact study now has an exemption if you are building a hydro-electric plant.
3) Gasoline $4.00+ dollars a gallon. No more complains about oil company gouging.
4) Cut down all old growth forest and replace it with new growth.
Also, anyone want to address the global warming on Mars and Jupiter?
Hey, I’m not the one floating the conspiracy theories or quoting history teachers over atmospheric scientists
The left’s eloquent spokesman has arrived.
Boy, talk about dragging the thread down.
What would be the point of showing you anything? I’ve said before you aren’t here for debate. You’re here to tell us things and refute what we say. Its all you do, if you have another purpose its well hidden. The post I’m replying to is a perfect illustration of your tactic. You want to make that statement by me the issue of discussion. By doing so we avoid the point I was making so you never have to address it. You’re just doing in the blogging world what your party has done to television and radio political discourse.
Ok then, make your larger point if you can, but we’d still like to hear about all the “blocked” studies of man’s effect on global climate.. blocked by those who would be adversely affected by the ‘truth’ those studies would undoubtedly reveal.
I say, speak to truth to power
Paul L., Darrell is talking to you. He wants to see all your anti-global warming studies that have been suppressed by the powers that be.
So if someone want to get a grant for disproving Global Warming and someone else wants to get a grant for proving Global Warming. Who do you think gets one in academa?
Here is a hint from Tim F’s post
Tim F. speaking of peer review how do you explain the
flawed Hockey Stick graph
“They had great trouble getting the necessary information from Michael Mann. He put many obstacles in their path and even refused to release his computer code, saying that “giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in” and that “if we allowed that sort of thing to stop us from progressing in science, that would be a very frightening world”. He apparently was not willing to accept that one of the litmus tests of a scientific theory is its reproducibility.”
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Doctrine
Of course your side calls McIntyre and McKitrick shills for the energy companies.
Thing is, in your world, the fact that 1,000 published papers all agree is evidence that there must be a contrary view out there that’s getting suppressed. That’s tin-foil hat stuff, my friend.
I would hope that no one whose purpose is to reach a certain result gets a grant either way, but let’s be very clear: you have to be a complete idiot to think there is a shortage of funding in this country for opponents of climate change!
That’s right. The preponderance of evidence clearly points to a coverup.
See alt.conspiracy for more on this.
All agree about what? What exactly are you saying there is consensus on?
Take the studies done on cow flatulence affecting the environment for example. Do cow emmissions affect the chemistry of the atmosphere? Well, technically you might gain scientific “agreement” on that, but the question remains, are those emissions significant, and should we be taking federal action about them?
I mean, if there is ‘consensus’ on cow flatulence ‘affecting’ the environment, that must mean something according to your logic, right?
Darrell, before we can address those issues, you first need to clean up your own house, in the form of Paul L. the climate-change denier. You agree that he’s full of shit, right?
Well he is the self-proclaimed heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots, so chances are high.
Yes … neuroscientist in training, at least. Far from being an expert. I’m about a year or two away from completing my PhD in Neurobiology & Behavior at the University of Washington. My research is on the effects of stress on the brain, focusing on the parts of the brain that make the neurotransmitter serotonin.
Is there anything that can be done for Darrell?
I’ll leave the long-distance prognosis business to Dr. Frist ;)
Strawman, I never claimed that climate-change is not occurring. I disagree that humans are causing global warming as opposed to a increase of solar activity.
Ross – nicely played, sir.
You are referring to one of the more embarrassing incidents of congressional harrassment in scientific history. I doubt that I would respond to that kind of hostile behavior with as much grace.
I love the fact when I wrote
Tim just assumed it was Darrell and replied as such. How crazy do you have to be before someone assumes you could say something like that and be serious about it?
Bottom line, most leftists assume out of ignorance and dogma that it is established scientific fact that mankind has a significant effect on global climate change.
Leftists pretend to follow science except when scientif methods conflict with their extremist dogma – “Mother earth is being destroyed by mankind! Do something!”
That’s when it becomes apparent how phony and ill-informed so many on the left truly are
Are you referring to this?
Has balance warped the truth?
I also take it that you disagree with Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR)
Supreme Court Rules Against Schools in Military Recruiting Case
Take Federal funds get the strings.