Slashdot Mirror

I'm happy to have a discussion with anyone on any topic, even if I think they're a climate alarmist.
I think climate panic is bullshit because those conclusions and predictions have been countered by the science:
http://petitionproject.org/gw_...

Furthermore most fear mongering climate predictions follow the following pattern:
1. Make a vague prediction
2. Get lots of attention
3. Make new prediciton(s) before it turns out the previous one is false.
https://www.thenewamerican.com...

It's very similar to Christian preachers predicting the end of the world and then getting more victims when it doesn't happen.
Only the 'predictions' are far worse, they don't include a verifiable outcome or time when it will supposedly occur.
Thus they should be rejected out of hand.

It's interesting that the media are having more and more trouble pushing this propaganda:
1. The term has changed from global warming to climate change, did anyone explain you why? Climate change is redundant because the climate is defined as the average weather over the past 30 years. So it will always change, by definition.
2. They almost never show charts of how environmental weather extremes changed over time. They probably know it would prove their bullshit wrong. Like the hurricane energy that hasn't increased: http://www.globalwarming.org/2...
3. They never talk about the positives of fossil fuels or CO2. Like with fossil fuels enabling us to defend ourselves against the climate, greatly reducing the number of climate deaths, while the population grows. Or how CO2 made the planet greener: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/.... When people are always and only telling you about one side of an argument, it's a hint of propaganda.

Please honestly investigate this stuff, don't just believe what the establishment tells you.

Those jobs where lost to regulation, not automation.
33k jobs have already returned.
Global warming alarmism is about justifying more government meddling and has nothing to do with science http://www.petitionproject.org... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The US need for fossil fuels is no less when you implement regulations.
So any less production in the US will have to be compensated by imports from foreign countries.
Lovely countries like Saudi Arabia, what do you think they care about the environment?
Of course all government meddling causes misery, even in the rare case where it achieves the stated goal instead of causing the opposite result. Which is the common result of regulation.

You're confusing the *global* CO2 with the human-caused CO2. And it's a common mistake, because they are deliberately encouraging that confusion. If you do enough research for yourself (and I recommend that you do, because you won't believe me if you don't), you'll find that 2% - 6% is the accepted range. I just split it at 4% for the purposes of the example. Also...here's 31,487 scientists that say there is no AGW: http://www.petitionproject.org... Plus, these 1000: http://www.climatedepot.com/20... ...and here's 1350+ peer-reviewed papers that say you're wrong: http://www.populartechnology.n...

Please note that the consensus is that the damage will be massive, it's just about _how_ massive....

No, it's not consensus. Note that the fourth link indicates there's basically no consensus at all among scientists about how to respond to AGW. Should we adapt? Should we mitigate? No consensus at all there.

Consequences? Promoting expensive energy casts thousands or millions into poverty both from lack of work and from high energy prices. Poverty kills. Don't like coal? Get your butt into a lab and invent something cheaper that provides the same energy. No, wait, simply invent something AS cheap as coal. Betcha can't. And while elite liberal snobs with great tech jobs find a rise in energy prices a mere inconvenience, other people's kids go to bed hungry (no kidding, 1 in 6 people in the USA struggle with hunger) due to choosing between heating their homes and buying food. Me, I'll continue defying a much-disputed theory that will make it easier for more people to eat well. This "science" is _not_ settled:

http://www.petitionproject.org...

1. Antarctic Global Warming Expedition Ship Trapped in Sea Ice. You may have heard about the Russian vessel trapped 100 miles away from land in 10 feet thick ice in Antarctica and how three ice breakers have failed to rescue it. What you may not have heard is this ship is filled with Climate Scientists studying Global Warming. They are comparing data from 100 years ago when there was no sea ice in the same location.

2. Yachts Trapped in Sea Ice in the Arctic Last Summer. You probably didnt hear about all the yachts, sailboats, rowboats, and kayaks that got trapped by sea ice while trying to sail the fabled Northwest Passage. They were promised an ice free passage.

3. Global Sea Ice at Record Levels. Al Gore and John Kerry 5 years ago predicted that 2013 would be ice free in the arctic. You probably havent heard that the exact opposite came true. 2013 is currently at the second highest volume of sea ice ever recorded and will probably break the all time record before the season is over.

4. Half of Meteorologists Dont Believe in Global Warming. Nearly half of meteorologists and atmospheric science experts donâ(TM)t believe that human activities are the driving force behind global warming, according to a survey by the American Meteorological Society.

5. Only 75 Climate Scientists Believe in Global Warming. You probably have heard ad nauseum that 97% percent of Climate Scientists believe in global warming. That stat was based on a study which counted only 75 of 77 Climate Scientists. Compared to the over 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying they dont believe in Global Warming. Thats only 2.3 in 1,000 or .23% of scientists that actually believe in Global Warming.

6. NASA caught fudging historical temps to make it look like the globe is warming. By massively cooling the past in their recent graphs, NASA has exaggerated the amount of warming they report by nearly twice as much as they did 13 years ago.

7. Polar Bear Population at Record Levels. Since we've been keeping count the Polar Bear population is estimated at a record high of 20k to 25k. 5,000 are expected to be born around the New Year in Russia alone.

8. Obama Allows Wind Farms to Kill Eagles Without Penalties. Over 50 years ago the green movement started with the book Silent Spring which alleged that DDT was killing the Bald Eagle. Now we have come full circle by allowing wind power companies to kill eagles without penalty because its good for the planet.

9. The Oceans Arent Rising. Remember in 2009 when the officials of the Maldives held a press conference under water to show that their islands were sinking because of global warming. Well a new study do

I've read some of the comments, one way and another, and would like to make a couple of observations:

1. Insurance companies collect money whether a claim is paid or not.
2. Collecting higher premiums is good (from the insurer's perspective).
3. If, after having collected said higher premiums, the claims against policies are not higher, this is even better (for the insurance company).

The only thing preventing the insurance companies from raising rates is competition. If they can point to something like GW as justification, they stand to make more money. At worst, they won't loose any. Yes, there are higher costs associated with weather related events, but as has been pointed out in many posts, there are more people building (more expensive) structures in areas subject to those events. Global Warming? Can't say, since I'm not scientifically trained in climatology. But you might want to hedge your bets either way.

Not everyone agrees.

Petition by American who have earned degrees in science fields including a few PhDs with an actual statement that the science is not solid with a short review of pertinent data - http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

That is not even a remotely interesting. it ends in a conspiracy theory statement about some sort of shady UN conspiracy for "global taxation", cites an article from the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" , a crank organization ran out of a back shed, that once actually featured a couple of members who did biomedicine, but since its found its notoriety in creationism and far right conspiracy theorizing. The site also claims the paper is peer reviewed. It isn't. And it wouldn't pass peer review either, it makes elementary errors that a high school student wouldnt make, let alone a real science-by-post-doctorates type paper.

Finally, almost all of the "scientists" (and ALL of the PhDs) that signed it are not even remotely qualified to give an expert answer in it.

If the site is can't even get fundamental stuff like that in order, why on earth quote it on slashdot.

Which brings me to this....

An Aeronautical Engineer's look at global warming (and yes he has earned his chops in that arena) - http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf

Why would an "Aeronautical engineer" have an opinion anymore itneresting than, say, a computer programmer, or a dentist? Being "A scientist" doesnt mean jack shit if the qualification isn't relevant.

While this would be my first comment and I am not technically a denier... consider the following:

Petition by American who have earned degrees in science fields including a few PhDs with an actual statement that the science is not solid with a short review of pertinent data - http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

An Aeronautical Engineer's look at global warming (and yes he has earned his chops in that arena) - http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf

Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right. -- Robert Parks

The science of AGW is far more simple than you might think. It doesn't require climate models to prove the basics. It's just simple conservation of energy. The models are just there to investigate the details.

Apparently 31,000+ scientists are holding the same doubts as you: http://www.petitionproject.org/ but you know how it goes...

This is often cited, but very, very, very few of the 31,000+ signers are actually scientists. Even fewer have a degree in a field even remotely related to study of climate. Being a MD, a DVM, or a DDS doesn't preclude you from being a scientist, but very few of them actually are. Having a Ph.D. in Religious Studies doesn't make you a scientist. Not to mention that they don't verify the credentials of the signers at all. If you want to call them scientists, you need higher standards than "willing to lie about their degree on an online petition."

I'm not the originator of this quote, but I'll use it: Ice isn't political. It's not liberal or conservative. It doesn't take a poll. It doesn't ask permission. When it gets to a certain temperature it melts. And it's melting. Sea levels are up 3.5 inches since 1970 and are climbing at more than an inch per decade. That's significantly higher than model predictions. If you want to see a glacier in Glacier National Park, go soon.

Apparently 31,000+ scientists are holding the same doubts as you: http://www.petitionproject.org/

So that's like... 1% of the ones that know anything about global climate change?

31000 sounds big, but it needs some context.

You're not alone in asking that question. Apparently 31,000+ scientists are holding the same doubts as you: http://www.petitionproject.org/ but you know how it goes... the more you keep repeating something (or the louder you state it) the more inclined people will be to accept it. Science has its staunch supporters who are just as closed minded over their beliefs as are the extremist in religion.

Seeing as how the scientific consensus is that there is a link between CO2 and global warming

I replied that consensus means very little in science. Even if it did mean something, there is no consensus. As proof for my statement I referred to a list in "Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)". You can also find the list at http://www.petitionproject.org/. At that website they clarify what the purpose of that petition is. I'll quote:

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Furthermore:

These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.

You are clearly wrong in this case.
In your last reply you made the claim and I'll quote:

There are no '30,000 scientists' that dispute climate change. There are 30,000 names, people who signed up via web form, without any kind of verification of who they really are.

You are lying in the face of evidence and you don't even know what you are talking about. The petition cannot be signed through a web form. Read here how the petition is circulated: http://www.petitionproject.org/how_petition_is_circulated.php. You are clearly wrong in this case too.
You are accusing me of being a hypocrite for politely asking why you made ad hominem attacks. I didn't "attack" you, I just informed you about what kind of impression you made. I left room for you to correct me. You were shouting in your very first reply in this thread. It didn't look like you were thinking clearly. And I wasn't referring to you calling me a fanatic without a valid reason. I was referring to you ignoring a solid report full of references to actual scientific research, just because one of the lead authors happens to have ties to big corporations. I don't have to prove the science is bad. I will just refer to scientific research that shows it for me. Perhaps one day you will get over yourself and will accept that people can have different viewpoints based on the same facts.

Seeing as how the scientific consensus is that there is a link between CO2 and global warming

I replied that consensus means very little in science. Even if it did mean something, there is no consensus. As proof for my statement I referred to a list in "Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)". You can also find the list at http://www.petitionproject.org/. At that website they clarify what the purpose of that petition is. I'll quote:

The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Furthermore:

These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.

You are clearly wrong in this case.
In your last reply you made the claim and I'll quote:

There are no '30,000 scientists' that dispute climate change. There are 30,000 names, people who signed up via web form, without any kind of verification of who they really are.

You are lying in the face of evidence and you don't even know what you are talking about. The petition cannot be signed through a web form. Read here how the petition is circulated: http://www.petitionproject.org/how_petition_is_circulated.php. You are clearly wrong in this case too.
You are accusing me of being a hypocrite for politely asking why you made ad hominem attacks. I didn't "attack" you, I just informed you about what kind of impression you made. I left room for you to correct me. You were shouting in your very first reply in this thread. It didn't look like you were thinking clearly. And I wasn't referring to you calling me a fanatic without a valid reason. I was referring to you ignoring a solid report full of references to actual scientific research, just because one of the lead authors happens to have ties to big corporations. I don't have to prove the science is bad. I will just refer to scientific research that shows it for me. Perhaps one day you will get over yourself and will accept that people can have different viewpoints based on the same facts.

30,000 QUALIFIED people (scientists) don't agree with you. See http://www.petitionproject.org/. Read "Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)" (available from http://www.nipccreport.com/) for all the arguments and references to scientific publications.

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
Note that the only requirement regarding background is a degree (bachelor's or higher) in a "related" scientific field.

I write software for a living. Yet because I have a bachelor's degree in computer science and mathematics, I am apparently as qualified as some of those people to make a scientific claim regarding global warming: 935 of the people on the list have degrees in computer science and/or math.

One of my relatives is an athletic trainer with a masters degree in sports medicine. She is equally qualified: 2,327 of the people on the list have degrees in medicine.

Another relative has worked in sales and management, with a bachelor's degree in industrial engineering. He is equally qualified: 7,281 of the people on the list have degrees in unspecified engineering disciplines.

Come to think of it, almost every living adult in my family--parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents--meets the single criterion (aside from agreeing with the petition statement) to be included. And none of them are scientists, or have any sort of specialized knowledge of climate science.

An appeal to false authority is not a way to make an effective argument.

Seeing as how the scientific consensus is that there is a link between CO2 and global warming, YOU are the one who needs to prove there isn't one (and I seriously doubt you can show me any good evidence that there ISN'T a link, as 'a definite link' is what the facts show.)

You can't prove a negative. I thought you'd be smart enough to know that. Do you really need someone to post the link of the thousands of scientists who are not part of the consensus? Were you not paying attention when the emails were released trying to shut those scientists out of journals?

You really shouldn't accuse someone else of ignoring the evidence when you obviously have no problem ignoring it yourself.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

There! I disproved your "consensus". Now PROVE that AGW is real.

Seeing as how the scientific consensus is that there is a link between CO2 and global warming, YOU are the one who needs to prove there isn't one (and I seriously doubt you can show me any good evidence that there ISN'T a link, as 'a definite link' is what the facts show.)

You can't prove a negative. I thought you'd be smart enough to know that. Do you really need someone to post the link of the thousands of scientists who are not part of the consensus? Were you not paying attention when the emails were released trying to shut those scientists out of journals?

You really shouldn't accuse someone else of ignoring the evidence when you obviously have no problem ignoring it yourself.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

There! I disproved your "consensus". Now PROVE that AGW is real.

And thousands disagree. I'm sure they're all paid off by big oil though ;)

I'm curious why I've never seen this petition brought up when these stories come up on slashdot.

One problem with this analogy is that it's not just one "doctor" that's saying "operate", it's thousands . How many more "second opinions" do you want before you accept that perhaps you actually need an operation? Are all those doctors quacks, every one of them?

Here are some "second options" :

• Heidelberg Appeal http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/heidelberg_appeal.html
• Leipzig Declaration http://www.sovereignty.net/p/clim/leipzig97.htm
• Oregon Petition http://www.petitionproject.org/
• Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf
• US Senate Minority Report http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
• Copenhagen Climate Challenge http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

Are all those doctors quacks, every one of them?

First, it isn't clear how Al Gore would instantly become a billionaire if cap and trade becomes law. Second, you really think one man is more influential than several, already, multi-billion dollar industries?

It's quite clear how he would become a multibillionaire. He started a company that does nothing but buy and sell carbon credits. He'd be the founder and owner of the biggest company on the carbon credit version of Wall Street. I also never said he was more influential than multi-billion dollar industries. However he is one of the most influential people in the world in terms of environmental policy.

While this may be true, they already are the completely dominant force in commerce and so they'll make even more money if they don't have to retool anything.

Incorrect. The cost of doing business in the developed world is more expensive than in the undeveloped world. The western factories are steadily losing ground to the Daewoos and Tatas of the world. Their profits (adjusted for inflation) are shrinking. They have a few choices: compete from a position that is inferior in the long term, level the playing field by getting rid of wealth destroying laws like western income taxes and minimum wages (which the economically ignorant would never let happen), or use the fear of the scientifically ignorant to pressure the developing nations to level the playing field the other way. These are the same mega-corps that promote ideas like mandatory worker health benefits, minimum wage, and complicated tax accounting rules. Sure it costs them money, but it costs their small scale competitors a greater amount (in relative terms), so they win. If the American corporations didn't want greater regulation and global environmental treaties, why did they give record amounts of money to the Obama campaign? It certainly wasn't because he wanted to make the US a capitalist country again.

What? Are you counting yourself and all the other posters on slashdot?

No I'm counting world renowned scientists:
Astrophysicist Dr. Sallie Baliunas
Statistician Stephen McIntyre
Professor Habibullo Abdussamatov
Geologist Astrid Lyså
Prof. Roy Spencer, NASA scientist
Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT
a few dozen here...including an IPCC member.
and these 32 000 guys.
That should be enough people to show there is no "consensus" on global warming.

What cooling? The temperatures may be slightly cooler than the absolute peak, but to say there is a cooling trend is simply not true.

The "trend", as you call it, is a decade long...so far, and it's projected to last another few decades. How long was the warming that proceeded it? Twenty five years? I find it interesting that you quote a man (James Hansen of GISS) who was forced to retract falsified evidence that had claimed that the 2000s were the hottest decade in recorded history. And whose revised (i.e. more truthful) report showed that the world has cooled since the 1940s, while at the same time CO2 production skyrocketed. Additionally, wasn't he implicated in the CRU data manipulation? Yeah, he was. He's a trustwo

Without being scientific about this at all I would say that it is very suspicious that the view contrary to warming theory is almost never presented. It's not as though the skeptics don't have their own scientific experts that doubt that MMGW needs a lot more proof before we radically modify our way of living. http://petitionproject.org/ I am always suspicious when someone tells me that God definitely exists and that the debate over His existence is over. Just as I am equally suspicious of those who tell me that no God exists and that there is no debate about that either. However, I can find plenty of sources on both sides of this debate. It is an open debate with plenty of public discussion from both points of view. What really gives me the creeps is when the MMGW camp tells me that the debate is over but I don't get to even hear the other side's perspective because they aren't even given a platform for debate. The creepy lockstep that all of the news outlets that promote the MMGW's position really...well...creeps me out. All I am saying is that the MMGW folks raise a lot of flags with me (and others I know) because of their seemingly Byzantine approach to their position. These exposed emails don't help.

However, one thing I did see was a list of signatures from people opposed to the climate change theory - almost all of whom had no science qualifications.

I really have no idea if you might have seen this or not but just trying to be helpful. These people seem to have some qualifications...

And your blind dismissal of anything based on the fact that it's posted on dKos makes you an irrational fool. Plain and simple.

Tell you what, genius. If you're afraid to visit dKos and fairly consider what's posted there, try these:

http://www.desmogblog.com/search/node/oregon%20petition

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

http://ezinearticles.com/?Debunking-the-Oregon-Petition-Project&id=1675285

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I

Every one of the links above details what's wrong with the "petition". Or, if you lack the courage to visit anything that forces you to think, try the petition itself:

http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php

...where you can see 1) many of those on the petition are not scientists and 2) the petition mentions nothing about Al Gore.

I know, I know. Facts have a liberal bias. Sucks to be you.

I say opinion because 30,000 scientists have said they feel that Gore
has lied and distorted the facts.

Out of those 30,000 scientists, how many have a background in climatology?

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

3,804 out of the 30,000 are into "Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment", and of those, 39 are into climatology. 39 out of 30,000 scientists are experts into climatology. That's about a .1%.

I'm certain that a holder of a PhD in physics or chemistry would be more qualified than me, a computer consultant, or Al Gore, a politician, but simply saying 30,000 scientists without mentioning their qualifications is disingenuous. It leads the readers out here to believe that those scientists are all 100% knowledgeable in climatology, which is simply not true.

Now, do we have any numbers regarding how many scientists agree with Al Gore?

The weather balloon data does not show warming at higher altitudes thus it is not Global Warming.

You mean this data?

After examining the satellite data, collected since 1979 by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather satellites, Carl Mears and Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, Calif., found that the satellites had drifted in orbit, throwing off the timing of temperature measures. Essentially, the satellites were increasingly reporting nighttime temperatures as daytime ones, leading to a false cooling trend. The team also found a math error in the calculations.

This data doesn't prove that it's man-made, but it certainly takes away the argument that warming isn't happening. It could be cyclical. It could be, as you say, the sun.

http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

Your definition of "qualified" is far different than mine. You obviously don't properly vet your sources, and you have no interest in allowing yourself to consider an opposing viewpoint. I'm done trying to talk to you.

http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

I can't believe nobody has mentioned this petition yet. http://www.petitionproject.org/ 31,000 scientists including 9000 PhDs who aren't yet convinced that we're even harming the planet, let alone humans. I think public debate is always a good thing.

you want voices in the scientific community who say the science is far from settled?
MIT scientists: Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at the political cry of "alarming rates."
American Physicists
31,478 scientists, including 9029 PHD's reject global warming

Real scientists, if you have not yet done so, please sign the Global Warming Petition Project. It's not a web based petition so you'll have to actually sign it and send it in.

Sorry, link didn't come through. It's here. I need to learn how to preview my comments properly.

> Although scientists are agreed ...

That's a lie.

There is no scientific consensus on AGW - over 31,000 American scientists (including more than 9,000 PhDs) have signed this petition arguing that there is no convincing evidence supporting AGW theory.

The "entire field of science" except for the 30,000 or so scientists who have signed this petition rejecting global warming:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Rational people like Bjorn Lomborg have done the math and concluded that the money that would be spent reducing carbon dioxide emissions would be better spent elsewhere.

Break down by specialty:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html

Only 40 "climatologists", but 3000+ in highly relevant fields.

The sponsor of the petition seems to be this:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Note that these are "scientists", not climatologists. I'd be interested to know how many specialize in climate related fields.