Is Satan the author of the Global Warming lie?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

Coggins7 wrote:The problem here fort, is that you're not even really in the debate.


No, the problem is that you don't know how to debate.

The claims made in the op-ed are all checkable on the Web. Get to it. The statements of the scientists are checkable, as are the mountains of data and arguments made on the websites whose links I gave you. Get on with it.


Sorry, you don't debate an issue like this by saying 'Here's an op-ed I agree with, and if you disagree with it then it's up to you to check it for accuracy, not me'. You have to establish the authority of the op-ed if you're going to appeal to it. That's your job, not mine.

I laid out the evidence, in a "nutshell" as I said clearly in my first post...


No, you laid out a list of claims, none of which you supported with any referenced evidence at all. Please do so.
_The Dude
_Emeritus
Posts: 2976
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:16 am

Post by _The Dude »

Coggins7 wrote:There's alot to read and digest, but that's the only way. Now its time for you to do your own homework. I've already done mine.


Well, I won't claim to be an expert on climate change, but what you've posted isn't much of a place to start. Authoritative sounding claims with nothing to back them up. Where are you getting this stuff? Of the two links you attached, one didn't work and the other was political. Where's the data?

Bryan Inks wrote:And yet, oddly enough, you won't accept the exact same amount of factual evidence that is "common knowledge" against your religion.


Not a good comparison in my opinion. The stuff against his religion is much better than that.
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

I posted far more than the op-ed, including links to websites, names of scientists (including eminent ones, like Singer, Balling, and Lindzen) and other studies (the Mockton study is heavily referenced. The Idso's site is overloaded with professional journal references, indeed, that's almost all there is there) and you just want to continue you little dog and pony show. Perhaps you would actually like to debate, (for whatever reason-perhaps its just because I'm a Latter Day Saint) AGW, or perhaps you just want to stir the pot for no particular reason. In either case, if you have any evidence or arguements and references of your own, please feel free to post them and actually debate the issue as opposed to derailing it with endless appeals to the tactical protocols of debate.

Again, the things referenced in the op-ed are common knowledge (and some have been for quite some time), so all you're really accomplishing here is a ringing declaration of your own ignorance on the subject. And all of them are verifiable at the touch of your own fingertips. Its called Google. It may take you some time, and you've probably got a great deal of reading and study to do before your up to this. That's not surprising either. AGW is a fundamentalist religion, not a scientific theory. It needs no verification or references, and never has, any more than anyone was ever really concerned about the actual scientific valididy of the Love Canal and Times Beach hoaxes, the Three Mile Island scare, Alar, Acid Rain, Ozone depletion, cell phone cancer, alleged loss of biodiversity, global cooling (AGW in pubescent form), deforestation, the alleged "rape" of "the planet, on and on ad nauseum.

I'm sure the discussion will never get beyond this point, from your end, since you have nothing to say other than to nitpick at things you are perfectly able to check on your own. you're the one responsible for your own education on issues such as this, not me. Yes, conservatives such as myself and bc are, indeed, the bearers of bad news to the Left, but someone has to do the dirty jobs no?
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Yes, conservatives such as myself and bc are, indeed, the bearers of bad news to the Left, but someone has to do the dirty jobs no?


And you honestly believe this?
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Well, I won't claim to be an expert on climate change, but what you've posted isn't much of a place to start. Authoritative sounding claims with nothing to back them up. Where are you getting this stuff? Of the two links you attached, one didn't work and the other was political. Where's the data?


Nice night for head games isn't it. Tsk, tsk. No data of your own, no arguments, no nothing. Now, put down your roach clip and use the links I provided you. Good boy. I don't know what browser your using, but the SEPP and NCPA links work fine. I cut and pasted the others right from the websites so I don't know what's wrong there. All you have to do is go to the Canada Free Press website and seach for "The Gods Must Be Laughing" and you'll get the article and links to others. You can do the same for the Lord Mockton study at CEI. All you have to do to get to CO2 Science is punch in http://www.co2science.org in your search bar and there you'll be. Now I'm sure after this remedial lesson in how to use the Intgernet you guys will be hot on the trail of your "data".

And while your reading and digesting the material available at CO2 Science, The Science and Environmental Policy Project, and CEI, you might also look up and spend some substantial time studying the materails available at CATO, the Heritage Foundation, and numerous other think tanks and educational organizations you can link to, most probably from those sites. SEPP has a good link page for environmental issues, and you would be well advised to Google search for the names Richard Lindzen, Timothy Ball, S. Fred Singer, Robert C. Balling, (also look up, well, never mind, you guys might not be able to handle it, I'll post it below) Richard Landsea, and others I could name.



Open Kyoto to debate

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming

Special to the Financial Post

Thursday, April 06, 2006

An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:


Dear Prime Minister:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational

headlines, they are no basis for mature policy

formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.

CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources

- - -

Sincerely,

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.


This, of course, isn't data, as it is a list of people who are quite conversant with that data, have professional expertise in fields relevant to that data and what it shows and should therefore be given their substantial due, at least as much as Al Gore, don't you think?
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

The Dude wrote:
Coggins7 wrote:There's alot to read and digest, but that's the only way. Now its time for you to do your own homework. I've already done mine.


Well, I won't claim to be an expert on climate change, but what you've posted isn't much of a place to start. Authoritative sounding claims with nothing to back them up. Where are you getting this stuff? Of the two links you attached, one didn't work and the other was political. Where's the data?


See what I mean Cogs? I'm not the only one who can see the emperor has no clothes.
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

See what I mean Cogs? I'm not the only one who can see the emperor has no clothes.



OK, so we have here another poseur. Continue playing your head games with someone else, as I'm done. Anyone who wishes to discuss any of the claims made in the material I posted, or made by myself on this thread is welcome to do so, but I'm through with both Fort and Dude, as they have nothing productive, intellectually viable, or intellectually honest to offer here.
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

Coggins7 wrote:
See what I mean Cogs? I'm not the only one who can see the emperor has no clothes.



OK, so we have here another poseur. Continue playing your head games with someone else, as I'm done. Anyone who wishes to discuss any of the claims made in the material I posted, or made by myself on this thread is welcome to do so, but I'm through with both Fort and Dude, as they have nothing productive, intellectually viable, or intellectually honest to offer here.


Image
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

Coggins7 wrote:I posted far more than the op-ed, including links to websites, names of scientists (including eminent ones, like Singer, Balling, and Lindzen) and other studies (the Mockton study is heavily referenced. The Idso's site is overloaded with professional journal references, indeed, that's almost all there is there) and you just want to continue you little dog and pony show. Perhaps you would actually like to debate, (for whatever reason-perhaps its just because I'm a Latter Day Saint) AGW, or perhaps you just want to stir the pot for no particular reason. In either case, if you have any evidence or arguements and references of your own, please feel free to post them and actually debate the issue as opposed to derailing it with endless appeals to the tactical protocols of debate.

Again, the things referenced in the op-ed are common knowledge (and some have been for quite some time), so all you're really accomplishing here is a ringing declaration of your own ignorance on the subject. And all of them are verifiable at the touch of your own fingertips. Its called Google. It may take you some time, and you've probably got a great deal of reading and study to do before your up to this. That's not surprising either. AGW is a fundamentalist religion, not a scientific theory. It needs no verification or references, and never has, any more than anyone was ever really concerned about the actual scientific valididy of the Love Canal and Times Beach hoaxes, the Three Mile Island scare, Alar, Acid Rain, Ozone depletion, cell phone cancer, alleged loss of biodiversity, global cooling (AGW in pubescent form), deforestation, the alleged "rape" of "the planet, on and on ad nauseum.

I'm sure the discussion will never get beyond this point, from your end, since you have nothing to say other than to nitpick at things you are perfectly able to check on your own. you're the one responsible for your own education on issues such as this, not me. Yes, conservatives such as myself and bc are, indeed, the bearers of bad news to the Left, but someone has to do the dirty jobs no?


This was an astonishing combination of personal attack, rhetoric, and bombast. Let's break it down:

* I'm afraid the the burden of evidence is on the claimant - please support your specific claims with specific evidence, including specific cited or quoted references (not just lists of names, quotes which aren't referenced and aren't obviously related to your claims, and op-ed pieces)

* Google is not research (it disturbs me that you think typing a handful of words into Google actually constitutes research)

* I'm not arguing about the tactical protocols of debate, I'm reminding you of them and requesting you follow them

To date you have not given me any understanding of the process by which you have evaluated the evidence on both sides, and arrived at your conclusions. When you have a case which you can articulate and support rationally, you'll be ready to debate.

I'll be waiting.
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Then you'll be waiting a very long time indeed. I'm not going to do your homework for you. You have the entire world at your fingertips here on the web and I've given you a substantial amount of links and introductory material by competant experts (as well as jouranlists and commentators using the statements and data of those experts--and there's nothing whatever wrong with that) in the relevant fields, but apparantly, you don't really have anything to debate here. You don't appear to actually have one position or another on AGW (and appear to have little knowledge or the issues at hand relative to either the science or public policy ramifications of the AGW debate) nor care to engage the issue with me.

The first op-ed piece I posted mentioned 25 points detailing empirical objections to AGW theory. Now, if you realy believe I'm going, as a non-specialist in climate science, to take an hour long drive to USC and spend an entire day looking up references in obscure professional journals to satisfy you that my arguments, or the arguments of competant experts in the relevant fields used to criticize AGW theory are valid (when those sources are available on the web--as they are referenced in the studies and analysis used by serious AGW critics (see the CO2 Science website again for nothing but referenced articles and reports), then you are delusional.

If you want to have a debate on AGW here, for whatever reason, then fine. Make a move. Its not you whose waiting for something substantive. If you have a problem with any of the points made by any of the sources I posted, or any of the sources at websites and associated studies/anlysis contained therein, then lets hear it.
Post Reply