Slashdot Mirror

Your argument that the Earth's heat must be stored someplace strikes me as a logical fallacy. We really do not know enough about the energy balance to draw any conclusions; but the basic assumption in any energy-balance calculation is that heat in minus heat out equals net energy absorption, which is proportional to temperature increase. If the temperature of the Earth stops rising, then the assumption would be that more heat is being dissipated. The global warming theory assumes that increased greenhouse gas causes less heat to be dissipated. If temperature stops increasing while CO2 continues to increase, that proves- as much as anything in this sphere can be proved, which is not very much- that CO2 does not control temperature. This is already proved in many ways. Over the past 3000 years, there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature. The current warming trend began before the Industrial Revolution, and most of the warming since 1800 had already occured before CO2 began to increase. As CO2 began to increase, temperature decreased from 1940 to 1970. Just as alarmists cried that human emissions were causing global cooling, temperature began to increase. This correlated with changes in the solar cycle. The temperature profile since 1940 also correlates with changes in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Our first suspicion should be that the Oscillation and the temperature are both correlated with solar cycle. There is a very strong correlation between temperature and solar cycle, on every time scale: millennia, centuries, and decades. In "Daggers Are Drawn Over Revived Cosmic Ray- Climate Link", Science 319 (2008), p144, Jacobo Pasotti references a paper in "Earth and Planetary Science Letters", by geophysicist Vincent Courillot, director of the Institut de Physique du Globe in Paris. Courillot and coworkers have published a very strong correlation between the Earth's geomagnetic field, solar irradiance, and 20th century global temperature. There is evidence that the Sun is entering a phase of reduced irradiation. Solar cycle 24 is behind schedule, which indicates we are entering a new little ice age. None of this can support a definite prediction; but past climate patterns predict global cooling for several decades, bottoming out at a temperature slighty below 1776, the low point of the last Little Ice Age. See the following link: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf Global warming is beneficial to human life. Cooling is tough, hitting agricultural cycles especially hard.

The author (Mr. Evans) begins his article with an appeal from authority, i.e. "I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol".

My apparent ad hominem was actually not fallacious, in that the claim of authority, which I might have been willing to accept, turned out to be false. So the first paragraph of Mr. Evan's article (of which there are several in the same vein) actually begs for "questioning who wrote".

Honestly, I didn't pursue his claims after it became obvious that he wasn't a climatologist working for the Australian government, as he implicitly suggests. He was a programmer who wrote the desktop client software, apparently.

His resume turns up in the first page of google results. In it are references to two scientific papers that had been published, twenty years ago, in an unrelated field (electronics, right?). IANACS, but I think it is reasonable to expect that as a truly credentialed academic (Stanford), he has the skills to submit a paper, if indeed he is on to something that the whole field of climatology is missing.

This is very familiar to all who remember the campaigning on behalf of the tobacco industry in the 80s. Asking me to put on my oncologist hat and prove to you that smoking causes lung cancer isn't fair. The circumstantial evidence that he is full of it (gets paid by a pro-coal think tank, lack of credentials in the field, no papers in journals, lying about his experience) is strong enough to dismiss this, imho.

Checking sources is one way we navigate through fields not in our specialties. This guy is not a good source of information about climate science. The Lavoisier Group is not a good source of information about climate science. Infowars, obviously, is not a good source of information about anything at all.

... that my claims are anything but "extraordinary"! Where did you get this idea? Are you somehow of the opinion that just because I disagree with you (for good reason, by the way), that my claims must therefore be "extraordinary"??? How fascinatingly arrogant. Well, let's work on concrete statements rather than trying to read between the lines. Apparently, what you are asserting (at least), is that someone who disagrees with the IPCC reports has an "extraordinary" point of view. Wow. And YOU are accusing ME of being "different". Just wow.

As I have clearly stated here more than once, I am merely echoing what a lot of reputable scientists are saying. And I can safely say that at least some of them are scientists with much more credibility that the vast majority of the reviewers of the IPCC reports.

I mentioned before that you could find well-supported contrary opinions by spending only a few moments on Google. You have refused to do so. So, just this one time (because I dislike your smarmy attitude so much), I will indulge you and actually do just a little bit of your homework for you. I am not your daddy, so do not expect me to do it again.

I would like you to know up front that just as I stated was possible a few posts ago, I actually spent less than 2 minutes on Google pulling up these articles. The links below actually represent only a small percentage of all I found, and I did not spend a lot of time choosing among them. I could have spent a LOT of time following related links... but I figure that if you are actually interested in learning you can do that for yourself. I suspect that you can actually feed yourself too, if you try. But in any case, even if you disagree, if you do not hear opposing arguments then by definition you are being deliberately biased.

To anticipate a possible objection, I will state from the outset that most of these are not "peer reviewed" papers from "science journals", but they do contain a good many links to same. Read to the depth you care but if you do not care, then do not come back later and ask me yet again to do it for you.

To start, here are just a few pieces that support my statements about the problems with "peer review". These are only a few of the huge list I found. The amount of literature out there on problems with and utter failings of peer review, especially in recent years, is vast:

PROBLEMS WITH PEER REVIEW: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0124/p14s02-stss.htm

NY TIMES: "For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html

Nature: Quality and value: How can we research peer review? http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05006.html



There is a lot more I could say here, but I believe that under the circumstances it would be pointless. Here are some more links. Understand that these are only a very small sampling of those that are out there. But (this one time only), you asked for some, you got some.

Letter from Chris Landsea http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

International Conference on Integrity in Science http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002299.html

Economic Formulas in IPCC Report Criticized for Overstating Emissions http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22786

Here's a DIFFERENT former IPCC participant: Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge http://newsbusters.org/node/13971

Yet another official IPCC reviewer criticizes the

I'm not sure you're aware of this, but Wright was actually quoting the comments of a former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq in that soundbite. How dare a pastor quote a leading expert on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East when discussing a consequence of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East...

Really? That ambassador said that white people in the US government invented AIDS to kill black people? That same ambassador said that the white led US government invented crack so that they could lock the black man up? That ambassador said that Hillary Clinton can't be president because she's never been called a ni... well, you get the idea.
Sorry, that excuse is full of shit! It may explain one comment, but it does not explain what lack of class it took to say it the first Sunday after 9-11. People needed comforting, not to be accused.

McCain does want to stay in Iraq for 100 years subject to a specific condition (that it's within U.S. interests as he sees them).

OK, I have to call bullshit on this one... again. Why in the Hell would McCain WANT US forces in Iraq or anywhere else in the world? If it serves US interest, sure, he'll keep them there but he doesn't WANT them there. Just like doing the dishes serves my interest in getting laid, but that doesn't mean I WANT to do the dishes. Sorry, your stretch is pretty pathetic and well... it's bullshit. You have made yourself look stupid for even trying it. It even made me look stupid to respond to something so idiotic!

Being a Muslim isn't a position, and this portrayal of Obama as a Muslim is a misrepresentation of an immaterial fact meant to foment a bigoted response. He's never said anything to the effect that he is a Muslim and, if he were, it should have no impact on his suitability as a candidate to lead our country through a period of great domestic and diplomatic hardship.

Uh, he went to a Muslim school as a child and fucking name is Barak Hussein Obama! No, he's not a Muslim, but it is a fair question to ask.

Do you actually watch Fox news?

I pretty much watch all the network news outlets. Fox is the only one that shows two sides to a story.

In most of their attempts to "represent all sides" that I've seen, they put on some minor player on the "other side" with little or no experience in TV commentary and yell at them. Their purpose isn't to serve as some reasonable counterpoint, but to be lampooned and caricatured in order for the fringe right-wing audience to feel comfortable in their disdain of the center and left.

Uh, do YOU ever watch Fox News? May I recommend Hannity and Colmes. Maybe Geraldo's show where he calls Bill O'Reilly a racist bigot.
As for liberals that look like jackasses on national TV, it is either because their position is indefensible or they are just not used to being challenged. They are not challenged on any OTHER network. We must also consider the possibility that maybe they are just jackasses.

Oh, and did you know that Rupert Murdoch donated to Hillary Clinton's campaign? Also Harold Ford Jr, Charles Schumer, John F. Kerry, Max Cleland, Edward J. Markey, Edward Kennedy, Bill Bradley and other Democrats. That right wing BASTARD!

Pray tell which "opposing view" has some traction in the non-crackpot scientific community, makes a distinction that is important to present, and can be clearly conveyed and properly qualified in a 2 minute dissent interview? Just because some wingnut disagrees with the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community doesn't mean he deserves national airtime, especially on a show like 60 minutes.

See, you've already set up your response. In your mind, any scientist who does not buy into GW is automatically a crackpot in your view. It doesn't matter if they were on the IPCC board like Chris Landsea Ph.D (here are some of his

Oh come on, read the open letter to the community by the researcher who quit:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landse a.html

"Inspite of what you may believe, there is a politicaly motivated movement to ensure that scientists that do not agree with the Global Warming Consensus are not heard ..."

That is your opinion of the situation, NOT Dr. Christopher Landsea's opinion. What I read in the open letter was 1 lead IPCC scientist go a little far, the media take it out of context, and then Dr. Christopher Landsea quits because people "dismissed" his distain over what happened.

Show me proof of a "movement", because there is far too much 1 person said X, another person said Y, only Y didn't make it on the nightly news, so it must be a conspiracy to suppress Y.

1 scientist said something that was probably incorrect, so another scientist got ticked and left when the entire organization didn't back him in renouncing a single incorrect statement. And it was merely that global warming was increasing hurricanes. Its not like that wouldn't be shoot down by the scientific community quickly if it ever became a big story.

All Dr. Christopher Landsea had to say was just exactly what he said in his open letter, "by 2080 hurricanes will increase about 5%, maybe less". He's the expert. The IPCC asked him for his data and work in their next report, so obviously they would have published it, just like they did 2x before.

This paper predicts (as do many solar scientists) that the next two solar cycles will be much weaker than has happened for more than 100 years. If that happens the temperature will drop an average 1.5C which is what happened during the "Dalton Minimum".

That cool enough for you?

In 20 years time, they'll be praying for global warming.

This Summer I went to a little conference regarding this topic, hold by some Italian scientists (don't ask me the names, I don't remember them).. I'm not able to summarize the whole discussion in English, but the conclusion was something like this: Man is just just a little responsible about global warning; the big thing is that Earth has got it's own "big change of seasons" (i.e. a change every 300000 years) in which we have a succession of "glacial eras" and "non glacial eras". Hope it was clear enough.. A rapid Google search gives me this results: http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.h tm, http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm and a interesting PDF doc: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/lav200 6forWeb.pdf

I don't call greens envirowackos. I call them deluded. They cling to a belief of an 'ideal' cozy green gaia where none really exists: life on earth exists on the whims of forces so powerful we glimpse them but rarely: the recent earthquake activity in the Indian ocean that caused the tsunami (which some nuts blamed on global warming), once-in-a-century micrometeor strikes, etc. They look for micro-effects caused by man and miss out totally on the macro effects of solar cycles and aperiodic weather patterns.

Worse, they bully governments and industry into stasis, as increasing amounts of money have to be spent to come up to the green earth ideal, even as entire national industries become noncompetitive, causing flight of capital to the third world.

Also, people who call greens 'envirowackos' are not above name-calling themselves: they like words like 'republinazi' and so forth. Well, this one likes clean surroundings as much as the next man, but also believes that you can take cleanliness and lack of toxins too far. I have travelled in India (I have family there) and you know what? lots of Indians in urban centres survive with water levels so contaminated that according to every FDA rule I know of they should all be dying off (I drank bottled water, would've fallen sick in an instant given my immune system). And oddly enough , India (esp Indian cities) have much greater population growth than the US/EU -- even taking rural migration into account. The population also seems remarkably free of the dust/pollen allergies we see so much here. Perhaps species' adaptive capabilities deserve more credit than you give?

Don't get me wrong, clean air and water is important, but choking industry for a treaty based on starry eyed green politics and bad economics is not the way to do it.