Climate Change Skepticism

[jdobbin]

It is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of many scientists who have been bullied into silence by the media and AGW alarmists. A few couragous ones are now flighting an uphill battle trying to educate the public about the facts but people like your don't want to hear what they have to say and prefer to hold onto their delusions.

I think bullying is words like "alarmist" but that's just me. I know it must be frustrating and you want to lash out at people but try and not personalize things so much.

As far as these scientists go, they seem to have no trouble getting groups to finance them in their views.

[jdobbin]

Nonsense. You know it very well. It's a political football, like the fake ozone "crisis" or the Y2k "crisis" or the old growth "crisis." Or, for that matter, like the "brutal Afghan winter" or "Iraq spiralling into civil war," or any number of media fed frenzies western society seems willing to buy into at the drop of a hare-brained thesis.

Once again, that is your opinion of it. It doesn't seem to be one shared by the Harper government who have signed on to Bali. I didn't hear them criticizing the science, only the economics of doing it alone.

[Riverwind]

As far as these scientists go, they seem to have no trouble getting groups to finance them in their views.

Actually no. Most of these scientists find it difficult to get funding because of the intellectual bullying and misinformation that has gone on. Climate change is huge business now and the peddlers of the myth have too much to lose.

Here are some concrete examples of bullying:

· A group of AGW supporters are trying to get the British government to use force to block the publication of a skeptical movie (the Global Warming Swindle)

· AGW supporters in California have included skeptical scientists such as MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen as defendants in a law suit, asking that damages be paid by people and companies whose public speech doesn’t conform to AGW theory

· Many AGW skeptics have been unable to get scientists who have published publicly funded research to reveal their data and methodology for critique. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests have become a necessary tool of climate skeptics.

· When a group began photographing temperature measurement points to document the shortcomings in historical surface temperature measurements, the NOAA pulled the locations of its measurement stations off the Internet so that these US citizens could no longer take pictures of and critique US government installations.

· Scientists who question AGW theory are equated by AGW supporters with Holocaust deniers.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Riverwind

[ScottSA]

Once again, that is your opinion of it. It doesn't seem to be one shared by the Harper government who have signed on to Bali. I didn't hear them criticizing the science, only the economics of doing it alone.

You surely must have more subtlety than to interpret my point in that way. Did you miss something while reading it?

[jdobbin]

Actually no. Most of these scientists find it difficult to get funding because of the intellectual bullying and misinformation that has gone on. Climate change is huge business now and the peddlers of the myth have too much to lose.

And some other scientists on the global warming side have also faced problems in terms of being published or having their information suppressed. It is wrong and shouldn't happen.

However, I repeat: It is your opinion that what is being peddled is a myth.

[jdobbin]

You surely must have more subtlety than to interpret my point in that way. Did you miss something while reading it?

If you want to take a skeptical view, I have no problem with that. It is one that doesn't seem to be shared be shared by the Harper government.

[Riverwind]

And some other scientists on the global warming side have also faced problems in terms of being published or having their information suppressed. It is wrong and shouldn't happen.

Nonsense. I bet you can't give me one example in the last 10 years.

However, I repeat: It is your opinion that what is being peddled is a myth.

What happened to your brain? Did the AGW scientists remove it an replace it with tape recorder? I have presented a long series arguments that demonstrates - beyond any resonable doubt - that the AGW claims are likely a myth. Yet you choose to ignore it and repeat the AGW catechism. I may not agree with stevoh but he at least attempts to addres the arguments.

[jdobbin]

Nonsense. I bet you can't give me one example in the last 10 years.

What happened to your brain? Did the AGW scientists remove it an replace it with tape recorder? I have presented a long series arguments that demonstrates - beyond any resonable doubt - that the AGW claims are likely a myth. Yet you choose to ignore it and repeat the AGW catechism. I may not agree with stevoh but he at least attempts to addres the arguments.

James Hansen. Last year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/.../29climate.html

Why do you personalize things?

I've seen a few interesting things that you have posted but not enough convincing arguments against the majority of the scientists on global warming.

[Riverwind]

James Hansen. Last year.

That is a bit rich coming from the the biggest AGW blow hard out there who has repeately demanded that opposing views be censored. He also refuses to provide skeptics with the algorithms he used to produce NASA temperature data. What he calls 'silencing' is also nothing compared to public abuse that GW sceptics are forced to ensure.

[jdobbin]

That is a bit rich coming from the the biggest AGW blow hard out there who has repeately demanded that opposing views be censored. He also refuses to provide skeptics with the algorithms he used to produce NASA temperature data. What he calls 'silencing' is also nothing compared to public abuse that GW sceptics are forced to ensure.

You asked for an example. There it is.

[jazzer]

Give it up jdobbin. You're beating a dead horse here. The deniers will not be swayed, even if the rest of the world agrees ( as is pretty much the case now) that GW exists. Some folks would rather die than change their minds.

[Riverwind]

Give it up jdobbin. You're beating a dead horse here. The deniers will not be swayed, even if the rest of the world agrees ( as is pretty much the case now) that GW exists. Some folks would rather die than change their minds.

You forgot to finish your prayer to the gods of GW with the word 'Amen'. You really need to more careful - you could jeopardize your soul in the afterlife if you don't repeat the GW catechism perfectly. Edited December 16, 2007 by Riverwind

[ScottSA]

You forgot to finish your prayer to the gods of GW with the word 'Amen'. You really need to more careful - you could jeopardize your soul in the afterlife if you don't repeat the GW catechism perfectly.

I didn't see the "overwhelming consensus" mantra either. Isn't that like saying the Lord's Prayer without mentioning "Lord?" Fortunately for Jazzer, carbon credit indulgences can be bought at the nearest Gorean wicket, so his soul can be saved from the Fiery Lake of CO2.

Edited December 16, 2007 by ScottSA

[Dustin]

I really don't buy global warming myself. I think it's just a political fraud..... as we have only been tracking the earth's weather patterns for what, 200 years? Also it is most likely a natural cycle.

[jdobbin]

I really don't buy global warming myself. I think it's just a political fraud..... as we have only been tracking the earth's weather patterns for what, 200 years? Also it is most likely a natural cycle.

You must be quite angry with the Conservatives then for going forward on global warming.

[Wild Bill]

You must be quite angry with the Conservatives then for going forward on global warming.

I think you need to be a bit more cynical, my friend. I wouldn't count on Harper as a new convert to global warming at all!

The Tories learned very quickly that GW is a popular myth that can affect votes! Most Canadians never took any more science after they got a B+ 'cuz those beans in the jar full of toilet paper germinated and rose up of the jar. Claiming all their numbers as some kind of supporting proof is just nonsense. Science is not run by concensus. A fact is true or it isn't. The majority has supported an Earth-centred universe, a flat earth and all sorts of silly things over the years. The Delphic scientific method just doesn't cut it. We all know what 5 billion flies eat but that doesn't mean we should follow suit.

Nonetheless, sufficient voters buy into the myth that any government that wants to stay in power had better pay lip service to the idea. Harper seems to be trying to steer us into some sort of positive result regardless of whether GW truly exists or if Man has any hope of affecting it.

He accepts the GW premise at Bali but rejects bankrupting Canada while letting the significant producers off the hook. He's been proposing made-at-home solutions that would help our domestic environmental system while rejecting simply spending billions in foreign aid third world emission credits.

it seems obvious to me that he doesn't really believe in GW at all but he knows he'd better say so if he hopes to win the next election! Meanwhile, what's wrong with forcing the oil sands companies to turn to underground storage of CO2? Or a host of other green initiatives that never actually got a cheque to start up during all those years of Liberal rule?

No, I'm sorry. It just looks like political expediency to me.

[jdobbin]

I think you need to be a bit more cynical, my friend. I wouldn't count on Harper as a new convert to global warming at all!

The Tories learned very quickly that GW is a popular myth that can affect votes! Most Canadians never took any more science after they got a B+ 'cuz those beans in the jar full of toilet paper germinated and rose up of the jar. Claiming all their numbers as some kind of supporting proof is just nonsense. Science is not run by concensus. A fact is true or it isn't. The majority has supported an Earth-centred universe, a flat earth and all sorts of silly things over the years. The Delphic scientific method just doesn't cut it. We all know what 5 billion flies eat but that doesn't mean we should follow suit.

Nonetheless, sufficient voters buy into the myth that any government that wants to stay in power had better pay lip service to the idea. Harper seems to be trying to steer us into some sort of positive result regardless of whether GW truly exists or if Man has any hope of affecting it.

He accepts the GW premise at Bali but rejects bankrupting Canada while letting the significant producers off the hook. He's been proposing made-at-home solutions that would help our domestic environmental system while rejecting simply spending billions in foreign aid third world emission credits.

it seems obvious to me that he doesn't really believe in GW at all but he knows he'd better say so if he hopes to win the next election! Meanwhile, what's wrong with forcing the oil sands companies to turn to underground storage of CO2? Or a host of other green initiatives that never actually got a cheque to start up during all those years of Liberal rule?

No, I'm sorry. It just looks like political expediency to me.

You see this raises an interesting question: The question is the the hidden agenda question. We keep hearing from the right wing that there is no hidden agenda but on global warming, we keep hearing from forum members that it is a hidden agenda.

[Riverwind]

You see this raises an interesting question: The question is the the hidden agenda question. We keep hearing from the right wing that there is no hidden agenda but on global warming, we keep hearing from forum members that it is a hidden agenda.

It would not call hidden - he has consistently refused to make promises that he does not intend to keep. I see that as a good thing. Especially when you compare it to Dion who makes promises that he cannot possibly keep. The fact that he makes them exposes him as an idiot or a lier. Edited December 17, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

It would not call hidden - he has consistently refused to make promises that he does not intend to keep. I see that as a good thing. Especially when you compare it to Dion who makes promises that he cannot possibly keep. The fact that he makes them exposes him as an idiot or a lier.

Harper has said he accepts the science of global warming. You think he is sincere?

Edited December 17, 2007 by jdobbin

[jbg]

I'm afraid that is your opinion. It isn't shared by the majority of scientists. For this reason, the Tories haven't embraced your position.

The "chicken little" syndrome makes any responsible political position, other than "benign neglect" impossible.

But I know you're not reading my responses any more.

[jbg]

Harper has said he accepts the science of global warming. You think he is sincere?

Accepting the science doesn't mean he accepts a particular conclusion.

But JD, I know you're not reading this response.

[Riverwind]

Harper has said he accepts the science of global warming. You think he is sincere?

He is as sincere is the scientists who wrote the IPCC report. However, I suspect they disagree on which global warming science is most credible.

[jdobbin]

He is as sincere is the scientists who wrote the IPCC report. However, I suspect they disagree on which global warming science is most credible.

Let's be clear. He said that emissions cause global warming. He accepted that science. You don't think that is sincere? Yes or no?

[jbg]

What happened to your brain? Did the AGW scientists remove it an replace it with tape recorder?

I doubt it, but don't be surprised if he, at some point, stops responding to your posts.

[ScottSA]

Let's be clear. He said that emissions cause global warming. He accepted that science. You don't think that is sincere? Yes or no?

What are you trying to do? Have Conservatives put words in Harper's mouth? To what end? Who cares if he "accepts" fairy tales? All I care about is that he doesn't plan to bankrupt the country over the emperor's new clothes.