Opinion

Global warming lies, damn lies and easy rebuttals

Photo of Tim Daniel
Tim Daniel
Contributor
  • See All Articles
  • Subscribe to RSS
  • Bio

      Tim Daniel

      Tim Daniel is a small business owner and entrepreneur who currently lives in San Diego, California with his wife and lovely cat. He is editor in chief of the southern California-based <a href="http://www.leftcoastrebel.com/">Left Coast Rebel </a>blog.

Earlier this week my column highlighted several unique weather circumstances politically seized upon by the global warming alarmists. I closed the piece with a simple query – what can you and I do to debate the, myth, lies and culpable-media distortions?

The answer to that simple question may be surprisingly elementary.

Recently San Diego’s Lynceans group hosted a global warming debunking seminar in which several speakers highlighted effective debate tactics for global warming skeptics.

In particular, distinguished scientist Dr. Roger Cohen offered up a three-point approach for those wishing to engage and debate:

The Global Warming Alarmist’s “Appeal to Authority” – This seems to be the first line of defense for global warming advocates. They often appeal to their authority by citing ‘irrefutable evidence’, ‘consensus’ and such to assert authority and stifle debate. Recently, 31,000 climate scientists have signed the Petition Project. Also, top international climate scientists recently sent the United Nations a petition that challenges the UN’s global warming agenda. Settled science? Not hardly.

Global Warming’s “Precautionary Principles” – Global warming alarmists typically ignore the economic ramifications of drastic legislative measures. Yale’s Professor of Economics, William Nordhaus performed a study disproving draconian state-directed global warming initiatives, showing that simply ‘doing nothing’ would have the same effect over the next 50 years as extreme government action would.

This point begs a question – should Americans allow our economy to be potentially crippled and hyper-regulated due to the oft-chance inevitable collision of some lumbering asteroid in a galaxy far, far, away? In many ways global warming proponents are advocating just that.

The Alarmist  “Pure Anger” Approach - This occurrence is an emotional, visceral display that shows skeptics are winning the day. It’s a common feature of debate — a citizen dares to question the validity of the global warming religiosity and is castigated as a “flat-earther” or other variety of pejorative. Dr. Cohen’s advice for the Pure Anger approach is to simply ignore and revel in the fact that it is the surest sign that global warming advocates are losing the debate.

The instructions above come in handy if the vampirious, multi-headed monster knows as Cap and Trade appears in Congress again. California residents also can use this information against opponents of Proposition 23.

Skeptics most likely won’t get any airtime on MSNBC or The New York Times but you can take it to the streets, your college campus and even around the dinner table with familial global warming kool-aid drinkers.

As the summer and global warming rhetoric heats up – it pays to know the correct course of discourse.

Tim Daniel is a small business owner and entrepreneur who currently lives in San Diego, California with his wife and lovely cat. He is editor in chief of the southern California-based Left Coast Rebel blog.

  • Pingback: We CITIZENS have a MIGHTY STING! « Temple of Mut

  • Pingback: Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Aug 19th 2010 « The Daily Bayonet

  • Mutnodjmet

    karmakaze: “You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The document in question was printed under an NAS letterhead, and was structured to look like a publication from the NAS. Everything about it was designed to fool the reader into thinking it was a legitimate publication of the NAS, and it was no such thing. That is intentional FRAUD.”

    Again, that is your claim. I disagree, having also seen all the evidence. And I don’t consider slander offered by a global warming proponent as “proof” of anything, except you want to undermine the legitimacy of the professionals who signed the Petition Project.

  • Mutnodjmet

    karmakaze: “As for their compliance or otherwise, that doesn’t bother me at all. The fact they left California so they didn’t have to comply tells me all I need to know. But it’s your story, and it is irrelevant, so it doesn’t matter.”

    Actually, it is quite relevant to California — which is one of the issues the article specifically addresses: Proposition 23. It may not be relevant to you in New Zealand, but it sure is to many Californians. In fact, here is a report about 100 business-people, and the reason they left California.\:

    “Time after time businesses spoke of draconian regulations by state agencies, with un-elected people playing a game of gotcha, intent on making it as difficult as possible to stay in California – and provide jobs for Californians.”

    http://arc.asm.ca.gov/member/3/?p=article&sid=209&id=220394

    I talk to businesspeople like this daily. They are willing to comply with reasonable laws, and pay reasonable fees and taxes. So, again, you expose a fairly hard-hearted attitude toward small business owners by claiming they don’t want to bother to comply. They can’t. And the rules imposed of them are based on bad science.

  • Mutnodjmet

    Karmkaze: It is obvious from your back tracking that you have no idea of how many of the 46,000 physicists refute the statement developed by the APS elites — which is my point exactly. Inasmuch as a significant body of their membership engaged in serious climate-science work are signing the NEW petition, you can’t claim the APS membership as proof of CONSENSUS — exactly Dr. Cohen’s first point!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Left-Coast-Rebel/100000811020974 Left Coast Rebel

    Ah, yes – I love to see the typical nutroot response here. Unlike Mut I will not be so gracious. Scrap Iron, WaterMephit, Karmakaze and the like – who pays you to patrol the internet and (attempt) to strike down any debate that dares to go against the global warming alarmist line? How much per hour do you ‘earn’ doing so?

    If my column had not made valid points you wouldn’t be here.

    So keep screeching away into your pathetic echo chamber as my column goes viral!

    • karmakaze

      “who pays you to patrol the internet and (attempt) to strike down any debate that dares to go against the global warming alarmist line?”

      Firstly, no one pays me – I do this out of the goodness of my heart. Secondly, I’m not the one trying to “strike down any debate” – I’m countering the arguments made with my own arguments and evidence. That is, I’m debating. You on the other hand are insinuating I’m a paid propagandist and essentially telling me to go away – you, sir, are a hypocrite.

      “If my column had not made valid points you wouldn’t be here.”

      Wrong. In fact 180 degrees off the mark – if the article had made valid points I would not be here. Unlike the liars, I only argue when I know I’m right. So when I see an article as full of bull as this one, with such a retarded claim in the headline, I drop in to tell everyone what an idiot the author is.

      “Easy rebuttals” my butt. “Retarded rebuttals” more like.

      “So keep screeching away into your pathetic echo chamber as my column goes viral! ”

      BAHAHAHA You think making yourself look like an idiot in front of MORE people makes me upset? I hope the entire world sees what an idiot you are. And at the same time I hope you have the courage to leave my comments here so they can see me call you an idiot, and PROVE IT USING YOUR OWN EVIDENCE.

      Time will tell, I guess.

      • Mutnodjmet

        Karmakaze: My response clearly discredits the assertion the Petition Project was funded by “big oil”; so, why should the reader believe any assertion that a proponent of AWG make regarding the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine? However, in the interest of full disclosure, here is what it is: a non-profit research institute established in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects applicable to increasing the quality, quantity, and length of human life. Research in the Institute’s laboratories includes work in protein biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine, and aging. The Institute also carries out work on the improvement of basic education and emergency preparedness. And while you may think Robinson is a fringe scientist, the most damning quote from him is that “parents concerned about socialism in the public schools.” — which is about the same opinion as many other Americans. Furthermore, this “letter scandal” was nothing moe than a confusion in format and the fact that a packet of highly-tecnical scientific information was difficult to digest by journalists. Subsequently, OSIM is hardly a “right-wing think tank” and the Petition Project is one of three significant networking activities demonstrating, clearly, that there is NO CONSENSUS among professional scientists regarding AGW — despite your continued mischaracterizations.

        You can call me a liar, and demean me all you wish. However, I want to thank you for giving me the Golden Opportunities you have within this comment section, to counter many of the false allegations the proponents of AGW have made over the year, that have gone unchallenged because of the intimidation and bullying techniques you have been using within our dialog. It has been most illuminating, and allowed be to utilize all three of Dr. Cohen’s techniques!

        I will allow the good people of the Daily Caller to determine which one of us has the greater authority on this subject matter. If you are truly interested, I work for myself as a professional in the environmental regulation compliance field — helping companies comply with the regulations of the EPA and APCD, among many others. Beyond that, why should I provide you with further personal information that can be used nefariously? However, why don’t you share with our readers something about your background in this subject — I am sure several will be interested to know!

        It turned into an economics debate, because ultimately the rules and regulations that are poised to be implemented in California will undermine the economy of this state. I have witnessed three client companies shut down and leave for other states, frustrated will all the compliance issues — based on unreasonable standards and a simple desire to milk as many fees from businesses as possible — they had in California. Furthermore, other environmental rules proposed on the national level will crush the national economy. Interestingly, another Daily Caller article features this one:

        http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/13/epa-regulations-a-step-in-the-wrong-direction/

        • karmakaze

          “My response clearly discredits the assertion the Petition Project was funded by “big oil”;”

          “so, why should the reader believe any assertion that a proponent of AWG make regarding the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine?”

          You don’t have to believe me, simply read the press release from the NAS:

          http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998

          Or read the Wikipedia page about the petition.

          I seriously wouldn’t pin your hopes on anyone believing that petition!

          “However, I want to thank you for giving me the Golden Opportunities you have within this comment section, to counter many of the false allegations the proponents of AGW have made over the year”

          You’re doing a crappy job of it.

          “I will allow the good people of the Daily Caller to determine which one of us has the greater authority on this subject matter.”

          You keep talking about your “authority” – care to prove it? I don’t believe you are anything but a liar or a fool. What is your name, where do you work, and what is your publication history in regards to climate science?

          Until you provide such details for confirmation, I’ll just have to assume my impression of you is accurate.

          “Beyond that, why should I provide you with further personal information that can be used nefariously? ”

          You claimed to have signed the petition, so your name is already public. Why are you afraid to tell us? Maybe because your name is NOT on the petition? Or because you know I’ll find out who you worked for and what your “expertise” is?

          “However, why don’t you share with our readers something about your background in this subject”

          I have no more than the average person’s background in this – I am a self-employed IT professional with an interest in science. My name is Simon Rika, and I live in Rotorua, New Zealand. I am not afraid of you, so why are you afraid of me?

          “It turned into an economics debate”

          More accurately you TRIED to turn it into an economics debate when you lost the science debate – I’m not letting you. What about the SCIENCE do you say is wrong? Forget the economics.

          “I have witnessed three client companies shut down and leave for other states, frustrated will all the compliance issues”

          Oh how sad! Two companies had to go pollute elsewhere? I’m sure Californians are crying themselves to sleep over it. Of course your personal loss of revenue is your major concern, isn’t it?

          So, back to the science behind climate change. Anything in there you think you can prove wrong? Care to try?

          • Mutnodjmet

            karmakaze: I have yet to see you state any of your credentials to discuss climate science, and I have yet to see a valid scientific point you brought up to counter anything I have stated. For example, you claim there are 46,000 physicists who support the pro-global warming of the APS — but that is their entire membership, and over 200 want nothing to do with the APS global warming statement.

            You want more “science”? The EPA is slated to regulate carbon dioxide levels at 350 ppm — when current levels are 390 ppm average and we breathe out 45,000 ppm. Furthermore, greenhouses have special units designed to enhance CO2 levels to over 4 times normal — as this enhances plant growth.

            Furthermore, if you look at the details of the Dr. Happer talk, you will find that the computer models global warming proponents rely on cannot adequately account for cloud cover. Additionally, there have been periods in the recent past with much warmer temperatures (Medieval Warm Period) that had nothing to do with SUVs, man-made CO2, or other anthropogenic causes.

            What I find intriguing is that you state: “Two companies had to go pollute elsewhere? I’m sure Californians are crying themselves to sleep over it.” These companies were fully complaint with all environmental laws, which have reduced pollution levels significantly in this region of the state:

            http://www.ioe.ucla.edu/research/article.asp?parentid=865

            And, yes, there were many tears: Their move cost 50 California families income from the main bread-winners, and split-up families who moved with the firms. Companies are not inherently “polluting” or “evil” — and your statement shows an unhealthy hostility to people wanting to participate legally and fairly in the free market system.

            Frankly, you can be who you say you are — but I am not in the habit of giving personal details on a comment section in a blog. It is obvious from this discussion you have not taken the time to do the research related to the climate science showing that man-made global warming is a not occurring. We are having a significant cold-spell in California; am I to assume a new :Ice Age” is upon us!

          • Mutnodjmet

            PS. Here is the Dr. Happer talk:

            http://www.box.net/shared/020l6mhgv0

          • Mutnodjmet

            Just because several journalists got confused because of the package included with the Petition Project is NOT the fault of its organizers. Here is the full NAS statement on the matter:

            “The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.

            “The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.

            In particular, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a major consensus study on this issue, entitled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1991,1992). This analysis concluded that ” …even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. … Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises.” In addition, the Committee on Global Change Research of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS and the NAE, will issue a major report later this spring on the research issues that can help to reduce the scientific uncertainties associated with global change phenomena, including climate change.”

            The NAS didn’t say it was identical — did it? In fact, being experienced with this sort of thing, the format for many of these science press releases can be confusingly similar. Just because a bunch of global-warming proponents try to taint the reputation of a skeptic doesn’t make it true — as we who follow news closely are clearly learning.

          • karmakaze

            “I have yet to see you state any of your credentials to discuss climate science”

            Wait! Since when have people needed credentials to “discuss climate science”? I told you who I was and yet you are still trying to dodge telling me who you are. The longer this goes on, the more I have to assume there is a reason you won’t tell, and that that reason is because you were not being truthful about your “authority” on the subject.

            “I have yet to see a valid scientific point you brought up to counter anything I have stated”

            That’s because you haven’t stated anything scientific! When I asked you to say what it was you disagreed with in the science, you started talking about tax and the Californian economy. I don’t need science to say I don’t give a crap about either. When you raise any points regarding the SCIENCE I will address them.

            “For example, you claim there are 46,000 physicists who support the pro-global warming of the APS — but that is their entire membership, and over 200 want nothing to do with the APS global warming statement.”

            No, I gave you a link to the official APS site where their press release says that 160 members (not over 200) raised an issue that was rejected by the APS, and it simply reminded people that the other 46,000 members did not join the 160, and aren’t complaining that nothing changed. I may have overstated their “support” but the fact remains they DIDN’T support the call for change.

            “The EPA is slated to regulate carbon dioxide levels at 350 ppm — when current levels are 390 ppm average and we breathe out 45,000 ppm.”

            You are not talking about science, you are talking about policy. The closest you are getting to talking about science are your retarded examples as to why 350 ppm is objectionable to you.

            You claim to be a scientist, so you know there is a vast difference between what is toxic to breathe (hence we can handle much higher concentrations in our lungs) and what is dangerously high in regards to the Greenhouse Effect of CO2. You of course also realise that the reason we breathe out so much CO2 is because our body is trying to get rid of it – like it does with all pollutants. You also know that the problem is not that there is CO2 being put into the air, but that we are putting in so much ourselves that the natural processes are unable to keep up, and thus the climate is changing. It’s not how much is there, it’s how much MORE is there than only a few decades ago.

            The climate is just like your lungs – it tries to clean out the excess CO2 and normally it keeps up well enough that CO2 levels are very stable considering how much of it is made. Your lungs expel CO2, the natural processes “sink” CO2. If you breathe in too much CO2, your lungs can’t cope and you suffocate, if too much CO2 is put into the atmosphere, then the atmosphere is unable to cope and it heats up.

            Same basic idea – not very complicated, and easy to understand if you have an open mind and aren’t too busy worrying how much money it will cost you.

            “Furthermore, greenhouses have special units designed to enhance CO2 levels to over 4 times normal — as this enhances plant growth.”

            Recent studies have also shown it reduces plant quality. Giving plants more of one thing doesn’t mean they get more of everything. So in this case they grow larger, but the quality is reduced because there is not enough of the other things plants need. You also have to remember the other effects such as changes in rainfall or temperature that also affect plant growth.

            I can feed you pure sugar by the cup-full and you will eventually weigh 260 pounds – but it won’t be muscle, it will be fat, and it won’t be good for you.

            “Furthermore, if you look at the details of the Dr. Happer talk, you will find that the computer models global warming proponents rely on cannot adequately account for cloud cover.”

            So, close is not good enough? Isn’t that how science works? Of course a SIMULATION will never be perfect, it is a simulation. But they can give you rough pictures of the major changes to dynamic systems from changing various inputs. They don’t predict every event, but they predict the course of events. So far, even though they are limited, they agree with what we are seeing. That suggests the effect must be quite profound if even simplified simulations demonstrate it well.

            “Additionally, there have been periods in the recent past with much warmer temperatures (Medieval Warm Period)”

            Prove the MWP was WARMER than today, and was GLOBAL. So far the science says otherwise. All we know about the MWP is that in the Northern Hemisphere temperatures were much the same as today. The Southern Hemisphere appears to have been left out of that warming.

            Another important aspect is the fact that it has been much warmer in the past, but climate was so inhospitable then that life was very simple. It wasn’t until global temperatures came down to around the temperatures they are today that life on this planet took off. Why are you so keen to see us try to survive in a climate like that? I am not saying we could be wiped out, but that we struggle to feed ourselves as it is. If we make it even harder to produce enough food…

            “What I find intriguing is that you state: “Two companies had to go pollute elsewhere? I’m sure Californians are crying themselves to sleep over it.” These companies were fully complaint with all environmental laws, which have reduced pollution levels significantly in this region of the state:”

            I meant “three” companies. As for their compliance or otherwise, that doesn’t bother me at all. The fact they left California so they didn’t have to comply tells me all I need to know. But it’s your story, and it is irrelevant, so it doesn’t matter.

            “Their move cost 50 California families income from the main bread-winners, and split-up families who moved with the firms.”

            They could just as easily have lost their jobs because of the bank rip-offs or the outsourcing to China rip-offs… in this case they lost their jobs for a good cause. Too bad, how sad, never mind.

            “Companies are not inherently “polluting” or “evil” ”

            I never said they were. You said the companies left because they didn’t want to comply with California’s regulations. I simply said “too bad, see ya later”. If they aren’t polluting and are not evil, then they should have no problem with us trying to make the world a cleaner place for everyone, including them. If not then they can eff off out of the way, because we don’t care if their companies suffer because of it. We are ALL going to suffer if we don’t do it.

            “and your statement shows an unhealthy hostility to people wanting to participate legally and fairly in the free market system.”

            Get lost. Right wing bullshit like that is not the topic of discussion. I will say this – there is no such thing as a “free market system”, it is NOT “unhealthy” to reject the idea, and all you are doing is trying to change the subject.

            “Frankly, you can be who you say you are — but I am not in the habit of giving personal details on a comment section in a blog.”

            You claim to have your name on the Petition. So why not tell us which name? Seems to me you’re either a coward or a liar. My money is on the latter. I’m not asking for anything more than what you claim is already public, so why the hesitation?

            “It is obvious from this discussion you have not taken the time to do the research related to the climate science showing that man-made global warming is a not occurring.”

            It’s obvious that I haven’t done that, simply because my research and the research of tens of thousands of scientists say the opposite – AGW IS happening, and we can prove it. So far all you’ve done is talk about the economy and your own wallet. It’s much more obvious that YOU haven’t done any research – all you’ve done is read retarded articles like this on stupid blogs and think you know what you’re talking about. You don’t.

            “We are having a significant cold-spell in California; am I to assume a new :Ice Age” is upon us!”

            What part of “Climate Change” do you not understand? The climate is changing. That means some places are drier, some wetter, some warmer, some colder. Those are the effects, Global Warming is the cause. The problem you seem to be having is understanding “dynamic equilibrium”. This is the concept that a spinning top exists under.

            When you spin a top, the forces acting upon it balance out, allowing it to sit reasonably still on the table top. As it slows down, however, the forces get out of balance, and the top wobbles. The wobbles get greater and greater until suddenly the top tips over and flies off in a random direction. When it is spinning, it is in dynamic equilibrium. When it slows down, it goes out of equilibrium and random effects occur until a new equilibrium is found.

            That is what climate does when you raise the entire planet’s temperature. It has to find a new equilibrium, and what we are concerned about is that the new equilibrium will be unfavourable to us. The planet will live on, but we may not, if the climate changes enough.

            -

            “Just because several journalists got confused because of the package included with the Petition Project is NOT the fault of its organizers.”

            You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The document in question was printed under an NAS letterhead, and was structured to look like a publication from the NAS. Everything about it was designed to fool the reader into thinking it was a legitimate publication of the NAS, and it was no such thing. That is intentional FRAUD, and far worse than anything you deniers have accused climate scientists of, yet you don’t care about that when your side is doing it, do you?

            The reason the NAS put out that release is because SCIENTISTS were asking them how they could have published such rubbish, only to find out the NAS never had published it, and that the petition was a fraud:

            “The article followed the identical style and format of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal,[6] even including a date of publication (“October 26″) and volume number (“Vol. 13: 149-164 1999″), but was not actually a publication of the National Academy. Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said that the article was “designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article…is a reprint and has passed peer review.” Pierrehumbert also said the article was full of “half-truths”.[14] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who “are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them.”"

            See, even though I led you to the information you didn’t even bother to read it, did you? I told you to read the Wikipedia page, which is where I got the above quote. As you can see, your description of it is utterly wrong. The phony document even included a publication date!

            If you look around you’ll be able to find the original which proves it was an attempt at fraud. All you have to do is look at it to see it was an attempted forgery, not just a coincidentally similar format. The Robinsons published one of their own retarded “papers” but in a format and with information included that was intended to give the impression it had been peer-reviewed and published in the Proceedings. It never had.

            “Just because a bunch of global-warming proponents try to taint the reputation of a skeptic doesn’t make it true — as we who follow news closely are clearly learning.”

            Bahaha! No, by repeating the same old easily disproved lies, you are clearly demonstrating that you NEVER LEARN. If you did, you would know which denier bullshit to avoid like the plague. You don’t, so you destroy your credibility before you even open your mouth.

          • Mutnodjmet

            Karmakaze: WOW! You seem to think that they way to win the argument is via word-count! I am delighted to response:

            “That’s because you haven’t stated anything scientific! When I asked you to say what it was you disagreed with in the science, you started talking about tax and the Californian economy. I don’t need science to say I don’t give a crap about either. When you raise any points regarding the SCIENCE I will address them.”

            Any sane reader can clearly see that is not true: I have given scientific data, the response of leading scientists, and the links to the works I referenced. I don’t think the term “science” means what YOU think it means, as you are erroneously applying the term.

          • Mutnodjmet

            karmakaze: “Get lost. Right wing bullshit like that is not the topic of discussion. I will say this – there is no such thing as a “free market system”, it is NOT “unhealthy” to reject the idea, and all you are doing is trying to change the subject.”

            Actually, I am a registered Democrat and find the best and healthiest solutions to most problem doesn’t come from bureaucratic over-regulation, but from entrepreneurs who have the energy and desire to explore, create, and market new options. “Green” solutions that are economically savvy with be successful — and I am not “trying to change the subject.” Per Dr. Cohen’s Second Point, economics is tied to environmental regulation. For example, for every new position that depends on govenment-based energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.

            http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0

          • Mutnodjmet

            karmakaze: “What part of “Climate Change” do you not understand? The climate is changing. That means some places are drier, some wetter, some warmer, some colder. Those are the effects, Global Warming is the cause. The problem you seem to be having is understanding “dynamic equilibrium”. This is the concept that a spinning top exists under.”

            I actually understand quite a lot — as I have written extensively on Extinction Level Events. Here is one that may be of interest to you: SNOWBALL EARTH —

            http://studentresearch.wcp.muohio.edu/snowballearth/articles/Snowballearthpast99.pdf

            (Note – I din’t write it, but used it as the basis of one of my pieces).

          • karmakaze

            “WOW! You seem to think that they way to win the argument is via word-count!”

            It never ceases to amaze me when people who call themselves intelligent start complaining about how much I write! It’s usually Americans, so it’s no surprise really, but surely you can see that complaining about how much I write tells us more about you, than me.

            “Any sane reader can clearly see that is not true: I have given scientific data,”

            What scientific data? Quote it and let’s see if I missed it, because I sure haven’t seen any from you, despite asking you repeatedly to say what in the science you disagree with.

            Now you’re pulling the other standard ploy which is to start claiming you did post an argument after I spent days trying to get you to post one, and despite still not having done so. Like all propagandists you are relying on people being too lazy to go back and read what you’ve said. (Another reason I write so much – so you can’t go back and say I never said something :P )

            I read everything you wrote, and I am telling you you have not posted a single scientific argument. If you think otherwise, quote the argument… you know, prove it!

            “I don’t think the term “science” means what YOU think it means, as you are erroneously applying the term. ”

            You CLEARLY don’t know what science means – it’s not the opinion of “leading scientists” (who in your case are not leading scientists at all, but paid liars) the closest you came to science was when you mentioned the PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere and in exhaled human breath. Of course it was a totally unscientific comparison so it doesn’t count either. That is the best you had to offer, and I addressed it immediately.

            -

            “Actually, I am a registered Democrat ”

            Actually, the Democrats are a right-wing party… didn’t you know? You seem to forget I am not American, and I know your political parties are nothing like what they claim to be. In my country, our far-right party is more left-wing than the US Democrats. So, I don’t care if you’re a Dem or a Repub – your beliefs are right-wing bullshit, and as I said, they have nothing to do with the science, so stop trying to change the subject.

            “and I am not “trying to change the subject.” ”

            Yes you are… now you’re talking about your political beliefs, which have absolutely nothing to do with the science behind climate change.

            “Per Dr. Cohen’s Second Point, economics is tied to environmental regulation.”

            So what? Neither of them have anything to do with the science behind climate change. You can argue until you’re blue in the face and the facts won’t change – you are simply trying to ignore the science because of your political beliefs.

            “For example, for every new position that depends on govenment-based energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.”

            So? What has that got to do with the science? Job losses don’t change the physical fact that CO2 is a GHG. Economic hardship doesn’t change the fact that climate change could cause economic and physical hardship on unprecedented levels.

            I simply don’t give a shit how many jobs are lost in a good cause. How many jobs were lost so bankers could make billions in bonuses? So don’t cry to me about the economy. The economy is already crashing thanks to right-wing bullshit, now you want to destroy the environment too!

            “I actually understand quite a lot — as I have written extensively on Extinction Level Events. Here is one that may be of interest to you: SNOWBALL EARTH — ”

            So you understand climate change means the climate changes, but not in any particular way? You understand that Global Warming, AKA the increase in the mean temperature of the planet, can lead to climate change, which can lead to greater snowfall and colder winters, depending on how the climate actually changes in any one location?

            You sure seem to not understand that basic point.

  • crabber338

    31,000 ‘scientists’ huh… Does it matter that the ‘petition project’ in Oregon is funded by Oil companies behind the scenes?

    Talk about conspiracy.

    Let’s all be honest. The major attack against Global Warming here is that people don’t like the prospect of paying Carbon Tax. IT has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with the fear of having another ‘tax’ being put on us.

    • Mutnodjmet

      crabber338: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the “global warming” debate. It was organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), a non-profit organisation run by Arthur B. Robinson.

      I am of the belief that man-made global warming proponents, like yourself, are hired by eco-lobbyist firms and elite green corporations to spend time adding comments that undermine the serious efforts of those challenging the fraudulent science and media distortions. I think that is the real conspiracy.

      Additionally, is more more than “taxes” we are talking about — it is prosperity and liberty. A California State University study estimates that if our state’s version of Cap and Trade were implemented, it would caost an average family cost of about $3,900 per year, a small business cost of about $50,000 per year and a total loss of output in the range of $180 billion in order to comply. The California Air Resources Board produced its own rosy prediction of AB 32 that was widely criticized by a panel of peer reviewers, world renowned economists and other experts as incomplete and overly optimistic.

      http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11861191/Cost-of-State-Regulations-on-California-Small-Business-Study

      • karmakaze

        “It was organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), a non-profit organisation run by Arthur B. Robinson.”

        Oh please. OISM is a fringe right-wing lunatic “think-tank” run by a renowned liar. When he first distributed that bullshit petition, he included a letter that appeared to be published by the National Academy of Sciences. It wasn’t. It was a phoney and Robinson got in hot water because of it.

        He is a retarded liar, not a scientist.

        “I am of the belief that man-made global warming proponents, like yourself, are hired by eco-lobbyist firms”

        And I am of the belief that you are a liar. So care to tell us who you are, and who you work for? I asked before when you claimed to have signed the petition, on the assumption that your name is already public and you would have no problem supporting your assertion that you did indeed sign, and are indeed a geologist and chemist.

        You argued from authority, so I’m just trying to find out if you have any.

        “Additionally, is more more than “taxes” we are talking about”

        I thought we were talking about climate science? When did this turn into a economics debate?

  • Scrap Iron

    Did you hear about the iceberg that calved away from the glacier? Four times the size of Manhattan island.
    Now that is a lot of fresh water.
    Maybe someone can figure out how to tow it to an area of the planet that needs fresh water (Africa, maybe?).
    Does this portend Global warming? Nah, its just nature, doing what it does.

  • WaterMephit

    Wow! You’d think that any credible person would be embarrassed to cite a petition, who’s signatories include Ginger Spice, Hawkeye Pierce and Bozo the Clown.

    If that’s the best “evidence” that you can provide to dispel Global Warming, I don’t think the real scientists have anything to worry about.

    • Mutnodjmet

      WaterMephit: I have no idea to which PETITION PROJECT you are referring, but the one described in Daniel’s article has no “Bozo” or any other fictional character listed. These are all serious scientists, researchers, or professionals with backgrounds that give them the experience to understand and discern the climate data presented. Interested readers can review the list themselves, and see how false the charge that WaterMephit made is:

      http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php?run=all

      • karmakaze

        The vast majority of the people who signed that petition have no background in climate science. When Robinson sent the petition to them, he included a document that appeared top be a publication of the National Academies of Science, including a phony publication date, journal number and page reference.

        The information in the phony document was designed to lead non-climate scientists to believe the NAS was behind the petition. This made people trust the petition rather than question it. The people who knew the field did not sign (only 30 odd climatologists signed for example).

        The petition is a fraud, and anyone who pushes it is either a victim of a scam, or is willingly pushing false information in order to further their political agenda.