Tories new attack ads on carbon tax

[peter_puck]

movement this is impressive. From a scientific perspective it is at best silly and at worse rather frightening.

Meanwhile there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of other scientists who DON't agree with GW who either are afraid for their jobs and thus keep quiet or who simply are not in a public enough position to be heard!

Why don't you put on your tinfoil hat and join the other believers in scientific conspiracies.

Aliens are among us, you can run your car on water, drinking urine is good for you. The truth is out there!!!

It shows how truly PATHETIC an argument is when you have to resort to conspiracy theories to defend it.

Do you understand the concept of tenure ? If I am a tenured scientists at a university, I cannot be fired unless I rape a child on camera.

Can you even point to any evidence of this AGW mafia that "real scientists" are afraid ofh ? US senators threatened to open an investigation into two pro -AGW scientists who appeared on a committee. Bush ORDERED US government scientists not to talk about AGW. NASA concluded that they were presured to downplay AGW by Bush political appointees.

Do you have anything close to this ?

[Riverwind]

You can usually choose or suggest who reviews your papers.

No you can't. The review process is anonymous and scientists often never know who rejected their papers.

Scientists are also judged by the quality of papers. Papers that go against the status quo are usually more significant, and thus end up in better journals like Science or Nature.

Also not true. Papers that go completely against the status quo are usually rejected unless the supporting evidence is so compelling that they cannot be denied. Papers that re-enforce the status quo are accepted quickly even if the evidence or methods are dubious. A recent paper that attempted to use wind speed to estimate the tropospheric temperature is a good example. This paper claims that the thermometers on the weather balloons are unreliable measures of temperature so it attempted to estimate the 'true' temperature by measuring the wind speed. It is no coincidence that the results of this paper happen to support the climate models better than the actual temperature measurements from the weather balloons. This paper would have never seen the light of day if the results contradicted the models. Edited June 10, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Not at all! I do not consider myself a layman in such matters. I'm neither an expert nor accredited but I have worked and studied in scientific fields all my life and feel that I'm at least more qualified than the average social baseline. After all, the majority of citizens could not explain how a light bulb works, which is a simple device more than a hundred years old. Explaining a telegraph sounding unit would be out of the question. I'm willing to bet at least 3 beer that of any 10 people that YOU chose at random from off the street to explain how a florescent lamp works you'd be damn lucky to get a majority who could do it. I'll even let you chose the brand!

And if you ask a scientist to do something outside their field, I'll bet you three beer they probably wouldn't be able to do it. What's the point?

I call bogus that there are hundreds of thousands of scientists in fear.

As for the "fearful scientists", I direct you to an excellent series that ran in the National Post called "The Deniers". You can read all the many articles at their website. You might also read up on the Nobel Prize Winner Kary Mullis.

I've read the whole series. There has never been a claim of hundreds of thousands of scientists in fear for their jobs.

Or do you define layman as anyone who happens to disagree with you? If so then by your definition I guess I'm guilty. However, surely you'll understand if I don't support your views if they happen to imply taxing me more excessively. I'd like to "save the planet" as much as anyone else but I need considerably more than David Suzuki and Al Gore to convince me.

I define layman as someone who is not trained nor considered an expert in their field of work. For example, someone might have great medical knowledge but if they are not trained as a doctor, they are not a doctor. They are laymen.

I have read the Deniers series in its entirety. Some agree there is global warming while other don't. Some think we are headed for an ice age. Some of their fields of work make a compelling argument and should be studied further.

One thing is certain: they are not hundreds of thousands of deniers. This is an argument that can't be supported

I know full well about Kary Mullis and his denialist views on HIV and global warming. He also said LSD helped him in his research.

Don't use Suzuki or Gore to convince you on the issue. I will stick to what I hear a very large amount of scientists are saying for the most part. However, unlike many people who even today justify smoking because there are a few scientists who can't find a link to cancer, I'll take my chances with the consensus who do say there is a strong link. Likewise, I will look to what today's scientists are saying on climate change.

I have no problem advocating for more research but I don't think we have to wait decades like we did for smoking before doing anything on the issue.

[Alta4ever]

Just more bogus claims by the right wing.

Try giving more credible citations next time.

Whats more credible?

Typical left wing too arrogant to think that they could ever be wrong.

[Alta4ever]

Dobbin its time you stepped down off your elitist soap box take off the rose coloured glass and look around.

[Alta4ever]

witty.....

Glad you liked it. I aim to please.

[Riverwind]

Can you even point to any evidence of this AGW mafia that "real scientists" are afraid ofh ?

Look at the abuse that are hurled at scientists like Lindzen, Michaels, Christy or Spenser because of their skeptical views. How many scientists would want to labelled shills of oil companies or be publically called liers and frauds? This is what happens to scientists that do not toe the line on AGW.

Bush ORDERED US government scientists not to talk about AGW. NASA concluded that they were pressured to downplay AGW by Bush political appointees. Do you have anything close to this ?

Dr Roy Spencer worked for NASA when Clinton was in charge. He was told to shut up because he was skeptical of AGW. However, Spenser appears to a person with more integrity than Hansen so he simply resigned his position instead of whining to the press.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/2008/06/medi...al-warming.html

I see that we are once again having to hear how NASA's James Hansen was dissuaded from talking to the press on a few of the 1,400 media interviews he was involved in over the years.

Well, I had the same pressure as a NASA employee during the Clinton-Gore years, because NASA management and the Clinton/Gore administration knew that I was skeptical that mankind's CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming. I was even told not to give my views during congressional testimony, and so I purposely dodged a question, under oath, when it arose.

But I didn't complain about it like Hansen has. NASA is an executive branch agency and the President was, ultimately, my boss (and is, ultimately, Hansen's boss). So, because of the restrictions on what I could and couldn't do or say, I finally just resigned from NASA and went to work for the university here in Huntsville. There were no hard feelings, and I'm still active in a NASA satellite mission and fully supportive of its Earth observation programs.

In stark contrast, Jim Hansen said whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted to the press and congress during that time. He even campaigned for John Kerry, and received a $250,000 award from Theresa Heinz-Kerry's charitable foundation -- two events he maintains are unrelated. If I had done anything like this when I worked at NASA, I would have been crucified under the Hatch Act.

Does anyone besides me see a double standard here?

-Roy W. Spencer

The University of Alabama in Huntsville

Edited June 10, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Dobbin its time you stepped down off your elitist soap box take off the rose coloured glass and look around.

It time you stopped personalizing in your posts. I know it is difficult when the instructions from the head of the party is to attack a person directly but please remember that the rules on this forum are different. You don't want to get banned like your compatriot.

[jdobbin]

Whats more credible?

Typical left wing too arrogant to think that they could ever be wrong.

You gave a general reference to Hansard. I'm sorry if that doesn't cut it. The Tories have gotten maybe 40 bills done in the nearly three years in office. This is more than than in 13 years?

[myata]

Look at the abuse that are hurled at scientists like Lindzen, Michaels, Christy or Spenser because of their skeptical views. How many scientists would want to labelled shills of oil companies or be publically called liers and frauds? This is what happens to scientists that do not toe the line on AGW.

Anyways, here's the US' Academy of Science report on climate change (2008). Care to read the first page, carefully.

There was also UN international panel on climate change; EU governments adopted real programs on emissions control based on recommendations from their scientists.

I mean, sure. There's bound to be an oddball out there who'll deny or support (your choice) virtually any claim. Here's the test though. Will you use their theories (e.g on anit-gravitation, or eternal energy free levitation) to build your home, or transport yourself around? Or go with the "consensus"? Why?

[gc1765]

No you can't. The review process is anonymous and scientists often never know who rejected their papers.

Yes you can. You might not know who reviewed the paper, but it is usually someone that you suggested. I have yet to see a journal that does not require you to suggest reviewers.

Papers that go completely against the status quo are usually rejected unless the supporting evidence is so compelling that they cannot be denied. Papers that re-enforce the status quo are accepted quickly even if the evidence or methods are dubious. A recent paper that attempted to use wind speed to estimate the tropospheric temperature is a good example. This paper claims that the thermometers on the weather balloons are unreliable measures of temperature so it attempted to estimate the 'true' temperature by measuring the wind speed. It is no coincidence that the results of this paper happen to support the climate models better than the actual temperature measurements from the weather balloons. This paper would have never seen the light of day if the results contradicted the models.

Not true. It's actually pretty rare to have a paper rejected (unless maybe if you're submitting it to a very prestigious journal). Some people still might not accept it, but that doesn't mean it won't get published. When Michelson and Morley suggested that there was no "ether" it was very controversial, and took time to accept...but it went on to become one of the most important scientific findings of the century.

[Riverwind]

Will you use their theories (e.g on anit-gravitation, or eternal energy free levitation) to build your home, or transport yourself around? Or go with the "consensus"? Why?

No one can prove that the theory of gravity is true (that is why they call it a 'theory'). However, it is possible to make very detailed predictions on what will happen given a set of initial conditions. The ability to predict future outcomes based on a hypothesis is what makes science useful and it allows us to separate the crackpots from the geniuses.

Unfortunately, we have no climate lab that allows us to test which climate hypotheses are correct. We have only one experiment going on and we are living it and the only thing that we can do is look at the predictions made in the past by different people and see who has done a better job of predicting outcomes. The real data collected over the last 8 years supports the hypothesis that 'CO2 will cause some warming but not enough to be concerned' better than it supports the IPCC hypotheses of 'catastrophic warming ahead'. Now 8 years of data is a short time but proper evaluation of scientific hypothesis requires that only data collected *after* the prediction is made be used in the testing of the hypothesis. This means that the IPCC may yet be proven right, however, the disagreement between reality and their predictions to date is significant and cannot be dismissed. Prudence requires that we wait and collect more data before embarking on major policy changes which assume that the IPCC predicted outcomes are likely.

Incidently, the report you linked to simply repeats the misinformation and distortions promoted by the IPCC. For example, the analysis in Fig 4 uses computer models that were programmed with the assumption that only CO2 can cause warming to show that the earth would not have warmed if humans had not added CO2. It is an exercise in circular logic that tells us nothing about what is really going on. The fact that many scientists fail to see the circular logic in the so called 'proof' of CO2's effect is an example of the confirmation bias that permeates the climate science community today.

Edited June 10, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Not true. It's actually pretty rare to have a paper rejected (unless maybe if you're submitting it to a very prestigious journal). Some people still might not accept it, but that doesn't mean it won't get published.

The 'prestigious' journals have a extremely pro-AGW bias. In some cases the editors have engaged in unethical activities where they allowed others to see works before they are published. These people are then allowed submit rebuttles which are printed as seperate papers instead of comments on the original papers. This prevents the original author from responding to the 'rebuttles' in a timely fashion. If a paper is published in a lesser known journal that fact will be used as an excuse to dismiss the paper.

[peter_puck]

A recent paper that attempted to use wind speed to estimate the tropospheric temperature is a good example. This paper claims that the thermometers on the weather balloons are unreliable measures of temperature so it attempted to estimate the 'true' temperature by measuring the wind speed. It is no coincidence that the results of this paper happen to support the climate models better than the actual temperature measurements from the weather balloons. This paper would have never seen the light of day if the results contradicted the models.

BS. Data from satellite (SP) that reported global cooling was reported all over the place about 10 years ago when the anti-AGW people were trying to defend the "were not warming" line.

Nobody edited that data (it was later debunked however)

[peter_puck]

. This prevents the original author from responding to the 'rebuttles' in a timely fashion. If a paper is published in a lesser known journal that fact will be used as an excuse to dismiss the paper.

Does it matter if the author responds to rebuttles in a "timely fashion" ? Many of the rebuttles of anti-AGW stuff have been out there for years and they still have not been responded to

[Bryan]

BS. Data from satellite (SP) that reported global cooling was reported all over the place about 10 years ago when the anti-AGW people were trying to defend the "were not warming" line.

Nobody edited that data (it was later debunked however)

The earth isn't warming though, hasn't been for about 10 years. And most recently the earth has gotten cooler. So much cooler that all of the supposed warming from the last 130 years have been completely erased. The only thing that's been debunked is the AGW hypothesis, which was transparent fraud from the get-go.

[Riverwind]

BS. Data from satellite (SP) that reported global cooling was reported all over the place about 10 years ago when the anti-AGW people were trying to defend the "were not warming" line. Nobody edited that data (it was later debunked however)

Adapting the satellite to measure trends in climate was a challenge and there were some initial problems with the algorithms used. However, those problems were corrected yet we still have a situation where the actual temperatures are rising much slower than they should be according to the models. In most scientific disciplines a mismatch between the model and the data would tell the scientists to re-evaulate their models. Unfortunately, in climate sciences any mismatches between data and the models are invariably blamed on the data and many resources are spent trying to find ways to adjust the data in order to ensure a better fit with the models. The paper using wind speed as a proxy for temperature is a more recent example. Edited June 10, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Does it matter if the author responds to rebuttles in a "timely fashion" ? Many of the rebuttles of anti-AGW stuff have been out there for years and they still have not been responded to

It is a pattern that has been repeated a number of times. A sceptic publishes a paper which casts doubt on the AGW hypothesis. The alarmists rush to get papers out to 'discredit it'. These papers usually do nothing of the sort, however, that does not stop the alarmists from claiming that the original paper was 'discredited' and therefore can be ignored. They repeat the mantra over and over again until the point where it becomes accepted as truth by journalists and other lay people who don't understand the science. It would be more difficult to engage in these propoganda exercises if they published their rebuttals as comments on the original paper instead of pretending that they had entirely new papers based on new research.

[gc1765]

The 'prestigious' journals have a extremely pro-AGW bias.

How do you know this without knowing which papers were rejected?

In some cases the editors have engaged in unethical activities where they allowed others to see works before they are published. These people are then allowed submit rebuttles which are printed as seperate papers instead of comments on the original papers. This prevents the original author from responding to the 'rebuttles' in a timely fashion.

Could you give an example?

[Riverwind]

How do you know this without knowing which papers were rejected?

I read comments on blogs like climateaudit.org where the authors of rejected papers report their experiences with journal editors.

Could you give an example?

It happened to Richard Linzden. I can't find a link right now but I am slightly rephrasing a comment Linzden made in an artical talking about how the scientific process has been hijacked by AGW alarmists. Edited June 11, 2008 by Riverwind

[peter_puck]

The earth isn't warming though, hasn't been for about 10 years. And most recently the earth has gotten cooler. So much cooler that all of the supposed warming from the last 130 years have been completely erased. The only thing that's been debunked is the AGW hypothesis, which was transparent fraud from the get-go.

Lets extend the logic to the summer warming hypothesis that we see on the weather channel.

It is a lot cooler today than yesterday. In fact, weeks of "summer warming" have been wiped out it a single day!

Good to know that this summer warming crap has been debunked, cause now I can sell my airconditioner!

What you are relying on is a statistical lie. Everyone says about "10 years ago" because that was one of the hottest years on record. The fact is that the last ten years have been very hot by historical standards.

I could pick the coldest year of the 80's and point to you a dramatic increase in temperatures.

Given the right set of dates, you can show anything. To put it another way, is Nortel as successful company as measured by share price ? I can give you any answer you want. If you say it is a disaster, I will show you the stock price at its lowest and the stock price today, and wow, dramatic growth!.

On the other hand, if you say it is doing really well, then I would show you the peak value and the value today and it would be a disaster. I can make the stock "hot" or "cold" by choosing the dates.

What you are doing by using the 10 year figure is to pick the two dates that best suit your hypothesis. In doing so, you are misunderstanding the theory. Global warming theory does not claim to be able to predict what the termperature will be next year. Other events (volcanoes/ El Nino's/ forest fires/butterflys fapping their wings on a beach in Brazil and other random events) have a much greater impact of climate in the short term.

What Global warming theory states is that the temperature will get slowly hotter over a long time period. If you take the average of the last 10 years where you claim global warming has been debunked, you will find that on average it is one hotest decades in recorded history. That supports GW.

[peter_puck]

It's already been thoroughly discredited.

If it has been debunked, I suggest you tell the scientists

[gc1765]

I read comments on blogs like climateaudit.org where the authors of rejected papers report their experiences with journal editors.

Prestigious journals like Nature and Science reject the majority of submissions that they receive, so it's not surprising that there are a lot of rejected authors. The only way that you could prove that there is a bias is to compare the percentage of pro-GW articles accepted vs. the percentage of anti-GW articles accepted, and even then you would have to show that the rejection of the pro-GW articles were more justified, which would be difficult if not impossible to do.

It happened to Richard Linzden. I can't find a link right now but I am slightly rephrasing a comment Linzden made in an artical talking about how the scientific process has been hijacked by AGW alarmists.

I looked up his publications, but he has over 200 of them so it's hard to tell for sure which one you are talking about. He did have a paper in Nature in 1993, which was actually a rebuttal to another paper, along with a rebuttal from the authors of the original paper in the same issue. However, that is something that Nature does in every issue, and is certainly not exclusive to global warming articles.

[Riverwind]

What Global warming theory states is that the temperature will get slowly hotter over a long time period. If you take the average of the last 10 years where you claim global warming has been debunked, you will find that on average it is one hotest decades in recorded history. That supports GW.

Climate is an auto-correlated natural process which means it takes many years to shift from one level to another. That means that record years will tend to occur in sequences. This is not surprising nor does it provide any evidence for the alarmist view of GW. On the other hand, the IPCC made it quite clear that the temperature should rise at a rate of about 2 degC/century until 2030 after which it would start to accelerate. These predictions were made with models starting in 2001 which means we have a little over 7 years of data to use. Normally this would not be enough time to falsify such a prediction but the recent cooling has been quite rapid. This data tells us that the prediction of 2 degC/century is 95% likely to be wrong. Now it is likely that we are still warming but the real underlying trend most likely below 2 degC/century a could even be below 1.5 degC century. Warming of < 1.5 degC is not a concern. Edited June 11, 2008 by Riverwind

[Who's Doing What?]

Very funny post the CPC government has put through more legislation in a minority government, then past government did with a majority over 13 years.

Cite for this. A highly dubious statement.

Either confirm or retract.