Please be advised:
This thread is for most comments that are not relevant to a particular post on this site;
IF your comment is an attempt to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change then it belongs on the “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread, NOT HERE. Violators will simply be deleted.
Comments will be also be deleted without mercy &/or have one of the following texts appended, or substituted for it IF:
- It attacks individuals;
- It replicates at length arguments that could simply have been linked;
- It duplicates other comments you have made in this thread or elsewhere on this site;
- It is a copy of a comment that you spam climate sites with.
ALL posters, please do not engage or reply to policy violators. I will be deleting their comments as soon as possible which will leave your comment contextless.
May be of note….
Higher tides affecting East Coast, especially mid-Atlantic
file:///Users/sarah/firefox_scrapbook_pvm/data/20090719130708/index.html
Scientists are closely watching unusually high tides along the entire East Coast, especially in mid-Atlantic states including Virginia, where average daily levels are running between 6 inches and 2 feet above predicted norms.
“This is a little taste of the future,” he said. “It basically exposes our vulnerabilities to high water.”
Atkinson said people who live or work away from local creeks and rivers might not notice the change. But “ship captains can tell, and the insurance companies know what is going on,” he said.
Scientists do not think the unusually high tides are due to sea level rise because, as Szabados explained, “these have happened suddenly, not slowly over time.”
Hey Guys,
The Climate_Denier_Liars have just perpetrated a KING HIT upon Bang Ki Moon.
See URL: http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
Surely there exist more than a measly 141 qualified and articulate scientists who could initiate a highly orchestrated and hi-media-profile rebuttal of these monsters ?
I will support in them in whatever role I can.
Regards,
Colin
—–
For what it’s worth – I’ve had a go at a couple of the lesser-known authors before.
Signature 4: Alexander (basically a very bad astrologer)
Signature 27: Piers Corbyn (a not very good weather forecaster with a poor grasp of statistics)
I also take issue with their point 4:
As far as I can tell the IPCC has made no such claim (yet).
that link should have been
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/07/higher-tides-affecting-east-coast-especially-midatlantic
Useful data and concept…buy a virtual bag today rather than a real one tomorrow…
http://sandbag.org.uk/new_map
http://sandbag.org.uk/carbondata/data
Not really relevant to anything on the blog – but have you changed your email address, Mike?
I tried sending you an email but it was bounced with an “unknown recipient” message.
—-
Ok, I moved it. [1] Please explain why going straight to the heart of your post is not relevant, I am fail to see how discussing why GISTEMP and NOAA have records and the other reporting groups do not.
Further, why is flaming people for posting peer reviewed science by Martha and Ian on topic but posting the peer reviewed science not? [2]
…
Mike,
Is this an environmental advocacy site or a CO2 Global warming advocacy site? I though it was environmental, but I could be wrong. I am all for environmental issues as I have said before, such as moving from a carbon based economy. I am for that because of pollution, but CO2 is not pollution. [3]
When you post why is it warming when we are seeing cooling, then I have to say the way we are measuring the climate has a problem. Pointing out that GISTEMP has “adjusted” over the last two years the readings challenges the core science but how can showing they changed the past temperature challenge anything. It is a simple yes they did or no they didn’t. [4]
Pointing out that the rate of sea level increase has returned to the pre-80’s rate also indicates that we have not been warming for a while. How does that challenge the core science. [5]
These things lead me to believe that warming as the S&T study that I got flamed for presenting here, but is now ok because RC presented it, has cease as that study presents.
I fail to see how presenting evidence that the the source your quoting is an is significantly different [6] from the other sources and that the source of the problem seems to be that they rewrite history almost monthly.
I could see making adjustments when new studies show that there were past errors. RSS and UAH have both done that. But that is not what GISTEMP does. This speaks directly to the first paragraph of you post. Why does GISTEMP have temperature records when no one else does, I suspect that the present GISTEMP reported warming is an artifact from a mix of quality control issues and loss of stations. [7]
—-
GreenFyre — I have moved mine, too, as requested (I think).
Re-posted comments:
Vernon,
I find it impossible to believe that anyone could read that post and fail to understand that global warming is not linear. Moreover, a separate blogpost previously explained why it is nonsense for deniers to cite the Swanson and Tsonis 2009 study. It does not say what you and other deniers apparently want it to say.
>>>The study does say no warming until 2020, when they expect the trend to be able to change. By Vernon.
>>>If RC is having guest posts about warming stopping in 2001, then they believe that warming has stopped – at least until 2020. By Vernon
Except the Swanson and Tsonis study does not say this (never mind that the guest post does not say this and RC does not say this). Your statement is fraudulent and you know it.
The study suggests a pause, an interruption, a not-so-much-warming — that is consistent with a warming trend.
The critical scientific discussion regarding the theoretical framework and methodology of the study is of course interesting.
(And I would add that I do not see why this study, whether or not what it suggests might happens actually does happen, is seen by you and the rest of the deniers who are excitedly misinterpreting i.e., ‘discussing’ this, as more important than other studies that are critical of it).
You often acknowledge warming, only to ‘reveal’ that you are not talking about AGW but natural warming. It’s a bizarre little game.
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that the main driver of the current warming trend is C02 emissions. Nonetheless, you always claim that the science is wrong and persist in wasting others’ time by demanding a response to your repetitive noise. You always claim that your lists of research say things that they most certainly do not.
What I’ve been seeing is that you have posted the same crap over and over and over again on various threads, without consequence; and have persisted in posting copyright research summaries and data, and in perpetuating deliberately fraudulent interpretations of research conclusions.
So… new site policy imposes the penalty of deletion for this sort of calculated deceitfulness?
Cool. 🙂
New comments:
Honest climate sites deserve some relief or defense from unbelievably repetitive, manipulative denier misuse of information and harassment by individuals who, for whatever reason, spend their time trolling and spamming the Internet with lies about socially important things.
I am observing that individual deniers often seem to demonstrate anti-social personality traits, such as taking pleasure in deceit; and they seem to compulsively project (they routinely show great contempt for others, call people by all kinds of names, etc, then cry ‘victim’ when someone finally tells them to shut up or calls a spade a spade and explains why they are stupid or liars or both).
Hopefully, the return of site administration and the new site policies can help put a lid on abuse of the site, the science, and the ideals of public dialogue. Power struggles with chronic denier spammers are energy-draining and it is annoying that individuals who have nothing else to do and whose non-efforts in relation to dealing with climate change force the rest of us to take responsibility for them. 😦
p.s. Ian — thanks. Vernon’s especially strong contempt is surely flattering. 😉
M
Martha,
I have presented my reasoning for GISTEMPs and NOAAs record reporting for Jun2009 when no one else does. All of it is either from GISS or is peer reviewed science.
Please point out what I have gotten wrong by addressing the points I have raised. [personal attack deleted].
So, please, using science (you can check the various talking point sites if you think that will help) refute what I have presented with science, not moral justification and appeals to authority. [1]
I find the whole idea of the core science is prove to be a joke. Every time we have though we knew the answer and the science was settled, some one came along and kicked the cart over. There are two studies that appear to being that to the CO2 AGW theory. I will be watching those discussions with interest.
—-
>>Every time we have though we knew the answer and the science was settled, some one came along and kicked the cart over.
Your so-called ‘points’ have been addressed using the science on this site, ad nauseum, by the numerous posts and links and discussions. Do you imagine that no one looks at the history of exchanges on this site and that no one who reads this site ever reads science at Coby’s, RC, etc., where it is just as easy to see your history of non-stop spam?
Yes, it is apparent that you may not believe it is spam, but it is — because it is lies, because you cut and paste and post these lies persistently to so many different sites, and because you do it deliberately.
Your distorted reasoning, sense of self-importance, and poor self-regulation are all rather typical of deniers of many different kinds, not just climate denial. Clinical and social insights are therefore helpful to understanding it, in addition to attempts to assist deniers to increase their logic and analytic skills and science knowledge.
Of course, industry climate deniers are also deliberate promoters of power and media interests.
Vernon, would you review your comments history on this site and responses, explain why you have found none of the science convincing; and then post your above challenge to the core science thread? Either that, or move on.
Thanks.
Marta,
I see your consistent. I challenge you to discuss the science and you wonder off in to your own private world where you hear things and read things that no one else can see.
Some how I do not see how my points have been addressed since the one study was only presented this year. Further, I see no where that the on this site it addresses GISTEMP programing or changes that are not documented.
So, you do not know how to answer the facts so just more ad hom and public displays of ignorance. To bad, maybe you should spend some time actually reading the science and not the talking points at advocacy sites. [1]
—-
Vernon,
Let’s talk about the tooth fairy. We may as well talk about that, as your take on the science.
Why don’t you post your objections and corrections to the world’s scientists in the core science thread?
Martha,
I take it your conceding that your not competent to discuss the science? That once we get pass the talking points your left with insults?
Since Mike wants a more civil discourse I will not call you a [deleted]. [1]
I posted my comments in the thread I selected to discuss one point of Mikes post. I believe my post was on topic, logical, and I presented the studies and GISTEMP data that backs up my position. [2]
I see your doing the usual and ignoring the studies, ignoring the data, and since it attacks your faith, refusing to think about the logic.
So, still I challenge you, using science, find the flaw in my argument. If you cannot do that, then all your doing is trolling, and I am not playing that game any more.
Basically, either address the points, studies, and data I presented to support my argument, or I will be ignoring you.
—-
I am taking this opportunity to thank Mr. Michael Kaulbars (greenfyre), the author of this and many other articles, for his tireless dedication to rebutting popular criticism of anthropogenic global warming. It must not only be intellectually unsatisfying but also seem thankless to rehash over the same reworked material, again and again, while maintainig the scientist’s eye for a genuine new tidbit of data that will open up the next scientific frontier. Mr. Kaulbars work does not end with his blog nor with the articles he authors, but continues onto the Internet to the countless forums he participates in providing information and insight for the many underinformed and misinformed.
I would ask Mr. Kaulbars not to measure his contribution by the the recalcitrant ideologues who either can’t or won’t engage him in a real conversation. I want him to know that the practical value of his passion is the many of us who are supported by his expertise, who have their footing reassured by his systematic rebuttals. It is less the new support garnered than the lack of erosion of support; we are after all the majority Maybe the best measure is that almost the only skeptics left are either just learning, or are the ideologues recalcitrant to the rational exchange of science, and Mr. Kaulbars forays into the the various forums are just like checking under rocks the to see if there is anyone there open to real dialogue who has somehow fallen through the cracks of science education.
(PS–An article of possible interest, “WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN?,” by Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist at the University of Virginia (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html). He argues that there are whole different approaches to reasoning.)
—-
OK has he come up with some thing or is he taking the piss…
Ocean Temperature Discussion
http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=34766737001&title=Ocean%20Temperature%20Discussion,%20Is%20Fred%20Still%20a%20Concern?
—-
I think his complaint was that that the Auz data seem to indicate that the global temp was cooler in 2009 than in 1997.
And it does seem to be this way from the images. But I bet there are other issues we are not aware of. 1998 was one hot year globally.
—-
Dear omnologos
This site serves the public.
Your interaction on multiple threads is not creating connections with others, and especially those who have knowledge of the science, who address real questions in the science, and are interested in discussions about the blog posts on this site.
Why not?
I would suggest it is because of your demonstrated disrespect for others, expressed in a range of personal behaviours e.g., pretending to understand what you clearly don’t, making constant demands for attention, posting repetitive and irrelevant nonsense and innuendo and concern trolling regarding science that you clearly do not read (or read sometimes, but clearly do not understand), posting denier spam you post on other climate forums in an obvious effort to minimizes the science and nature of the climate crisis, posting denier spam that deliberately misrepresents the science, refusing to make a minimal effort to understand the science you cite and expecting others to be your personal tutor, refusing to bother to read the research links provided to you, and refusing to seriously consider any feedback.
Taken all together, these behaviours show contempt for others.
Your of-repeated ‘poor me’, expressing feelings of unfair treatment by others, is significant: it is suggestive of having no desire to understand why people lose patience or have no respect for your opinions.
Since you are not connecting with anyone here, it would be appear that your interactions serve your private beliefs or personal interests.
Instead, please consider how you might develop relationships of mutual respect, cooperation and knowledge.
Klortho,
from pwn-fest
Actually, this and some other popular, Latin-sounding examples of problems in reasoning do not involve a formal fallacy i.e., a mistake in reasoning or logical principle. Formal fallacies involve an argument that seems to be valid (conclusion follows from premise) but isn’t.
Nor is this an example of an informal fallacy. Informal fallacies are also arguments in the technical sense of argument that we use in philosophy, but while there are clearly problems with the reasoning, the problem is not necessarily that these arguments are invalid. The problem with these arguments is something else e.g. irrelevance, or begging the question.
What you are concerned about is better understood as an example of a technique of persuasion. Most of the ‘Argumentum ad…’ etc. are all pretty recent inventions and many of us in philosophy would say these aren’t reasoned arguments at all, so they do not involve fallacies, or errors in reasoning. Some informal logic textbooks do include them. But just so you know, you won’t find an analysis of an argument by a philosopher seriously working an angle of ‘ad hom’. 😉
But sure, let’s go with your preference to use the term ‘ad hominem argument’.
What you describe could be, as you and Greenfyre both suggest, someone trying to attack your opinion on the basis of a claim that you are being inconsistent. That’s an ad hominem argument. Others are based on concerns about trustworthiness or sincerity.
(You are correct that ad hominem arguments are typically weak but not entirely without merit in some cases and are not necessarily fallacious. Why not? Because it is not an error in reasoning to avoid putting too much value on the opinions of someone who is, say, demonstrably dishonest. Rather one can make a reasonable case for rejecting such a person’s opinion – for example, a climate denier’s opinion on a new research paper, when he has already been repeatedly shown to distort and deliberately lie about the science. This is what we call in philosophical vocabulary a ‘sound probable inference’.)
In your case, the point is not that you were personally attacked, but that it is an attempt to reject your opinion (assuming your opinion was well-formed enough to be a good argument) on this basis.
However, Klortho, your friend’s attempt to persuade was not really an argument. And your analysis and position on one matter of social concern should be consistent with other related matters of social concern.
Hope that helps.
Martha wrote:
It’s not the fact that posts were off-topic that bothered me. It was the incessant back-and-forth name-calling and slander, that was just going nowhere and adding no value.
I’ve just read through the comment thread again, and had the exact same impression. Ian was much worse than you with the invective and sarcasm, but all of it was just uncalled for, I think. Granted, I am new here and don’t have the context, but nothing that he wrote in that particular comment thread warranted your reactions. He did claim that he wasn’t a “denier” — well, that point could have been argued more civilly, in my opinion. Things took a negative turn starting with Ian Forrester’s “omno-troll” comment.
Make no mistake, I am absolutely a believer in AGW. But I’m also an advocate of civil discourse. Sharp, pointed opinions are fair, in my mind, but sarcasm and name-calling cross the line. You might agree with me or not — it’s just my opinion. On the other hand, I don’t think I’m alone.
As I alluded to before, I have spent some time commenting on a few anti-tobacco-control blogs, as the outsider, and it’s just very tiresome to endure the hostility when I’m trying to make a few points, and feel that I’m being respectful. So, even though I’m closer to you and Ian in our opinions about the climate crisis, I find myself more sympathetic to omnologos’ outsider status in this thread.
Klortho,
Interesting perceptions at a personal level.
I am ‘more sympathetic’ with the working scientists who are the subject of his tireless online efforts to discredit and distort the science at his blog and all over forums on the internet.
And I am ‘more sympathetic’ with all the people who will be victims of climate change, and those who already are. He unapologetically ignores them and pretends they don’t exist.
His most frequently expressed concern is that intervention on climate change is going to interfere with his liberty and the free market. On this basis, he often seems intent on believing that climate change is not real even though this defies logic, the evidence, and reality: he thinks it is part of a conspiracy beween scientists and government, and often says so.
He no longer repetitively posts lies and pseudoscience frauds on this site because site policy now limits spam.
I behave as if I am sick of him, because I am.
If you respect his activities and views, and you have the time and energy to address either his spam or his chatter, politely, point by stupid, sexist, condescending and self-inflated point, feel absolutely free.
The job is yours. 🙂
Martha, this is in response to your post above about my question on pwn-fest. Thanks a lot for your response.
I’ve had some schooling in logic and math, and am familiar with Bayesian reasoning, but a lot of the vocabulary you use is strange to me.
At any rate, I see what you’re saying about the type of attack I encountered as not even being an argument, and hence not even qualifying as an “informal logical fallacy”.
I’d describe these sorts of responses as meta-arguments: arguments about the argument. It seems to me that they’re ubiquitous, and it’s impossible to find a discussion that doesn’t include meta- and meta-meta-arguments, up to several levels. One of the frustrating things about arguing, IMO, is trying to keep people on the same level.
Greenfyre wrote
You didn’t read what I wrote carefully enough: “… adds little or no credibility to the assertion”. I didn’t say that a liar giving an assertion makes that assertion less likely to be true; I said that it doesn’t make it more likely to be true.
Take the case of someone who spouts complete nonsense all the time (not quite the same as your Nomen). Anything he says has no correlation with reality, unreality, truth, or falsehoods.
Well, you can discount what that person says completely. That doesn’t mean it’s false — just that it’s not worth listening to or arguing about.
So when you say
I disagree. You have to pick your battles … some arguments are just not worth having. So in the realm of meta-argumentation, ad hominems can be relevant.
—-
Scientific Doomsday Mania
by
Amitakh Stanford
22nd November 2009
There is a doomsday message that is swiftly gaining global acceptance. The new wave is clothed in acceptable clichés and has won over the support of many of the respected scientific communities.
Unlike most other doomsday messages, this one is supposedly based upon scientific evidence. The scientific “doomsdayers” wear masks and pretend that they are predicting calamities based on hard evidence. This lulls the unsuspecting public into absolute belief and acceptance of the doomsdayers’ ravings.
If the same message were given in a spiritual setting, the adherents would probably be encouraged to turn to God in preparation for the final days. Generally, scientists have sneered at and mocked spiritual predictions regarding the end times, and the same scientists have convinced the general public to do likewise. Further, governments of the world use their police powers to suppress, restrict, or even eliminate these spiritual-based groups. Scientists have now one-upped the spiritual believers by supporting their dire predictions of calamity with supposed scientific evidence. Using their scientific clout, they have now convinced most of the world leaders to meet in Copenhagen. The stated agenda of the gathering is to halt global warming with a unified and urgent approach.
People may remember that there have been similar gatherings to solve the global economic crisis. In those meetings, every leader attending was told to boost their economies by stimulus spending. By and large, the world leaders have dutifully followed those dictates. One might ask: Is the global recession over due to this unified approach – or is it deepening? Many thinking economists have finally realized the latter to be the case.
[…]
Were the carbon traders truly concerned that global warming is a seriously urgent issue, they could perhaps justify following their untested carbon-trading notion. But if it were an urgent situation, why would they offer a solution that will take decades to take effect? If they have decades to work on the solution, by definition, it cannot be that urgent. And, if they have decades to implement their plan, could they not spend at least a few years or even a few months openly and transparently debating which course of action will save the planet from its imminent death?
To demonstrate the absurdity of the current “green” position, consider that they are proposing massive increases in nuclear power because it is supposed to be carbon friendly. The nuclear proponents do not seem to care about the disposal of nuclear waste from these sites. This means that they are presenting an extremely short-sighted solution, which is not really a solution at all. Besides, the proponents of expanding nuclear power want to tremendously restrict who can and who cannot use nuclear power. For instance, Iran and North Korea are presently being ostracized for, among other things, having nuclear-power programmes. This is a glaring instance where part of the real agenda of the ruling elite shows through; the nuclear proponents are not as concerned about global warming as they are with political dominance.
As indicated earlier, humans are only marginally responsible for global warming. The hotter sun is undeniable, and it is the main reason for global warming.
[…]
This would be all well and good if it could be believed that scientists are acting in the people’s best interests. But, since when have scientists been assumed to be altruistic? Why is it accepted that they will only act in the best interests of humans? And why should it be accepted that the scientists are correct about human causes of global warming?
[…]
The carbon-trading schemes, and other emissions-based solutions presented by the ruling elite’s scientific doomsdayers, will not solve global warming. But, if they get their way, they will change the lives of people for the worse.
http://www.flyingbuffaloes7.net/keluar6.html
It is silly to argue temperatures from year to year or even decade to decade when the earth deals on a time table of millions and billions of years. Mankind has had a very small impact on earth when one considers things on a more geologic time scale. The true worry should be saving the rainforest and reducing the International population intead of taxing people for carbon credits or encouraging people to buy smaller cars.
—-
You keep saying proper thread where should I be.
—-
Oh thanks
What can we do to halt climate change.
—-
Thought you might like this. I have posted some photos on my blog with some commentary and local history about high tides and sea levels at Portsmouth, UK (not the US Portsmouth!):
http://lovelywaterloovlille.blogspot.com/2009/12/picture-story-high-tides-and-sea-levels.html
Note that in the photos, although it is high tide, it isn’t the highest high tide. That was in August and was about 0.5m higher. Also of course low atmospheric pressure has an affect, as do storms etc.
Also the area I photographed is quite well protected. Other areas on the coast line are just mud banks with little sea defense.
—–
May be of interest…
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=17922920387200123688&hl=en&as_sdt=2000
Cheers
I’m surprised that the South West is sinking faster than the rest of the South. Most of the media interest in falling land mass has been centred around the South East. But I guess that is because of the interest in London.
Southampton Uni updated local sea level research earlier this year:
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2009/oct/09_136.shtml
I hope that next year I will catch the maximum high tide to compare the photos with this set. That should be fun if it is a rough day. Might get a bit wet!
Just to show how serious the issue is, the Institute of Civil Engineers and the Royal Institute of British Architects have written a report about Portsmouth and Kingston upon Hull at the end of the century. With different scenarios for dealing with sea level rises:
http://www.ice.org.uk/news_events/newsdetail_ice.asp?PressID=530&NewsType=Press
Thanks for all the links, I’m just now going to read up on your local observations and the regional risk assessments.
Phil Jones discusses the coordinated attacks on the CRU’s work:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017905.ece
Effectively a denial of service attack.
The Copenhagen Accord, and the ethical leadership and Treaty that is still needed…
http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/media/audio/data/000452
(philosopher Darrel Moellendorf)
First I would like to point out that higher CO2 (Carbon Dioxide)is said to increase greenhouse gases. This said, how do cars and trucks contribute to CO2 levels when the engine produces CO (Carbon Monoxide), which is why we all bought CO detectors for our homes? Secondly, if CO2 levels are increasing I feel it’s more to do with all the trees, forests, and jungles we have destroyed in the last couple decades. Satalite images of places like Central America clearly show massive deforestation. They think that crops will grow but after a year or two the nutrients are depleted and the farmers destroy more forests to gain another year. These forests convert more CO2 to oxygen than any crop could. Once the crop and farmer are gone the soil becomes barren and unusable. The lack of forests to turn CO2 into oxygen is the major problem we should be dealing with. If CO is contributing to the greenhouse problem, maybe we should put out the coal fires in China and India which produce far more emitions than all the cars, trucks, and power plants in the US. The focus should not be so much on lowering our emitions but rather on reforesting the areas destroyed for a years worth of corn.
Steve said:
“First I would like to point out that higher CO2 (Carbon Dioxide)is said to increase greenhouse gases. This said, how do cars and trucks contribute to CO2 levels when the engine produces CO (Carbon Monoxide), which is why we all bought CO detectors for our homes? ”
The Ville:
Steve, it is a fact that burning hydro-carbon fuels produces CO2. Even climate change deniers accept this fact, so I am unsure why you would seem to question it.
But anyway, what happens when hydro carbon fuels are burnt is that the hydrogen provides most of the energy and the carbon combines with oxygen to produce CO2 and CO. Other gases are also produced due to other reactions and impurities introduced to the process.
Car manufacturers today quote CO2 emissions for their cars, because they produce CO2!
Steve said:
“Secondly, if CO2 levels are increasing I feel it’s more to do with all the trees, forests, and jungles we have destroyed in the last couple decades. ”
The Ville:
CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing because of many factors. The increase in the atmosphere is the result of a sources of CO2 producing more than the sinks can take away.
Hence since we are producing more CO2 from our modern life and we have also reduced the number of trees, both are causing an increase in CO2. However there are also other factors, including seas getting warmer and reducing their capacity to sink more CO2.
Steve said:
“The lack of forests to turn CO2 into oxygen is the major problem we should be dealing with.”
The Ville:
There is plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere with or without trees. Oxygen is irrelevant to the problem.
Steve said:
“If CO is contributing to the greenhouse problem.”
The Ville:
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is not a greenhouse gas. It doesn’t have the appropriate molecular structure (at least 3 atoms) to be a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases are sensitive to infra red radiation and for that to happen their structure has to allow bond vibrations.
Steve said:
“…maybe we should put out the coal fires in China and India which produce far more emitions than all the cars, trucks, and power plants in the US. The focus should not be so much on lowering our emitions but rather on reforesting the areas destroyed for a years worth of corn.”
The Ville:
Well, we all have to do our bit, that includes China, the US, Europe, India etc.
Allow me to make a correction: CO DOES absorb infrared radiation:
and is considered a greenhouse gas:
http://www.ghgonline.org/otherco.htm
Diatomic molecules can be greenhouse gases, as long as there are two different atoms in the molecule.
Thanks for that clarification.
I’ll update my knowledge base!
Dear Folks,
On behalf of the students at Belgrade High School here in Belgrade, Montana, I am reaching out to people who might want to support these kids’s efforts to win a BrighterPlanet project fund grant. This grant will help them create a hands-on laboratory from which their renewable energy curriculum can be taught. This is a truly community-based project but it can’t be won without support from supporters of renewable energy everywhere!
Please go to the Project Fund page at BrighterPlanet.com and vote three times for Belgrade High CARE Project. Thanks.
A list of rebuttals of Anti-Global-Warming-Denier claims.
1. John RENNIE, ex-editor of Scientific American , who weighs in with:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense
_____
And here is a persuasive & well presented site, Peter SINCLAIR’s “Climate Crock of the Week”:
2. Observing a Climate Crock being Born – Live on TV
3. Debunking the Arrogant Claim that NOTHING, EVER, can be Modelled about the Future :
4. Debunking the Claim that CO2 is ONLY Beneficial.
5. Debunking that there has been NO warming since 1995, as LINDZEN asserts :
_____
Here are some other pertinent sites:
6. Twenty often used “Denialist Lies”, and a thorough debunking of them:
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/
7. Here is a WikiPedia type summary of the “Denialist Strategies” :
http://issuepedia.org/Global_warming_denial
8. Here is a summary of current major “Climate-Change-Denier-Liars”, and a debunking of them:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_denial_machine.html
9. Here are debunkings of the so-called Climate-Gate affair:
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/work-connect/climate-gate-level-discussion.html
In regard to “HimalayaGate”, aka “GlacierGate”, see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jan/18/climate-change-himalayan-glaciers
_____
10. And here is a comprehensive debunk of Ian PLIMER’s atrocious book ,
page by page, paragraph by paragraph, word by word, by Mathematician Ian ENTING @UniMelb:
http://tbp.mattandrews.id.au/2009/06/06/debunking-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
11. The famous GRIST website is a delight, summarising a vast range of Denialisms:
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
12. Here is the latest from the NASA GODDARD institute about Measuring Earth’s Temperature :
Y2009 End of warmest decade: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
I attended a public discussion about climategate at the Tyndall Centre, University of Southampton, UK this week.
I wrote up a short report here:
http://lovelywaterlooville.blogspot.com/2010/09/climategate-and-ghost-train.html
—-
I have no science or math background but I have taken an interest in the issues surrounding AGW. Recently there has been many posts in the denialosphere pointing out the record cold temperatures in the US and most of Europe as evidence against global warming. Even as an ignoramus I can see the nonsense of that proposition (it’s the average that counts and the long term trend) but could someone knowledgeable explain to me in layman’s terms the cause of that record cold spell? I’ve seen it mentioned somewhere (I can’t remember where) that the rapid warming of the Arctic is causing this. More warming causing more dynamic air currents pushing the cold air further south? I have no idea, only guessing. Can someone set me straight on this?
—–
Some useful links:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/December-2009-record-cold-spells.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/2010-record-warmth-weird-weather.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-record-snowfall-disprove-global-warming.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/cold-winter-in-a-world-of-warming/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/coldest-winter-in-1000-years-cometh%E2%80%93not/
Thanks Warmcast and Greenfyre for the info. Have got a bit of homework to do now. So much to learn, but all very interesting.