Comments on: Climate propaganda – health scares next?

By: NoPasaran

NoPasaran — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 20:28:00 +0000

The peer reviewed research, in most any case that has been exposed to sunlight, appears to be peer-reviewed by people with all the same things to gain as the authors.

By: NoPasaran

NoPasaran — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 20:27:00 +0000

Interestingly, I googled the text of your replies and found their source to be what it’s creators to be a coercive “outing and shaming” site called Denier list. http://denierlist.wordpress.com/
Never mind their motives, you can always get some college credit to do a leftitst’s political bidding. Nothing new there.
What I did find in a random check of your well-formated package of links were a curious contradiction. While a title will broadly claim anthropogenic causes to climate trends, they show charts showing that trend starting before the industrial age. Even a trained chimpanzee can see something fishy in that.
It’s also germane to point out that you get the science that you fund, and after 3 decades of this activism driven government and grant-driven output, that there are good reasons to remain sceptical.

By: a b

a b — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 17:43:00 +0000

That was a neat and tidy answer. He’s “capable”? With a little propaganda from the left, er, liberals, er progressives, er brights, he’ll realize his health and security depends on believing in the ice age, er, global warming, er man-caused global warming, er climate change. Do you not see the delicious irony?

Leftists have turned this from an article pointing out the propaganda being urged by their brothers in arms into a debate about the veracity of AGW itself, so kindly refrain from accusing me of being off-topic.

AGW is no different than any other leftist political cause in respect to thinking those who disagree are dumb. Not that calling someone who points out contradictory evidence shouldn’t be called a “denier”, a “flat-earther”, a racist or any number of vile terms meant to brand and therefore socially control those who disagree, right? Not very scientific of you.

Thanks for making my point.

By: Jonathan_Duhamel

Jonathan_Duhamel — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 15:00:00 +0000

Two of my “see also’s” show errors in modeling. And, if you insist on peer-reviewed journals, there is a new paper out today which show that clouds (i.e. water vapor) have a strong negative feedback on temperature. Climate models assume a positive feedback. See: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012JD017626.shtml

By: Bobert Bell

Bobert Bell — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 14:55:00 +0000

I will ignore your obvious bias towards Skeptical Science, because they have very easy to follow arguments, and supporting evidence links to the tougher science that explains to you why, individual CO2 lifespan is not what is at issue here. It is the turn around time of the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere called the global atmospheric lifetime that is at the crux of the problem (yes there is a problem), and to quote a reader there.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

If I were presented with the “iconic list” either in rebuttal or simple confusion, I would be tempted to simply by-pass it and say “Look, we KNOW (from direct and proxy measurements) that the planet’s CO2 blanket is more than a third thicker than it was before the industrial revolution. We KNOW (through carbon isotope signatures) that we’re the ones thickening it. We KNOW that CO2 traps infrared – we can measure the effect both in the lab and from satellites. And we KNOW that global (atmospheric and ocean) temperatures are rising.”

Now, you will request that I appeal to some “authority” to prove this, correct ?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle4.php

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

http://www.jstor.org/pss/108724?cookieSet=1

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo1327.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5727/1431

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?2000ESASP.463..201T&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3966.1

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lean-and-rind-estimate-man-made-and-natural-global-warming.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/huber-and-knutti-quantify-man-made-global-warming.html

I could go on and on appealing to authority, and you would come back with Wattsup, Climate Depot, World Climate Report, and other non-researching PR think tanks dedicated to the spread of misinformation (in my opinion).
Towards what goal? refute your assertions, change your mind, persuade other people ? Would you really consider “evidence”, or put aside your bias, and point to what science you think is wrong, and why without authority ? I seriously doubt it.

By: Bobert Bell

Bobert Bell — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:29:00 +0000

No, what riles me up, is your misinformation (albeit my understanding of the actual facts, in the end that all any speaker has), and your appeal to authorities that not even up to the job of being authorities. You use disambiguation to argue your point, and lament authority, and simultaneously endeavor to conjure up authority from fringe ideas and made up facts you cannot even back up with research. . You appeal to not authorities, but hacks, and fall back on ad hominem attacks on actual working climate scientists like Gavin Schmidt, Mike Mann, Eric Steig, Stefan Rahmstorf, Jim Bouldin, Ray Pierrehumbert, and David Archer etc.. As for the newspaper, the relevant point was that your basis for your conclusion was not from peer reviewed research (that actually requires reproducible data and conclusions) but unpublished Norwegian denialist who is unable to get publish (I know, it’s a big good old boy conspiracy in climate research that keeps him unpublished), and who cannot respond to counter-points (even from journalists) about his methods and conclusions. You are not entitled to your own made up facts sir, and no matter how many times you repeat to yourself, or on your blog, they will not self-substantiate. Start substantiating your facts with research, drop the ad hominem angles, get off your hypocritical podium, and realize that unless your actually writing the models, studying the physics, processing the data, building reconstructions to the observed data, and actively researching a specific piece of the puzzle, you have to appeal to authority at some point. Once you do that, then you can start evaluating those authorities without bias, that is impossible from your starting point as I see it. The models are actually pretty darn accurate (not perfect, and will never been, but climate scientists do not argue that, only denialist do), and the do support AGW. Why don’t you point out one single facet of the assumptions, and models that is incorrect, and support that conclusion without an appeal to authority sir ? You cannot do this, because you are not doing the science, and you must appeal to some authority at some point. Either that, or you do not view your own fact finding missions, as giving others authority in
specific vertical expertise. It is your picking of authorities that makes me want to projectile vomit, and from what I see, you not very good at with respect to climate science.

By: Ben Franklin

Ben Franklin — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 01:07:00 +0000

First, appeals to peer reviewed literature and standard text books are not appeals to “authority” — not sure what authority you think I am appealing to? but here are some simple facts:
Bobert Bell provided some excellent references for you to check in the next post.
Carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing (google Keeling curve, or go to CO2now.org for a graphic showing the trend over the last 55 years. This curve is also well documented in the southern hemisphere.
Carbon dioxide absorptivity is shown to be at the same wave length as the black body emissions from the earth.
The atmosphere is warming. See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif for reconstructions based on measured temperatures and for a longer view based upon multiple older lines of evidence please see Mann,
Michael E., Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K Hughes. 1994. Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During
the Past Millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and Limitations. American Geophysical Union. V3.1 14 Feb 1994
That ought to get you started.

By: Ben Franklin

Ben Franklin — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 00:59:00 +0000

I agree that “joe citizen” is capable of understanding climate change. The odd part is that it is the climate change denialists that appear to revert back to the off-topic rants you just presented when faced with a solid review of incorrect facts or flawed interpretations. Almost everyone I sit down with and talk with can understand climate change.
“a b”, the question is, why did you try to turn this into a propaganda statement instead of focusing on facts or actual analyses that you don’t agree with? Your post attempts to spread more propaganda than any other in this series of posts.

By: Jonathan_Duhamel

Jonathan_Duhamel — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 00:50:00 +0000

This post has apparently ruffled the feathers of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) crowd. Notice that the arguments are appeals to authority and argument from analogy – both invalid forms. When asked to present specific physical evidence that CO2 is the major cause of warming, they again appeal to authority without citing specific evidence.

One comment complains that a source I cited is not in a peer-reviewed journal but then cites articles in a Norwegian newspaper to counter the source. He also cites propagandist blogs at RealClimate and Skeptical Science as his authority.

As the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan is reported to have said: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” And the facts of observational data do not support CAGW. It exists only in computer models based on faulty assumptions.

By: Jonathan_Duhamel

Jonathan_Duhamel — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 00:32:00 +0000

Appeals to authority don’t wash with me. Can you cite some specific evidence?