http://theconversation.edu.au/how-do-people-reject-climate-science-9065

In a previous article on The Conversation, Stephan Lewandowsky asked, why do people reject science? I’m going to take a slightly different angle and consider how people are able to reject climate science in the face of strong evidence.

A growing body of research has found that when a person’s worldview is threatened by scientific evidence, they interpret the science in a biased manner. One issue where this influence is strongest is climate change.

For supporters of an unregulated free market, regulating polluting industries to reduce global warming is so unpalatable that they are far more likely to reject that climate change is happening.

The mechanism by which ideology such as this influences our scientific views is confirmation bias. We place greater weight on evidence that confirms our beliefs, while ignoring or resisting conflicting evidence. This can be a challenge when confronted with a convergence of evidence and a scientific consensus, but confirmation bias is up to the task. Let’s look at some examples.

The most common manifestation of confirmation bias is cherry picking, where one carefully selects a small piece of data that paints a friendly picture and overlooks any inconvenient evidence.

How do we spot cherry picking? It’s important to remember that there is no “their evidence” versus “our evidence”. There is only the full body of evidence.

If someone arrives at a conclusion from carefully selected evidence that contradicts the conclusion drawn from the full body of evidence, that’s cherry picking.

Cherry pickers ignore the fact that our planet is currently building up heat at the stunning rate of around 3 Hiroshima bombs per second. Instead, they focus on short periods of the surface temperature record. This record bounces up and down from year to year as the ocean exchanges heat with the atmosphere, meaning that it’s possible to find any short period during a long-term warming trend where temperatures fall briefly. Meanwhile the planet continues to build up heat – around 250 Hiroshima bombs worth since you started reading this article.

Confirmation bias also influences which sources of information we put our trust in. People tend to attribute greater expertise to people who share their values and beliefs. We’re drawn to those who tell us what we want to hear.

So what happens when 97 out of 100 of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming?

Those who reject the scientific consensus lavish their attention on the 3% minority, magnifying their significance and turning a blind eye to the 97% of scientific experts.


If one’s world view is strongly free-market, the notion that our lifestyle might be damaging the planet is unpalatable. AAP/Tony McDonough
So how can ignoring the 97% be justified? Two words: conspiracy theory. There are a range of conspiracy theories out there, from sinister attempts to control the planet with a one world government to claims that virtually every climate scientist on the planet is falsifying their data for financial reasons, a form of global groupthink.

Roy Spencer, one of the minority of dissenters remaining in the climate science community, said:

If scientists are promised a career of financial support to find evidence of manmade climate change, they will do their best to find it.
Let’s look at Spencer’s claim in greater detail, keeping in mind the key characteristic of a conspiracy theorist: exaggerated claims about the omnipotence of the conspirators.

For human-caused global warming to be falsely manufactured, scientists would have to falsify the satellite data finding less heat escaping to space and fudge the measurements of downward infrared radiation that confirm an increased greenhouse effect.

Both the satellite and weather balloon records that find a cooling upper atmosphere along with a warming lower atmosphere (a signature of greenhouse warming) would have to be doctored. The fact that winters warm faster than summers and nights warm faster than days, both fingerprints of greenhouse warming, would have to be fabricated in a number of different temperature records.

What drives Roy Spencer to espouse the implausible theory that thousands of scientists spanning dozens of countries are engaged in a global fabrication of data?

His job at the University of Alabama in Huntsville is to analyse satellite measurements of the atmosphere, but he sees himself a little differently, describing his role as:

… a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.
Spencer personifies the principle that ideology biases the way we process evidence.

One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.

Why do these public figures favour a non-peer reviewed non-expert who has a long history of self-contradiction? The psychological research on which experts we prefer tells us why. Confirmation bias sways us towards those voices that tell us what we want to hear.

Another method of avoiding the consensus of evidence is through the use of logical fallacies. The straw man fallacy is confirmation bias applied through logical argument, misrepresenting an opponent’s position by focusing on their weaker arguments while ignoring their stronger points.


Arctic sea ice reached record lows in 2011. Arguing that this is meaningless because sea ice has been low before is an example of non sequitur – it does not follow. NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre
An example is the accusation that climate scientists in the 1970s predicted global cooling. When you look at the actual peer-reviewed research in the 1970s, the papers predicting global warming from greenhouse gases far outweighed papers predicting cooling. Somehow, the warming papers escape the attention of those who reject climate science.

A common logical fallacy employed by climate contrarians is the “non sequitur”, Latin for “it does not follow”. This applies to arguments where the stated conclusion is not supported by its premise.

The most cited example is “climate has changed naturally in the past therefore current warming must be natural”.

A recent variant argues, in response to this year’s record low in Arctic sea ice, that ice has been low in the past. This is logically equivalent to investigating a corpse with a gunshot wound and ruling out murder because people have died from natural causes before.

To reduce the influence of those who reject the science, confirmation bias and misleading rhetorical arguments need to be exposed. Now is as good a time as any to start practising so I recommend beginning with the inevitable deluge of comments to this article. Look for cherry picking, conspiracy theories, comments magnifying the significance of dissenters (or non-experts) and logical fallacies such as non sequiturs.

You might think those who reject climate science would refrain from employing these methods in such an obvious fashion. But consider the Arctic sea ice example. On one contrarian climate blog, a commenter predicted five ways that people would avoid the inevitable implications of the precipitous drop in Arctic sea ice. Climate sceptic blogger Anthony Watts fulfilled all five predictions.

Such reactions go to show that science rejection is an instinctive, emotional and ideological response to evidence that appears to threaten certain deeply-entrenched worldviews.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:27pm:

http://theconversation.edu.au/how-do-people-reject-climate-science-9065 In a previous article on The Conversation, Stephan Lewandowsky asked, why do people reject science? I’m going to take a slightly different angle and consider how people are able to reject climate science in the face of strong evidence. A growing body of research has found that when a person’s worldview is threatened by scientific evidence, they interpret the science in a biased manner. One issue where this influence is strongest is climate change. For supporters of an unregulated free market, regulating polluting industries to reduce global warming is so unpalatable that they are far more likely to reject that climate change is happening. The mechanism by which ideology such as this influences our scientific views is confirmation bias. We place greater weight on evidence that confirms our beliefs, while ignoring or resisting conflicting evidence. This can be a challenge when confronted with a convergence of evidence and a scientific consensus, but confirmation bias is up to the task. Let’s look at some examples. The most common manifestation of confirmation bias is cherry picking, where one carefully selects a small piece of data that paints a friendly picture and overlooks any inconvenient evidence. How do we spot cherry picking? It’s important to remember that there is no “their evidence” versus “our evidence”. There is only the full body of evidence. If someone arrives at a conclusion from carefully selected evidence that contradicts the conclusion drawn from the full body of evidence, that’s cherry picking. Cherry pickers ignore the fact that our planet is currently building up heat at the stunning rate of around 3 Hiroshima bombs per second. Instead, they focus on short periods of the surface temperature record. This record bounces up and down from year to year as the ocean exchanges heat with the atmosphere, meaning that it’s possible to find any short period during a long-term warming trend where temperatures fall briefly. Meanwhile the planet continues to build up heat – around 250 Hiroshima bombs worth since you started reading this article. Confirmation bias also influences which sources of information we put our trust in. People tend to attribute greater expertise to people who share their values and beliefs. We’re drawn to those who tell us what we want to hear. So what happens when 97 out of 100 of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming? Those who reject the scientific consensus lavish their attention on the 3% minority, magnifying their significance and turning a blind eye to the 97% of scientific experts. If one’s world view is strongly free-market, the notion that our lifestyle might be damaging the planet is unpalatable. AAP/Tony McDonough So how can ignoring the 97% be justified? Two words: conspiracy theory. There are a range of conspiracy theories out there, from sinister attempts to control the planet with a one world government to claims that virtually every climate scientist on the planet is falsifying their data for financial reasons, a form of global groupthink. Roy Spencer, one of the minority of dissenters remaining in the climate science community, said: If scientists are promised a career of financial support to find evidence of manmade climate change, they will do their best to find it. Let’s look at Spencer’s claim in greater detail, keeping in mind the key characteristic of a conspiracy theorist: exaggerated claims about the omnipotence of the conspirators. For human-caused global warming to be falsely manufactured, scientists would have to falsify the satellite data finding less heat escaping to space and fudge the measurements of downward infrared radiation that confirm an increased greenhouse effect. Both the satellite and weather balloon records that find a cooling upper atmosphere along with a warming lower atmosphere (a signature of greenhouse warming) would have to be doctored. The fact that winters warm faster than summers and nights warm faster than days, both fingerprints of greenhouse warming, would have to be fabricated in a number of different temperature records. What drives Roy Spencer to espouse the implausible theory that thousands of scientists spanning dozens of countries are engaged in a global fabrication of data? His job at the University of Alabama in Huntsville is to analyse satellite measurements of the atmosphere, but he sees himself a little differently, describing his role as: … a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government. Spencer personifies the principle that ideology biases the way we process evidence. One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott. Why do these public figures favour a non-peer reviewed non-expert who has a long history of self-contradiction? The psychological research on which experts we prefer tells us why. Confirmation bias sways us towards those voices that tell us what we want to hear. Another method of avoiding the consensus of evidence is through the use of logical fallacies. The straw man fallacy is confirmation bias applied through logical argument, misrepresenting an opponent’s position by focusing on their weaker arguments while ignoring their stronger points. Arctic sea ice reached record lows in 2011. Arguing that this is meaningless because sea ice has been low before is an example of non sequitur – it does not follow. NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre An example is the accusation that climate scientists in the 1970s predicted global cooling. When you look at the actual peer-reviewed research in the 1970s, the papers predicting global warming from greenhouse gases far outweighed papers predicting cooling. Somehow, the warming papers escape the attention of those who reject climate science. A common logical fallacy employed by climate contrarians is the “non sequitur”, Latin for “it does not follow”. This applies to arguments where the stated conclusion is not supported by its premise. The most cited example is “climate has changed naturally in the past therefore current warming must be natural”. A recent variant argues, in response to this year’s record low in Arctic sea ice, that ice has been low in the past. This is logically equivalent to investigating a corpse with a gunshot wound and ruling out murder because people have died from natural causes before. To reduce the influence of those who reject the science, confirmation bias and misleading rhetorical arguments need to be exposed. Now is as good a time as any to start practising so I recommend beginning with the inevitable deluge of comments to this article. Look for cherry picking, conspiracy theories, comments magnifying the significance of dissenters (or non-experts) and logical fallacies such as non sequiturs. You might think those who reject climate science would refrain from employing these methods in such an obvious fashion. But consider the Arctic sea ice example. On one contrarian climate blog, a commenter predicted five ways that people would avoid the inevitable implications of the precipitous drop in Arctic sea ice. Climate sceptic blogger Anthony Watts fulfilled all five predictions. Such reactions go to show that science rejection is an instinctive, emotional and ideological response to evidence that appears to threaten certain deeply-entrenched worldviews.

THat is correct.

People were dying thousands of years before they invented busses.  So being run over by a bus cannot possibly hurt you.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:27pm:

Cherry pickers ignore the fact that our planet is currently building up heat at the stunning rate of around 3 Hiroshima bombs per second.

I, for one, am hugely skeptical of tendentious, gimmicky bollocks like this.

People who come out with this sort of sh!te obviously feel very threatened, threatened to the core of their belief system, by skepticism. Bollocks merchants like this feel compelled to dream up hyperbolic bvllshit like this to shelter their worldview from critical examination.

Soren wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:45pm:

I, for one, am hugely skeptical of tendentious, gimmicky bollocks like this. People who come out with this sort of sh!te obviously feel very threatened, threatened to the core of their belief system, by skepticism. Bollocks merchants like this feel compelled to dream up hyperbolic bvllshit like this to shelter their worldview from critical examination.

LOL @ the Angry Man being Angry ;D

So, tell me, what is it you dispute exactly? The claim itself and the numbers involved, or the use of a comparison to help the reader to visualise the scope of the numbers involved?

How do people reject climate science?
they close their eyes and shove their heads in the sand as far as it will go .....

i dont reject the science.
i reject that humans can come together as a global species to solve it.
as economies get stressed by the limits of growth in a finite planet, nation states will just become more introspective and the chance of global solution becomes even more remote.
UN couldnt design a good christmas card (or is that ramadan card)

namaste

Ocean warming (90% of the total of the Earth's energy increase) continues through to the end of the record, in agreement with continued greenhouse gas forcing. The aerosol forcing, inferred as a residual in the atmospheric energy balance, is estimated as −0.8 ± 0.4 W m−2 for the 1980s and early 1990s
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048794.shtml


Quote:

A new measure of energy use To put these numbers into a more human context we need a a new measure for our energy use. The “Hiro” is one. It is the equivalent to the energy released by detonating one Hiroshima “Little Boy” bomb every second. One Hiro equals 60 trillion watts. In these terms, our human energy system operates at a rate of 0.25 Hiros, or one Hiroshima bomb every four seconds. That is the equivalent of more than eight million Hiroshima bombs going off each year. And we are on a trajectory towards the one Hiro mark by 2100, equivalent to the energy release of one bomb each year for every five-square kilometre patch of land on the planet. The ocean heating is at 5 Hiros over the last few decades – the energy equivalent of detonating more than a 150 million Hiroshima bombs in our oceans each year. And the radiative forcing of the CO2 we have already put in the atmosphere in the last century is a staggering 13 Hiros. The equivalent in energy terms to almost half a billion Hiroshima bombs each year. The world’s human population has grown so much and so fast – trebling in one century and still rising by more than 70 million a year – that it’s perhaps not surprising that the vast scale of our geological impact is yet to sink in. But it should not be a surprise because the realisation is not new. http://theconversation.edu.au/our-effect-on-the-earth-is-real-how-were-geo-engineering-the-planet-1544

It is the very essence of SCIENCE to demand answers to questions and to explain the process behind it.

It is the very essence of fanaticism to demand that we trust the word of scientists without question.

The position of the thinking cycnic is far more righteous than the evangelist for climate change or the redneck denialist.

The great majority are simply saying 'prove it' and to date, science has failed pretty miserably to prove any of the doomsday predictions. Not a single solitary event has occured outside the normal range of climatic variation.

And the fact that a large number of scientists think that ACC is bogus has to suggest that the science is far from settled.

IN SUMMARY: All we are asking for is something akin to actual verifiable, repeatable, unequivocal proof - not hypotheses and predictions. Is that too much to ask for? And is any LESS that that nothing more than scaremongering?

<<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>>

and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent.

Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right.

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

<<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>> and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent. Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right.

A 'climate scientist' is any scientist who actively conducts research that relates to the climate - climate science is a field, not a discipline.

The only thing that matters in the climate 'debate' is published research, which can be tested and allowed to stand or fall on its merits. Apart from a very small handful of exceptions the 'experts' touted by the denier movement do not, nor ever have, published anything related to the field. People like Plimer are expressing opinions, which are meaningless, the only thing that matters is the evidence. And the vast body of evidence pertain to the climate supports or accepts the notion of AGW as a fact. No amount of opinion can change that, no matter how well qualified the opinion-holder may happen to be.

As a fellow gentleman who deals in facts I thought this would have been self-evident?

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:55pm:

The great majority are simply saying 'prove it' and to date, science has failed pretty miserably to prove any of the doomsday predictions. Not a single solitary event has occured outside the normal range of climatic variation.

Climate science doesn't predict single events, it predicts long term trends. And, by just about any metric you care to mention, the rate of observed changes are outpacing modelled projections. A perfect case in point, in light of the dramatic and record breaking lows the Arctic sea ice extent has reached this year:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7058/6898547793_8c322f45ca_z.jpg


Quote:

IN SUMMARY: All we are asking for is something akin to actual verifiable, repeatable, unequivocal proof - not hypotheses and predictions. Is that too much to ask for? And is any LESS that that nothing more than scaremongering?

You're clearly not looking hard enough. Care to offer an alternative theory that explains all of these observed phenomena? http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=32




Quote:

And the fact that a large number of scientists think that ACC is bogus has to suggest that the science is far from settled.

That's not a 'fact', it's an unsupported assertion based on easily refuted internet-based denier memes:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/consensus_500.jpg

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:06pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 7:58pm: <<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>> and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent. Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right. A 'climate scientist' is any scientist who actively conducts research that relates to the climate - climate science is a field, not a discipline. The only thing that matters in the climate 'debate' is published research, which can be tested and allowed to stand or fall on its merits. Apart from a very small handful of exceptions the 'experts' touted by the denier movement do not, nor ever have, published anything related to the field. People like Plimer are expressing opinions, which are meaningless, the only thing that matters is the evidence. And the vast body of evidence pertain to the climate supports or accepts the notion of AGW as a fact. No amount of opinion can change that, no matter how well qualified the opinion-holder may happen to be. As a fellow gentleman who deals in facts I thought this would have been self-evident?

You define 'fact' far too loosely. Plimer is not some crackpot. You may not agree with him and some have criticised his work, but the mere fact that credentialed experts like Plimer (and dont degrade yourself by rejecting his credentials in such a cavalier manner) find fault with the concensus position should beg some thought.

Logically speaking, is it really credible that the only real climate scientists and the only ones we can trust are those that support the orthodoxy? Is it anything more than medieval catholic rejection of science to dismiss scientists and their views soley on the basis of the side of a global debat on which the align themselves? There are a LOT of scientists who question the orthodoxy including several astronauts (real scientists) and many in the various fields within climate science.

Why dont you ask the question of why, if the science is settled and the outcomes so undeniable that real scientist question them and in some cases, reject it entirely?

And the polarisation of the debat by the climate evangelists is a disgrace. Any scientist that questions one fact, one word in the IPCC is pillored - just as you have done - even if they support tha basic tnor of the hypothesis. This kind of merciless persecution of some is idiotic and the blind acceptance of any study that supprts the orthodoxy is likewise a disgrace to science. The perfect example of this is the hockey-stick graph. One MIT professor commented that if M Mann had brought this to him as part of his PhD work he would have failed him. It is a statistical embarrassment of high order and the underlying science of temperatur by proxy so unreliable and grossly discredited that it was terrible work. But it is now part of the gold-standard in climate change gospel. Thats what happens when you laud those who agree with you and punish those who dont with little reflection on their actual work.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

<<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>> and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent. Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right.

I assume you are referring to Ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery?

To my knowledge - Garnaut has not published any work relating to the science.  He is not a scientist.  He is however perfectly qualified to speak in his area of expertise which is the economic impact of climate change and the development of policies to improve our future prospects.

And yes - Flannery is a paleontologist.  Why don't you look that word up and have a think about how that may relate to the study of the impact of changing climate on ecosystems.  Like geology - it is a relevant and related field of study.

Though, you mention Plimer.  Yes he is a geologist - but one wonders why a qualified geologist would come out with nonsense like:

"I think people who argue that the human component of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, which is about 3 per cent of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from natural sources - the human emission is very very small and one single big volcano can completely change the carbon budget.

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2010/s2878843.htm

WTF is that all about!?!?!  If he is going to speak about geology - he could at least try to get it right.



In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/06/28/3255476.htm

That highlighted text greatly demeans you and reduces the credibility of your position. Everyone who disagrees with ACC is a hack, right?  Been a couple Noble prize winners and a number of very well respected scientists who say ACC is flat-out wrong or grossly overstated. Hacks, right?

NASA has been openly attacked by its OWN scientists over its incredibly biased climate position. or did you miss the email and publicly released letter?

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:50pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 7:45pm: I, for one, am hugely skeptical of tendentious, gimmicky bollocks like this. People who come out with this sort of sh!te obviously feel very threatened, threatened to the core of their belief system, by skepticism. Bollocks merchants like this feel compelled to dream up hyperbolic bvllshit like this to shelter their worldview from critical examination. So, tell me, what is it you dispute exactly?

Here, boy, mouth it:

I, for one, am hugely skeptical of tendentious, gimmicky bollocks like this.

geddit?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:25pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 7:58pm: <<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>> and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent. Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right. I assume you are referring to Ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery? To my knowledge - Garnaut has not published any work relating to the science.  He is not a scientist.  He is however perfectly qualified to speak in his area of expertise which is the economic impact of climate change and the development of policies to improve our future prospects. And yes - Flannery is a paleontologist.  Why don't you look that word up and have a think about how that may relate to the study of the impact of changing climate on ecosystems.  Like geology - it is a relevant and related field of study. Though, you mention Plimer.  Yes he is a geologist - but one wonders why a qualified geologist would come out with nonsense like: "I think people who argue that the human component of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, which is about 3 per cent of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from natural sources - the human emission is very very small and one single big volcano can completely change the carbon budget. WTF is that all about!?!?!  If he is going to speak about geology - he could at least try to get it right. In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions.

While not necessarily disputing the estimates of CO2 from volcanoes, all you have done in this is EXACTLY what I criticise which is to mock scientists who disagree with you and laud those that do. What ever happened to BEING RIGHT?

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:19pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:06pm: rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 7:58pm: <<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>> and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent. Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right. A 'climate scientist' is any scientist who actively conducts research that relates to the climate - climate science is a field, not a discipline. The only thing that matters in the climate 'debate' is published research, which can be tested and allowed to stand or fall on its merits. Apart from a very small handful of exceptions the 'experts' touted by the denier movement do not, nor ever have, published anything related to the field. People like Plimer are expressing opinions, which are meaningless, the only thing that matters is the evidence. And the vast body of evidence pertain to the climate supports or accepts the notion of AGW as a fact. No amount of opinion can change that, no matter how well qualified the opinion-holder may happen to be. As a fellow gentleman who deals in facts I thought this would have been self-evident? You define 'fact' far too loosely. Plimer is not some crackpot. You may not agree with him and some have criticised his work, but the mere fact that credentialed experts like Plimer (and dont degrade yourself by rejecting his credentials in such a cavalier manner) find fault with the concensus position should beg some thought. Logically speaking, is it really credible that the only real climate scientists and the only ones we can trust are those that support the orthodoxy? Is it anything more than medieval catholic rejection of science to dismiss scientists and their views soley on the basis of the side of a global debat on which the align themselves? There are a LOT of scientists who question the orthodoxy including several astronauts (real scientists) and many in the various fields within climate science. Why dont you ask the question of why, if the science is settled and the outcomes so undeniable that real scientist question them and in some cases, reject it entirely? And the polarisation of the debat by the climate evangelists is a disgrace. Any scientist that questions one fact, one word in the IPCC is pillored - just as you have done - even if they support tha basic tnor of the hypothesis. This kind of merciless persecution of some is idiotic and the blind acceptance of any study that supprts the orthodoxy is likewise a disgrace to science. The perfect example of this is the hockey-stick graph. One MIT professor commented that if M Mann had brought this to him as part of his PhD work he would have failed him. It is a statistical embarrassment of high order and the underlying science of temperatur by proxy so unreliable and grossly discredited that it was terrible work. But it is now part of the gold-standard in climate change gospel. Thats what happens when you laud those who agree with you and punish those who dont with little reflection on their actual work.

No - none have criticised his work - because has not published any papers on the subject to be criticised. 

As far as I can tell, he has only published a non-peer reviewed book of silly made-up nonsense about volcanos and CO2


Potentially more damaging – because geoscience is his specialist field – is his claim that volcanoes are responsible for more CO2 emissions than human activities. The US Geological Survey says that humans in fact create 130 times the CO2 volcanoes do. Plimer now claims that the USGS figure only includes volcanoes on land, not undersea eruptions at mid-ocean ridges. But Dr Terrence Gerlach of the USGS said the 130 figure includes the underwater volcanoes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/04/climate-sceptics-public-opinion

UPTON: just a comment on your 97 out of 100 graphic.  that implies by your own biased material that at least THREE PERCENT of climate scientists disagree. Thats a lot more than NONE as you previously claimed.

Or are you going to say that the definition of climate scientist includes supporting the orthodoxy? If so... you need to apologise to the Catholic Church over its treatment of Gallileo. By your standards, they did the right thing.

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:30pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:25pm: rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 7:58pm: <<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>> and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent. Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right. I assume you are referring to Ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery? To my knowledge - Garnaut has not published any work relating to the science.  He is not a scientist.  He is however perfectly qualified to speak in his area of expertise which is the economic impact of climate change and the development of policies to improve our future prospects. And yes - Flannery is a paleontologist.  Why don't you look that word up and have a think about how that may relate to the study of the impact of changing climate on ecosystems.  Like geology - it is a relevant and related field of study. Though, you mention Plimer.  Yes he is a geologist - but one wonders why a qualified geologist would come out with nonsense like: "I think people who argue that the human component of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, which is about 3 per cent of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from natural sources - the human emission is very very small and one single big volcano can completely change the carbon budget. WTF is that all about!?!?!  If he is going to speak about geology - he could at least try to get it right. In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions. While not necessarily disputing the estimates of CO2 from volcanoes, all you have done in this is EXACTLY what I criticise which is to mock scientists who disagree with you and laud those that do. What ever happened to BEING RIGHT?

Yes.  What ever happened to BEING RIGHT?  Plimer is wrong. His volcano claim is nonsense.

If he has something to add to the body of scientific knowledge - why doesn't he publish a paper on it?

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:19pm:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Is that the same NASA whose moon landing claims are denied by the most vocal Gaia-protectors, doom mongers and one-wold kumbaya merchants?
The same NASA that is often painted as just one more manifestation of the military-industrial complex? Or a different NASA?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:31pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:19pm: Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:06pm: rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 7:58pm: <<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>> and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent. Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right. A 'climate scientist' is any scientist who actively conducts research that relates to the climate - climate science is a field, not a discipline. The only thing that matters in the climate 'debate' is published research, which can be tested and allowed to stand or fall on its merits. Apart from a very small handful of exceptions the 'experts' touted by the denier movement do not, nor ever have, published anything related to the field. People like Plimer are expressing opinions, which are meaningless, the only thing that matters is the evidence. And the vast body of evidence pertain to the climate supports or accepts the notion of AGW as a fact. No amount of opinion can change that, no matter how well qualified the opinion-holder may happen to be. As a fellow gentleman who deals in facts I thought this would have been self-evident? You define 'fact' far too loosely. Plimer is not some crackpot. You may not agree with him and some have criticised his work, but the mere fact that credentialed experts like Plimer (and dont degrade yourself by rejecting his credentials in such a cavalier manner) find fault with the concensus position should beg some thought. Logically speaking, is it really credible that the only real climate scientists and the only ones we can trust are those that support the orthodoxy? Is it anything more than medieval catholic rejection of science to dismiss scientists and their views soley on the basis of the side of a global debat on which the align themselves? There are a LOT of scientists who question the orthodoxy including several astronauts (real scientists) and many in the various fields within climate science. Why dont you ask the question of why, if the science is settled and the outcomes so undeniable that real scientist question them and in some cases, reject it entirely? And the polarisation of the debat by the climate evangelists is a disgrace. Any scientist that questions one fact, one word in the IPCC is pillored - just as you have done - even if they support tha basic tnor of the hypothesis. This kind of merciless persecution of some is idiotic and the blind acceptance of any study that supprts the orthodoxy is likewise a disgrace to science. The perfect example of this is the hockey-stick graph. One MIT professor commented that if M Mann had brought this to him as part of his PhD work he would have failed him. It is a statistical embarrassment of high order and the underlying science of temperatur by proxy so unreliable and grossly discredited that it was terrible work. But it is now part of the gold-standard in climate change gospel. Thats what happens when you laud those who agree with you and punish those who dont with little reflection on their actual work. No - none have criticised his work - because has not published any papers on the subject to be criticised.  As far as I can tell, he has only published a non-peer reviewed book of silly made-up nonsense about volcanos and CO2 Potentially more damaging – because geoscience is his specialist field – is his claim that volcanoes are responsible for more CO2 emissions than human activities. The US Geological Survey says that humans in fact create 130 times the CO2 volcanoes do. Plimer now claims that the USGS figure only includes volcanoes on land, not undersea eruptions at mid-ocean ridges. But Dr Terrence Gerlach of the USGS said the 130 figure includes the underwater volcanoes.

Actually he has been published. Why dont you do yourself a favour and look them up. Stop simply assuming that anyone that disagrees is inherently wrong.

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:34pm:

UPTON: just a comment on your 97 out of 100 graphic.  that implies by your own biased material that at least THREE PERCENT of climate scientists disagree. Thats a lot more than NONE as you previously claimed. Or are you going to say that the definition of climate scientist includes supporting the orthodoxy? If so... you need to apologise to the Catholic Church over its treatment of Gallileo. By your standards, they did the right thing.

Are you aware that the Catholic Church is not actually a scientific organisation?

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:35pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:31pm: rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:19pm: Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:06pm: rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 7:58pm: <<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>> and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent. Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right. A 'climate scientist' is any scientist who actively conducts research that relates to the climate - climate science is a field, not a discipline. The only thing that matters in the climate 'debate' is published research, which can be tested and allowed to stand or fall on its merits. Apart from a very small handful of exceptions the 'experts' touted by the denier movement do not, nor ever have, published anything related to the field. People like Plimer are expressing opinions, which are meaningless, the only thing that matters is the evidence. And the vast body of evidence pertain to the climate supports or accepts the notion of AGW as a fact. No amount of opinion can change that, no matter how well qualified the opinion-holder may happen to be. As a fellow gentleman who deals in facts I thought this would have been self-evident? You define 'fact' far too loosely. Plimer is not some crackpot. You may not agree with him and some have criticised his work, but the mere fact that credentialed experts like Plimer (and dont degrade yourself by rejecting his credentials in such a cavalier manner) find fault with the concensus position should beg some thought. Logically speaking, is it really credible that the only real climate scientists and the only ones we can trust are those that support the orthodoxy? Is it anything more than medieval catholic rejection of science to dismiss scientists and their views soley on the basis of the side of a global debat on which the align themselves? There are a LOT of scientists who question the orthodoxy including several astronauts (real scientists) and many in the various fields within climate science. Why dont you ask the question of why, if the science is settled and the outcomes so undeniable that real scientist question them and in some cases, reject it entirely? And the polarisation of the debat by the climate evangelists is a disgrace. Any scientist that questions one fact, one word in the IPCC is pillored - just as you have done - even if they support tha basic tnor of the hypothesis. This kind of merciless persecution of some is idiotic and the blind acceptance of any study that supprts the orthodoxy is likewise a disgrace to science. The perfect example of this is the hockey-stick graph. One MIT professor commented that if M Mann had brought this to him as part of his PhD work he would have failed him. It is a statistical embarrassment of high order and the underlying science of temperatur by proxy so unreliable and grossly discredited that it was terrible work. But it is now part of the gold-standard in climate change gospel. Thats what happens when you laud those who agree with you and punish those who dont with little reflection on their actual work. No - none have criticised his work - because has not published any papers on the subject to be criticised.  As far as I can tell, he has only published a non-peer reviewed book of silly made-up nonsense about volcanos and CO2 Potentially more damaging – because geoscience is his specialist field – is his claim that volcanoes are responsible for more CO2 emissions than human activities. The US Geological Survey says that humans in fact create 130 times the CO2 volcanoes do. Plimer now claims that the USGS figure only includes volcanoes on land, not undersea eruptions at mid-ocean ridges. But Dr Terrence Gerlach of the USGS said the 130 figure includes the underwater volcanoes. Actually he has been published. Why dont you do yourself a favour and look them up. Stop simply assuming that anyone that disagrees is inherently wrong.

I am not assuming that anyone that disagrees is inherently wrong.
I am stating that anyone who claims that volcanoes are responsible for more CO2 emissions than human activities are wrong.

I think you should stop simply assuming that anyone that writes a non-peer reviewed book that supports your conspiracy theory is inherently right.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:34pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:30pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:25pm: rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 7:58pm: <<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>> and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent. Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right. I assume you are referring to Ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery? To my knowledge - Garnaut has not published any work relating to the science.  He is not a scientist.  He is however perfectly qualified to speak in his area of expertise which is the economic impact of climate change and the development of policies to improve our future prospects. And yes - Flannery is a paleontologist.  Why don't you look that word up and have a think about how that may relate to the study of the impact of changing climate on ecosystems.  Like geology - it is a relevant and related field of study. Though, you mention Plimer.  Yes he is a geologist - but one wonders why a qualified geologist would come out with nonsense like: "I think people who argue that the human component of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, which is about 3 per cent of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from natural sources - the human emission is very very small and one single big volcano can completely change the carbon budget. WTF is that all about!?!?!  If he is going to speak about geology - he could at least try to get it right. In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions. While not necessarily disputing the estimates of CO2 from volcanoes, all you have done in this is EXACTLY what I criticise which is to mock scientists who disagree with you and laud those that do. What ever happened to BEING RIGHT? Yes.  What ever happened to BEING RIGHT?  Plimer is wrong. His volcano claim is nonsense. If he has something to add to the body of scientific knowledge - why doesn't he publish a paper on it?

what, you dont think a scientist is ever wrong???? Where have you been??? Science and scientists are usually wrong and that is the process of discovery.

Eisteins Special theory of relativity is not right. It is in complete contrast to Quantum Mechanics and especially Quantum Gravity. Does that make Einstein a bozo? OF course not. It makes him a brilliant scientist whose amazing work is only now being tested and found wanting.

You seem to have a very limited view of the scientific process. 'The science is settled' was perhaps the most dangerous and idiotic statement yet made on climate change.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:36pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:34pm: UPTON: just a comment on your 97 out of 100 graphic.  that implies by your own biased material that at least THREE PERCENT of climate scientists disagree. Thats a lot more than NONE as you previously claimed. Or are you going to say that the definition of climate scientist includes supporting the orthodoxy? If so... you need to apologise to the Catholic Church over its treatment of Gallileo. By your standards, they did the right thing. Are you aware that the Catholic Church is not actually a scientific organisation?

Did you not get the metaphor or what???

BTW if you did research (there's that word again!) the Church WAS responsible for most science done at the time. So welcome to the state of being wrong AND not understanding the metpahor.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:27pm:

A growing body of research has found that when a person’s worldview is threatened by scientific evidence, they interpret the science in a biased manner. One issue where this influence is strongest is climate change.

That applies equally to all the vociferous amateur AGW boosters. They are not believed - so they get all bitchy, touchy and miffed. Their core belief system is questioned and so their entire self-perception and value system is threatened.



See?? Right back at ya, numpties. It's so easy to play the pop-psychological passive-aggressive bvllsh!t game.
What you have is some stats, wild prediction, none of which has ever come to pass, and some emotional incontinence about it all which you take every opportunity to parade and preen in public. Mostly the latter.i

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:35pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:31pm: rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:19pm: Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:06pm: rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 7:58pm: <<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>> and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent. Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right. A 'climate scientist' is any scientist who actively conducts research that relates to the climate - climate science is a field, not a discipline. The only thing that matters in the climate 'debate' is published research, which can be tested and allowed to stand or fall on its merits. Apart from a very small handful of exceptions the 'experts' touted by the denier movement do not, nor ever have, published anything related to the field. People like Plimer are expressing opinions, which are meaningless, the only thing that matters is the evidence. And the vast body of evidence pertain to the climate supports or accepts the notion of AGW as a fact. No amount of opinion can change that, no matter how well qualified the opinion-holder may happen to be. As a fellow gentleman who deals in facts I thought this would have been self-evident? You define 'fact' far too loosely. Plimer is not some crackpot. You may not agree with him and some have criticised his work, but the mere fact that credentialed experts like Plimer (and dont degrade yourself by rejecting his credentials in such a cavalier manner) find fault with the concensus position should beg some thought. Logically speaking, is it really credible that the only real climate scientists and the only ones we can trust are those that support the orthodoxy? Is it anything more than medieval catholic rejection of science to dismiss scientists and their views soley on the basis of the side of a global debat on which the align themselves? There are a LOT of scientists who question the orthodoxy including several astronauts (real scientists) and many in the various fields within climate science. Why dont you ask the question of why, if the science is settled and the outcomes so undeniable that real scientist question them and in some cases, reject it entirely? And the polarisation of the debat by the climate evangelists is a disgrace. Any scientist that questions one fact, one word in the IPCC is pillored - just as you have done - even if they support tha basic tnor of the hypothesis. This kind of merciless persecution of some is idiotic and the blind acceptance of any study that supprts the orthodoxy is likewise a disgrace to science. The perfect example of this is the hockey-stick graph. One MIT professor commented that if M Mann had brought this to him as part of his PhD work he would have failed him. It is a statistical embarrassment of high order and the underlying science of temperatur by proxy so unreliable and grossly discredited that it was terrible work. But it is now part of the gold-standard in climate change gospel. Thats what happens when you laud those who agree with you and punish those who dont with little reflection on their actual work. No - none have criticised his work - because has not published any papers on the subject to be criticised.  As far as I can tell, he has only published a non-peer reviewed book of silly made-up nonsense about volcanos and CO2 Potentially more damaging – because geoscience is his specialist field – is his claim that volcanoes are responsible for more CO2 emissions than human activities. The US Geological Survey says that humans in fact create 130 times the CO2 volcanoes do. Plimer now claims that the USGS figure only includes volcanoes on land, not undersea eruptions at mid-ocean ridges. But Dr Terrence Gerlach of the USGS said the 130 figure includes the underwater volcanoes. Actually he has been published. Why dont you do yourself a favour and look them up. Stop simply assuming that anyone that disagrees is inherently wrong.

Really?!?


Before reading any further, I examined Plimer's publication list on the University of Adelaide website to see what he has published in refereed journals. There are a scant 17 such papers since 1994, two as first author with the titles "Manganoan garnet rocks associated with the Broken Hill Pb-Zn-Ag orebody" and "Kasolite from the British Empire Mine". Absolutely nothing on climate science.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/story-e6frg8no-1225710387147

Perhaps you could direct us to some of the Professor's papers relating to climate science?

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:39pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:34pm: rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:30pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:25pm: rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 7:58pm: <<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. Nevertheless, he is the go-to guy for public voices such as Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and Tony Abbott.>> and the two loudest voices for the climate change crowd are an ECONOMIST and a PALEONTOLOGIST. At least Pilmer is in a climate field. the others arent. Do you even know how many REAL climate scientists there are in the world? almost none. There are thousands working in very narrow fields of climate and sometimes it feels like we are hearing the views of that mythical group of blind men describing and elephant by feel. none were totally wrong, but none were anywhere near to right. I assume you are referring to Ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery? To my knowledge - Garnaut has not published any work relating to the science.  He is not a scientist.  He is however perfectly qualified to speak in his area of expertise which is the economic impact of climate change and the development of policies to improve our future prospects. And yes - Flannery is a paleontologist.  Why don't you look that word up and have a think about how that may relate to the study of the impact of changing climate on ecosystems.  Like geology - it is a relevant and related field of study. Though, you mention Plimer.  Yes he is a geologist - but one wonders why a qualified geologist would come out with nonsense like: "I think people who argue that the human component of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, which is about 3 per cent of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from natural sources - the human emission is very very small and one single big volcano can completely change the carbon budget. WTF is that all about!?!?!  If he is going to speak about geology - he could at least try to get it right. In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions. While not necessarily disputing the estimates of CO2 from volcanoes, all you have done in this is EXACTLY what I criticise which is to mock scientists who disagree with you and laud those that do. What ever happened to BEING RIGHT? Yes.  What ever happened to BEING RIGHT?  Plimer is wrong. His volcano claim is nonsense. If he has something to add to the body of scientific knowledge - why doesn't he publish a paper on it? what, you dont think a scientist is ever wrong???? Where have you been??? Science and scientists are usually wrong and that is the process of discovery. Eisteins Special theory of relativity is not right. It is in complete contrast to Quantum Mechanics and especially Quantum Gravity. Does that make Einstein a bozo? OF course not. It makes him a brilliant scientist whose amazing work is only now being tested and found wanting. You seem to have a very limited view of the scientific process. 'The science is settled' was perhaps the most dangerous and idiotic statement yet made on climate change.

Einstein published his work where it was reviewed and added to by other scientists.

Plimer published a non-peer reviewed bookaimed directly at the uneducated masses containing appalling errors.

I think it is pretty clear who has  "a very limited view of the scientific process."

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

<<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. [...]

And we know how foolproof the peer review process don't we  ;)

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:25pm:

Though, you mention Plimer.  Yes he is a geologist - but one wonders why a qualified geologist would come out with nonsense like: "I think people who argue that the human component of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, which is about 3 per cent of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from natural sources - the human emission is very very small and one single big volcano can completely change the carbon budget. http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2010/s2878843.htm WTF is that all about!?!?!  If he is going to speak about geology - he could at least try to get it right. In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/06/28/3255476.htm

This is another reason why I am not with the right-on crowd - I don't want to be as wantonly stupid as you.

Did Plimer say that in that quote that a volcanoes emits more CO2 than humans? No.
Did you respond as if he did? Yes.

Also note that "according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions."  What does that mean, do you think? (Careful, trick question.)
Hint: it refers to a known unknown. Do you know what it is, oh ye faithful?

Soren wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 9:33pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:25pm: Though, you mention Plimer.  Yes he is a geologist - but one wonders why a qualified geologist would come out with nonsense like: "I think people who argue that the human component of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, which is about 3 per cent of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from natural sources - the human emission is very very small and one single big volcano can completely change the carbon budget. http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2010/s2878843.htm WTF is that all about!?!?!  If he is going to speak about geology - he could at least try to get it right. In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/06/28/3255476.htm This is another reason why I am not with the right-on crowd - I don't want to be as wantonly stupid as you. Did Plimer say that in that quote that a volcanoes emits more CO2 than humans? No. Did you respond as if he did? Yes.

Yes.  That is exactly what he said in his book, and elsewhere.

Volcanoes add far more CO2 to the oceans and atmosphere than humans (p. 328)
massive volcanic eruptions (e.g. Pinatubo) emit the equivalent of a years’
human CO2 emissions in a few days. (p 472)
Volcanoes add far more CO2 to the oceans and atmosphere than humans (p 328)

http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf


On the Today programme Justin Webb allowed him get away with some extraordinary claims. Plimer maintained, for example, that "we cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes". http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/14/climate-change-sceptic-ian-plimer

Plimer did say that in that quote that a volcanoes emits more CO2 than humans? Yes.
Did I respond as if he did? Yes.

salad in wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 9:09pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 7:58pm: <<One of the loudest contrarian voices in Australia is Ian Plimer, a geologist who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on climate change. [...] And we know how foolproof the peer review process don't we  ;)

Do you?

Why don't you tell us how 'foolproof' you think it to be?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 9:44pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:33pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:25pm: Though, you mention Plimer.  Yes he is a geologist - but one wonders why a qualified geologist would come out with nonsense like: "I think people who argue that the human component of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, which is about 3 per cent of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from natural sources - the human emission is very very small and one single big volcano can completely change the carbon budget. http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2010/s2878843.htm WTF is that all about!?!?!  If he is going to speak about geology - he could at least try to get it right. In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/06/28/3255476.htm This is another reason why I am not with the right-on crowd - I don't want to be as wantonly stupid as you. Did Plimer say that in that quote that a volcanoes emits more CO2 than humans? No. Did you respond as if he did? Yes. Yes.  That is exactly what he said in his book, and elsewhere. Volcanoes add far more CO2 to the oceans and atmosphere than humans (p. 328) massive volcanic eruptions (e.g. Pinatubo) emit the equivalent of a years’ human CO2 emissions in a few days. (p 472) Volcanoes add far more CO2 to the oceans and atmosphere than humans (p 328) http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf On the Today programme Justin Webb allowed him get away with some extraordinary claims. Plimer maintained, for example, that "we cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes". http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/14/climate-change-sceptic-ian-plimer Plimer did say that in that quote that a volcanoes emits more CO2 than humans? Yes. Did I respond as if he did? Yes.

Rabbitoh,
I have modified your website access points, so they are active.

In order to make access easier for others trying to follow what you are saying, highlight the website address then hit the top left icon (the Globe) and that should enable others to simply click onto a live website address, in your post.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 9:44pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:33pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:25pm: Though, you mention Plimer.  Yes he is a geologist - but one wonders why a qualified geologist would come out with nonsense like: "I think people who argue that the human component of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, which is about 3 per cent of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from natural sources - the human emission is very very small and one single big volcano can completely change the carbon budget. http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2010/s2878843.htm WTF is that all about!?!?!  If he is going to speak about geology - he could at least try to get it right. In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/06/28/3255476.htm This is another reason why I am not with the right-on crowd - I don't want to be as wantonly stupid as you. Did Plimer say that in that quote that a volcanoes emits more CO2 than humans? No. Did you respond as if he did? Yes. Yes.  That is exactly what he said in his book, and elsewhere.

But that's not what you quoted and pretended to slap down, numpty.

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 10:15pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:44pm: Soren wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 9:33pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:25pm: Though, you mention Plimer.  Yes he is a geologist - but one wonders why a qualified geologist would come out with nonsense like: "I think people who argue that the human component of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, which is about 3 per cent of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from natural sources - the human emission is very very small and one single big volcano can completely change the carbon budget. http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2010/s2878843.htm WTF is that all about!?!?!  If he is going to speak about geology - he could at least try to get it right. In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/06/28/3255476.htm This is another reason why I am not with the right-on crowd - I don't want to be as wantonly stupid as you. Did Plimer say that in that quote that a volcanoes emits more CO2 than humans? No. Did you respond as if he did? Yes. Yes.  That is exactly what he said in his book, and elsewhere. Volcanoes add far more CO2 to the oceans and atmosphere than humans (p. 328) massive volcanic eruptions (e.g. Pinatubo) emit the equivalent of a years’ human CO2 emissions in a few days. (p 472) Volcanoes add far more CO2 to the oceans and atmosphere than humans (p 328) http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf On the Today programme Justin Webb allowed him get away with some extraordinary claims. Plimer maintained, for example, that "we cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes". http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/14/climate-change-sceptic-ian-plimer Plimer did say that in that quote that a volcanoes emits more CO2 than humans? Yes. Did I respond as if he did? Yes. Rabbitoh, I have modified your website access points, so they are active. In order to make access easier for others trying to follow what you are saying, highlight the website address then hit the top left icon (the Globe) and that should enable others to simply click onto a live website address, in your post.

OK.  Thanks.  Didn't know that.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 10:48pm:

Didn't know that.

Didn't know that either.

This thread started out with

In a previous article on The Conversation, Stephan Lewandowsky asked, why do people reject science?

Well, I am sure Lewandowsky and Cook from skeptical science can answer this for themselves and am pretty sure they could have well before this thread.

Anything to do with AGW is BS pseudo. Manipulation. Deceitful.

-----------
Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, C. E. (in press). NASA faked the moon landing – therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science.

“Motivated” is the key word here, as it appears there were hidden motivations for this paper. It seems though, once you scratch the surface of Lewandowsky’s paper, that it is nothing more than a journal sanctioned smear of climate skeptics based on not only faulty data, but data gathered with a built in bias.

more at link... then we go on to

Next there’s the who got what version of what survey problem, Jo notes this:

Leopard on the Bishop Hill thread has noted that Steve McIntyre is asking Lewandowsky why there are two or even three different forms of the survey? Why indeed?

Paul follows them up:

The Deltoid, Tamino, Mandia and Hot-Topic blogs were sent the survey number surveyID=HKMKNF_991e2415 on about August 29th. That survey is on the archive, and starts with 6 questions about free markets.

Bickmore and Few Things had the survey number surveyID=HKMKNG_ee191483 also about Aug 29, but this one doesn’t seem to be on the archive.

Steve Mc was sent survey number surveyID=HKMKNI_9a13984 on Sept 6th. This survey is on the archive, and it starts with 5 completely different questions! About how happy you are with life.

This right here should be enough for a retraction from the Journal. If different surveys were sent to different bloggers, and no mention of it was made in the paper or justified in the methodology, then this amounts to purposely biased data from the beginning. UWA may also find grounds for academic misconduct if Lewandowsky purposefully sent different sets of questions based on the type of blog he was inviting.

more at link... then we go on to this

The striking thing is that we have John Cook’s Skeptical Science blog listed as presenting both the original as well as the most recent survey. It as been discovered that Cook is a co-author with Levandowsky on a similar paper:


Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C., Schwarz, N. & Cook, J. (in press). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest.
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LewandowskyEcker.IP2012.PSPI.pdf

One wonders how much Cook contributed to the questions, based on his understanding of his readers likely responses. It is strange irony indeed that the paper discusses “debiasing”, when so many potential biases in Lewandowsky’s methods are clearly obvious to even the casual reader. Wikipedia even cites them for this paper in a section on “debunker“


Australian Professorial Fellow Stephan Lewandowsky[5] and John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland (and author at SkepticalScience.com)[6] both warn about “backfire effects” in their Debunking Handbook.[2] Backfire effects occur when science communicators accidentally reinforce false beliefs by trying to correct them. For instance, a speaker about global warming may end up reinforcing the crowd’s beliefs that global warming is not happening.

more
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/stephan-lewandowskys-slow-motion-social-science-train-wreck

LMAO. Progs, you know you're promulgating yet another conspiracy theory.

MOTR wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 5:40am:

LMAO. Progs, you know you're promulgating yet another conspiracy theory.

Keep your wywa on the prize as it reveals itself.

I'm not yet commenting on the soundness of Watts' claim, I just find it deliciously ironic that a denier such as yourself is promoting a conspiracy theory to disprove the claim that deniers are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.

MOTR wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 5:54am:

I'm not yet commenting on the soundness of Watts' claim, I just find it deliciously ironic that a denier such as yourself is promoting a conspiracy theory to disprove the claim that deniers are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.

It is not a conspiracy theory. It is a paper of the pseudo order that has many answers needed. The paper is worth less than my toilet paper and there being hard evidence of wrong doing.

A conspiracy theory is a theory with a lack of hard evidence, empirical, just like AGW.

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 6:24am:

MOTR wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 5:54am: I'm not yet commenting on the soundness of Watts' claim, I just find it deliciously ironic that a denier such as yourself is promoting a conspiracy theory to disprove the claim that deniers are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is a paper of the pseudo order that has many answers needed. The paper is worth less than my toilet paper and there being hard evidence of wrong doing. A conspiracy theory is a theory with a lack of hard evidence, empirical, just like AGW.

No.  A theory with a lack of hard evidence, empirical, is a hypothesis.


A conspiracy theory is just a pack of nutjobs who think all of the world's scientific community are communists out to steal their V8 Commodores.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 6:47am:

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 6:24am: MOTR wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 5:54am: I'm not yet commenting on the soundness of Watts' claim, I just find it deliciously ironic that a denier such as yourself is promoting a conspiracy theory to disprove the claim that deniers are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is a paper of the pseudo order that has many answers needed. The paper is worth less than my toilet paper and there being hard evidence of wrong doing. A conspiracy theory is a theory with a lack of hard evidence, empirical, just like AGW. No.  A theory with a lack of hard evidence, empirical, is a hypothesis. A conspiracy theory is just a pack of nutjobs who think all of the world's scientific community are communists out to steal their V8 Commodores.

To me, it matters not that your beloved AGW scientists were/are trying to shut down debate, create a BS concensus, fiddling with data, dont have empirical evidence, crying wolf, crying godzilla, all for the public to see thanks to it being pointed out, shown, leaked for the good of truth.

You can thank your world's pseudo scientific community for the contempt for their opinion (thats all it is)

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 7:21am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 6:47am: progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 6:24am: MOTR wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 5:54am: I'm not yet commenting on the soundness of Watts' claim, I just find it deliciously ironic that a denier such as yourself is promoting a conspiracy theory to disprove the claim that deniers are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is a paper of the pseudo order that has many answers needed. The paper is worth less than my toilet paper and there being hard evidence of wrong doing. A conspiracy theory is a theory with a lack of hard evidence, empirical, just like AGW. No.  A theory with a lack of hard evidence, empirical, is a hypothesis. A conspiracy theory is just a pack of nutjobs who think all of the world's scientific community are communists out to steal their V8 Commodores. To me, it matters not that your beloved AGW scientists were/are trying to shut down debate, create a BS concensus, fiddling with data, dont have empirical evidence, crying wolf, crying godzilla, all for the public to see thanks to it being pointed out, shown, leaked for the good of truth. You can thank your world's pseudo scientific community for the contempt for their opinion (thats all it is)

Here is a list of many of the world's scientific journals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals

Could you please explain which of these have "shut down debate"? 
How  - in your opinion - have they "shut down debate"?
And of mountains of empirical evidence presented in many of the papers in these journal - why doe you deny its existence?

Perhaps you may also like to tell us about what you mean by "fiddling with data"?

Come on.  You have made these silly claims (all quoted verbatim from some moronic blog no doubt).  Why don't you explain your accusations a bit more.  Let us all see how truly ignorant you are about this subject.

The floor is yours.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 8:03am:

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 7:21am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 6:47am: progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 6:24am: MOTR wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 5:54am: I'm not yet commenting on the soundness of Watts' claim, I just find it deliciously ironic that a denier such as yourself is promoting a conspiracy theory to disprove the claim that deniers are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is a paper of the pseudo order that has many answers needed. The paper is worth less than my toilet paper and there being hard evidence of wrong doing. A conspiracy theory is a theory with a lack of hard evidence, empirical, just like AGW. No.  A theory with a lack of hard evidence, empirical, is a hypothesis. A conspiracy theory is just a pack of nutjobs who think all of the world's scientific community are communists out to steal their V8 Commodores. To me, it matters not that your beloved AGW scientists were/are trying to shut down debate, create a BS concensus, fiddling with data, dont have empirical evidence, crying wolf, crying godzilla, all for the public to see thanks to it being pointed out, shown, leaked for the good of truth. You can thank your world's pseudo scientific community for the contempt for their opinion (thats all it is) Here is a list of many of the world's scientific journals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals Could you please explain which of these have "shut down debate"?  How  - in your opinion - have they "shut down debate"? And of mountains of empirical evidence presented in many of the papers in these journal - why doe you deny its existence? Perhaps you may also like to tell us about what you mean by "fiddling with data"? Come on.  You have made these silly claims (all quoted verbatim from some moronic blog no doubt).  Why don't you explain your accusations a bit more.  Let us all see how truly ignorant you are about this subject. The floor is yours.

In another thread perhaps. This thread is about why/how people reject climate science. I have given you a direct example from the idiot that may have falsified a peer-reviewed paper in order to get their answer. How is that hockey stick court case coming along.

It is up to your side to figure out what the hell I just said and you had better start cracking because more and more people are seeing the pseudo in climate science. In other words, I couldnt be bothered telling/showing once again. BTW, calling out names and expecting a full answer just isnt going to happen.

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:18pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 8:03am: progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 7:21am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 6:47am: progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 6:24am: MOTR wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 5:54am: I'm not yet commenting on the soundness of Watts' claim, I just find it deliciously ironic that a denier such as yourself is promoting a conspiracy theory to disprove the claim that deniers are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is a paper of the pseudo order that has many answers needed. The paper is worth less than my toilet paper and there being hard evidence of wrong doing. A conspiracy theory is a theory with a lack of hard evidence, empirical, just like AGW. No.  A theory with a lack of hard evidence, empirical, is a hypothesis. A conspiracy theory is just a pack of nutjobs who think all of the world's scientific community are communists out to steal their V8 Commodores. To me, it matters not that your beloved AGW scientists were/are trying to shut down debate, create a BS concensus, fiddling with data, dont have empirical evidence, crying wolf, crying godzilla, all for the public to see thanks to it being pointed out, shown, leaked for the good of truth. You can thank your world's pseudo scientific community for the contempt for their opinion (thats all it is) Here is a list of many of the world's scientific journals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals Could you please explain which of these have "shut down debate"?  How  - in your opinion - have they "shut down debate"? And of mountains of empirical evidence presented in many of the papers in these journal - why doe you deny its existence? Perhaps you may also like to tell us about what you mean by "fiddling with data"? Come on.  You have made these silly claims (all quoted verbatim from some moronic blog no doubt).  Why don't you explain your accusations a bit more.  Let us all see how truly ignorant you are about this subject. The floor is yours. In another thread perhaps. This thread is about why/how people reject climate science. I have given you a direct example from the idiot that may have falsified a peer-reviewed paper in order to get their answer. How is that hockey stick court case coming along. It is up to your side to figure out what the hell I just said and you had better start cracking because more and more people are seeing the pseudo in climate science. In other words, I couldnt be bothered telling/showing once again. BTW, calling out name and expecting a full and frank answer just isnt going to happen.

Good idea.  Make some stupid claims that avoid substantiating them.  THat will impress people.

Now - what was this " direct example from the idiot that may have falsified a peer-reviewed paper in order to get their answer"?  Are you going to tell us?  Or will you keep that a secret too?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:21pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:18pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 8:03am: progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 7:21am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 6:47am: progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 6:24am: MOTR wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 5:54am: I'm not yet commenting on the soundness of Watts' claim, I just find it deliciously ironic that a denier such as yourself is promoting a conspiracy theory to disprove the claim that deniers are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is a paper of the pseudo order that has many answers needed. The paper is worth less than my toilet paper and there being hard evidence of wrong doing. A conspiracy theory is a theory with a lack of hard evidence, empirical, just like AGW. No.  A theory with a lack of hard evidence, empirical, is a hypothesis. A conspiracy theory is just a pack of nutjobs who think all of the world's scientific community are communists out to steal their V8 Commodores. To me, it matters not that your beloved AGW scientists were/are trying to shut down debate, create a BS concensus, fiddling with data, dont have empirical evidence, crying wolf, crying godzilla, all for the public to see thanks to it being pointed out, shown, leaked for the good of truth. You can thank your world's pseudo scientific community for the contempt for their opinion (thats all it is) Here is a list of many of the world's scientific journals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals Could you please explain which of these have "shut down debate"?  How  - in your opinion - have they "shut down debate"? And of mountains of empirical evidence presented in many of the papers in these journal - why doe you deny its existence? Perhaps you may also like to tell us about what you mean by "fiddling with data"? Come on.  You have made these silly claims (all quoted verbatim from some moronic blog no doubt).  Why don't you explain your accusations a bit more.  Let us all see how truly ignorant you are about this subject. The floor is yours. In another thread perhaps. This thread is about why/how people reject climate science. I have given you a direct example from the idiot that may have falsified a peer-reviewed paper in order to get their answer. How is that hockey stick court case coming along. It is up to your side to figure out what the hell I just said and you had better start cracking because more and more people are seeing the pseudo in climate science. In other words, I couldnt be bothered telling/showing once again. BTW, calling out name and expecting a full and frank answer just isnt going to happen. Good idea.  Make some stupid claims that avoid substantiating them.  THat will impress people. Now - what was this " direct example from the idiot that may have falsified a peer-reviewed paper in order to get their answer"?  Are you going to tell us?  Or will you keep that a secret too?

It must be a secret to you. BTW I am not here to impress, least of all you, so you can forget me pulling into line with your question with derogatory remarks.

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:23pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:21pm: progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:18pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 8:03am: progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 7:21am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 6:47am: progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 6:24am: MOTR wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 5:54am: I'm not yet commenting on the soundness of Watts' claim, I just find it deliciously ironic that a denier such as yourself is promoting a conspiracy theory to disprove the claim that deniers are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is a paper of the pseudo order that has many answers needed. The paper is worth less than my toilet paper and there being hard evidence of wrong doing. A conspiracy theory is a theory with a lack of hard evidence, empirical, just like AGW. No.  A theory with a lack of hard evidence, empirical, is a hypothesis. A conspiracy theory is just a pack of nutjobs who think all of the world's scientific community are communists out to steal their V8 Commodores. To me, it matters not that your beloved AGW scientists were/are trying to shut down debate, create a BS concensus, fiddling with data, dont have empirical evidence, crying wolf, crying godzilla, all for the public to see thanks to it being pointed out, shown, leaked for the good of truth. You can thank your world's pseudo scientific community for the contempt for their opinion (thats all it is) Here is a list of many of the world's scientific journals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals Could you please explain which of these have "shut down debate"?  How  - in your opinion - have they "shut down debate"? And of mountains of empirical evidence presented in many of the papers in these journal - why doe you deny its existence? Perhaps you may also like to tell us about what you mean by "fiddling with data"? Come on.  You have made these silly claims (all quoted verbatim from some moronic blog no doubt).  Why don't you explain your accusations a bit more.  Let us all see how truly ignorant you are about this subject. The floor is yours. In another thread perhaps. This thread is about why/how people reject climate science. I have given you a direct example from the idiot that may have falsified a peer-reviewed paper in order to get their answer. How is that hockey stick court case coming along. It is up to your side to figure out what the hell I just said and you had better start cracking because more and more people are seeing the pseudo in climate science. In other words, I couldnt be bothered telling/showing once again. BTW, calling out name and expecting a full and frank answer just isnt going to happen. Good idea.  Make some stupid claims that avoid substantiating them.  THat will impress people. Now - what was this " direct example from the idiot that may have falsified a peer-reviewed paper in order to get their answer"?  Are you going to tell us?  Or will you keep that a secret too? It must be a secret to you.

Yes, it is.

What was this " direct example from the idiot that may have falsified a peer-reviewed paper in order to get their answer"?  Are you going to tell us? 

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:24pm:

What was this " direct example from the idiot that may have falsified a peer-reviewed paper in order to get their answer"?  Are you going to tell us?

keep re-reading. You will get there. Hold your own hand.

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:27pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:24pm: What was this " direct example from the idiot that may have falsified a peer-reviewed paper in order to get their answer"?  Are you going to tell us?  keep re-reading. You will get there. Hold your own hand.

Oh - you are talking about a bunch of anti-science bloggers whinging because a survey for a psychology paper made them look stupid.  Whatever

I though you may have been one of those morons that keep on bleating about actually scientific data demonstrating that AGW is in fact occurring being "falsified".

Good to see you are not that stupid.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:27pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:24pm: What was this " direct example from the idiot that may have falsified a peer-reviewed paper in order to get their answer"?  Are you going to tell us?  keep re-reading. You will get there. Hold your own hand. Oh - you are talking about a bunch of anti-science bloggers whinging because a survey for a psychology paper made them look stupid.  Whatever I though you may have been one of those morons that keep on bleating about actually scientific data demonstrating that AGW is in fact occurring being "falsified". Good to see you are not that stupid.

We know what sort of science you like, so hardly surprising that you would be upset, as AGW'rs are, when a supposed science paper is shown to be wanting. That happens alot in pseudo science dressing itself up as science.

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:47pm: progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:27pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:24pm: What was this " direct example from the idiot that may have falsified a peer-reviewed paper in order to get their answer"?  Are you going to tell us?  keep re-reading. You will get there. Hold your own hand. Oh - you are talking about a bunch of anti-science bloggers whinging because a survey for a psychology paper made them look stupid.  Whatever I though you may have been one of those morons that keep on bleating about actually scientific data demonstrating that AGW is in fact occurring being "falsified". Good to see you are not that stupid. We know what sort of science you like, so hardly surprising that you would be upset, as AGW'rs are, when a supposed science paper is shown to be wanting. That happens alot in pseudo science dressing itself up as science.

errr...some whinging by some unqualified bloggers does not mean a "science paper is shown to be wanting".

If they have a problem - why don't they publish a response through the normal channels?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 12:59pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:53pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:47pm: progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:27pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:24pm: What was this " direct example from the idiot that may have falsified a peer-reviewed paper in order to get their answer"?  Are you going to tell us?  keep re-reading. You will get there. Hold your own hand. Oh - you are talking about a bunch of anti-science bloggers whinging because a survey for a psychology paper made them look stupid.  Whatever I though you may have been one of those morons that keep on bleating about actually scientific data demonstrating that AGW is in fact occurring being "falsified". Good to see you are not that stupid. We know what sort of science you like, so hardly surprising that you would be upset, as AGW'rs are, when a supposed science paper is shown to be wanting. That happens alot in pseudo science dressing itself up as science. errr...some whinging by some unqualified bloggers does not mean a "science paper is shown to be wanting". If they have a problem - why don't they publish a response through the normal channels?

Because they want to know how this shambles of a paper ever got through peer-review. They want the paper withdrawn in light of this damning information.

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 1:03pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:53pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:47pm: progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:27pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:24pm: What was this " direct example from the idiot that may have falsified a peer-reviewed paper in order to get their answer"?  Are you going to tell us?  keep re-reading. You will get there. Hold your own hand. Oh - you are talking about a bunch of anti-science bloggers whinging because a survey for a psychology paper made them look stupid.  Whatever I though you may have been one of those morons that keep on bleating about actually scientific data demonstrating that AGW is in fact occurring being "falsified". Good to see you are not that stupid. We know what sort of science you like, so hardly surprising that you would be upset, as AGW'rs are, when a supposed science paper is shown to be wanting. That happens alot in pseudo science dressing itself up as science. errr...some whinging by some unqualified bloggers does not mean a "science paper is shown to be wanting". If they have a problem - why don't they publish a response through the normal channels? Because they want to know how this shambles of a paper ever got through peer-review. They want the paper withdrawn in light of this damning information.

Sounds like they should publish a response then.  Rather than just whinging on their blogs.  What do you reckon?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2012 at 1:07pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 1:03pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:53pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:47pm: progressiveslol wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:27pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Sep 7th, 2012 at 12:24pm: What was this " direct example from the idiot that may have falsified a peer-reviewed paper in order to get their answer"?  Are you going to tell us?  keep re-reading. You will get there. Hold your own hand. Oh - you are talking about a bunch of anti-science bloggers whinging because a survey for a psychology paper made them look stupid.  Whatever I though you may have been one of those morons that keep on bleating about actually scientific data demonstrating that AGW is in fact occurring being "falsified". Good to see you are not that stupid. We know what sort of science you like, so hardly surprising that you would be upset, as AGW'rs are, when a supposed science paper is shown to be wanting. That happens alot in pseudo science dressing itself up as science. errr...some whinging by some unqualified bloggers does not mean a "science paper is shown to be wanting". If they have a problem - why don't they publish a response through the normal channels? Because they want to know how this shambles of a paper ever got through peer-review. They want the paper withdrawn in light of this damning information. Sounds like they should publish a response then.  Rather than just whinging on their blogs.  What do you reckon?

They are not just whinging. They are informing what has occured and what they are doing to right peer-review failure..

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:28pm:

NASA has been openly attacked by its OWN scientists over its incredibly biased climate position. or did you miss the email and publicly released letter?

This thread is a veritable gold mine of evidence supporting the position outlined in the OP.

A small reminder of what was in the opening post.


Quote:

Confirmation bias also influences which sources of information we put our trust in. People tend to attribute greater expertise to people who share their values and beliefs. We’re drawn to those who tell us what we want to hear.

Why are the opinions of these  signatories given so much weight.


Quote:

Almost exactly two years ago, John Cook wrote about the 5 characteristics of science denialism.  The second point on the list involved fake experts. "These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge. Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke." We have seen many examples of climate denialists producing long lists of fake experts, for example the Oregon Petition and the Wall Street Journal 16.  Now we have yet another of these lists of fake experts.  49 former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) employees (led by Harrison Schmitt, who was also one of the Wall Street Journal 16) have registered their objection to mainstream climate science through the most popular medium of expressing climate contrarianism - a letter.  As is usually the case in these climate contrarian letters, this one has no scientific content, and is written by individuals with not an ounce of climate science expertise, but who nevertheless have the audacity to tell climate scientists what they should think about climate science. It's worth noting that when the signatories Meet The Denominator, as is also always the case, their numbers are revealed as quite unimpressive.  For example, over 18,000 people currently work for NASA.  Without even considering the pool of retired NASA employees (all signatories of this list are former NASA employees), just as with the Oregon Petition, the list accounts for a fraction of a percent of the available pool of people. This letter, as these letters always do, has gone viral in the climate denial blogosphere, and even in the climate denial mainstream media (Fox News).  But why exactly is this letter being treated as major news?  That is something of a mystery.  Or it would be, if the behavior of the climate denial community weren't so predictable. The Signatories Obviously this letter first gained attention because the signatories are former NASA employees.  They are being touted as "top astronauts, scientists, and engineers" and "NASA experts, with more than 1000 years of combined professional experience."  Okay, but in what fields does their expertise lie? Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science).  Amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers.  You can review the signatories for yourself here.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/NASA-climate-denialist-letter.html

I agree with the science and that humans cause some change.

I do not agree with some of you solution to just allow the worst polluters to keep increasing while we all try to reduce just because you feel sorry for them.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 8^th, 2012 at 10:09am:

I agree with the science and that humans cause some change. I do not agree with some of you solution to just allow the worst polluters to keep increasing while we all try to reduce just because you feel sorry for them.

We are the worst polluters, Avram.

MOTR wrote on Sep 8^th, 2012 at 10:31am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 8th, 2012 at 10:09am: I agree with the science and that humans cause some change. I do not agree with some of you solution to just allow the worst polluters to keep increasing while we all try to reduce just because you feel sorry for them. We are the worst polluters, Avram.

No you are not.
It is China.

Or if you take your insane per capita our biggest problem is the Dutch Antilles and Qatar!!

We've had this debate before. You claim to be studying economics yet you seem to have no concept of the importance of using per capita measurements. Over half of us live in China and India, of course their emmissions from these countries are going to be significant. I don't believe we have the right to lock them into emmission rates less than ours without some sort of compensation. This is not some sort of radical view, it is a concept well understood by those working to negotiate some sort of collective agreement. It is why concessions have been made in the past and why concessions will be a part of any workable solution of the future.

And, Avram, I've travelled to China several times. I've lived in a Chinese household. I know first hand that a Chinese family has a much smaller carbon footprint than an Australian family. We don't want them getting close to our levels, we should be aiming to get closer to theirs.

MOTR wrote on Sep 8^th, 2012 at 10:47am:

We've had this debate before. You claim to be studying economics yet you seem to have no concept of the importance of using per capita measurements. Over half of us live in China and India, of course their emmissions from these countries are going to be significant. I don't believe we have the right to lock them into emmission rates less than ours without some sort of compensation. This is not some sort of radical view, it is a concept well understood by those working to negotiate some sort of collective agreement. It is why concessions have been made in the past and why concessions will be a part of any workable solution of the future.

It is not the per capita countries fault that the chinese have over populated themselves either.

You could equally argue that letting your population grow exponentially (without incentives for less children) is more irresponsible than having a small population and allowing them to use their countries resources in a manner to better their lives.

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 8^th, 2012 at 10:58am:

MOTR wrote on Sep 8th, 2012 at 10:47am: We've had this debate before. You claim to be studying economics yet you seem to have no concept of the importance of using per capita measurements. Over half of us live in China and India, of course their emmissions from these countries are going to be significant. I don't believe we have the right to lock them into emmission rates less than ours without some sort of compensation. This is not some sort of radical view, it is a concept well understood by those working to negotiate some sort of collective agreement. It is why concessions have been made in the past and why concessions will be a part of any workable solution of the future. It is not the per capita countries fault that the chinese have over populated themselves either. You could equally argue that letting your population grow exponentially (without incentives for less children) is more irresponsible than having a small population and allowing them to use their countries resources in a manner to better their lives.

You've heard of China's one child policy, progs.

So MOTR you didn't answer my point.

Do you believe the Dutch Antilles and Falkland Islands are our biggest problems?

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 8^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

So MOTR you didn't answer my point. Do you believe the Dutch Antilles and Falkland Islands are our biggest problems?

Any individual with a large carbon footprint is part of the problem. Collectively these individuals, wherever they live, are our biggest problem. The people of the Falklands Islands and the Dutch Antilles have a responsibility to reduce their emissions, irrespective of how little they collectively contribute to the problem.

I believe China rising to our level of emissions is a huge problem and more worrying than the emissions of the Falkland Islands. This does not contradict my position that China needs concessions if we want to limit them to emissions below ours.

I didn't answer your question, Avram because it's non sequitur. A point I made in the last thread you tried to derail with this same nonsense.

MOTR wrote on Sep 8^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 8th, 2012 at 10:58am: MOTR wrote on Sep 8th, 2012 at 10:47am: We've had this debate before. You claim to be studying economics yet you seem to have no concept of the importance of using per capita measurements. Over half of us live in China and India, of course their emmissions from these countries are going to be significant. I don't believe we have the right to lock them into emmission rates less than ours without some sort of compensation. This is not some sort of radical view, it is a concept well understood by those working to negotiate some sort of collective agreement. It is why concessions have been made in the past and why concessions will be a part of any workable solution of the future. It is not the per capita countries fault that the chinese have over populated themselves either. You could equally argue that letting your population grow exponentially (without incentives for less children) is more irresponsible than having a small population and allowing them to use their countries resources in a manner to better their lives. You've heard of China's one child policy, progs.

little late and too brutal. They should have done something much earlier and more incentive rather than dictatorial.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 8^th, 2012 at 10:34am:

MOTR wrote on Sep 8th, 2012 at 10:31am: Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 8th, 2012 at 10:09am: I agree with the science and that humans cause some change. I do not agree with some of you solution to just allow the worst polluters to keep increasing while we all try to reduce just because you feel sorry for them. We are the worst polluters, Avram. No you are not. It is China. Or if you take your insane per capita our biggest problem is the Dutch Antilles and Qatar!!

No - it is not.  It is the USA and EU.

Co2 accumulates in the atmosophere.  And the amount of CO2 emitted historically by the USA and EU still dwarfs that emitted by China - even if the current rate of emissions coming from the within arbitrarily drawn boundaries of the country called "China" may now be larger.

But of course - arbitrary national boundaries are irrelevant.  On average, each individual in Australia/USA/EU etc still emits up to 4 times more than each individual in China.  THe atmosphere doesn't differentiate between different countries.  There is no reason that you should.  But the people that emit the most should try to reduce.  Pretty simple.

Now is your chance to do this pathetic pseudo science poll.

If you dont within half way through this poll, realise where the author was going with it and the pathetic ideology oozing from it, the you are possibly brain washed.

http://ascottblog.wordpress.com/lewandowsky-survey-replicated/
Password is GO TO SITE TO FIND OUT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/08/replication-of-lewandowsky-survey/

This poll is made to be skewed, but try to tell the truth if you can help yourself.

Which conspiracies do you believe in, progs?

MOTR wrote on Sep 9^th, 2012 at 8:53pm:

Which conspiracies do you believe in, progs?

I could only give all of them a 3. Not true, not false, because I dont know.

I neither believe nor disbelieve certain conspiracy theories.

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 9^th, 2012 at 8:59pm:

MOTR wrote on Sep 9th, 2012 at 8:53pm: Which conspiracies do you believe in, progs? I could only give all of them a 3. Not true, not false, because I dont know. I neither believe nor disbelieve certain conspiracy theories.

Even the one about WMD?
and what about the Apollo moon landing? Do you think that might be a conspiracy?

MOTR wrote on Sep 9^th, 2012 at 9:45pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 9th, 2012 at 8:59pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 9th, 2012 at 8:53pm: Which conspiracies do you believe in, progs? I could only give all of them a 3. Not true, not false, because I dont know. I neither believe nor disbelieve certain conspiracy theories. Even the one about WMD? and what about the Apollo moon landing? Do you think that might be a conspiracy?

I dont know enough either way. I was not on the moon to verify. I was not there to verify WMD's. Neither believe nor disbelieve.

I guess it boils down to how much you care about a subject to force yourself into a position.

Really, progs. The moon landing. You're not convinced we went to the moon. Lewandowsky might be onto something here. Although you are a very small sample.

MOTR wrote on Sep 9^th, 2012 at 10:39pm:

Really, progs. The moon landing. You're not convinced we went to the moon. Lewandowsky might be onto something here. Although you are a very small sample.

It is more I dont really care. I dont feel I need to be a yes man or no man on any subject that does not involve my interest, but pathetic try from you indeed.

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 9^th, 2012 at 11:28pm:

MOTR wrote on Sep 9th, 2012 at 10:39pm: Really, progs. The moon landing. You're not convinced we went to the moon. Lewandowsky might be onto something here. Although you are a very small sample. It is more I dont really care. I dont feel I need to be a yes man or no man on any subject that does not involve my interest, but pathetic try from you indeed.

If your threshold of proof is so high that you're not sure if man landed on the moon or not, how ever are you going to accept the highly likely probability of anthropogenic warming. Assuming for the purposes of our debate that the AGW hypothesis is correct, which you accept as a possibility, there would never be enough evidence to pass your threshold of acceptance.

That's scary.

That's very scary.

MOTR wrote on Sep 10^th, 2012 at 5:51am:

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 9th, 2012 at 11:28pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 9th, 2012 at 10:39pm: Really, progs. The moon landing. You're not convinced we went to the moon. Lewandowsky might be onto something here. Although you are a very small sample. It is more I dont really care. I dont feel I need to be a yes man or no man on any subject that does not involve my interest, but pathetic try from you indeed. If your threshold of proof is so high that you're not sure if man landed on the moon or not, how ever are you going to accept the highly likely probability of anthropogenic warming. Assuming for the purposes of our debate that the AGW hypothesis is correct, which you accept as a possibility, there would never be enough evidence to pass your threshold of acceptance. That's scary. That's very scary.

The subject interests me. You really do have a comprehension problem.

I was not there to witness the moon landing. I dont care if they landed on the moon. If you believe they landed on the moon, then good for you. If you believe they faked it, then all power to you. I dont give a stuff. It does not impact my life and does not interest me.

Got it now.

I don't have a comprehension problem. Your detachment with reality is that you believe such a massive and sustained hoax is possible.

I find this very interesting.

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 10^th, 2012 at 6:24am:

MOTR wrote on Sep 10th, 2012 at 5:51am: progressiveslol wrote on Sep 9th, 2012 at 11:28pm: MOTR wrote on Sep 9th, 2012 at 10:39pm: Really, progs. The moon landing. You're not convinced we went to the moon. Lewandowsky might be onto something here. Although you are a very small sample. It is more I dont really care. I dont feel I need to be a yes man or no man on any subject that does not involve my interest, but pathetic try from you indeed. If your threshold of proof is so high that you're not sure if man landed on the moon or not, how ever are you going to accept the highly likely probability of anthropogenic warming. Assuming for the purposes of our debate that the AGW hypothesis is correct, which you accept as a possibility, there would never be enough evidence to pass your threshold of acceptance. That's scary. That's very scary. The subject interests me. You really do have a comprehension problem. I was not there to witness the moon landing. I dont care if they landed on the moon. If you believe they landed on the moon, then good for you. If you believe they faked it, then all power to you. I dont give a stuff. It does not impact my life and does not interest me. Got it now.

Yehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, YOU HATE THE WORLD!

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 8^th, 2012 at 10:34am:

MOTR wrote on Sep 8th, 2012 at 10:31am: Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 8th, 2012 at 10:09am: I agree with the science and that humans cause some change. I do not agree with some of you solution to just allow the worst polluters to keep increasing while we all try to reduce just because you feel sorry for them. We are the worst polluters, Avram. No you are not. It is China. Or if you take your insane per capita our biggest problem is the Dutch Antilles and Qatar!!

JEWS, JUST SO LOL!

  :D :D :D :D :D :D

MOTR wrote on Sep 8^th, 2012 at 10:47am:

We've had this debate before. You claim to be studying economics yet you seem to have no concept of the importance of using per capita measurements. Over half of us live in China and India, of course their emmissions from these countries are going to be significant. I don't believe we have the right to lock them into emmission rates less than ours without some sort of compensation. This is not some sort of radical view, it is a concept well understood by those working to negotiate some sort of collective agreement. It is why concessions have been made in the past and why concessions will be a part of any workable solution of the future. And, Avram, I've travelled to China several times. I've lived in a Chinese household. I know first hand that a Chinese family has a much smaller carbon footprint than an Australian family. We don't want them getting close to our levels, we should be aiming to get closer to theirs.

AVRAM HAS NO RESPECT FOR YOU OR YOUR OPINION UNLESS YOUR A FILTHY JEW!

NO, I'M NOT BEING A RACIST: I'M BEING PRACTICAL!

  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D  :-?  ;D

MOTR wrote on Sep 8^th, 2012 at 11:44am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 8th, 2012 at 11:10am: So MOTR you didn't answer my point. Do you believe the Dutch Antilles and Falkland Islands are our biggest problems? Any individual with a large carbon footprint is part of the problem. Collectively these individuals, wherever they live, are our biggest problem. The people of the Falklands Islands and the Dutch Antilles have a responsibility to reduce their emissions, irrespective of how little they collectively contribute to the problem. I believe China rising to our level of emissions is a huge problem and more worrying than the emissions of the Falkland Islands. This does not contradict my position that China needs concessions if we want to limit them to emissions below ours. I didn't answer your question, Avram because it's non sequitur. A point I made in the last thread you tried to derail with this same nonsense.

AVRAM, A FILTHY JEW, ANSWERS QUESTIONS WITH QUESTIONS!

AVRAM IS A WARMONGER!
  :D :D :D :D :D