Global warming is due to humans: US ex-skeptic (Update)

Jul 30, 2012
The Department of Water and Power (DWP) San Fernando Valley Generating Station is seen in 2008 in Sun Valley, California. A prominent US skeptic of the human causes of climate change, Richard Muller, has reversed course and said on Monday that he now believes greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming.

A prominent US skeptic of the human causes of climate change, Richard Muller, has reversed course and said on Monday that he now believes greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming.

"I was not expecting this, but as a scientist, I feel it is my duty to let the evidence change my mind," Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, said in a statement.

Muller is part of a group of more than a dozen scientists on the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature team studying how temperature changes may relate to human activity, or to natural events such as solar and volcanic activity.

The average temperature of the Earth's land has risen 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 250 years, and "the most straightforward explanation for this warming is human greenhouse gas emissions," the team said in a report posted online Monday.

The analysis goes 100 years further back than previous research, and takes an even stronger stance than the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which said in 2007 that "most" of the warming of the past 50 years could be attributed to human activity, and that higher solar activity prior to 1956 might have fueled some of the warming the Earth has experienced.

The Berkeley team's analysis said "the contribution of solar activity to global warming is negligible."

It added that its finding does not rely on climate models, which critics say have the potential for inaccuracies.

Instead, it is based "simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase."

Further research will factor in ocean temperatures, which are not included in the latest report, it said.

In an op-ed in the New York Times over the weekend, Muller explained his transformation from being a scientist who doubted the "very existence of global warming" to one who now sides with the majority of the scientific community.

"Call me a converted skeptic," wrote Muller.

"Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct.

"I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

Nobel Prize winner Saul Perlmutter, an astrophysicist at the University of California at Berkeley, is shown in his office in 2011. Members of the Berkeley Earth science team include Perlmutter, physics professor Richard Muller and climatologist Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Other members of the Berkeley Earth science team include Nobel Prize winner Saul Perlmutter and climatologist Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology.

However Curry expressed her discontent with the findings and told the New York Times she had declined to be listed as a co-author on the latest paper.

"I gave them my review of the paper, which was highly critical. I don't think this new paper adds anything to our understanding of attribution of the warming," she was quoted as saying.

"Their analysis is way oversimplistic and not at all convincing in my opinion."

Looking forward, Muller said he expects the current trends to continue.

"As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included," he wrote in the New York Times.

"But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years."

Explore further: Coastal defences could contribute to flooding with sea-level rise

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Stronger evidence for human origin of global warming

Jul 30, 2007

A recent statistical analysis strengthens evidence that human activities are causing world temperatures to rise. Most climate change scientists model Earth systems from the ground up, attempting to account for all climate ...

At least part of climate change is man-made

Apr 13, 2005

Bonn study shows: Since 1880 climate gases have caused just under half of global warming In the last 120 years the average global temperature has risen by 0.7 degrees. Over the same period the carbon dioxide concentration ...

Warming of two degrees inevitable over Canada: study

Mar 04, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Even if zero emissions of greenhouse gases were to be achieved, the world’s temperature would continue to rise by about a quarter of a degree over a decade. That’s a best-case ...

Recommended for you

Tracking giant kelp from space

9 hours ago

Citizen scientists worldwide are invited to take part in marine ecology research, and they won't have to get their feet wet to do it. The Floating Forests project, an initiative spearheaded by scientists ...

Heavy metals and hydroelectricity

10 hours ago

Hydraulic engineering is increasingly relied on for hydroelectricity generation. However, redirecting stream flow can yield unintended consequences. In the August 2014 issue of GSA Today, Donald Rodbell of ...

What's wiping out the Caribbean corals?

11 hours ago

Here's what we know about white-band disease: It has already killed up to 95 percent of the Caribbean's reef-building elkhorn and staghorn corals, and it's caused by an infectious bacteria that seems to be ...

User comments : 212

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Caliban
3.4 / 5 (25) Jul 30, 2012
The rarest of the rare --an actual skeptic!

In other words, a doubter that can nevertheless be persuaded by an overwhelming assemblage of facts supporting an argument or theory.

Muller's conversion to an explicitly AGW stance is certain to stick in the craw of the Denialists, especially Big Carbon itself, given his former status as a very vocal bought man.

Martin_Shaw
2.3 / 5 (22) Jul 30, 2012
How is that human GHG emissions are "almost entirely the cause"? 90% of CO2 is of natural origin for starters. If anything, deforestation trumps emissions as 50% of forest has been removed whereas humans contribute only 10% of emissions. Global warming began hundreds of years ago - go to the Athabasca glacier in Alberta and see where the toe was 100 years ago. I'm not saying man has no effect. But to blame it all on man is just anthropocentric thinking and hardly a scientific view. CO2 was 8000-9000 ppm for most of the past 500 million years (Phanerozoic period). The result is that trees are actually CO2-deprived as shown by experiments in Arizona by e.g. Kimball et al.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (36) Jul 30, 2012
The rarest of the rare --an actual skeptic!

In other words, a doubter that can nevertheless be persuaded by an overwhelming assemblage of facts supporting an argument or theory.

Muller's conversion to an explicitly AGW stance is certain to stick in the craw of the Denialists, ..


So, you promote him to the revered status of a "skeptic", from his former status as just a "Denialist", despite him now fully agreeing with AGW? Doesn't make sense.

He was a skeptic before, and now he isn't.

I think your desire to characterize skeptics as defective "Denialists" has caused you confusion.
rubberman
4.2 / 5 (19) Jul 30, 2012
Martin Shaw, Deforestation is Humanity removing natures ability to buffer our contribution. Natural variability couldn't produce a CO2 level higher than 290PPM in the last million years...we are almost at 400 now. That number can only be traced to our activities. In another thread a poster linked to this report which had an embedded link to the work itself...completely transparent for all to see, and very well explained. Also if the evidence is compelling enough to change the mind of a university PHD who specializes in the field of question, and who's goal was to originally refute AGW with the study, what motivates you to question it?
Foundation
4.6 / 5 (18) Jul 30, 2012
Caliban meant he was a true skeptic because his mind could be changed by enough information. Quite a few people are just naysayers and can't be convinced by any amount of proof.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (35) Jul 30, 2012
Caliban meant he was a true skeptic because his mind could be changed by enough information.[...]


But he couldn't, nor was he willing to, distinguish between a "Denialists" and a proper skeptic, unless said skeptic/Denialist changed his position to be in accord with his own.
Martin_Shaw
2.1 / 5 (19) Jul 30, 2012
The world went through warming cycles before. Greenland used to be green. You can't blame those cycles on man. There's lots of stupid Ph.D's. Especially the intellectually dishonest ones who hid data at the University of Anglia. There are many renowned scientists that reject that man is significantly affecting the rate of warming. Again, I don't argue that man has no effect. But as chemical engineers will realize, reducing sinks (by trees) by 50% is worse than increasing production rates of CO2 by 10%. This article is taking aim at emissions, not sinks. Oil will be virtually gone in 50 years so emissions will drop off. But sinks (forests) will also be gone and then CO2 has nowhere to go but dissolve in the ocean. It's time scientists spoke out rather than silently accept the dogma. Silence is consent. There is already evidence that carbon trading isn't working. That's because it's based on lousy science. Carbon trading was thought up by economists who wanted new financial instruments.
HannesAlfven
2.1 / 5 (26) Jul 30, 2012
FLASHBACK

The Nov. 13 1980 issue of New Scientist contained an article entitled "The mystery of Venus' internal heat", which read as follows:

[quote]Two years surveillance by the Pioneer Venus orbiter seems to show that Venus is radiating away more energy than it receives from the sun ... Pioneer has shown that there is enough carbon dioxide and the tiny proportion of water vapor needed to make the greenhouse effect work -- just. If this is the whole story, the total amount of radiation emitted back into space, after its journey up through the atmospheric blanket must be exactly equal to that absorbed from sunlight (otherwise the surface temperature would be continuously changing).

But Taylor found that Venus radiates 15 percent more energy than it receives. To keep the surface temperature constant, Venus must be producing this extra heat from within.

[continued ...]
HannesAlfven
2.1 / 5 (26) Jul 30, 2012
[ continued ]

All the inner planets, including earth, produce internal heat from radioactive elements within their rocks. But Taylor's observations of Venus would mean that the planet is producing almost 10,000 times more heat than the earth, and it is inconceivable according to present theories of planetary formation, that Venus should have thousands of times more of the radioactive elements than Earth does. At last weeks meeting, Taylor's suggestion met with skepticism - not to say sheer disbelief - from other planetary scientists.

Taylor himself has no explanation for his result. He simply points out that the discrepancy seemed at first to be simply experimental error - but with more precise measurements, it refused to go away. More measurements are needed before astronomers accept the result, and most planetary scientists are obviously expecting - and hoping - that the embarrassing extra heat will disappear on further investigation.

[end quote]
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (24) Jul 30, 2012
Ted Holden explains what four separate probes saw when they descended into Venus' atmosphere at http://www.skepti...lib.htm. The highlights

"Below the Venus cloud deck both LIR and SNFR flux measurements appear to affected by serious errors..."

and ...

"Although the LIR [large probe enclosed instrument] measurements might be correctable, using the multispectral information of the data to deduce the magnitude of the asymmetry, no reliable corrections have yet been obtained [by 1982 three years after the fact]... Thus we cannot at this time make use of the LIR results..."

Then, later ... READ THIS CAREFULLY ...

"The magnitudes of the corrections for both instruments are determined by forcing agreement with a range of calculated net fluxes at one altitude deep in the atmosphere, where the net flux must be small because of the large density of CO2."

RED FLAG!
RED FLAG!
RED FLAG!
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (24) Jul 30, 2012
The context:

Carl Sagan logically predicted that beneath the clouds would be a desert, based upon the premise that the warming was due to his Super Greenhouse theory.

Immanuel Velikovsky had no options. Based upon his analysis of ancient texts -- which enigmatically claimed that Venus was so new that it's arrival was observed in human-historical times -- Venus would *have* to be covered in volcanoes.

In order for Carl Sagan to win, scientists had to:

(1) Ignore or normalize four separate corroborating sets of data;
(2) Ignore the prevalence of volcanoes on Venus; and
(3) Defy common sense by supposing that a greenhouse effect could litter the planet with volcanoes.

It was bad science from the very first day. But, as you likely know, Carl Sagan looked excellent on camera. And in America, this is what matters.

Charles Ginenthal discusses the absurdity of it all in a YouTube clip:

http://www.youtub...S7JmUhl8
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (28) Jul 30, 2012
Correlation is causation?
What does Muller say about MWP?
djr
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 30, 2012
"What does Muller say about MWP?"

Something like this maybe!

http://www.skepti...riod.htm
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (30) Jul 30, 2012
"What does Muller say about MWP?"

Something like this maybe!

http://www.skepti...riod.htm


No mention made of recent data:

An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula

And there are many other proxies in the South Africa and Australia that support MWP was global.
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 30, 2012
This blog also deals with the issue - and may ring a bell for you Rygg. http://www.skepti...arm-not/ I think the main point is that the mwp is well studied by climate scientists - it has different drivers - and it proves nothing to keep bringing it up. As a nail in the coffin - did you look at the temperature graph - showing that todays temperatures are higher than during the mwp...
Caliban
3 / 5 (12) Jul 30, 2012
Caliban meant he was a true skeptic because his mind could be changed by enough information. Quite a few people are just naysayers and can't be convinced by any amount of proof.


Thanks, Foundation -couldn't have said it any better myself.

And, nonoUNme, your attempted muddying of the waters is thereby exposed as just that --further dishonesty from you. No surprise, of course --merely more evidence of your rabid devotion to a Denialist(as opposed to Skeptic) agenda from which you refuse to be moved --even in the face of this turnaround from one former stalwart of the same position.

HannesAlfven
2.1 / 5 (22) Jul 30, 2012
Re: "There's lots of stupid Ph.D's."

James Maxwell was a natural philosopher -- which was an inherently interdisciplinary approach to science. It's the very reason why he was able to bring together two concepts which were formerly thought to reside in different disciplines into one single framework.

Today, we encourage extreme specialization in the sciences. Jeff Schmidt has explained in Disciplined Minds how this generally works great for corporations and governments (insofar as it stabilizes hierarchies), while simultaneously leaving the individual disadvantaged (by negating any threat he might pose to management by undermining their ability to understand the big picture).

We behave today as though there's nothing wrong with using specialists to attack complex problems like climate change. But, the segmentation of knowledge into disciplines simply encourages those specialists to treat assumptions as facts, because they are unable to question anything beyond their discipline.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (24) Jul 30, 2012
showing that todays temperatures are higher than during the mwp.

"There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" to say with confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new National Research Council report. There is less confidence in reconstructions of surface temperatures from 1600 back to A.D. 900, and very little confidence in findings on average temperatures before then. "
http://www.nation...622.html
Baseline
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 30, 2012
If oil is going to be gone in 50 years then I am so happy I made it under the wire to ride my VRod before it's all gone. Honestly at this point based on what I see from a large part of humanity these days I could care less if the whole thing just burned down. Bring on the warming it's time for a BBQ.
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (23) Jul 30, 2012
[cont'd]

Thus, when climate scientists fail to actively cultivate an understanding of the various controversies which exist in astrophysics, they are essentially forced to accept the entirety of astrophysics as fact. One incredibly important controversy pertains to the manner in which cosmic plasmas are being modeled by astrophysicists. Astrophysicists tend to model them such that they cannot generate EMF's (unlike laboratory plasmas). There is little doubt that probably none of the climate scientists who promote AGW are aware that the man who originated the cosmic plasma models -- Hannes Alfven -- would devote his 1970 Nobel speech to admonishing astrophysicists for their application of the cosmic plasma (MHD) models. This is a serious problem because over-simplified cosmic plasma models have led to the belief amongst climate modelers that they need not concern themselves with ELECTRIC JOULE HEATING.

See paper "Possible reasons for underestimating Joule heating in global models"
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (22) Jul 30, 2012
Once a person puts some effort into understanding the very purpose of specialization in the sciences, it becomes rather obvious that complex problems such as climate change should *NEVER* be left to specialists to figure out. If society wishes to attack such wicked problems, we have to revert back to the system of natural philosophy which dominated the era of extreme innovation back in the early 1900's.

The fact is that innovation in science is driven more by ignorance than knowledge. And yet, the specialist will tend not to know what they don't know. It takes a natural philosopher to be wise to his own ignorance. It's the questions which matter most, and our ability to ask intelligent questions is completely undermined by our decision to specialize.

Obviously, we cannot know everything. But, people have been imagining that there is no cost to to the hyper-specialization we see happening today. But, one need only visit the forums like this one to see the effect that it has.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2012
"There is less confidence in reconstructions of surface temperatures from 1600 back to A.D. 900" So what you are saying is we do not know for sure what the temps were during the mwp - so we should not be using that in any way as some form of refutation of global warming - correct.
mrlewish
2 / 5 (12) Jul 31, 2012
I don't understand all this. This is all for naught. The Global warming Conspiracy Theorists will just see this as further confirmation of their their loony ideas.
vlaaing peerd
4.6 / 5 (12) Jul 31, 2012
hahaha, is this some -we need to preserve our massive oil meat consumption for low prices no matter what because our american nations is built on it and everything that goes against it is a left wing conspiracy- statement? Get over it, we are deforresting our planet, we are putting loads of sjit into the air. Even if it didn't damage our environment, we just shouldn't do it.
Lurker2358
4 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2012
Hannes:

Even if Venus is a captured rogue planet, that's sort of irrelevant to what it's features should be.

A rogue planet could be any age, young, average, or old, and have any composition among all possible ranges.

So for example, even if Venus was a captured Rogue, it does NOT follow that it would be necessarily "young" nor does it follow that it would be necessarily volcanic.

The presence of volcanism neither supports nor refutes a rogue capture theory, and neither would CO2.

If the planet was anomalously young or old, the only way to prove it would be to take a deep crust sample and radio-date it, which is impossible by any existing technology.
MarkyMark
2 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2012
I don't understand all this. This.......

need you say more lol.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (12) Jul 31, 2012
So, you promote him to the revered status of a "skeptic", from his former status as just a "Denialist", despite him now fully agreeing with AGW? Doesn't make sense.

He was a skeptic before, and now he isn't.


That's not what the word "skeptic" means... A skeptic is someone who questions commonly held knowledge to reach his own conclusions independent of the majority... he is a skeptic, because he questions AGW, did his own research, and came to his conclusion based not on the claims of others but on knowledge that he himself acquired.
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 31, 2012
Re: "Even if Venus is a captured rogue planet, that's sort of irrelevant to what it's features should be."

@Lurker, it's important to note that modelers have run into severe problems in coaxing the gravitational accretion models to work. This is remarkable, because usually there are sufficient free variables to get models to work. We should not dismiss the importance of this. Furthermore, binary pairs are oftentimes observed to be so close to one another that they frequently exhibit a connecting bridge of material. What Immanuel Velikovsky, and today Wal Thornhill, have proposed is that planets (and stars) are expelled from their host stars in response to stress. The connecting filament is the umbilical cord.

Within the electrical cosmology view, cometary appearances are the result of charged bodies moving through an electric field. So, even if you reject the notion of stars expelling planets, there is still the stress of a charged planet moving through a star's electric field.
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 31, 2012
The electrical cosmology will naturally seem strange to people. And since it diverges from the textbook theory, most people will reject it without actually considering it. But, IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science have never stopped publishing papers on electrical cosmologies (IEEE is the world's largest scientific institution). For those of us who are paying attention to the press releases, and who understand what the alternative cosmology says, it becomes apparent that there are two ways to explain our observations of space: Gravity-dominated or Electrical plasma-dominated. The choice made by conventional astrophysicists to focus on the former, to the exclusion of the latter, invites confirmation bias. If a person is only familiar with one set of inferences, then nobody should be surprised when the society of scientists produce a long list of validations for that scientific framework. But, critical thinking is a process of listening to critics and questioning assumptions.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2012
100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the result of man, primarily the combustion of carbon based fuels, agriculture related land use changes and cement production.

"90% of CO2 is of natural origin for starters." - MartinTard

MartinTard has been sniffing too many Limbaugh Farts.

ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (22) Jul 31, 2012
"As respondents science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased, the paper, funded by the National Science Foundation, notes."
"But Dr. Richard Lindzen, an MIT professor of atmospheric sciences who signed the No Need to Panic About Global Warming letter in January, said the conclusion that skeptics know as just as much or more about science surprised him not at all.

MIT alumni are among my most receptive audiences, he added."
http://www.thebla...lievers/
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 31, 2012
People die every day from natural causes, therefore shooting someone in the head can't be a cause of death.

"The world went through warming cycles before." - MartinTard

MartinTard has been sniffing way too many Limbaugh Farts.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2012
The coast of Greenland has never been more than marginally survivable.

"Greenland used to be green." - MartinTard

Why else do you think the Viking spent so much time raiding England for food and other materials to survive?

Do you think they risked their lives over 1000 miles of open ocean for kicks?

MartinTard has been sniffing way too many Limbaugh Farts.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2012
Why does RyggTard continue to cling to the MWP as some saviour for his ideology when he has been repeatedly been provided with proof that it was largely a regional warming, and does not make any significant bump in the global climate record?

"What does Muller say about MWP?" - RyggTard

Could it be that RyggTard refuses to live in a reality based universe?
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2012
But not chronologically coincident with North American warming.

"An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula" = RyggTard

Poor RyggTard. He should consider the words of the author of the study that he refers to, and not try to use the results to dishonestly associate the warming implied by the ikaite and the MWP.

Look at that MWP warming... Ahahahahahahahahahah

http://www.skepti...g.13.gif
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (16) Jul 31, 2012
Re: "If the planet was anomalously young or old, the only way to prove it would be to take a deep crust sample and radio-date it, which is impossible by any existing technology."

It's not really clear that this would work. When comets are dated, they yield extremely old ages. In the electrical cosmology view, these are not accurate dates and the comets are generally thought to be relatively young. The old dates are due to electrical machining.

The correct way to figure out inferences is to first learn the alternative framework. If somebody tried to propose inferences without learning the conventional framework, they would create noise that the rest of us have to sift through.

The problem, as it stands, is that people are pretending as though we can only create one scientific framework -- that the gravity-dominant framework is the only framework which is possible. For those of us who have looked into it, we know that this is simply untrue -- and even extremely sloppy.
ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (23) Jul 31, 2012
"One of the fathers of Germanys modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholts skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?"
http://notrickszo...o2-lies/
Vendicar_Decarian
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2012
That paragraph was written 6 years ago Tard Boy.

While you and your fellow denialist vermin are clearly incapable of learning, the rest of us are not so ill informed and incapable.

"There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" to say with confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new National Research Council report" - RyggTard

Why are you constantly caught telling lies of omission RyggTard?

I have never encountered a LiberTarian/Randite who wasn't a congenital liar.
HannesAlfven
2.5 / 5 (16) Jul 31, 2012
Think carefully about what is being claimed by proponents for AGW:

They are saying that we've ruled out everything other than manmade influences. And yet, climate models absolutely depend upon the discipline of astrophysics. And if we see that astrophysicists and cosmologists have refused to consider competing ideas, then the notion that we've checked everything is unsupported.

A person will then naturally claim that we can't look into everything. But, we are talking about two fundamental forces here in cosmology: the electrical and the gravitational. The electrical force is 10^36 times stronger than the gravitational. If there is a chance that one derives from the other, what sense does it make to ignore the possibility that gravity derives from electricity?

If you read the electric joule heating paper which I posted, you'll quickly see that we're not even taking the data we need to size up that inference. The inference is ignored because the cosmology is ignored.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2012
Lindzen should stick to denying that smoking causes cancer. He has more credibility on that subject than on climate science these days.

"But Dr. Richard Lindzen, an MIT professor of atmospheric sciences who signed the No Need to Panic About Global Warming letter in January" - RyggTard
Claudius
2.6 / 5 (17) Jul 31, 2012
So, you promote him to the revered status of a "skeptic", from his former status as just a "Denialist", despite him now fully agreeing with AGW? Doesn't make sense.

He was a skeptic before, and now he isn't.


That's not what the word "skeptic" means... A skeptic is someone who questions commonly held knowledge to reach his own conclusions independent of the majority... he is a skeptic, because he questions AGW, did his own research, and came to his conclusion based not on the claims of others but on knowledge that he himself acquired.


Some would say he was a skeptic before and remains one. A changing point of view is fully consistent with skepticism. I think the point here is the the pejorative "denialist" is being applied to skeptics who do not agree with the consensus.
Satene
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2012
..because our american nations is built on it and everything that goes against it is a left wing conspiracy- statement?..
IMO the fossil fuel oligarchy, which helped the USA to their success in the past has become a brake of their further evolution. It's somehow sad to see, how the country of Franklin, Tesla and Edison become so reluctant and conservative against findings like the cold fusion. If nothing else, the decreasing of oil dependency would help the USA against Arabian better, than the sending of aircraft carriers into Persian Gulf. The people apparently cannot realize, without cold fusion we were doomed in global geopolitical crisis, because western world has no money and raw sources for effective oil replacement.
Claudius
2.9 / 5 (19) Jul 31, 2012
Lindzen should stick to denying that smoking causes cancer. He has more credibility on that subject than on climate science these days.

"But Dr. Richard Lindzen, an MIT professor of atmospheric sciences who signed the No Need to Panic About Global Warming letter in January" - RyggTard


Actually, he doesn't deny that smoking causes cancer. His position is that correlation does not imply causality, which is a very different position from saying that smoking does not cause cancer.
HannesAlfven
2.6 / 5 (16) Jul 31, 2012
Re: "It's somehow sad to see, how the country of Franklin, Tesla and Edison become so reluctant and conservative against findings like the cold fusion."

Resistance to change is nothing new, unfortunately. But, you are right insofar as there is something very, very wrong with the treatment that cold fusion has received. There currently exists a vast discrepancy between the refusal of Americans to invest the effort to critically think about science, and their expectations for their quality of life. We cannot sustain the previous rate of innovation with a widespread refusal to investigate against-the-mainstream scientific claims. The American educational system has treated uncertainty and ignorance in science as if it serves no purpose. The truth is that they help us to ask better questions in science. So, what we are seeing is that the students who imagine that science is a collection of facts which we must all memorize tend to be the most vocal. It's a form of religion.
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2012
Hannes, after reading your essays on plasma cosmology and venus on this thread about global warming, my only question, is that if you feel you can explain climate change through plasma cosmology, will you?
Claudius
3.3 / 5 (16) Jul 31, 2012
It's somehow sad to see, how the country of Franklin, Tesla and Edison become so reluctant and conservative against findings like the cold fusion.


It isn't cold fusion anymore, it's LENR, and NASA is investigating it. http://futureinno...ons.html
HannesAlfven
2.4 / 5 (16) Jul 31, 2012
Re: "if you feel you can explain climate change through plasma cosmology, will you?"

I wish it was that simple, but I view the problem of science in terms of two components: in terms of the scientific questions themselves (which we should be free to disagree on), but also, on a more fundamental level, in terms of the feedback loop which keeps on redirecting us back to conventional theories. This feedback loop is more complicated than people imagine: There are cultural, sociological and psychological forces which will continue to preclude a large-scale discussion of against-the-mainstream theories -- until we attempt to meticulously map them out.

The predicament of science is that no individual can know it all. We have to come to terms with this and attempt to reconstruct science education and a system of science which accepts that people tend to behave irrationally. We need a social network which facilitates scientific discourse, and which permits the rating of scientific ideas.
HannesAlfven
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 31, 2012
Although studies conclusively demonstrate that students aren't understanding the concepts of science, we already know how to fix this through peer instruction, concept mapping and force concept inventory testing. Before we can have an educated dialogue on science, we have to first create a place on the web which emphasizes thinking and talking like a scientist. Before we can critically think about scientific paradigms, we have to construct a concept-based infrastructure. Eric Mazur has already made impressive progress on this point (see his YouTube lectures).

What I also propose is that we must organize our knowledge into large collections of concept maps, which some people refer to as knowledge maps. It seems to me that forums are not the proper medium for discussing scientific ideas. We need to start using concept maps, which means that we need a blog with concept mapping functionality built into it.

We also need a way to systematize disagreements with these maps.
HannesAlfven
2.5 / 5 (15) Jul 31, 2012
We need a system which teaches people how to analyze scientific press releases and scientific papers, so that any layperson can use this paper-reading app to quickly decode (with the knowledge maps) what is being stated. A similar system might also be constructed to help with the math. In other words, we need to tear down the walls that separate laypeople from experts, using tools which are free to the public. And, simultaneously, the public must be invited to collaboratively map out the scientific arguments which are being made. Scientific claims, hypotheses, experimental support, observations and inferences must all be explicitly labeled in press releases using this paper filter, so that any layperson can understand the chain of logic which led to various statements within papers.

The system should also be built to support interdisciplinary synthesis. And this is where things would become very interesting, because this is how innovation and creative problem-solving occur.
HannesAlfven
2.4 / 5 (16) Jul 31, 2012
I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out what this system would look like. But, building the site is less important than actually inspiring people to want to participate in it. So, my focus is mostly geared towards the creation of a series of documentaries which will try to get people on board with this.

I strongly believe that the public should figure out ways to fund cutting-edge science, in an attempt to open-source the intellectual property which might follow from large-scale interdisciplinary synthesis. I view the widespread failure to fund cutting edge science as an opportunity for the public to lower the future cost of innovation.

The solution to what ails science must involve science education. But, tinkering with public or higher education is simply a waste of time. We'd be wiser to simply supplement and improve upon what is already out there. There's so much data out there right now that much can be done before experimentation is even necessary.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (23) Jul 31, 2012
So, you promote him to the revered status of a "skeptic", from his former status as just a "Denialist", despite him now fully agreeing with AGW? Doesn't make sense.

He was a skeptic before, and now he isn't.


That's not what the word "skeptic" means... A skeptic is someone who questions commonly held knowledge to reach his own conclusions independent of the majority... he is a skeptic, because he questions AGW, did his own research, and came to his conclusion based not on the claims of others but on knowledge that he himself acquired.


Some would say he was a skeptic before and remains one. A changing point of view is fully consistent with skepticism. I think the point here is the the pejorative "denialist" is being applied to skeptics who do not agree with the consensus.


Exactly, thank you.
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 31, 2012
It's not just LENR that is under-funded. It's the Electric Universe as well, but also, very importantly, Gerald Pollack's gel cell theory. Although I do believe we cannot avoid viewing science in a holistic manner, Pollack's contention about cell biology is arguably where a site dedicated to interdisciplinary synthesis would bear the biggest monetary rewards. From what I can tell, his book "Cells, Gels and the Engines of Life" will prove to be revolutionary if the implications are carefully used to explain what we already know about medicine and biology. We need to take these various scientific critiques and attempt to synthesize together a second scientific framework. The Electric Universe presents an excellent foundation to do this with, but it says very little about the micro-scale. So, part of the goal would be to extend the Electric Universe into the micro-scale. It might turn out that Gerald Pollack's discoveries about water and cell biology are our best way to do this.
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 31, 2012
I've spent five years now getting a feel from the EU theorists for what ails our current approach to science. I've built an enormous database to document various against-the-mainstream claims and arguments. I've also learned Adobe After Effects, so that I can generate animations as needed. But, digesting all of this information, sufficient to put it into a documentary format, is very time-consuming. YouTube has helped tremendously in saving time with digesting all of the commentary about education reform, but I have not completely abandoned books.

What I'm trying to say is that those who are skeptical of mainstream science should not waste too much time trying to convince pseudo-skeptics online. A better way to spend your time is to continuously expand your focus, continuously search for interdisciplinary patterns and continuously try to imagine fixes for the problems you identify. The proper way to attack climate change is indirectly, through such an interdisciplinary process.
djr
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 31, 2012
"I think the point here is the the pejorative "denialist" is being applied to skeptics who do not agree with the consensus."

I think that using the term denialist makes an important and appropriate distinction. If you watch posts by a specific group on this site (Rygg, Shootist, Notparker etc.) you see an ongoing pattern. Any post that mentions the term climate change is attacked - and the authors of the research are accused of lying, manipulating data etc. If you think about that process - I feel you have to conclude that it is not healthy skepticism, but the promotion of a predetermined, ideological position. Surely it is clear that this is not healthy skepticism. Example - recently Notparker used NOAA as a source to support an anti AGW idea. I pointed out that he has often criticized NOAA for manipulating data, and being a bad source of information. Parker rationalized that he was just using NOAA to make a point.
djr
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 31, 2012
Cont. Sure - you could argue that we pro AGW posters do the same thing. I see it this way. The consensus, and preponderance of evidence suggests the sun is the center of our solar system. A group of people will argue endlessly that this is not the case - and will attack every article published - claiming that the scientific community is engaged in a huge conspiracy to control the funding sources. Skepticism is fundamental to the process of science - but at some point it is important to acknowledge when the evidence becomes above a certain threshold, and to move forward. Thankfully I sense the world is reaching that point. The stakes are high.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (21) Jul 31, 2012
This story reminds of the Arab News in Jeddah when a westerner converted to Islam. They would print a lavish story about his submission to Allah.
Claudius
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 31, 2012
This story reminds of the Arab News in Jeddah when a westerner converted to Islam. They would print a lavish story about his submission to Allah.


That's a perfect analogy.
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (10) Jul 31, 2012
So R2, have you been convinced yet of the AGW phenomena or are you still in the denialist camp? Also do you think the NWO should step up activities to mitigate CO2 levels now that it's shown to cause global temperature rise? I'm just curious how you feel being betrayed by one of your own.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 31, 2012
New study shows correlation between so-called "skeptics" and tendency towards "conspiracist ideation"

http://www.common...12/07/27

"The link between endorsing conspiracy theories and rejecting climate science facts suggests that it is the libertarian instinct to stick two fingers up at the mainstream whatever the issue that is important," writes The Guardian's James Corner. "Because a radical libertarian streak is the hallmark of free-market economics, and because free market views are popular on the political right, this is where climate change skepticism is most likely to be found."
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2012
A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature - BEST

http://berkeleyea...ly-8.pdf
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (18) Aug 01, 2012
"Call me a converted skeptic," wrote Muller.
Something doesn't smell right here. What specific data convinced him?

it is based "simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase."
But temperatures haven't risen for more than ten years, in spite of rising CO2!

"As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years,
Sure, CO2 is rising:

http://www.woodfo...98/trend

...but temperatures are falling!:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

(Judith) Curry expressed her discontent with the findings..."Their analysis is way oversimplistic and not at all convincing in my opinion."
She's right. Plus, they've (purposely?) obscured the recent cooling.
CrooklynBoy
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 01, 2012
Somebody got paid off...
djr
4 / 5 (8) Aug 01, 2012
"But temperatures haven't risen for more than ten years, in spite of rising CO2!"

How are you able to continue making this claim? Here is the global data http://data.giss....aphs_v3/

If you want some more local - but I think significant data - Oklahoma is now experiencing the second year in a row of extreme heat. In oklahoma - it has only hit 110 degrees or above 8 times - 3 of those times were in 2011, and we will hit that at least 3 times this year. Look at this data - and the embedded video. http://www.weathe...20120730 A good interview with Dr. Muller on that site too.
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (12) Aug 01, 2012
"Something doesn't smell right here." - UB

It's the BS coming from your computer.

"But temperatures haven't risen for more than ten years, in spite of rising CO2!" - UB

Fortunately he looked at the data for a longer period, but still ended in the present day....the trend in pretty clear unless you are blind of wilfully ignorant (that' one's you)

"...but temperatures are falling!:" - UB

You've mistaken a temperature graph with your credibility points chart.

"She's right. Plus, they've (purposely?) obscured the recent cooling" - UB

Was she discontent with the findings, or the analysis? And who are "they"? ( boogeyman issues maybe?)

"Somebody got paid off..." - toejam

Clearly not the people in charge of UVT's education...and if they did why didn't they show up to work?

Howhot
3 / 5 (11) Aug 01, 2012
Screw this. Lets just agree to pack all of the "Skeptics" together and pack them off to Kansas! They would feel right a home in the Non-AGW-climate change non-drought they are having. The non-worst in 100 non-years.
TrinityComplex
5 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2012
So, enough of everyone calling everyone else idiots. That's not going to convince anyone to change their stance.

Regardless of which side of the argument you stand on, isn't moving for cleaner, more efficient processes a good thing, regardless of the driver? If you are a proponent of AGW then the warming should be one of many reasons why power plants, cars and factories should run cleaner. If you an opponent you can share the sentiment that it would be nice not to have to breath all of that crap. However, if you think it's all running just fine you need to take a trip to a major city. Air should not be brown and smell of feet and burning rubber.

Perhaps I'm just missing why this issue is SO polarizing, so if someone would explain that to me I'd appreciate it, but we're all reading a science website, so I would think that at least most of us would be all for technological advancement.
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2012
Yes TC, if only the real world wasn't exactly like a giant version of a physorg thread following an article on climate change....
NotParker
2.7 / 5 (14) Aug 01, 2012
Screw this. Lets just agree to pack all of the "Skeptics" together and pack them off to Kansas! They would feel right a home in the Non-AGW-climate change non-drought they are having. The non-worst in 100 non-years.


Kansas was pretty wet over the last 30 years.

The 30s and 50s were brutal.

The negative PDSI figures are a clue:

1930,-0.57
1931,-0.04
1932,-0.02
1933,-2.16
1934,-4.29
1935,-4.62
1936,-2.53
1937,-3.93
1938,-3.79
1939,-2.96
1940,-4.33

1953,-3.69
1954,-4.25
1955,-4.72
1956,-5.94
1957,-1.45

Compare that to only two years in a row after 4 wet years:

2007,2.13
2008,2.54
2009,3.83
2010,4.14
2011,-1.20
2012,-1.39

http://www.ncdc.n...mp;div=0

NotParker
2.8 / 5 (16) Aug 01, 2012
"But temperatures haven't risen for more than ten years, in spite of rising CO2!"

How are you able to continue making this claim?


Oklahoma, BEST data, Tmax (average max temp)

oklahoma
Highest TMAX 5 year averages

The current 5 year period is ranked No. 6

===========================================================
1 1951 - 1956 1.28
2 1931 - 1936 0.57
3 2001 - 2006 0.54
4 1906 - 1911 0.43
5 1996 - 2001 0.42
6 2006 - 2011 0.39
7 1961 - 1966 0.31
8 1936 - 1941 0.07
9 1976 - 1981 0.04

Data here:

http://berkeleyea...rend.txt
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2012
"Oklahoma, BEST data, Tmax (average max temp)" So what is your point? Here is the global temperature data - http://data.giss....aphs_v3/

You are great at cherry picking data to serve your own agenda. Do you have any long term, global data, that indicates the earth is not warming?
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2012
"Oklahoma, BEST data, Tmax (average max temp)" Again - I am glad that you are willing to recognize the data presented by a major organization like Berkley - we have common ground. Perhaps you would like to read the whole report -rather than cherry picking some data out of the sea of data generated by this kind of study. http://berkeleyea...summary/ The graphs presented in this report are very instructive - and clearly show that any one who is trying to prove "But temperatures haven't risen for more than ten years" is on the losing side of the data - and will probably have to resort to cherry picking. This graph says it all to me - and shows the high level of agreement between 4 different data sets. http://berkeleyea...ison.pdf
djr
4 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2012
Very cool graphic here - http://berkeleyea.../movies/
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (18) Aug 01, 2012
Regardless of which side of the argument you stand on, isn't moving for cleaner, more efficient processes a good thing, regardless of the driver?


Well, you are confusing CO2 with pollution, for one. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a necessary constituent of the atmosphere. I think most people on both sides of the argument would agree that pollution needs to be reduced.

Next, the reason why it is necessary to oppose the AGW religion is that it is aimed at reducing industrialization, creating burdensome taxes, etc. It is not a benign movement. For instance, using farm land to create biofuels increases food prices on the one hand and consequently increases starvation on the other.

AGW alarmism not a scientific movement. And who will benefit? Certain people and organizations are lining up to profit from this, and it seems this is primarily a political grab for profits and power and the rest of us will get to pay the bills, as usual.
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2012
"Next, the reason why it is necessary to oppose the AGW religion is that it is aimed at reducing industrialization"

This is false - and a complete strawman. Using the term religion seems a deliberate attempt to throw the debate into an unnecessary realm. I am very concerned about the issue of climate change. I am also a staunch atheist - and a strong proponent of technological progress. I think that your use of the term religion says a great deal more about your ideological mindset. There are plenty of paths we could choose in terms of a response to an understanding that we have a serious problem due to our disruption of the climate, and environmental degradation caused by human activity. I see a world with massive scale nuclear power - feeding desalination plants (petawatt scale) - that provide water to very advanced communities. In my view - it is ideological rigidity such as yours that stands in the way of progress...

NotParker
2.9 / 5 (15) Aug 01, 2012
1) BEST exists. I don't endorse it.

2) I've already written a program to download and graph each individual country and state.

3) Muller has an agenda. His daughter is an AGW true believer. I'll stick the the data and see what it tells me.

The last 5 years Max temperature in Washington state is

The current 5 year period is ranked No. 15 for washington
===========================================================
1 2001 - 2006 0.9
2 1936 - 1941 0.83
3 1986 - 1991 0.56
4 1921 - 1926 0.51
5 1991 - 1996 0.44
6 1996 - 2001 0.42
7 1931 - 1936 0.32
8 1956 - 1961 0.31
9 1966 - 1971 0.2
10 1941 - 1946 0.2
11 1976 - 1981 0.05
12 1901 - 1906 0.04
13 1961 - 1966 0.03
14 1926 - 1931 -0.02
15 2006 - 2011 -0.04

Oregon is 12th 1 2001 - 2006 0.68
2 1986 - 1991 0.56
3 1936 - 1941 0.51
4 1991 - 1996 0.45
5 1931 - 1936 0.4
6 1996 - 2001 0.39
7 1956 - 1961 0.33
...
12 2006 - 2011 -0.05

Global? No.
Claudius
2.4 / 5 (16) Aug 01, 2012
"Next, the reason why it is necessary to oppose the AGW religion is that it is aimed at reducing industrialization"
in my view - it is ideological rigidity such as yours that stands in the way of progress...



Ok, call it a cult, if religion offends you. I use this term when I see in the alarmist community a willingness to distort data to justify claims, as was seen in the Climategate letters, and in the extensive efforts to claim that a "consensus" is all that is necessary to validate a scientific claim. Or for instance, to try to defame someone like Richard Lindzen not for his scientific work, but through character assassination. This kind of willful credulity and obfuscation is why I use the term "religion" but perhaps it would be fairer to say "unscientific."

Progress will not be obtained by ignoring this problem. What is needed is extensive skepticism, and a non-political approach to the problem.

djr
4.3 / 5 (8) Aug 01, 2012
Progress will not be obtained by ignoring this problem. What is needed is extensive skepticism, and a non-political approach to the problem.

We are in full agreement. And the progress towards the adoption of liquid thorium faces equally difficult political headwinds. Are you also willing to see where vested interests such as the fossil fuel industry are willing to distort data in order to protect their own power? I also object to your use of the term cult. I believe skepticism is important for progress. I don't like being lumped in with people like Gore. Let him answer for his actions, and me for mine. I think it is lazy to use group terms such as cult. I do think denialist is an appropriate term. Watch posters like NotParker, and Rygg. They twist and turn every which way to distort reality - to match their ideology. If I have an ideology - it is in support of progress - and I believe in science as the best tool we have for advancing that progress.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (23) Aug 01, 2012
a non-political approach to the problem.

The AGWites know of no other way, hence the political IPCC and the political 'solutions' promoted by Enron to tax carbon dioxide.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2012
"a non-political approach to the problem." So are you claiming to be devoid of a political/ideological agenda Rygg? From my read of your posts - you are the first one to pull out the political slant. You throw the term socialist around all the time - twisting a discussion of science in to politics. You constantly bring up Gore, and Enron - these have very little to do with the discussion of climate science.
rubberman
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2012
@ Claudius: There is a cult of people who believe that the sky is blue on a cloudless day here on earth, I belong to this cult as i have seen convincing evidence as to the validity of the claim. If I had no way of seeing the sky, I might be skeptical, but I believe overwhelming mass opinion would sway me. However, if I see the sky on a cloudless day and wish to deny that it is blue, to the point of a multi pronged debate, there is either something wrong mentally, or there is a reason that isn't obvious as to why I would say something so foolish.

If you were to question 10000 people who believe wholeheartedly in AGW a subset of 20 questions comprised around how to deal with it, I doubt that 2 people would answer all of them the same. So trying to say that "the AGW religion wants...." is applying a universal ideal where it simply isn't possible to do so based on one shared indiviual belief. It is like saying because all muslims believe in Allah, they all want to kill all who don't.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (21) Aug 01, 2012
@ Claudius: There is a cult of people who believe that the sky is blue on a cloudless day here on earth, I belong to this cult as i have seen convincing evidence as to the validity of the claim.


The problem is that there is no convincing evidence that man's activities are affecting the climate. It is an assumption that if changes are happening, man is responsible. Assumptions are not a basis for political change, yet that is what we are seeing happen. And the extraordinary political changes are far from benign. Farmers are being taxed for livestock "emissions." Farmland is being converted to biofuel production. Global taxes are being proposed. Power plant production is being stalled. Extraordinary claims are being made, with un-extraordinary, debatable, evidence.

I agree that hyperbole should be avoided. Better to say "unscientific" than "cult" or religion.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (22) Aug 01, 2012
You constantly bring up Gore, and Enron - these have very little to do with the discussion of climate science.


They have EVERYTHING to do with climate 'science' today.

SatanLover
5 / 5 (8) Aug 01, 2012
Regardless of which side of the argument you stand on, isn't moving for cleaner, more efficient processes a good thing, regardless of the driver?


Well, you are confusing CO2 with pollution, for one. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a necessary constituent of the atmosphere. I think most people on both sides of the argument would agree that pollution needs to be reduced.

Burning fuels however release many cancer and brain damage causing substances and CO2 is a good indicator of how much of these substances are released. Your point are invalid.

Not to mention by products such as mercury and sulfur.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2012
"The problem is that there is no convincing evidence that man's activities are affecting the climate"

What is your basis for making that assertion?

Can you provide us with scientific research that supports your position? I believe there is vast quantities of research to support the position that green house gasses - and human activity is affecting the climate. Here is a couple. Notice I show you scientific research - not opinion from the bloggosphere.

http://www.nature...5a0.html
Noumenon
3.1 / 5 (23) Aug 01, 2012
And, nonoUNme, your attempted muddying of the waters is thereby exposed as just that --further dishonesty from you. No surprise, of course --merely more evidence of your rabid devotion to a Denialist(as opposed to Skeptic) agenda from which you refuse to be moved --even in the face of this turnaround from one former stalwart of the same position - taliban.


And more wild speculation from you. I'm sure burning CO2 has an effect on global climate.

What's worse a "denialist" or a anti-skeptic working in the field.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2012
Continued from above - editing truncated my post.

additional research supporting the link between CO2 levels and warming - http://agwobserve...perties/

Wiki article with a long list of scientific organizations that acknowledge the link between human activity and warming. - http://en.wikiped...e_change Rygg - I don't see Al Gore or Enron in any of these articles....
Claudius
2.7 / 5 (23) Aug 01, 2012
Regardless of which side of the argument you stand on, isn't moving for cleaner, more efficient processes a good thing, regardless of the driver?


Well, you are confusing CO2 with pollution, for one. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a necessary constituent of the atmosphere. I think most people on both sides of the argument would agree that pollution needs to be reduced.

Burning fuels however release many cancer and brain damage causing substances and CO2 is a good indicator of how much of these substances are released. Your point are invalid.

Not to mention by products such as mercury and sulfur.


I don't disagree that pollution should be reduced/eliminated. The point that CO2 is not in itself a pollutant is still valid, despite efforts by politicians to categorize it as such.
Claudius
2.7 / 5 (23) Aug 01, 2012
Continued from above - editing truncated my post.

additional research supporting the link between CO2 levels and warming - http://agwobserve...perties/ Rygg - I don't see Al Gore or Enron in any of these articles....


Even Richard Lindzen agrees that humans may be having a minor impact on warming. However, he maintains that human's contribution is being greatly exaggerated for political purposes.

Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (26) Aug 01, 2012
Perhaps I'm just missing why this issue is SO polarizing, so if someone would explain that to me I'd appreciate it, but we're all reading a science website, so I would think that at least most of us would be all for technological advancement.- TrinityComlex


Because AGW is an issue that is hi-jacked by the far left. This means that proposed solutions are all left wing,... i.e,.. social engineering, control of human behavior, and generally anti-capitalist and anti-freedom agendas.

Also, the hysteria over AGW is not believable and is suspect for the above reasons. As anyone can see, the global action taken to combat AGW does not match the hysteria of the propaganda promoting it. This means that the "collective genius" of mankind rejects this tiny minority of propagandist.

This doesn't mean AGW isn't real,... it just means the solution(s) will have to be compatible with existing global economies, capitalism, and freedom of choice.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (22) Aug 01, 2012
Burning fuels however release many cancer and brain damage causing substances and CO2 is a good indicator of how much of these substances are released.


But smoking marijuana does NOT cause cancer or any brain damage.
SatanLover
5 / 5 (8) Aug 01, 2012
Burning fuels however release many cancer and brain damage causing substances and CO2 is a good indicator of how much of these substances are released.


But smoking marijuana does NOT cause cancer or any brain damage.


Yes it increases your chance of getting cancer and brain damage but significantly less than a cigarette. lungs are for breathing air.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (23) Aug 01, 2012
,....

This means technological innovation in energy use will be developed and adopted in accord with free market forces,, and not as a matter of government planning and control over human behavior.

Not even AlGore is willing to live like he's back in the stoneage. That everyone seeks their own individual interests and does not voluntarily adjust their behavior for the "common good", is an intrinsic natural and necessary instinct of man,.. not an evil that needs to be controlled, as the left would have it, but The Force that has resulted in modern civilization, and the only solution available to free societies.
Claudius
2.7 / 5 (19) Aug 01, 2012
Burning fuels however release many cancer and brain damage causing substances and CO2 is a good indicator of how much of these substances are released.


But smoking marijuana does NOT cause cancer or any brain damage.


Yes it increases your chance of getting cancer and brain damage but significantly less than a cigarette. lungs are for breathing air.


Whoa, Dude.

And what about Tommy Chong, who maintains that his inability to smoke his "medicine" while in prison caused his cancer? That's evidence, isn't it?
SatanLover
5 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2012
Burning fuels however release many cancer and brain damage causing substances and CO2 is a good indicator of how much of these substances are released.


But smoking marijuana does NOT cause cancer or any brain damage.


Yes it increases your chance of getting cancer and brain damage but significantly less than a cigarette. lungs are for breathing air.


Whoa, Dude.

And what about Tommy Chong, who maintains that his inability to smoke his "medicine" while in prison caused his cancer? That's evidence, isn't it?

Not really?
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (21) Aug 01, 2012
You constantly bring up Gore, and Enron - these have very little to do with the discussion of climate science.


They have EVERYTHING to do with climate 'science' today.


"The present hysteria formally began in the summer of 1988, although preparations had been put in place at
least three years earlier. That was an especially warm summer in some regions, particularly in the United
States. The abrupt increase in temperature in the late 1970s was too abrupt to be associated with the smooth
increase in carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
in testimony before Sen. Al Gore's Committee on Science, Technology and Space, said, in effect, that he was
99 percent certain that temperature had increased and that there was some greenhouse warming. He made
no statement concerning the relation between the two."
http://eaps.mit.e...tion.pdf
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (22) Aug 01, 2012
"As most scientists concerned with climate, I was eager to stay out of what seemed like a public circus. But in
the summer of 1988 Lester Lave, a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, wrote to me
about being dismissed from a Senate hearing for suggesting that the issue of global warming was scientifically
controversial. I assured him that the issue was not only controversial but also unlikely. In the winter of 1989
Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, lost National
Science Foundation funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century."
"In the spring of 1989 I prepared a critique of global warming, which I submitted to Science, a magazine of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The paper was rejected without review as being
of no interest to the readership."
http://eaps.mit.e...tion.pdf
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (23) Aug 01, 2012
"At the same time, political pressures on dissidents from the "popular vision'' increased. Sen. Gore publicly
admonished "skeptics'' in a lengthy New York Times op-ed piece. In a perverse example of double-speak he
associated the "true believers'' in warming with Galileo. He also referred, in another article, to the summer of
1988 as the Kristallnacht before the warming holocaust."
http://eaps.mit.e...tion.pdf
n0ns3ns0r
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 02, 2012
At least Muller isn't a complete idiot. Sadly, the same can't be said for many commenters on this site.
Howhot
3 / 5 (10) Aug 02, 2012
At least Muller isn't a complete idiot.


COMPLETE is the keyword. Muller IS an IDIOT.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (24) Aug 02, 2012
At least Muller isn't a complete idiot.


COMPLETE is the keyword. Muller IS an IDIOT.


Are you really calling a professor of physics an idiot? One who, unlike you, is not restricted to relying on authority in determining the validity of AGW?
Neinsense99
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 02, 2012
HannesAlfven should get his own WordPress account or some server space instead of publishing his 'dissertation' through multiple posts here. And what is this irrelevant Venusian red-herring detritus?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 02, 2012
Yup.

"Are you really calling a professor of physics an idiot?" - NoumenTard

Muller has been dragged to the proper conclusion through his own research. He was "shocked" to find that the Climate Scientists have been right all along.

He takes a lot of credit for conclusions and research performed by others, long before he attached himself to this issue.

And that is why he is an idiot.
NotParker
2.6 / 5 (20) Aug 02, 2012
Mullers own data demolishes his CO2 theory.

TMAX has fallen off a cliff in the western USA.

http://sunshineho...t-coast/
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 02, 2012
Gosh, ParkerTard/sunshinehours1 has found that when the pacific Ocean cools, so does the west (Pacific) coast of the U.S.

"TMAX has fallen off a cliff in the western USA." - ParkerTard

Sadly, his mental disease will never be cured.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (11) Aug 02, 2012
It is difficult to see how data from 0.1 percent of the globe would "demolish" global data.

"Mullers own data demolishes his CO2 theory." - ParkerTard/UbVonTard

But when you have a mental disease like ParkerTard/sunshinehours1, you always have a distorted view of reality.
Caliban
3.2 / 5 (13) Aug 02, 2012
Mullers own data demolishes his CO2 theory.

TMAX has fallen off a cliff in the western USA.

http://sunshineho...t-coast/


Hey NutPecker--

You should forward your findings to Pr Muller -STAT- as it seems apparent that he was not aware of that data. I'm sure that he will perform an immediate about-face, as it will force him to concede that AGW is nothing more than a vast, Left-Wing-Liberal-Commie-Socialist conspiracy to appropriate private property and raise taxes.

Your moron-itude is boundless.


djr
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 02, 2012
Rygg - "At the same time, political pressures on dissidents from the "popular vision'' increased. Sen. Gore publicly"

Let me try to explain what I see as the problem with constantly bringing up a name like Al Gore - and claiming that he is some how capable of corrupting science. If there is a research project that observes that the glaciers are melting (just for example). Sound science is a process where someone says - "no they are not - I have data to prove otherwise" and then you get that data published. What you do is you say "that study is rubbish - becuase - Al Gore". And the oceans are not becoming more acidic, and the ice sheets are not melting, and the plants are not migrating, and the insects are not being affected, and all the other thousands of data points that are supporting the understanding that our earth is warming are false - because 'Al Gore'. Does that make it clear why I think you are being dishonest by not discussing the science, but just saying "Al Gore"?
NotParker
2.8 / 5 (18) Aug 02, 2012
Mullers own data demolishes his CO2 theory.

TMAX has fallen off a cliff in the western USA.

http://sunshineho...t-coast/


Hey NutPecker--

You should forward your findings to Pr Muller -STAT- as it seems apparent that he was not aware of that data. I'm sure that he will perform an immediate about-face, as it will force him to concede that AGW is nothing more than a vast, Left-Wing-Liberal-Commie-Socialist conspiracy to appropriate private property and raise taxes.

Your moron-itude is boundless.




I told one of his minions at another site. He ran away.

But I do appreciate the shallowness of your intellect.
NotParker
2.7 / 5 (19) Aug 02, 2012
It is difficult to see how data from 0.1 percent of the globe would "demolish" global data.


CO2 takes a holiday over more than half the USA and VD claims it is only .1%.

But if the same area is in drought it is the whole world!
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (21) Aug 02, 2012
So dj, where is the data to show what Algore and AGWites say will happen if the world doesn't follow their socialist agenda?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2012
From Parkertard's posting history it can be estimated that he spends close to 15 hours a week posting to PhysOrg.

In addition he spends considerable time posting to his own denialist blog.

And now he confirms that he posts under yet another alias on another site.

"I told one of his minions at another site" - ParkerTard

Is ParkerTard completely unemployed? Or is he employed to post anti-environmental propaganda?

Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2012
Contrary to ParkerTard's insane ramblings, CO2 over the U.S. has not declined.

"CO2 takes a holiday over more than half the USA" - ParkerTard

Coastal temperatures along the U.S. pacific coast did decline slightly however due to the decline in pacific ocean temperatures.

ParkerTard finds this decline to be a mystery. But then trivial matters are constantly a mystery to the mentally diseased.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2012
America's winter that never happened comes to mind. As does the 50 percent reduction in the U.S. corn crop due to severe drought. The 50 percent of U.S. counties now considered natural disaster areas due to lack of rain.

Should I mention the massive ice melt in the Arctic, and the lowest seasonal ice extent that has persisted in the arctic since March?

And lets not forget that globally the Earth's temperature this year will once again come in as one of the top 10 warmest years in recorded history...

Etc. Etc. Etc.

"So dj, where is the data to show what Algore and AGWites say will happen if the world doesn't follow their socialist agenda?" - RyggTard

RyggTard lives in a Libertarian/Randite fantasy land in which if you ignore all of the data there magically is none.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2012
RyggTard seems to love the idea that the U.S. grain belt is reverting to desert conditions - exactly as the high resolution climate models predict.

"But if the same area is in drought it is the whole world!" - RyggTard

He is mentally diseased.
Caliban
3.3 / 5 (12) Aug 02, 2012


I told one of his minions at another site. He ran away.

But I do appreciate the shallowness of your intellect.


Now, now, NutPecker--

It certainly isn't my fault if your moronscience doesn't cut any ice with actual scientists --even if they were formerly of your tribe.

Enjoy splashing around in that pool of stupid, do you?

Watch out for floaters!

djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2012
So dj, where is the data to show what Algore and AGWites say will happen if the world doesn't follow their socialist agenda?

We really just talk right past each other don't we. My point is that your constant references to Al Gore - show that you are not interested in science - you are interested in politics. The glaciers don't care what Al Gore says - they are going to keep right on melting - same for the ice sheets - and all the other climate indicators. If you have data that shows the earth is not warming - please publish a paper to that effect. Otherwise it is just noise. I am not the one politicizing the science - you are. Your answer to scientific data - is always Al Gore and the socialist. Again - you are the one politicizing the science - you are the one with a political agenda - I would just like to see us pay attention to the science - and start acting smart - instead of the current situation in which we are stuck on stupid - primarily because of idealogues like yourel
ubavontuba
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 03, 2012
"But temperatures haven't risen for more than ten years, in spite of rising CO2!"
How are you able to continue making this claim?
It's easy, because it's true.

Here is the global data
How are 132 year datesets relevant to my claim regarding the last 10 years? It appears this is nothing more than an attempt at obfuscation.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (21) Aug 03, 2012
show that you are not interested in science - you are interested in politics.

It is the AGWites who are interested in politics. They attempt to corrupt science to support their socialist agenda.
Why do you want to be a fellow traveler?
djr
4 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2012
How are 132 year datesets relevant to my claim regarding the last 10 years? It appears this is nothing more than an attempt at obfuscation.

Well - it would seem to me that if I reference a very comprehensive set of data sets - and a careful look at the graphs in those data sets would show that over the last 10 years the temperatures have continued on their very clear upward trend - that is very relevant to a false claim that the earth has not warmed in the last 10 years. You of course know that the longer the data set is - the more relevant it is to a discussion of climate. Climate is best measured over multiple decades - this filters out the noise. A review of this information will show you that it is you who is adept at obfuscation. http://www.skepti...t-1.html If you want to play the 'dissect the data' game - you may want to look at this report and realize that it is you who likes to obfuscate - cont.
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2012
http://www.ncdc.n...l/2012/6 From this report -

"The globally-averaged land surface temperature for June 2012 was also the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.07°C (1.93°F) above average."

Strong enough data for me to believe that the warming trend continues - or do you want it both ways? You can't use long term data trends to support the understanding that the earth is in a long term warming trend - but you can only slice and dice the data when it supports your position. Sounds like confirmation bias - right?
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2012
"It is the AGWites who are interested in politics." Wow - how are you able to keep missing the point? It is you who constantly throws around the term socialist, and the name Al Gore - on a science web site. Who has the political agenda?

I too have an agenda - I like science and technology. I want to see progress - as that gives me the greatest opportunity to live as long, and as interesting a life as I can. My world is mired in ignorance - look at this report on acid attacks on women http://news.yahoo...661.html In my view - it is always those with a political/religious agenda that defend this ignorance - and hold us back from the progress we are capable of.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (22) Aug 03, 2012
I too have an agenda - I like science and technology. I want to see progress

Then you must not support AGWites.
I agree, good, quality data supports a warming trend on the planet. That data does not support the AGWite claim that humans are the cause. That is their politica agenda for if they can assert humans are the cause then they can justify tyrannical tactics to stop the human actions.
If you do some research you will find Al Gore, James Hansen and even Enron were all eager to just to conclusions and damned those who would not support their cause. This is not how science is supposed to be conducted is it?
Read how McIntyre and McKitrick were treated by Nature and others for daring to critique Michael Mann. Is this science?
djr
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2012
"Then you must not support AGWites" I neither support - or oppose this mythical group of yours - I support science.

"That data does not support the AGWite claim that humans are the cause"

The raw data does not speak to the cause - that is the thorny question. The scientists theorize that green house gasses are acting to trap solar radiation. http://www.skepti...fect.htm If you dispute this theory - then the onus is on you to develop an alternative theory - and prove your case. I suspect you have not done this - which is why your answer to scientific questions about the climate are always "Al Gore and the socialists" You seem incapable of understanding the basic point I am making - It is you who are politicizing the debate.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2012
I too have an agenda - I like science and technology. I want to see progress

While I'm as technophile as the next geek I don't think science and technology are things that can, by themselves, eradicate human stupidity, misogyny, racism, delusional bliefs, haterd, greed, etc. *
These things do not grow out of logic and hence cannot be combatted by it. As you can see quite plainly in this 'discussion' some will not accept facts - no matter how plain.

* an exception would be where technology enables information access to those who have no such preconceived antisocial tendencies, but have just subscribed to them for lack of knowledge of an alternative. In this case making such knowledge available can change behavior (though even in that case it doesn't change the fundamental character of the person)
Shootist
3.3 / 5 (17) Aug 03, 2012
The Truth about Richard Muller

http://www.popula...ler.html

I was never a skeptic Richard Muller, 2011

If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion which he does, but hes very effective at it then let him fly any plane he wants. Richard Muller, 2008

There is a consensus that global warming is real. its going to get much, much worse. Richard Muller, 2006

Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. Richard Muller, 2003
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (22) Aug 03, 2012
The raw data does not speak to the cause -

That't not what AGWites shout from the rooftops.
And its not what the AGU or many other 'scientific' organizations state either.
"The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. "
"Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate. "
http://www.agu.or...08.shtml
No politics here. Just science?

How likely will AGU publish a paper that challenges their official position?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2012
If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real,

I hate to bring this news flash to you: but Al Gore is an american. No one in the world cares what he says on global warming. No one.

It is only in the US where some people think that politicians can give you insights into scientific subjects. The rest of the world knows better than this - they listen to the data. And the data says: it's real.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (22) Aug 03, 2012
"Psychologists Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers, based at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, surveyed a roughly representative sample of academics and scholars in social psychology and found that In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues."
http://www.washin...-biased/

What surprise, not. 'Scientists' would discriminate based on political ideology.

No one in the world cares what he says on global warming. No one.

A Nobel prize committee cared.
djr
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2012
"What surprise, not. 'Scientists' would discriminate based on political ideology."

Very interesting Rygg. I have raised the issue several times on this thread - of how you politicize the conversation. Out of nowhere - you drop this random study of psychologists - who admit that they discriminate based on political ideology. It has nothing to do with climate science. I suspect you don't understand the point being made. I will say it again. Science does not care about politics. The glaciers and the ice sheets do not care about Al Gore, or a group of psychologists, or my political ideology - they keep on melting. The facts are the facts - the rest is noise. Is that your goal - just to generate noise? So interesting.... You never answer questions directly - for example - if it is not human activity causing the warming that you agree is happening, then what is the cause? Wow!!!!!
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2012
The position statement you have linked to is just science. Or more precisely a synopsis of science and observation.

"http://www.agu.or...08.shtml
No politics here. Just science?" - RyggTard

Clearly you are jabbering about nothing.

What you point you think you are making is of no significance to any thinking person.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2012
This is one of the problems with kooks like RyggTard. They have no capacity to evaluate sources of information. They will quote from and fixate on anything that supports their ideological view.

In this instance RyggTard fixates on the Loonie Moonie, Washington Times, one of the most unreliable newspapers in America.

"Psychologists Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers" - RyggTard quoting from an article in the Moonie (Washington Times).

He might as well quote from the National Enquirer as a source, or some random Conservative Blogger who just invents his stories.

I prefer reliable sources of information.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (11) Aug 03, 2012
"The Truth about Richard Muller" - ShooTard

But Muller was the darling of the denialist industry for almost a year, quoting from him regularly when they expected him to produce an analysis that supported their conservative ideological views.

And now that he hasn't done so, suddenly he isn't one of them anymore and must be torn down and destroyed as a heritic to their denialist Ideology.

Even former Radio weather reader Antony Watts (Watts up with that) who originally claimed he would support Muller's analysis no matter what it's conclusion is now denouncing Muller and his results - not based on any valid scientific evaluation, but simply on conservative political ideological grounds.

Personally I'm not a fan of Muller. But he has followed the scientific method, and he has produced a respectable analysis which confirms that of every other research organization in the field.

No surprise there.
NotParker
2.8 / 5 (18) Aug 03, 2012

But Muller was the darling of the denialist industry for almost a year


Muller was never a skeptic as he admitted and it was well known the temperature record was made up of 90% or more badly sited stations for years.

Mullers own data proves it has cooled in most of the USA, demolishing his CO2 theory.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 03, 2012
Thermometers don't point to the cause of a systems temperature. Well done Tard Boy.

It is another group of measurements that tell us that CO2 is responsible for the current warming. Those measurements are the spectroscopic properties of CO2.

Yes. Spectroscopes are more complicated than thermometers.

Perhaps that is why you don't understand them.

They are the devil's work, aren't they?

"I agree, good, quality data supports a warming trend on the planet. That data does not support the AGWite claim that humans are the cause." - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 03, 2012
Just two months ago, ParkerTard droaned on and on about how the GISS analysis had omitted 90 percent of the ground stations, implying that doing so was some kind of dastardly plan to enslave the world.

Now he shows us that he knew the reason for the omissions all along... 90 percent of the stations - the omitted stations - were poorly sited and omitted for that reason.

"Muller was never a skeptic as he admitted and it was well known the temperature record was made up of 90% or more badly sited stations ." - RyggTard

So RyggTard is guilty of telling a lie of omission and then using that lie as a basis for attacking the science, and then later including the omission and using the inclusion as a basis to attack the science.

His brain disease is terminal.
_ilbud
3 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2012
You have to laugh at the uneducated filth who claim to know more about climate from listening to Limbaugh than real functional Humans with real educations. Thankfully the simple minded cretins are totally irrelevant.
NotParker
2.6 / 5 (17) Aug 03, 2012
Just two months ago, someone pointed out that airports dominate GISS in the USA ...


And some people think that thermometers at grass fields that turned into major concrete and steel airports with billions of gallon of jet fuel would not be affected by the change.

http://chiefio.wo...by-list/

http://chiefio.wo...tations/

I'll admit airports were warmer than average for a while.

Thats over now.

http://sunshineho...of-tmax/
Howhot
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2012
Muller was on that government funded NPR Science Friday radio today. It was interesting that he had to work through the data himself to be convinced that what the rest of were saying was what was happening. I'm glad he finally came to his senses.

NotParker
2.6 / 5 (20) Aug 03, 2012
Muller was on that government funded NPR Science Friday radio today. It was interesting that he had to work through the data himself to be convinced that what the rest of were saying was what was happening. I'm glad he finally came to his senses.



His daughter has a green consulting firm. She needs more clients. Con artists abound in the green money pit.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.6 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2012
More than likely she challenged him to put up or shut up, like any good daughter would.

"His daughter has a green consulting firm." - ParkerTard

He did, and now ParkerTard and the other dumb as dirt denialists are soiling their underpants.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.6 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2012
The interesting thing is, that if you exclude the poorly sited stations the computed warming trend in the U.S. is functionally identical to the full U.S. station set.

http://www.youtub...ure=plcp

Poor Parker Tard. He has been told this multiple times.

"And some people think that thermometers at grass fields that turned into major concrete and steel airports" - ParkerTard

But he keeps repeating his lies.

It is a result of his mental disease.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.6 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2012
Make sure you are composing a list of names for the public executions that are pending.

Insanity will not be seen as a permitted excuse.

"You have to laugh at the uneducated filth who claim to know more about climate from listening to Limbaugh than real functional Humans with real educations." - ilbud
Howhot
3 / 5 (12) Aug 04, 2012
Boy NP, your a real POS aren't you?
His daughter has a green consulting firm. She needs more clients. Con artists abound in the green money pit.


Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2012
It is laughable, that ParkerTard - who is paid to post anti-environmental garbage here, would make such an accusation against a young woman.

I have always assumed that morally corrupt individuals like ParkerTard see themselves reflected in every aspect of the world around them as a way for them to excuse themselves for their immoral acts.
NotParker
2.8 / 5 (18) Aug 04, 2012
Boy NP, your a real POS aren't you?
His daughter has a green consulting firm. She needs more clients. Con artists abound in the green money pit.




The truth hurts.

Martin_Shaw
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2012
Why is name-calling permitted on this website? This is supposed to be about physics.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2012
"This is supposed to be about physics." You are absolutely right - and it is very frustrating that the conversations so often devolve into childishness. The problem is - there is a group of people who make it a sport to bait the comments sections with rubbish. They start arguments - everything goes round and round in circles - they don't care about facts, or science - it seems the game is just to bait others. The dilemma for people like you or me - who want to enjoy some adult discussion - is what to do about the baiters? If you engage them - it just goes around in circles with no resolution. If you ignore them - you feel like you are giving them the floor - and they control the dialogue - but in reality they do control it. So you see people get frustrated - and the conversation becomes childish. I don't think there is a solution. Often you will see the baiters having multiple spats - on many different articles simultaneously. Sadly I think it is best not to feed the trolls.
Claudius
3.4 / 5 (15) Aug 04, 2012
Why is name-calling permitted on this website? This is supposed to be about physics.


It's not.

"Be civil: Please respond insightfully and respectfully, avoiding personal attacks and name calling. Do not make comments that are threatening, obscene, profane, contain hate speech or degrade others. Personal attacks will not be tolerated."

"Comments that will be deleted include:
...abusive, snarky, obscene, or just plain nasty remarks about anything or anyone"

-PhysOrg Comments Guidelines
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (22) Aug 04, 2012
Why is name-calling permitted on this website? This is supposed to be about physics.

No, this is a site a about pushing agendas loosely based upon science.
The agendas promoted are primarily socialism, more govt control, atheism, anthropomorphic global warming, and a few others.
How do I know? The articles chosen by editors and their refusal to edit those who attack those who disagree with the editors.
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2012
"No, this is a site a about pushing agendas" I don't think you are accurate in your assessment of the main site - it seems pretty neutral to me. Your assessment does hold true for the folks on the comments section - and you and NP lead the charge with the promotion of your ideological agenda. I am not sure if baiting is just a game to you two, or if you are paid to push your agenda - I am sure I will never have an answer to that question.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2012
"Comments that will be deleted include" That is a nice theory Claudius - but I am afraid we are left to police ourselves. Take a look at the second comment on this article - http://phys.org/n...eet.html and I did report the comment.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (21) Aug 04, 2012
I don't think you are accurate in your assessment of the main site

Take a closer look.
The editors make a conscious choice what to post. What do they post? Stories they agree with.
Those few of us who disagree and point out errors are attacked. I had one who attempted to find out who I was and attack me personally. This is how science is supposed to be?
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (20) Aug 04, 2012
dj, see what I mean:

kochevnik 5 minutes ago Rank: not rated yet US founding fathers were liberal democrats. @ryggesogn2 No, they were what we must now call 'classical liberals'. In their day, they were called liberal. 'Classical liberals' aka oligarch bootlicking libertarians weren't around in 1776. Rand lived in the last century, not in the 18th century. Fuck you are dumb.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

This is how science is supposed to be?

ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (20) Aug 04, 2012
dj,

Now I show where koch is wrong, but I doubt he will engage in any rational discuss. Instead he will likely continue to call me names after I attempt to point out the definition of 'classical liberal'

"For classical liberals sometimes called the old liberalism liberty and private property are intimately related. From the eighteenth century right up to today, classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life including employing her labor and her capital as she sees fit."
http://plato.stan...eralism/
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (19) Aug 04, 2012
dj:

" kochevnik 8 minutes ago Rank: not rated yet The following video explains why even with small rates, perpetual proportional (Economic) growth is impossible, and will be a disaster unless people educate themselves to the implications. http://www.youtub...e=relmfu In other words, Jewish banking is at odds with mathematics. Math is obviously anti-Semitic and must be stopped at all costs! @ryggesogn2 It's those socialists who demand, who force others, who plunder other to live for them. That sounds quite greedy. Did you ever stop to think that most of these original "socialists" are Jews? Code word anybody???

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...tml#jCp"

Perpetual economic growth is impossible? So why even try koch?

Data does not support this. Not very scientific.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (18) Aug 04, 2012
dj,

Another interesting perspecttive about the socialists/'progressives'/'scientists' is they attack the Koch family.
Fred Koch, a graduate of MIT invented a more efficient process to refine oil. His sons, also MIT graduates, continued building their businesses until they are quite wealthy. But they are very anti-communist and their business is privately held.
They have spent their wealth in projects and interests they support. The Koch Insittute is one. "By integrating the most advanced biological investigation with the best in engineering technology, we believe we can revolutionize the diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of cancer." http://ki.mit.edu/approach/ki
Why are people like the Koch brothers and the thousands of other entrepreneurs respected, or at least not attacked the the 'progressives'?
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (18) Aug 04, 2012
But Soros, who made his billions running a hedge fund, is the savior of 'progressive' causes.
'Progressives' whine and complain about the big bankers and evil Wall Street investors, of which Soros is a member, but they like his money.
While Koch industries is an industrial company making products people need to live. But their profits are considered 'evil' by the 'progressives'.
This is rational?
djr
5 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2012
Your last 4 posts absolutely make my point for me Rygg. You rant on about the Koch brothers, and progressives, and liberals, and wall street - all which have nothing to do with the process of science. I disagree with your belief that the editors are promoting a specific agenda - I think it is just the ideological glasses you wear that convinces you of this. But the bigger question for me (and I think you might benefit from some introspection here) is this - if you find the editorial bias of this board so offensive - why not move on to a board that is more to your ideological liking? No one is forcing you to read physorg, any more than any one is forcing me to frequent a young earth creationist site. I think it is rude of you to need to spam this site with what I see as your rubbish...
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (18) Aug 04, 2012
all which have nothing to do with the process of science.

I rant?
Have you read what AGWites assert about those who disagree with them?

It is not what I believe about a bias, it is what can be demonstrated. Isn't that what real science is about?
I state a hypothesis and proceed to provide data to support that hypothesis.
Where am I wrong?
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2012
Where am I wrong? You see conspiracy where there is none. You spam a science web site - with political ideology - you are the one who uses all the political language - socialists, liberals, agwites, etc. etc. - You are the one who cannot distinguish between science - and political ideology. You are the one with a political ax to grind - and you insist on spamming a science web site with your political ideology. That is where you are wrong.
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2012
"Have you read what AGWites assert about those who disagree with them?" The term AGWite is meaningless. It is a lazy strategy - it is a straw man. Scientists are usually very good about entertaining disagreement. The scientists I have had the fortune to know - thrive on disagreement - it is an integral part of science. What science does not have much patience for is rubbish. I follow some biology bloggs that deal with evolution a lot. You should see the rubbish that is thrown around - and it is addressed, and then it is thrown right out there again - it is very frustrating - much like trying to talk to the baiters on Physorg.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (19) Aug 04, 2012
dj, care to comment on this political rant?

"Vendicar_Decarian 17 hours ago Rank: not rated yet I've never been to Florida. Don't care to go. To many cowardly cuban expats looking for a handout and too much violence

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...tml#jCp"
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (18) Aug 04, 2012
The scientists I have had the fortune to know - thrive on disagreement - it is an integral part of science.


You must not read Michael Mann's blog or too many AGWite posts here.
Are you accusing those who post here of not being scientists because they don't tolerate disagreement?
That is another indication of bias since so many here who don't tolerate dissent are not disciplined by the editors.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (18) Aug 04, 2012
dj, you must really respect Dr. Dr. Ivar Giaever, former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, for resigning form APS.

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

Read more: http://www.foxnew...2dH2ABv8
Estevan57
3.3 / 5 (16) Aug 04, 2012
Rygg - read this it totally sums up the frustration many people have with this site.

"You see conspiracy where there is none. You spam a science web site - with political ideology - you are the one who uses all the political language - socialists, liberals, agwites, etc. etc. - You are the one who cannot distinguish between science - and political ideology. You are the one with a political ax to grind - and you insist on spamming a science web site with your political ideology. That is where you are wrong."

You see socialists under every rock, pebble, and grain of sand.
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (17) Aug 04, 2012
You see socialists under every rock, pebble, and grain of sand.


Socialism is as socialism does.
Most here support govt control of private property, socialism.
How many here agree with Enron that carbon should be taxed and controlled by the govt?
Eron was a fine example of crony 'capitalism' just as Solyndra, GE, GM, ..... This is NOT capitalism. It is a form of socialism started when the 'progressive' Teddy Roosevelt lunched the FDA at the behest of the large meat packers.
Today the same happened to Microsoft and any other company that does not pay its bribes to DC.
Don't believe me? How about a fellow 'liberal'?
"As the Microsoft example suggests, the Washington culture of influence peddling is not entirely, or even primarily, the fault of the corporations that hire the lobbyists and pay the bills. Its a vast protection racket, practiced by politicians and political operatives of both parties. "
http://www.politi...ge2.html

Estevan57
3.3 / 5 (16) Aug 04, 2012
Of the 10 major headings and 48-50 subheadings, what would someone expect to find under "Space & Earth, Environment"?
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (19) Aug 04, 2012
"Instead, it is based "simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...tml#jCp"

So with no stated understanding of how a complex emergent system like the earth's climate functions, Muller believes correlation is causation.

" It was noted in a study that crime rose as air conditioning use increased. However, air conditioning was not the cause of the crime. "

http://logical-cr...usation/
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2012
"dj, care to comment on this political rant?" Certainly - it is an irrelevant comment that has no business on a science web site. I do not approve of Vendi's language or comments - it brings the tone of this board down - just as yours, NP's, and other baiters do. Do you notice how you continually avoid the question - no matter how many times I ask it? - why do you constantly feel the need to spam a science web site - with your political agenda?
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2012
It was noted in a study that crime rose as air conditioning use increased. However, air conditioning was not the cause of the crime.

It is science 101 to understand that correlation does not equal causation. Yet - in most scientific experiments - we run complex statistical analysis (manova etc.) looking for what? - correlation. Because correlation is important. Once correlation is established - the real challenge becomes establishing the link between the variables. Sometimes there are compounding variables. What the scientists have to do - is try to understand what is the nature of the link. Is it causal, or otherwise. Current consensus is that green house gases in the atmosphere are trapping heat - and causing the climate to warm. Do you have another explanation? You have already acknowledged that the climate is warming - what is causing this ling term warming trend?
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2012
RyggTard is right. PhysOrg is part of the global conspiracy to take over the world.

Oh, my Gawad. Only RyggTard, ParkerTard, UbVonTard, and a hand full of others are not in on the conspiracy. The rest of the world is conspiring to become Socialist and they are the only people left to save the world from itself.

"The editors make a conscious choice what to post. What do they post? Stories they agree with." - Ryggtard
kochevnik
4 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2012
RyggTard is right. Things like respiration are socialist and violate individual property rights. Other welfare parasites are stealing my air and using it for their own nefarious ends. Government allows them to keep respiring. If not for socialist government parasites everyone else would stop breathing, I could hoard all the planet's gas for myself and finally be happy. The free market should decide who gets the air.
Caliban
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2012
Boy NP, your a real POS aren't you?



The truth hurts.



Yes, NutPecker, it does.

Between yourself, riggsuckin', nonoUNme, ubybooby, et al, the money you shell out for the oxycontin to treat your chronic, intractable pain must be the equivalent of the GDP of Malaysia.

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2012
In your presumption that the outright dishonesty, ignorance, and insanity that is epidemic in Conservative blogs, is "data".

"I state a hypothesis and proceed to provide data to support that hypothesis. Where am I wrong?" - RyggTard
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2012
"I state a hypothesis and proceed to provide data to support that hypothesis. Where am I wrong" Think about this - the editors on a young earth creationist web site are bias. They are selective in the articles they publish. They use confirmation bias big time. It is their web site - they have that right. It would be rude, and pointless of me to spend my day spamming their site with my own political/atheist/evolution believing agenda. Is it not smarter, more respectful of me to move on - and to read sites like Physorg - where the information is more in keeping with my interests? Sure that is confirmation bias - but don't you understand that conservatives read conservative web sites, and liberals read liberal web sites, and people interested in science read science web sites. Crack pots think it is funny to constantly be screaming about conspiracy theories - and the scientists tire of answering the same conspiracy theories over, and over and over and over.....
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (22) Aug 05, 2012
So dj, you want a 'science' site that confirms your bias?
The scientists I have had the fortune to know - thrive on disagreement - it is an integral part of science.


But this is not the site for any disagreement?
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (21) Aug 05, 2012
Current consensus is that green house gases in the atmosphere are trapping heat

What green house gas?
CO2 was chosen because it is well mixed easy to measure.
Water vapor is the most significant gas that retains heat.
Just compare the high and low temperatures of Singapore and Riyadh.
For the next week the high in Singapore is 91F and the low is 79F a delta of 12F.
In Riyadh, it the high is 109F and the low is 82F, a delta of 27F.
What's the difference? Water vapor.
How are humans affecting water vapor?

ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (21) Aug 05, 2012
Spamming a 'science' board with economics?
For one, it is listed on this site as 'other science'.
Also, the IPCC is a political organization and their fellow travelers promote and demand political solutions to 'human caused climate change'. Those solutions include the use of govt force to plunder everyone's wealth.
Why haven't the IPCC or the AGWites promote science based solutions, such as nuclear power? They are influenced by the politics of the watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside).
Where does most funding for 'climate change' originate? The govt. You don't believe politics is involved? If Solyndra was such a great investment, they wouldn't have needed the plundered wealth they wasted. But why did the govt GIVE taxpayer money to Solyndra? Politics. Politics motivated by AGWites.
Why are you afraid to discuss the politics of AGWism?
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 05, 2012
Where does most funding for 'climate change' originate?


Ask your question another way. Where does most of the funding opposing 'climate change' originate? The obvious answer is the fossil fuel industry and the Rightwing parties, but it a large list. The number in the opposition is quite large.

Second, who is more impacted by climate change regulation? I would argue that is the common man (across the world) most impacted simply from the BENEFITS of climate mitigation. If it's ever achievable, we would all benefit from a sustainable future.
But as typical of the right, they have to bate the argument;
So what about Solyndra? Well, if you really want to talk about a waste of money (as opposed to a business bankruptcy) Then look no further than Halliburton and the $30 dollar hamburgers or any number of tax payer gouging schemes while fighting a trillion dollar war for nations building.

Caliban
3 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2012
So dj, you want a 'science' site that confirms your bias?

"The scientists I have had the fortune to know - thrive on disagreement - it is an integral part of science."

But this is not the site for any disagreement?


What green house gas?CO2 was chosen because it is well mixed easy to measure. Water vapor is the most significant gas that retains heat.


Spamming a 'science' board with economics?

Why are you afraid to discuss the politics of AGWism?


The answer, riggsuckn, is very simple --no one fears your "skills" of argumentation, for one, single, and excellent reason:

You have none.

The entire "Swenson Method" of "argument" is to attempt to smother a rebuttal with a mound of trollpoop.

In fact, virtually every comment of yours, Swenson, consists entirely of the same.

Or maybe we should consider every comment of yours to be nothing more than a pre-emptive application of trollpoop in an effort to smother any reasoned argument before it is even begun?

ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (20) Aug 05, 2012
BENEFITS of climate mitigation.

So far, the 'benefit' has been higher corn prices because of federal mandates for ethanol production, a few Obama cronies becoming wealthy on 'green' projects, thousands of people on welfare because the govt prohibits oil pipelines and coal mining, high electric prices as power plants close, ...
What are the benefits?
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2012
But this is not the site for any disagreement?

Same point over and over - if that is how you feel - why do you stay here? Why not move on - and migrate to a site you are more comfortable with. What is your need to spend your whole life having arguments with people about your political ideology - on a science web site. Why don't you move on? Why do you need to constantly argue about your political ideology?
kochevnik
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2012
thousands of people on welfare because the govt prohibits oil pipelines and coal mining, high electric prices as power plants close...
Those dinosaur jobs are a relic of the past, and directly responsible for the largest drought of 800 years in the US heartland. How many jobs are lost because farmers are bankrupt due to assholes like you?
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (19) Aug 05, 2012
dinosaur jobs are a relic of the past,

Most of the world's energy is based on coal, oil or natural gas and must remain so for the next few decades regardless of how much koch wishes it were not so.
Why do you need to constantly argue about your political ideology?

Because the 'fix' demanded by AGWites is political. Either taxing fossil fuels or building nuclear power all demand politics to implement. Socialist politics has proven to be a failure for economic growth and prosperity. Of course killing economic growth and prosperity is one political solution for the 'watermelons' and Ehrlich disciples.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (19) Aug 05, 2012
Why talk about politics?

"Professor Prinn's third inquiry -- how easy is it to slow down global warming? -- introduced scientific, economic and political elements that were also addressed by the session's subsequent speakers. Noting that global warming is caused by a combination of natural and industrial processes, he demonstrated, by means of a forecast from an integrated model that combined variables from physical and social realms, how difficult it is to plan accurately and equitably to reduce consumption and to slow down the greenhouse effect."
http://web.mit.ed...415.html
kochevnik
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2012
Most of the world's energy is based on coal, oil or natural gas and must remain so
That's fallacious, and falsified by new renewable initiatives already underway in states like California. The past mistakes have nothing to do with the present, apart from environmental cleanup. "Don't kiss the past, the past ain't gonna last."
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (18) Aug 05, 2012
In 2030, the world's energy is expected to be from coal 18%, oil 30%, natural gas 20% for a total of 68%.

In 2008 the ratio was coal 27%, oil 33%, natural gas 21% for a total of 81%.

This is from the IEA.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (18) Aug 05, 2012
koch, your energy wet dream will never happen in a command and control (socialist) economy.
Innovation and entrepreneurship (capitalism) is the only way your dreams can occur.
Quite a conundrum for the 'watermelon' is it not? Which is more important, power and control or being green?
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2012
"Why talk about politics?" That was not the question I asked. I asked "What is your need to spend your whole life having arguments with people about your political ideology - on a science web site?

I am not talking about Dr. Prinn, or Rush Limbaugh, or Al Gore - I am talking about Rygg. Why do you need to spam the internet with your political ideology? You take every science article - and turn it into a political argument - ranting on about Al Gore, and the socialists, and the AGWites. I keep asking the same question over and over - and you refuse to answer the question - If you don't like the bias of Physorg - why don't you go somewhere else where you are more comfortable? I think the answer to that is that you see yourself as some crusader - out to rid the world of all the evil scientists. I think it is a personal mission that causes you to create constant conflict here on physorg. Cont.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2012
cont. Recently I referenced an article about the practice of throwing acid on women to maim and disfigure them. The reason I reference such articles - is that I understand the potential of the human race - but I also see the ignorance and cruelty. I believe this ignorance and cruelty will be countered by education and overall improving quality of life for all 7 billion of us. I see education and science as the means of achieving this higher quality of existence. It really discourages me to see how stuck we are in ideology. Many of the acid attacks are by fundamentalist religious men. Do you see how I may see comparisons between their ignorance - and the ideological stubbornness that you exhibit? Yes - I am suggesting that attitudes like yours are very much a part of what keeps us stuck in a world where people throw acid on others - and you seem to think it is cute.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2012
"Quite a conundrum for the 'watermelon' is it not?"

More childish name calling - and then you want to be self-righteous about Vendi's comments - pretty hypocritical.
ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (15) Aug 05, 2012
dj, I advocate a limited govt and promote individual liberty and economic prosperity.
How can you equate this with attacking women with acid?

Science was used over 100 years ago as excuses to murder millions. It was called eugenics and its legacy is Planned Parenthood which still kills millions.

You don't like 'watermelons'? Green on the outside red on the inside.
How about enviro-fascists or environmental socialists? Its all the same. Socialists who use the environment as an excuse to promote socialism.
ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (16) Aug 05, 2012
Another conundrum for eco-socialists is that socialism destroys the environment.

"The socialist world suffers from the worst pollution on earth. Could it be that free enterprise is not so incompatible with environmental protection after all? "
"many environmental problems are not caused by "market failure" but by governments failure to enforce property rights. "
"the plundering of the environment in the socialist world is a grand example of the tragedy of the commons."

http://www.thefre...llution/
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2012
I am astounded that there remain people out there who seem reasonably intellegent and profess a desire to see some good arise from the debate on global warming, and yet remain so utterly blind to the overwhelming support there is for the premise that climate warming is significantly, even approaching entirely, the result of the CO2 released back into the enviroment by the use of sequestered carbon by humans.
That there remains people arguing for the alternative speaks to the amazing ability of some people to ignore what is put right in front of them.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2012
"You don't like 'watermelons" Again you miss the point - don't take others to task for inappropriate name calling - and then do it yourself.

How can you equate this with attacking women with acid? I see comparisons in your ignorance. You are unable to understand the points that others are making. You are stubbornly ignorant - the same characteristic that I see in fundamentalists - the people who are so certain of their own truth - they are unable to hear what others try to tell them. Yes - I sadly see our world trapped in terrible ignorance - I recognize the patterns of ignorance in your inability to hear things others are telling you - in your need to push your own political agenda - and failure to even contemplate ideas such as cooperation and tolerance. It saddens me. Your world is black and white - mine is more complex.

Howhot
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2012
NP, if you want an apology for the "P comment" I will give it to you if you ask. The heat of the moment in debate can lead to emotional language (even if implied). @dir, thank you for the support.

But when a troll makes a blanked statement like:
Another conundrum for eco-socialists is that socialism destroys the environment

I really makes your eyes roll around.
.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2012
Gets yer sunday paper here. Read all about it.

Another incompetent paper from radio weather announcer Antony Watts (Watts up with that).

Real all about it...

http://www.skepti...que.html
kirsdela
1.6 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2012
like Arthur replied I am shocked that a student able to earn $9035 in four weeks on the internet. have you seen this web link NuttyRich.com
eb99
3 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2012
Several issues with this article:
1. Muller was never a "prominent skeptic", but only a self-proclaimed skeptic who had no track record in being involved in the activities on WUWT, Climate Audit, CO2 Science or even the only mildly skeptic sites (Lucia's The Blackboard, Pielke, etc.). He claims to be a skeptic just to get more media coverage.
2. The photo mentions Dr. Judith Curry as one of the participants (which she was for an earlier study, but not this one). It is well worth reading her criticism of this study and its scientific methodological flaws.
3. There is good analysis on WUWT of the "missing volcanic activity". Many major eruptions which don't fit Muller's hypothesis are just ignored.
4. Correlation is not causation. If we had perfect knowledge of all other climate processes, simple curve-fitting might be of some value, but we are a long way for that level of knowledge.
5. This paper has not been peer-reviewed or accepted for publication, so publicity is premature.
ryggesogn2
3.8 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2012
inappropriate name calling

'Watermelon' is not inappropriate. It is efficient.
Many here support socialist, statist means to control the environment. I suggest their methods are inappropriate, inefficient and wrong and have provided rationale and references to support it.
ryggesogn2
3.8 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2012
The green left's newsletter is The Watermelon:

http://thewaterme...the-nhs/
FastEddy
2 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2012
" ... The Berkeley team's analysis said "the contribution of solar activity to global warming is negligible." ..." ?? Wha aaaa ?? If greenhouse gases are influencing surface temperature by entrapment or other, where is that actual heat (and cold) coming from?

This article seems to be filled with mis-quotes and manipulations that would not stand the light of day under peer review ... Why can't we all just get along?
TrinityComplex
5 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2012
So, from what I'm gathering a Watermelon is supposed to be someone who is pro-renewables, but also a socialist? 'Green on the outside, red on the inside'? Isn't that a poor metaphor? Communism is considered 'red', as is the American republican party. Some groups are trying to change the 'color' of socialism to green, but the earliest color reference I can find is white, in regard to the 'White Guard' of the socialist party (Stalin's communist party was referred to as the Red Guard). So if you go for the double green option of socialism shouldn't it be 'The Cucumber'? Rejecting the socialist color change means Watermelons should actually be Green Apples, right? Would Watermelon refer to eco-communists, or eco-republicans? Maybe socialist republicans or socialist communists?
This is why the whole 'Color of (political group)' thing doesn't work very well without a key to accompany it. Is it really an apt name if you have to explain it every time?
kochevnik
3 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2012
@ryggesogn2 Many here support socialist, statist means to control the environment. I suggest their methods are inappropriate, inefficient and wrong...
Yet they were first to space, moon and mars!
TrinityComplex
5 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2012
Since the 'allowed comments' topic was brought up, there's something pretty important that was overlooked.
Dozens of articles are published every day, and there are thousands of readers with hundreds of people who comment. There are only so many administrators for this site, which is free to view, so they are likely mostly volunteers. They can only read so many comments, and when an article's comments have gone so far out of the realm of the article they have three options: 1) Remove all posts from the comments section and start fresh, which is more work than it's worth and would cause a huge number of complaints. 2) Disable comments for that article which, again, is more work than it's worth. 3) Just let it go.
On top of that, like it or not, the way the publication of scientific research is viewed depends on politics. As irritating as that is it is something that needs to be addressed. If it's done in a civil, respectful way it can actually lead to great consensus.
ryggesogn2
3.8 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2012
@ryggesogn2 Many here support socialist, statist means to control the environment. I suggest their methods are inappropriate, inefficient and wrong...
Yet they were first to space, moon and mars!

@ryggesogn2 Many here support socialist, statist means to control the environment. I suggest their methods are inappropriate, inefficient and wrong...
Yet they were first to space, moon and mars!

@ryggesogn2 Many here support socialist, statist means to control the environment. I suggest their methods are inappropriate, inefficient and wrong...
Yet they were first to space, moon and mars!

@ryggesogn2 Many here support socialist, statist means to control the environment. I suggest their methods are inappropriate, inefficient and wrong...
Yet they were first to space, moon and mars!

At what cost?
The USSR had their German scientists and the US had theirs.
How many in the USSR would have loved to join their colleagues in the USA?
kochevnik
3 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2012
The USSR had their German scientists and the US had theirs. How many in the USSR would have loved to join their colleagues in the USA?
Germans were limited to select closed cities in CCCP. You have no idea what you're saying. Soviet space program was an effort of the peoples in CCCP, of which East Germany was only a small fraction. CCCP did not embrace catholic nazis as did your country in Operation Paperclip via the Vatican gold ratline and formation of the CIA from the Gestapo.
Maggnus
1 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2012
Germans were limited to select closed cities in CCCP. You have no idea what you're saying. Soviet space program was an effort of the peoples in CCCP, of which East Germany was only a small fraction. CCCP did not embrace catholic nazis as did your country in Operation Paperclip via the Vatican gold ratline and formation of the CIA from the Gestapo.

I'm sorry, don't you mean the KGB arose from the Gestapo? You're not really trying to defend a system that was responsible for more deaths of thier own people than even Nazi Germany was are you?
And that has to do with global warming how?
alsodanlowe
3 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2012
Wow. The 'discussion' on this article is toxic. There are people who 1.)Believe in global warming but don't believe that CO2 is the cause, 2.)People who don't believe there is a global warming trend and therefore don't care if CO2 actually produces a greenhouse effect, 3.)People who believe that it's a leftist conspiracy, 4.)Trolls.

--These are not all the same people--

Yet they're having all of their comments voted down on a site that BY DEFAULT DOESN'T DISPLAY COMMENTS that have been voted down, simply because they're grouped as denialists.

I've always believed that global warming was man-made because man-made damage in every other aspect of our lives is blatantly obvious. I even do my fair share to eliminate emissions - bike for a vehicle, patronize local green business, etc. I think we have the responsibility to avoid this crisis in every way possible, but if there's other science out there that says there are other factors, we sure as hell better be willing to read it.
ryggesogn2
3.8 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2012
"To the delight of U.S. intelligence, Wernher von Braun and most of his top associates on the V-2 development team chose to surrender to the Americans, shrewdly calculating where they might be allowed to continue their pioneering research after the war. "
". He recalled the scramble in 1945 as he and his colleagues tried, with little success, to lure top German talent to the Soviet side. "
"Gröttrup signed up with the Soviets, who established a rocket research institute in the town of Bleicherode, not far from the Mittelwerk plant, and set him up with a $1,250 per month salary and a spacious house"
"Josef Stalin on May 13, to transfer all ballistic missile work, along with the German rocket experts, to Russia by years end."
"the element of surprise would prevent Germans from running away when they learn that Soviet organizations deport their German employees."
http://www.airspa...zak.html
ryggesogn2
3.8 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2012
"But Stalin himself was keen to have his scientists launch German missiles before moving on to their own. He believed that by copying Western designs, like that of the American B-29 bomber (see Made in the USSR, Feb./Mar. 2001), Soviet engineers could quickly absorb foreign innovations. Decades later, veterans of the Soviet aerospace industry publicly admitted they had done just that."
"Germans did not design the Sputnik or its rocket, but the ideas developed by Gröttrups team on Gorodomlya did influence Soviet designers and accelerate their efforts. "
" the Germans who went east after the war had a markedly different experience from those who headed west. Wernher von Braun would eventually supervise construction of NASAs Saturn V moon rocket, rise to the top levels of agency management, and win the National Medal of Science. "
http://www.airspa...p;page=6
kochevnik
3 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2012
I'm sorry, don't you mean the KGB arose from the Gestapo?
'Gestapo, actually, copied the KGB (zionist bolshevik NKVD) very effective structure and experience; they even coordinated joint actions. In March 1940 representatives of NKVD and Gestapo met for one week in Zakopane, Poland to "pacificate" resistance in this country'
And that has to do with global warming how?
Ask the libtard spambot ryggesogn2, which introduced the topic.