tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3197370216011304268.post8074750250882767310..comments2010-03-27T18:18:49.045-07:00Comments on Climate Change Debate: Introduction: Top Ten Arguments From Global Warming SkepticsDavid Mills, Ph.D., M.A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/13115000746728769229noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3197370216011304268.post-60542745400358153332010-03-20T15:20:02.014-07:002010-03-20T15:20:02.014-07:00"Prediction is very difficult, especially if ..."Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future."<br />Niels Bohr <br /><br />Mills misses a couple of crucial points in his defense of the AGW hypothesis:<br /><br />First: The important facts are not whether or not global warming is happening or what effects it might have. The important points are, are Humans responsible for it, and can we control it? These are not proved by simply noting that the climate is warming and CO2 is increasing. <br /><br />Second: The ability to predict the future is proven by demonstration, not by theoretical arguments. The claim that the climate can be predicted 100s of years in advance by models that have yet to demonstrate any predictive skill distinguishable from chance is absurd. Tweaking a model to "predict the past" is no substitute for actual demonstration of predictive skill as a great many users of stock market systems can attest.<br /><br />The supporters of the AGW hypothesis wish to make massive and dangerous changes to society on the basis of their unproven claim to be able to predict the future. Anyone who is not skeptical of such a claim is not being rational.Bob Cormacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3197370216011304268.post-87526233731340729322010-03-19T21:48:06.132-07:002010-03-19T21:48:06.132-07:00It is no coincidence that as the globalization of ...It is no coincidence that as the globalization of industrialized developments gathers pace fueled by unprecedented technological advances, global warming and adverse global climatic change, increase exponentially!<br /><br />There is a clear correlation between exponential fossil fuel usage, and global carbon emission levels, which are a major global warming driving force.<br /><br />Sadly, the very resource (petroleum) that fuels our global growth enhances the greenhouse effect, which exacerbates global warming. We are caught in a desperate loop, a user cycle.<br /><br />Practically every aspect of our lives involves using resource that pollute. We are addicted to pollutants, like the smoker who has been told to quit the habit or it will be terminal, we promise, then relapse through lack of willpower, and clear understanding.<br /><br />Alternative energy promotion; plus the introduction, of fuel efficient Eco-friendly hybrid automobiles; only scratch the surface of a deeper broader 150 year pollution trail, that Keelhauling our planets resource has left in it’s wake, like, Rapid population growth coupled with rapid global development, global land usage change, exponential fossil fuel usage, and aggressive adverse C o2 emission levels.<br /><br />Radical global Climatic change is not new, geological samples taken globally, show major heating and cooling event cycle’s over time, the difference now, is that we are witnessing Accelerating adverse global climatic events in the life cycle of our species, that are not in line with historical trends or climate model projection’s.<br /><br />Man made or not, it is prudent to take stock, and ask do we have control, and more importantly, did we ever have, control.<br /><br />If we ignore the warnings, then it is business as usual, there will be more Casualties, from ripple effect geopolitical turmoil, spawned by an increasingly unstable global Eco-system, which will continue to make corrective adaptive measures, as it strives to maintain global ambiance.<br /><br />One of those adaptive measures could be earths natural response to a perceived global heating event, this could take the form of rapid global cooling as accelerated polar melt starts to influence the earths gulf stream, which is the earths major heat exchange mechanism, responsible for maintaining global ambient temperatures, that all dependent species, have enjoyed up till now.<br /><br />We must not discount the planets ability for radical simpatico adaptation or second guess our earth’s superior Eco system which has survived for eons in hostile space environments. The part we play may be minuscule in comparison, however misguided in the extreme.<br /><br />So as we approach crunch time, we look to the bridge for clear decisive action.<br />But no such action will be taken, because of radical uncertainty that permeates the whole debate on global climate change, at best there in no one on the bridge, and those that are raising the alarm are failing to relay damage assessment to a captain that is beset by problems, that makes those of a floundering ship seem trivial.<br /><br /><br /><br />Radical c o 2 emission level reduction is the only game in town and must have a timescale that allows for Global adaptation, coupled with nuclear and inclusive renewable sustainable Solutions, that measure up to the extent of the problem.<br /><br />(Some Solutions for the mitigation of long-term radical adverse global Climate change)<br /><br />1. Make sure emissions peak in 2012 and decrease as rapidly as possible towards zero after that.<br /><br />2. Developed countries must make cuts of 50 percent on their 1990 carbon emissions by 2030 with mandatory regulation by United Nations.<br /><br />3. Developing countries must slow the growth of emissions by 20 percent by 2040, with support from industrialized nations<br /><br />It is clear there is a need to link global sustainable economies, with global Eco-sustainability.<br /><br />Failure to coalesce, for the mitigation of global adverse climatic change, in the short term, will force the planet to make that decision for us, whatever action we take then, will ultimately benefit the planet.<br /><br />Long live, the planet.philip clarksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14868818071412161055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3197370216011304268.post-64493811909456218472010-03-14T21:30:45.374-07:002010-03-14T21:30:45.374-07:00No a Muslim does not compute a factorial different...No a Muslim does not compute a factorial differently than a Christian but if he were modeling community life you can bet his programs would model things differently than a Christian. All Computer Models begin with assumptions including AGW models. The assumptions are going to be selected based on the modelers beliefs as to what is important .... if he/she believes CO2 is the major driver of climate (it is not) than it's effect is going to be overstated (which it obviously is) and changes in CO2 levels will show far more change in the model than they have been observed in the real world. The failure of models to reflect real world observations is a major arguement against their use for projecting the future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3197370216011304268.post-30053422236451442032010-03-12T14:56:28.716-08:002010-03-12T14:56:28.716-08:00I find surprising that so many contrarians are com...I find surprising that so many contrarians are commenting in this insulting way in this blog. Some of the comments are even funny. One of the commenters above says: "The models were created by programmers who believed in anthropogenic global warming (AGW)". This is probably the most stupid affirmation that can be expelled (yes, expelled) against models. So if a programmer is Muslim his programs must compute a factorial in a different manner as a Christian? Unbelievable. This makes me think that the author of the blog is on the right track, if they insist in insulting without actually arguing. Please, go on, they are afraid of your message.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3197370216011304268.post-55232820403376857652010-03-11T06:46:02.510-08:002010-03-11T06:46:02.510-08:00Your blog posts, your list of arguments, against t...Your blog posts, your list of arguments, against those who reject AGW, are a blatant, academic, rejection of Reason, of Science, and of Fact. Deeper examination of every one of your arguments renders them false. You should take down this website, and do your homework.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479600882274172677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3197370216011304268.post-76043433190459236322010-03-11T06:46:02.511-08:002010-03-11T06:46:02.511-08:00The AGWers were false thirty years ago. Here are ...<b>The AGWers were <i>false</i> thirty years ago</b>. Here are some examples as to why:<br /><br />1. <br />‘Scientists’ gave computer models extraordinary, unjustifiable ‘weight’. The models were created by programmers who believed in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), so the models produced exactly what they thought. <a href="" rel="nofollow">GIGO</a> is one way of putting it. <br /><br />Models are not independent reflections of reality; models are merely a fancy production of the modelers’ beliefs. If the modeler(s) believe Global Warming is real, they will include perfectly real facts that confirm their views, but they will consider, and model, alternate facts as unimportant. <br /><br />Computer models enable any scenario the programmer wishes. And, therein lies the basic falsity of computer model predictions.<br /><br />2. <br />Blatant inattention to, and evasion of, contrary facts:<br /><br />*2a. the idea of GW arose from unscientific use of historic temperature data, mainly from commercial airports around which cities eventually grew. 100 yrs of information did not consider that development. All that mattered, to the AGWers, was supposed ‘evidence’ that mankind had acted to warm our Planet. <br />*2b. whilst AGWers presented 100 yr temp data as absolute, they refused to consider temp data of a mere 2 millennia... disregarding not only the FACT of the Medieval Warming, but also its implications for their claims. The obvious facts that Earth did not become a desert, that the oceans did not flood, that coastal towns or cause mass death, that there was (e.g.) no polar bear extinction, and above all, that it was NOT man-made! <br /><br />*2c. plants grow twice as much biomass under twice present [CO2]atm ( [X]atm =atmospheric concentration ). If anything, deserts would shrink, and the benefits to agriculture would be a massive assist to the poor.<br /><br />*2d. tree ring data was never representative of the World's climate<br /><br />*2e. the plain dishonesty in suggesting that glacial melting would be a rapid, even one or two year, event, when insulative debris alone would delay melting by centuries.<br /><br />*2f. the blatant failure to consider that complex natural numerical progressions are rarely linear. No-one has examined whether [CO2]atm of 0.027% is at or above the maximum level at which CO2 can act as a 'greenhouse gas' under true atmospheric conditions. What if greater [CO2] has no further effect? <br /><br />*2g. The AGWers presume that climate should never change, and were it to change it would be catastrophic & evil. How absurd. Climate always changes, so why should it matter if Mankind's CO2 production is a factor? Mankind can adjust, organisms can adjust, and will. Earth will be fine, unless it were to spin out of its solar orbit, or the Sun were to unexpectedly die or explode<br /><br />3. The AGWers have ignored MASSIVE forces influencing the Earth's climate. Forces that are so massive, in FACT, that Mankind could quadruple [CO2]atm and still be an inconsequential factor! The mass of the Sun constitutes 99.86% of our entire solar system. It is a source of incredible energy release. It is easy to forget that our Sun radiates heat in every direction, not just to our Earth. Consider the vast amount of radiant energy that misses us, that rockets out, at light speed, from the opposite side of our Sun! <br /><br />Should Sol change its output, if only on a side that affects us, then so it must be! How arrogant of a few false minds —the GW scientists & politicians— to think they know better, to think they should decide the overall Global temperature. They may well argue as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!. <br /><br />Reason (& science) is not a function of a personal selection of facts. Reason is a matter of facing facts, of seeking facts & of incorporating those facts so mankind can understand the nature of Reality.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479600882274172677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3197370216011304268.post-65729546186548656772010-03-10T22:04:32.700-08:002010-03-10T22:04:32.700-08:00In my lifetime, The Club of Rome morphed into the ...In my lifetime, The Club of Rome morphed into the IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change"), by which power & dishonesty amongst GWers became acceptable, …and freakish: <br /><br />Their reasoning was so false, on so massive a scale, that it should take-away an honest man's breath! <br /><br />The scale of their claim (the complete destruction of Earth) was so great, and so unbelievable that it convinced millions. No lesser claim could have been so well received.<br /><br /><i>Chicken Little</i> was terrified because raindrops fell from the sky. Far beyond Chicken Little, the IPCC did not merely fear raindrops; they suggested all humanity would destroy itself and all of planet Earth. <br /><br />Such a claim is akin to someone shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre that has no exits!Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479600882274172677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3197370216011304268.post-30866465981638695112010-03-10T21:46:58.355-08:002010-03-10T21:46:58.355-08:00I, like you, have 3 degrees in Science. Yet, I am...I, like you, have 3 degrees in Science. Yet, I am what you would call an AGW ‘denier’! More correctly, I consider AGW claims and see they lack reason!<br /><br />I‘ve been a Research Biologist for decades, specializing in experimental design & analysis —pursuing what facts are irrefutable and what facts are merely a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian" rel="nofollow"> Malthusian viewpoint</a>, romanticized as a Naturalistic, '<i>holier than thou</i>', viewpoint. Back in the early 1970s the eager Environmentalists were plainly misanthropic, despite their contrary claims. <br /><br />As a young biologist, I refused to participate in such chicanery.<br /><br />There I was, barely twenty years old (1972), and The Club of Rome TOLD ME that the World would end if I did not hew to their Malthusian views. <br /><br />They were wrong, and I knew it, though I was decades younger than them.<br /><br />You, regardless of your age, have yet to do the thinking needed.<br /><br />cont'd...Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479600882274172677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3197370216011304268.post-59747391236971779722010-02-17T09:17:37.100-08:002010-02-17T09:17:37.100-08:00Organized denial industtry?
I do the same thing y...Organized denial industtry?<br /><br />I do the same thing you claim to do! I teach freshman physics. I don't get a cent for my views. One thing I am good at is scientific method specifically experimental design and evaluation. Saddly many involved in so called research on this issue think isolating the variable is just a saying with no practical importance. I have followed this issue both in the literature and the public forum for well over 20 years, if it wasn't for the massive backing of the government funding jugernaut and the corruption of the peer review process; catastrophic warming would have been dead at least 10 years ago.<br /><br />I have friends in supposedly unrelated research fields afraid to pubblish because their real world data accidentally doesn't match the AGW story line.<br /><br />I would bet that funding lost by researchers, who fail to back up the AGW story because they admit that the real world doesn't match the models, exceeds the total spent by the entire so called "denial industry" by an order of magnitude.<br /><br />You're welcome to come lay on the beach here, sometimes the ice breaks up and you can get to the sand.<br /><br />The less than lottery winning chance that I may be wrong is not worth destroying the economy and sentencing billions to poverty related deaths. It would be far cheaper and easier to deal with the problems, if any, as we go. If you think it is such a problem, you should take the lead in Greenpeace's proposed solution. Don't expect me to commit suicide. (Sorry, that is not nice, but I am so tired of the hypocrits calling on the people of third world to wither and die to assuage their fears of warming. Especially since the data does not support their fear and they generally are a lot less green than I am in life style.)<br /><br />Warmer is better for life, lack of CO2 is one of the greatest limitations on the food chain, I am frezing my butt off 6 months a year and there is a lot more land between me and the pole than between me and the equator.<br /><br />I am unconvinced about data on past CO2 levels, this work looks doubtful. But if you accept it at all than the CO2 being a climate driver of any significance is a long dead idea. Causality violation is a big deal in the physics I know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3197370216011304268.post-19740833610795109372010-02-13T16:49:12.919-08:002010-02-13T16:49:12.919-08:00Oh, yes, the O.J. defense.
Unfortunately for ou...Oh, yes, the O.J. defense. <br /><br />Unfortunately for our planet, the preponderance of evidence proves that there is an increase in CO2, and the increase is way above normal interglacial periods. <br /><br />It is amazing to me that you reply as you do, given that your precise objections are completely dealt with in section 3, which you could not have read.David Mills, Ph.D., M.A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13115000746728769229noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3197370216011304268.post-46563396011442510762010-02-13T13:13:38.090-08:002010-02-13T13:13:38.090-08:00Well, I am sceptical about a theory that is based ...Well, I am sceptical about a theory that is based on an inability to explain portions of observed data. There may be numerous reasons other than anthropogenic causes. We are, are we not, in an interglacial period? When warming occurs? And does not the CO2 in the atmosphere trail rather than lead increases in temperature?<br /><br />The increasing number of errors seen in the IPCC reports reminds me of a rule of trial law: If a witness lies about one thing, his entire testimony can be disregarded.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com