Just so that we have a convenient thread for this particular denialist chestnut, I'll start a new one.
This You-tube video is a bit lengthy but is well presented, and worth watching if you want the truth about this particular 'crock':

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

You mean the crock there is concensus or the crock that the models are accurate or the crock that Gore presented to the world?  or....  yes the list is rather long.

Grendel wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2009 at 11:21am:

You mean the crock there is concensus or the crock that the models are accurate or the crock that Gore presented to the world?  or....  yes the list is rather long.

There are two crocks you forgot - The crock that you actually watched the video before commenting, and the crock that you actually know what you're commenting about. Your reply was way too quick for that:

Posted by: Grendel      Posted on: Today at 11:21am
Posted by: muso      Posted on: Today at 11:12am

I didn't watch any video....  I don't waste my limit on youtube.

I also never said I did...  you keep lying about me but that's ok
I'm used to it.

After all lying and hypocrisy go hand in hand with you.

Grendel wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2009 at 8:20pm:

I didn't watch any video....  I don't waste my limit on youtube. I also never said I did...  you keep lying about me but that's ok I'm used to it. After all lying and hypocrisy go hand in hand with you.

Don't be so precious, and trying to divert from the truth - that the so-called petition of scientists included such eminent scientists as author John Grisham, Hawkeye Pierce and BJ Honeycutt from MASH.

Might I suggest that you Google the term Astroturfing?

Just cast your eyes over this article the next time you stick your fingers in your ears and go 'lalala'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/09/climate-change-science-environment

For those too lazy or bandwidth challenged to watch the You-Tube video, here is an explanation:

Of all the oily tricks played by the global warming denier industry, The Oregon Petition is one of the oiliest. It was organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine — a 'scientific institute' that nevertheless doesn’t do any real science.

The Petition Project was organized by late Frederick Seitz, who at one time was a real scientist, and a former President of the National Academy of Science. The project started by sending a so-called scientific study — really just a diatribe written by climate change skeptics that was filled with half-truths — asking “scientists” to sign a petition urging the US government not to ratify the Kyoto Accord.

The petition and that accompanying letter were written on a letterhead and in the style of a scientific paper that made it seem like it had been published Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, so it was designed to be deceptive.

After the petition appeared, the NAS issued a press release. “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.”[14] It also said “The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.”

Nevertheless, 17,000 did sign the petition, and Seitz would have you believe that all 17,000 - or 32,000 in 2009 - are working scientists with PhDs. In fact, virtually none of them are. When you look deeper into the list, it falls apart. The vast majority of signatories have nothing more than a bachelor’s degree. By Seitz’s definition, I’m an advanced scientist. As well, scattering among the number of “scientists” are signatures by Spice Girl Dr. Geri Halliwell, author John Grisham, Hawkeye Pierce and BJ Honeycutt from MASH. (These have since been removed).

Of the original 17,000, almost 10,000 signatures come from engineers, another 3,063 come from physicians and veterinarians. I have no doubt that these professionals are smart people, but it would be difficult to believe they are climate change experts.

But even if we allow their signatures to stand unchallenged, they prove nothing. Even if more than 3,000 doctors and veterinarians signed the petition that would mean that the vast majority of all doctors and engineers didn’t sign the petition.

The Oregon Petition was the fourth, and by far the largest, of five prominent efforts to show that a scientific consensus does not exist on the subject of anthropogenic global warming, following the 1992 Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming, the Heidelberg Declaration and the Leipzig Declaration. The petition site currently lists more than 31,000 signatories.[2]

Quite obviously any bogus signatories were submitted by people wanting the petition discredited.  hmmm.  I wonder who they could be.

The petition was circulated again in October 2007.

ROTFLMAO....  still being hypocritical re who can have an opinion or sign a petition I see Muso...  when you get your own house in order then maybe you can stop being a hypocrite and criticise others with some credibility.  After all you don't cite just climate scientists do you.

Grendel wrote on Jun 9^th, 2009 at 11:36pm:

The Oregon Petition was the fourth, and by far the largest, of five prominent efforts to show that a scientific consensus does not exist on the subject of anthropogenic global warming, following the 1992 Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming, the Heidelberg Declaration and the Leipzig Declaration. The petition site currently lists more than 31,000 signatories.[2] Quite obviously any bogus signatories were submitted by people wanting the petition discredited.  hmmm.  I wonder who they could be. The petition was circulated again in October 2007. ROTFLMAO....  still being hypocritical re who can have an opinion or sign a petition I see Muso...  when you get your own house in order then maybe you can stop being a hypocrite and criticise others with some credibility.  After all you don't cite just climate scientists do you.

Hey - the denialist conference recently organised by the Heartland institute had a great deal. The cost of registration was $750, but you got a discount of 20% if you signed the petition.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quite obviously any bogus signatories were submitted by people wanting the petition discredited. Horsefeathers! ;D

http://www.grist.org/article/A-roomful-of-cynics/

That's a link to that esteemed 'conference'. It's a pity that they all disagree with each other.


Arthur Robinson is the founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, a paper-only “institution” with no students and no courses. He himself is a chemist by training; his claim to fame in the realm of climate change skepticism is that he created the “Oregon Petition,” a fraudulent document that pretended to come from the National Academy of Sciences.

A denialist and a hypoocrite I see Muso...
ROTFLMAO

It is a pity you are too stingy with your bandwidth to actually watch the video that muso linked to.

The "Oregon Institute" is a building that looks alarmingly similiar to a tractor shed.

The Images showing the totally deceitful way that the petition was designed, to look as if it was from a published peer reviewed article from the National Academy of Science, right down to an issue no. and published date, on a copy of the Science Institutes letterhead and format, all totally false, and totally deceitful.

I fail to understand how you can keep accepting these denialist arguments on their face value, when the total dishonesty of so many of them have been exposed as appalling frauds, but you refuse to even examine the evidence against them.

We see you categorising the exposure of these acts of fraud as shooting the messenger, when it is nothing more than exposing liars and charlatans, for what they are.

I have never doubted your sincerity grendel, but I am sure if you actually looked at the evidence against the frauds who perpetrate the likes of this "Oregon Petition" which we see continually touted by denialist spruikers as a source of scientific validation for their beliefs, that your integrity would force you to accept that there are forces out there that are actively promoting and distributing outright lies, and misinformation to promote the denialist cause.

Now that may not necessarily cause you to change your stance, but it should, at the very least, cause you to be far more selective in what you choose to accept as evidence that supports that belief.

::)

You provide me with proof of the theory you believe on FAITH Mozz... and I'll be quite happy to accept it.

You proove hat MMCO2 is the driver of climate and I'll be happy to concede.

Until then...  :D

I'm not sure why the "modest" nature of the Oregon Institute or the multidisciplinary nature of the petition signatories are particularly relevant issues.  One could reverse the tactics and point out that AGW supporters tend to be funded by government or academia, both of which are of heavily politicized.  Instead of character assassination perhaps we should look at the science?  As far as I can tell both sides of this debate have put out their fair share of good science and their fair share of sloppy science.

Coral Sea wrote on Jun 11^th, 2009 at 2:48am:

I'm not sure why the "modest" nature of the Oregon Institute or the multidisciplinary nature of the petition signatories are particularly relevant issues.  One could reverse the tactics and point out that AGW supporters tend to be funded by government or academia, both of which are of heavily politicized.  Instead of character assassination perhaps we should look at the science?  As far as I can tell both sides of this debate have put out their fair share of good science and their fair share of sloppy science.

Please provide some examples of denialist 'science'. I haven't seen any yet. All they have to offer is advocacy.

It's not the Grendels of this world that annoy me. It's those people who lie knowingly in order to promote a political agenda.

From the point of view of an environmental scientist, I can tell you that the furfies are blatant and flying from the denialist camp.

When you take an example like "Heaven and Earth" by Ian Plimer, it so so full of contradiction that it's a nonsense.  

Grendel wrote on Jun 10^th, 2009 at 10:33pm:

::) You provide me with proof of the theory you believe on FAITH Mozz... and I'll be quite happy to accept it. You proove hat MMCO2 is the driver of climate and I'll be happy to concede. Until then...  :D

I doubt that very much. I tried to explain that in detail once, and you ignored it. It can be proven.

You obviously don't mean scientific proof, because there is no such thing.  So what standards of proof do you require?

1. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" - used in criminal cases
2. "Clear and Convincing Evidence" - used in fraud cases
3. Preponderance of the Evidence - Used in civil cases
or 4. Substantial Evidence - Used in most administrative cases

You believe it can be proven...  however... it cannot.
Otherwise it would have been and there would be no dissent.


Quote:

You obviously don't mean scientific proof, because there is no such thing.

ROTFLMAO...  but thanks for the confirmation.


Quote:

It's those people who lie knowingly in order to promote a political agenda.

And those who support it and should know better.  :D

That you are too fearful to even see the evidence of how fraudulently deceitful the material you pin your denialist beliefs upon speaks volumes Grendel.

It is a six minute video, two pop songs worth, and it is pretty damning evidence against ever taking the "Oregon Petition" as anything but a blatant attempt to fraudulently promote misinformation as scientific opinion.

It should be mandatory viewing for any who have ever cited that document as being supportive of their views, to see just how totally shonky it is.

You see the real scientists have to deal with this sort of stuff daily from the denialist groupies, and they invariably debunk them, and expose them for what they are, lies, frauds, and blatant misinformation propaganda.

Now the fact that you refuse to even look at the evidence that so thoroughly discredits these fraudsters, shows that your desire is not for truth, but for validation, and you are so desparate for it, that you no longer seem to care if it's based on truth, or lies.

muso wrote on Jun 11^th, 2009 at 12:08pm:

Coral Sea wrote on Jun 11th, 2009 at 2:48am: I'm not sure why the "modest" nature of the Oregon Institute or the multidisciplinary nature of the petition signatories are particularly relevant issues.  One could reverse the tactics and point out that AGW supporters tend to be funded by government or academia, both of which are of heavily politicized.  Instead of character assassination perhaps we should look at the science?  As far as I can tell both sides of this debate have put out their fair share of good science and their fair share of sloppy science. Please provide some examples of denialist 'science'. I haven't seen any yet. All they have to offer is advocacy. It's not the Grendels of this world that annoy me. It's those people who lie knowingly in order to promote a political agenda. From the point of view of an environmental scientist, I can tell you that the furfies are blatant and flying from the denialist camp. When you take an example like "Heaven and Earth" by Ian Plimer, it so so full of contradiction that it's a nonsense.

Steve McIntyre's work at Climate Audit comes to mind.  His work has forced NASA to redo their calculations on a number of issues.

There has also been an increasing amount of research indicating that the solar cycle might be contributing: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512120523.htm

Geez Mozz do you honestly think 6mins is going to make up for the years of reading I've already done?

No you stick to the 6min pops of propaganda if it keeps you happy.

Coral Sea wrote on Jun 11^th, 2009 at 11:34pm:

Steve McIntyre's work at Climate Audit comes to mind.  His work has forced NASA to redo their calculations on a number of issues. There has also been an increasing amount of research indicating that the solar cycle might be contributing: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512120523.htm

Steve McIntyre is hardly a significant scientific worker. His background is CEO of a mining company.

As far as the so-called 'hockey stick' controversy, it's not exactly significant. He's grandstanding a very minor error that has had absolutely no impact on the current thinking. I think that's what you're talking about.

Researchers at the GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht, Germany, confirmed "a glitch" in Dr. Mann's work but "found this glitch to be of very minor significance."

Stephen McIntyre has worked in mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. He is the former President of Dumont Nickel Inc., and was President of [Northwest Exploration CompanyLimited], the predecessor company to CGX Energy Inc. As of 2003, he was the strategic advisor of CGX Energy Inc. He has also been a policy
analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada.

As far as the contribution of the Solar cycle is concerned, some of the graphs from PMOD that I posted elsewhere on this forum show that influence. There is approximately an 11 year periodicity, and the effect is minor.

The factor that affects the global temperatures more is the ENSO or the cycle of El Nino to La Nina.  It was predicted that 2008-9 would be cooler as a result of the La Nina, and the predictions were correct.

Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in the UK has even published global temperatures corrected for ENSO which still show a predominantly rising trend, without the bumps.

Again, these are short term cyclical effects. We are possibly on the verge of an El Nino event. They are quoting about a 50% probability at the moment.

If you think about the analogy of a king tide, with the tide very close to inundating a house, then along comes a small wave that just pushes it into the house and causes flooding, what caused it? The king tide or the wave?

The waves have been there all along. The king tide caused the flooding.

Coral Sea wrote on Jun 11^th, 2009 at 11:34pm:

There has also been an increasing amount of research indicating that the solar cycle might be contributing: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512120523.htm

If you read that article fully, you'll find that it's totally factual, and it's saying exactly what I've been saying all along. I don't know where you get the idea that it's telling a different story. Do you think that that was the intent or belief of the NASA researchers cited? Of course not.

That's actually a very good article which explains the influence of solar cycles. Nobody has ever denied that solar activity has caused changes in climate in the past. In geological times, it has caused ice ages. That's not news. Of course that's cold comfort for the fact that increasing greenhouse gas levels (CO2, methane etc) have caused a very significant warming trend over a very short period (150 years).  


Nowadays of course, we can monitor the sun's influence directly by means of satellites. We can plot the solar irradiance over time, so we have virtually a 100% firm grasp on how much the solar irradiance has changed in recent times.  

I am not a denialist and have no interest in painting a completely different story than the AGW consensus.  In fact I am not knowledgeable enough about the issue to weigh in decisively in one way or the other, and frankly I'm not even that interested in global warming (or lack thereof).  My biggest concern is with extremists on both sides.  I don't want the AGW crowd to force me to drive a tiny loser car, and I don't want denialists to encourage higher levels of industrial pollution.

I did indeed read the article fully.  My only point is that there is evidence which does not support directly the AGW hypothesis, and all angles of the climate debate should be examined fully.

One anthropogenic factor I always wonder about but never seem to see research on is the effect snowplowing on climate.  Here in the United States we get vast amounts of snow every winter (at least those of us not in southern climes), which is plowed away leaving gray or black road surfaces to absorb solar radiation that was previously reflected away by snow.

Coral Sea wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 2:30am:

My biggest concern is with extremists on both sides.  I don't want the AGW crowd to force me to drive a tiny loser car, and I don't want denialists to encourage higher levels of industrial pollution.

I think it's important to encourage economic growth. New technology by itself has spurred incredible growth in the past. How would you go with a Toyota Lexus hybrid? It's not exactly a loser car. Hybrid technology is a good PR testing ground for electric vehicles, and Electric vehicles have the potential to be carbon neutral. I can tell you that they pack a punch at the traffic lights too.

First of all, I'm an Environmental Scientist, but I'm also the biggest capitalist out there. I believe in encouraging free enterprise, and if we don't do something fast, our world economy will be nada in 50 years time. The Global downturn will be insignificant by comparison.

Put it this way, I worked in Africa and I know how the environment is taken care of when countries are cash-strapped. We need to maintain affluence in order for this to happen.


http://www.autobloggreen.com/tag/toyota-lexus-hybrid-sales/


Quote:

I did indeed read the article fully.  My only point is that there is evidence which does not support directly the AGW hypothesis, and all angles of the climate debate should be examined fully.

Without seeming overly antagonistic, please provide some examples. The NASA paper you quoted is not at odds with AGW.

- and talking of tiny loser cars, have you seen the Tesla Roadster or the Liv Inizio yet? A bit pricey, but very nice.

http://www.cnet.com.au/tag/electric_car-sport.htm

muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 9:42am:

I think it's important to encourage economic growth.

I would have no objection to a steady state economy per se, but global competition is inevitable and therefore economic growth necessary.


muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 9:42am:

New technology by itself has spurred incredible growth in the past. How would you go with a Toyota Lexus hybrid? It's not exactly a loser car.

Lexus hybrids are not actually environmentally friendly.  The Prius, which is the cause celebre of the hybrid movement, is fuel efficient (though of questionable environmental friendliness if non-carbon factors are considered) but one of the crappiest cars I've ever seen.  It's slow, has tiny brakes, tiny wheels, and looks awful.

I drive a BMW M3.  It is by no means fuel efficient.  I do not want to stop driving this car, nor do I want such cars to cease being made or made much more expensive.  I think an "everybody wins" scenario is an increase in good mass transit options.  That would people who don't want to drive, which is actually very many people, don't have to.  Those who truly enjoy motoring can then continue to do so without being annoyed by point A to point B drivers.


muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 9:42am:

Hybrid technology is a good PR testing ground for electric vehicles, and Electric vehicles have the potential to be carbon neutral. I can tell you that they pack a punch at the traffic lights too.

Electric vehicles besides the Tesla are thus far terrible, but there is no technological barrier to them being good in the long-term.  One needs battery packs capable of very rapid charging (technology exists, but too expensive at the moment) and a new infrastructure of very high power charging stations would be needed to supply 300kW+ charging power for recharging in a few minutes.


muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 9:42am:

First of all, I'm an Environmental Scientist, but I'm also the biggest capitalist out there. I believe in encouraging free enterprise, and if we don't do something fast, our world economy will be nada in 50 years time. The Global downturn will be insignificant by comparison.

That's nice, but I'm not making a free enterprise critique unlike perhaps some of your antagonists.  I think that AGW is a scam (not based on scientific analysis, but gut feeling) but am in favor of acting anyway because reducing pollution is always desirable.



muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 9:42am:

Put it this way, I worked in Africa and I know how the environment is taken care of when countries are cash-strapped. We need to maintain affluence in order for this to happen.

Very true indeed.  I don't even need to leave my country to see this.  Observing the stewardship, or lack thereof, of Third World immigrants is proof positive.


muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 9:42am:

Without seeming overly antagonistic, please provide some examples. The NASA paper you quoted is not at odds with AGW.

Wouldn't the most obvious example be Steve McIntyre's work?