Bill Nye ‘The Science Guy’: Denying Climate Change ‘Unpatriotic,’ ‘Inappropriate

[RainDog]

 This topic is often discussed using knowledge learned on television and web blogs.

I've seen the "Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, the moons around Jupiter and other bodies within our solar system ALL experienced Global Warming at the same time the Earth did" argument all over the internet, but have yet to see one single reliable peer-reviewed scientific source for that information.

Actually, what I find when I research the question is that all the planets in the solar system aren't warming, and the heating of those that are are attributed to causes other than solar activity.

Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.P31D..05R

Neptune's largest moon, Triton, is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v393/n6687/abs/393765a0.html

Jupiter's storms are fueled by the planet's own internal heat (sunlight is 4% the level of solar energy at Earth). When several storms merge into one large storm (eg - Red Spot Jr), the planet loses its ability to mix heat, causing warming at the equator and cooling at the poles.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006DPS....38.3903M

Given that warming has been detected on only 6 out of the over 100 bodies in the solar system, if you truly believe solar activity to be the cause, it would have been smarter not to mention it at all. Uranus, for instance, is cooling.

http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf

It is not true, by the way, that the Medieval Warm period was warmer then the current average temperatures. According to all reconstructed global temperatures, it is warmer today then at any point over at least the past 800 years and more likely warmer today then at any point over the last 1200 and 2000 years.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=2

A beer in the fridge? Hey, if that's your idea of sound analogy for the complex mechanisms involved in climate science...

In any case I still feel that I have to repeat my disclaimer. I am not advancing the claims of AGW adherents. I am simply lamenting the politicization and dishonest tactics on both sides of the issue.

I'd be as happy to go toe-to-toe with Al Gore as with Alex Jones.

Oh, you mentioned Alex Jones, didn't you? You are aware, I assume, that he's no longer putting so much energy into the 9/11 Truth Movement. He's now the darling of the global warming denier crowd.

When You Lay with Dogs You Get Fleas.  

[pagan]

LeoinSA,

I understand the geopolitical issues regarding Middle East peace, hence my post. Arafat was the head of a terrorist organization. The Israelis continue to invade, displace, and appropriate Palestinian property for Israeli "settlers." Yet because these men paid a little lip service to European interests they're awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I stand by my initial post; the Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless.

[OlJarhead]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

The problem is that it's always a coincidence to the AGW crowd that other similar events are taking place.  Always.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/global_warming_on_jupiter.html

What amazes me is that the 'the debate is over crowd' are having to find excuses for so many new things which suggest the debate is NOT over that they are falling all over themselves to find answers but keep missing the obvious ones.

In fact, they keep debating me, which tells me the debate really isn't over after all and gee whiz maybe that don't have a clue

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
Of course let's not forget that all of the 'the sky is falling' AGW folks today were screaming at the top of their lungs (ok a lot of them were still in diapers actually but none-the-less a lot of them did do this also) that we were heading to the next ice age.

Of course, let us also not forget that their so called 'peer review process has been tainted by 'email gate' and 'glacier gate' and hey while I'm at it we've not got 'under water gate' too.  The IPCC has no credibility and there are more and more scientists coming out every day against them.

Results from a radiocarbon-dated box core show that SST was sim 1°C cooler than today sim 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and sim 1°C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period).

But what do I know....so I was off by 300 years (funny that eh, so we need to warm 1 degree still, but to get to the temps of 1000AD....
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/5292/1503

There is so much out there that while it might not be in the 'progressive' university classrooms (go figure) it is certainly out there and all of it lends to the question:  is the debate really over?

And then, while all of these things come up DC gets wacked with a 100 (not 30) year winter storm...hmmmm.....I wonder if the polar ice caps and snow levels could POSSIBLY gain at all while Atlanta is getting snow?  *chuckle* ya think.

You see, I hate pollution.

[OlJarhead]

http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d11-Arctic-Sea-Ice-returns-to-1979-levels

The funny thing is, there is just so much out there if a person wants to look.

When I wanted to plant my crab apple tree two years ago I wait a month longer then 'normal' -- why?  It was too cold.  The whole of the US had this problem and nurseries were pitching fits.

The thing is, I wouldn't argue with anyone that said "since the maunder minimum we've been experiencing warming, which has also seen the expansion of many and the shift to the industrial age and digital age.  Coincidence?  Don't know, but we've definitely experienced warming at least until 1998 and maybe as late as 2001.  However, since then we've seen a rapid decline in temperatures and are currently uncertain what the cause is for all of this change -- though it may simply be natural, man is a polluter and we should at least try to find ways to stop pollution."

You see, I'd love to see an honest debate, one that centers around how to resolve mans bad habit of pollution while not taking away his freedom (that's an issue I have, I like my Liberty thanks).

But I'm just a schlub so I'll probably crawl back under the rock I came from and watch my warm beer lose CO2 faster then my cold one

[RainDog]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Quotes:

"Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "

"Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists. "

"Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide. "

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/global_warming_on_jupiter.html

The American Thinker is a daily conservative internet publication. Allen Hoover is what? A journalist? A blogger? I don't know.

Please.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

I've already addressed this. It's that Russian physicist thing.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/5292/1503

I didn't really get into this last time because I don't get the point of it. Doesn't prove or disprove anything.


Why don't you just come right out and say that you simply don't want to buy into climate science? That you feel it's wrong intuitively?

I don't like the idea either, and it strikes me as intuitively wrong. I'm just not egotistical enough to think my intuition trumps decades of scientific research and the overwhelming consensus of scientists worldwide.

Look, I don't think the majority of people on either side of this issue are bad, stupid, or gullible, particularly. I think they've chosen sides in a political and social battle, sweeping aside and willfully ignoring the actual data in pursuit of "winning".

[RainDog]

http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d11-Arctic-Sea-Ice-returns-to-1979-levels

The funny thing is, there is just so much out there if a person wants to look.

When I wanted to plant my crab apple tree two years ago I wait a month longer then 'normal' -- why?  It was too cold.  The whole of the US had this problem and nurseries were pitching fits.

The thing is, I wouldn't argue with anyone that said "since the maunder minimum we've been experiencing warming, which has also seen the expansion of many and the shift to the industrial age and digital age.  Coincidence?  Don't know, but we've definitely experienced warming at least until 1998 and maybe as late as 2001.  However, since then we've seen a rapid decline in temperatures and are currently uncertain what the cause is for all of this change -- though it may simply be natural, man is a polluter and we should at least try to find ways to stop pollution."

You see, I'd love to see an honest debate, one that centers around how to resolve mans bad habit of pollution while not taking away his freedom (that's an issue I have, I like my Liberty thanks).

But I'm just a schlub so I'll probably crawl back under the rock I came from and watch my warm beer lose CO2 faster then my cold one

Okay, you didn't read what I'd spent 10 or 15 minutes, easy, writing in response to you earlier.

But how did you miss the big, giant graph?


It seems we can at least agree that remedies to ecological problems should be explored besides the ones that just happen, purely by coincidence, I'm sure, to reflect long-standing leftist agendas.

[SpoonyG]

I had to chime in after seeing this dominate the "Recent Posts" today.

Last election we had "My scumbag politicians are better than your scumbag politicians."

Now we have "My scumbag junk scientists are better than your scumbag junk scientists."

Supported by "My Internet links are better than your Internet links."

It really is quite comical to the casual reader.

When will we learn...
- Follow the money
- Follow the power
- Follow the control
- Follow the deception
...and only then will you find the true answer.

Peace.

[OlJarhead]

http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d11-Arctic-Sea-Ice-returns-to-1979-levels

The funny thing is, there is just so much out there if a person wants to look.

When I wanted to plant my crab apple tree two years ago I wait a month longer then 'normal' -- why?  It was too cold.  The whole of the US had this problem and nurseries were pitching fits.

The thing is, I wouldn't argue with anyone that said "since the maunder minimum we've been experiencing warming, which has also seen the expansion of many and the shift to the industrial age and digital age.  Coincidence?  Don't know, but we've definitely experienced warming at least until 1998 and maybe as late as 2001.  However, since then we've seen a rapid decline in temperatures and are currently uncertain what the cause is for all of this change -- though it may simply be natural, man is a polluter and we should at least try to find ways to stop pollution."

You see, I'd love to see an honest debate, one that centers around how to resolve mans bad habit of pollution while not taking away his freedom (that's an issue I have, I like my Liberty thanks).

But I'm just a schlub so I'll probably crawl back under the rock I came from and watch my warm beer lose CO2 faster then my cold one

Okay, you didn't read what I'd spent 10 or 15 minutes, easy, writing in response to you earlier.

But how did you miss the big, giant graph?


It seems we can at least agree that remedies to ecological problems should be explored besides the ones that just happen, purely by coincidence, I'm sure, to reflect long-standing leftist agendas.

Actually I've seen a graph that shows a direct correlation actually.  And my point was that despite everything I toss someones way, they find convenient ways to ignore it, don't read it, their eyes glass over etc etc...so I don't both with them most of the time anymore.

As for reading you stuff, if you read mine you'd see contradictions in there -- intentionally.  Why?  Becuase I don't outright discount anything (quite different then the Goreacleites) but rather don't agree that it's a complete coincidence (the weather etc).

As for cleaning up the pollution etc, I agree that it needs to be done, but doing it by socializing the country I don't agree with.  I'm far more radical then that  Like banning city expansion -- most of the green greenies live in places like Seattle, the scourge of mankind in my opinion.  So, you want progressive taxes (personally I don't beleive in taxing the citizens but that's another subject) then tax the city dwellers into oblivion and give tax breaks to the country dwellers since they are far more environmentally friendly -- that's a start

[OlJarhead]

I had to chime in after seeing this dominate the "Recent Posts" today.

Last election we had "My scumbag politicians are better than your scumbag politicians."

Now we have "My scumbag junk scientists are better than your scumbag junk scientists."

Supported by "My Internet links are better than your Internet links."

It really is quite comical to the casual reader.

When will we learn...
- Follow the money
- Follow the power
- Follow the control
- Follow the deception
...and only then will you find the true answer.

Peace.

I'm not sure you will then even.

The true answer I think is far simpler then most will admit:  we don't know.

Of course another answer is:  man is arrogant.

Why do I say these things?  Becuase anytime someone says "The debate is over" you that not only is it NOT over, but it's clearly hiding something too.

Steven Hawking has been trying to prove himself wrong now for years -- why?  Becuase a scientist is supposed to be objective -- the AGW crowd is most decidedly NOT objective.  Is the other side?  Some probably aren't but I actually think some are -- why?  Becuase many of them don't say they have the answer but rather more questions and when one admits that ones research only begets more questions but that the answer is yet to be discovered then one is far more likely a scientist then the "the debate is over" gang of thugs and socialist crazies.

As for my links, they are posed only to prove one point:  the debate is not over.

I could care less actually, becuase quite frankly Global Warming has proven very good for mankind -- yes indeed -- so if all we do is raise the temperature on the earth a little so we can grow wheat in polar bear country, well, then, we just might not starve after all

Global Cooling would be frightful!  I can't imagine a return to even the Little Ice Age!

Anyway, we don't really know what's going on, and as such I don't think it's right to tax the bat crap out of the free citizens (hmmm) of the USA just becuase we THINK the sky is falling -- last time we thought it was falling we were quite wrong weren't we?

[RainDog]

Now we have "My scumbag junk scientists are better than your scumbag junk scientists."

Supported by "My Internet links are better than your Internet links."

Boy, that was the straw that broke this camel's back. Plumb wears me out.

Okay, okay. Science is hooey, and blogs and biased journalism are the equivalent of peer-reviewed scientific findings.

Until I get my second wind, that is.  
____________________

British scientist Richard Dawkins asked readers to imagine they are a teacher of Roman history whose attention is constantly distracted by a movement that claims the Roman Empire never existed.

"Instead of devoting your full attention to the noble vocation of classical scholar and teacher, you are forced to divert your time and energy to a rear-guard defense of the proposition that the Romans existed at all,"

[OlJarhead]

Now we have "My scumbag junk scientists are better than your scumbag junk scientists."

Supported by "My Internet links are better than your Internet links."

Boy, that was the straw that broke this camel's back. Plumb wears me out.

Okay, okay. Science is hooey, and blogs and biased journalism are the equivalent of peer-reviewed scientific findings.

Until I get my second wind, that is.  
____________________

British scientist Richard Dawkins asked readers to imagine they are a teacher of Roman history whose attention is constantly distracted by a movement that claims the Roman Empire never existed.

"Instead of devoting your full attention to the noble vocation of classical scholar and teacher, you are forced to divert your time and energy to a rear-guard defense of the proposition that the Romans existed at all,"

Any time the peer reviewed science is a climbing magazine article quoting someone making a statement about something that he or she may not be able to prove and when other 'peer' reviewed documents have been proven to have been 'reviewed by specific individuals interested in pushing an agenda' well then, you might as well read the blogs.

You see it's easy to say my references are better then yours as long as no one knows the real story but once the cats out of the bag (email gate anyone) then you might as well drop the whole 'peer reviewed' stuff since clearly it isn't.

[RainDog]

Any time the peer reviewed science is a climbing magazine article quoting someone making a statement about something that he or she may not be able to prove and when other 'peer' reviewed documents have been proven to have been 'reviewed by specific individuals interested in pushing an agenda' well then, you might as well read the blogs.

Did I quote a climbing magazine? If I did, it was a frightful error. Please direct me to where I did that and I'll correct it with the link intended.

You see it's easy to say my references are better then yours as long as no one knows the real story but once the cats out of the bag (email gate anyone) then you might as well drop the whole 'peer reviewed' stuff since clearly it isn't.

"Science is hooey, and blogs and biased journalism are the equivalent of peer-reviewed scientific findings."

I was being facetious, I thought. That's really your position?

On second thought, never mind. I know a brick wall when I see it. With those criteria, there certainly is no reasoned debate possible.

 

[OlJarhead]

Any time the peer reviewed science is a climbing magazine article quoting someone making a statement about something that he or she may not be able to prove and when other 'peer' reviewed documents have been proven to have been 'reviewed by specific individuals interested in pushing an agenda' well then, you might as well read the blogs.

Did I quote a climbing magazine? If I did, it was a frightful error. Please direct me to where I did that and I'll correct it with the link intended.

You see it's easy to say my references are better then yours as long as no one knows the real story but once the cats out of the bag (email gate anyone) then you might as well drop the whole 'peer reviewed' stuff since clearly it isn't.

"Science is hooey, and blogs and biased journalism are the equivalent of peer-reviewed scientific findings."

I was being facetious, I thought. That's really your position?

On second thought, never mind. I know a brick wall when I see it. With those criteria, there certainly is no reasoned debate possible.

 

The climbing reference was actually to something the IPCC used -- I'm a brick wall?  *chuckle* nah..but since Phil Jones is the man, the AGW scientist that really lead the movement on the science front (didn't he?) let's ask him shall we?

That ought to be good enough right?  I mean, he's the man right?

[OlJarhead]

The embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal dropped a bombshell over the weekend, admitting in an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/

It's all over the news today -- well probably NOT on MSNBC....

So um, who's really the brick?  I'm just looking at what's out there and concluding that the so called 'science' behind the whole AGW movement was and is bunk.

Seems that if nothing else seems to phase the AGW alarmists then I wonder if their top scientist coming out of the closet and...

Jones also allowed for the possibility that the world as a whole was warmer in medieval times than it is today -- a concession that may also undermine theories that global warming is caused by man.

DOH!

So maybe this old jarhead isn't so stupid after all

Seems to me that the questions I've asked are good ones that need serious answers and answers that don't ignore the possibility that there is indeed a connection to other bodies within our solar system that experience warming and cooling along with the earth -- and um, once we get there then the conclusion has to be that the AGW alarmists are infact either 'chicken littles' or socialists just looking for one more way to control the masses.

I'm not a conspiracy nut by the way, I'm ju st a guy that sees the snow falling and wonders "is this whole global warming thing really settled?"....seems to me it isn't.

One thing I find amusing though, is those who profess to NOT trust government are hell bent to trust them on this.  I'm not.

Cheers

[RainDog]

 Oh my God!  

You not only announce that peer-reviewed scientific papers, the "gold standard" for scientific evidence, aren't credible, but you don't even read what I've typed out!

Not only do you obviously have no idea of what my position even is, though I've repeated it a number of times in extremely simple and easy to understand terms, but now you've submitted a dishonest analysis that has been bouncing around the internet for a couple of days, as some kind of definitive proof, that I debunked thoroughly like... YESTERDAY!

Dude!  

Like I said, man, never mind. Nobody in their right mind is going to discuss anything with you under those conditions.

[OlJarhead]

Doesn't seem to me that you debunked anything.

And I don't presume to understand your point of view at all.  What I understand, from reading the Phil Jones transcripts is that he doesn't seem certain about too much, points to all sorts of indicators that suggestion warming and cooling other then caused by man and then jumps to man is 100% the cause -- personally I think he's strongly biased which is a bad precedent for a scientist.

[RainDog]

 For the record, I'll again recap my proposition.

From a post directed to OlJarhead:

"In any case I still feel that I have to repeat my disclaimer. I am not advancing the claims of AGW adherents. I am simply lamenting the politicization and dishonest tactics on both sides of the issue."

From an earlier post in the thread:

"Between the hysterics of the doomsaying left, and the deceptive tactics of the right (and vise versa), the whole thing has become so politicized and twisted that I have a difficult time imagining a calm reasoned inquiry into the premise of climate change at this point or in the foreseeable future."

So, for the next person who picks up a handful of cut-rate talking points from political hacks, pundits, activists, or their sycophants and feels like they're loaded for bear and are determined to, by God, let loose a volley at those left-wing pinkos/right-wing fascists/villains du jour, without regard or respect to what their perceived opponent actually has to say... I am not an appropriate target.

As a matter of fact, you prove my point.

[muldoon]

I'll clarify my position as well.

climatology is a disgrace to the scientific method.  Hiding data, losing data, coddling algorithms to arrive at preconceived notions and lying about it do not make good science.  Refusing to acknowledge discreditors, refusing to peer review data outside of those who already have a bias to your work is not good science.  And refusing the idea of debate is not good science. 

Calling those who wish to see the data and perform identical experiments wishing to see the same results unpatriotic and inappropriate is not good science.  It is flawed science. 

Raindog, I do agree it is politicized, and will not be corrected now that it is in the state it is in. 

Lastly - you also prove your own point.  You are just as non-interested in hearing the arguments against as others are non-interested in hearing the arguments for. 

[RainDog]

Lastly - you also prove your own point.  You are just as non-interested in hearing the arguments against as others are non-interested in hearing the arguments for.  

Quite to the contrary, I'm very interested in hearing legitimate arguments from either side. Although I'm not particularly "interested" in disinformation, I do make a strong effort to address even erroneous claims directly, go to and read links given, and usually even bother to track the source of the information quoted in the links. It's common courtesy, as well as a necessary rule of debate.

The sentence "You are just as non-interested in hearing the arguments against as others are non-interested in hearing the arguments for." indicates to me that I continue, somehow, to fail in communicating my position. I'm not "against" or "for" one side of this particular issue or the other. I'm against disinformation and intellectually dishonest tactics.

I'd like to expound further, but the evidence I'm seeing here is that most people don't read beyond the first sentence, if that.


Oh, and of course I agree that Bill Nye's arguments were nonsense, pretty much straight down the line. Comical, even. That's why I posted them.

[OlJarhead]

Raindog, I do agree it is politicized, and will not be corrected now that it is in the state it is in. 

Lastly - you also prove your own point.  You are just as non-interested in hearing the arguments against as others are non-interested in hearing the arguments for. 

Exactly my point actually.

[fishing_guy]

I just spent 15 minutes typing, and then had to delete it all...

I think the problem is that no one knows who to believe anymore....

Do you believe the mainstream...knowing that their way out of the problem will affect your way of life.  Not just how you live, but how our whole society WILL behave???

Or do you believe the energy and big energy companies who would love nothing better than being left alone to do whatever it is they do to make money???

There are problems on both sides.  As a scientist, I have personally seen how funding sources affect research...Somehow it usually comes out in favor of those spending the research dollars...

I for one am thoroughly disgusted with unethical science.  It makes me question EVERY bit of research done by that person...
I have lost jobs because of my stand, but I have also stood my ground and in the end have been proved right.  As one of my professors once said, "If you can't be open and honest in science, you don't belong in this profession".

Being questioned on your research is hard.  But if you think your hypothesis is right, you don't have to worry...you will be proved in the end.
What I hate are the scientists who are so thin-skinned that when questioned that they might be wrong, turn and hide behind their walls.  It makes me question ALL of their research, right or wrong.

[OlJarhead]

I just spent 15 minutes typing, and then had to delete it all...

I think the problem is that no one knows who to believe anymore....

Do you believe the mainstream...knowing that their way out of the problem will affect your way of life.  Not just how you live, but how our whole society WILL behave???

Or do you believe the energy and big energy companies who would love nothing better than being left alone to do whatever it is they do to make money???

There are problems on both sides.  As a scientist, I have personally seen how funding sources affect research...Somehow it usually comes out in favor of those spending the research dollars...

I for one am thoroughly disgusted with unethical science.  It makes me question EVERY bit of research done by that person...
I have lost jobs because of my stand, but I have also stood my ground and in the end have been proved right.  As one of my professors once said, "If you can't be open and honest in science, you don't belong in this profession".

Being questioned on your research is hard.  But if you think your hypothesis is right, you don't have to worry...you will be proved in the end.
What I hate are the scientists who are so thin-skinned that when questioned that they might be wrong, turn and hide behind their walls.  It makes me question ALL of their research, right or wrong.

Not unlike writing reviews on a given product.  The manufacturer sends the product to you free of charge (often expensive items) and you are expected to fairly present the object to the public -- just not too fairly.

Actually, this is something I do and it sometimes is a bit of trouble -- I can assure you that a business that does not like a review will not be back to advertise or provide more items for review (which has happened to me more then once).

So, some will write the review keeping that in mind just to get more advertising (funding).  Sadly, folks like me that try to be objective (yes raindog, I know it's hard for you to imagine that but I'm known for it in certain circuits -- might make you think twice about your opinion perhaps) are often not the richest around.  Though my website does well enough and is very highly rated, it will never make me rich.

The problem with this subject, and raindogs position is that rather then actually discuss the possibilities presented, most AGW supporters (and raindog) throw out things intended to either discredit a source, belittle the individual questioning their position or discard them altogether.  All of which is intellectually dishonest.

Furthermore, writing off multiple solar 'coincidences' as mere coincidence is not being very intellectually honest and ignores the obvious (common denominator).

To be honest, I'm not a scientist, but I am an individual who is paid to solve problems and when I look at this problem I see so called  'peer reviewed papers' that are rigged by those interested in pushing the AGW theme and I see snippets of other documents, interviews, emails and anecdotal evidence from the other side that ignores everything put in front of them to the contrary.

However, if I had to take a stance on one side or the other I'd have to go with the non-AGW group because they seem to have the most honest approach -- how?  Simple, they look outside and see snow, they notice cooler springs and winters and they just ask the question:  are you sure?

It's really only after that and receiving the "your too stupid to understand" answers from the AGW thugs that they really get their ire stirred up and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Shell Oil etc.. and everything to do with wanting to understand what really is going on.

And what is going on?  The progressive/socialist movement has glommed onto the AGW movement as a vehicle for moving an agenda forward and nothing more.  So, at this point the entire 'Global Warming' crowd is compromised by the very same type of individuals who drained a sea, made a river flow backwards, allowed forests to burn uncontrollably and worse -- yes, those same people that attacked big industry for the minuscule amounts of synthetic estrogen they were dumping into rivers while ignoring the massive amounts flushed down the toilet are going to save us all from what?  The natural cycle of warming and cooling on the earth?  With what?  A faked hockey stick graph which was compiled with faulty data?

I'm sorry, but they've discredited themselves completely and it's time realize that.

Now, before the responses fly let'/s get something straight:  I hate pollution and would like to see it stopped -- so, do you live in the city?  If so, consider this:  your city is nothing more then a cess pit and if you really want to save the planet start thinking about the unchecked expansion of cities around the world -- sewage piles up, rivers contaminated and garbage dumps grow at unbelievable levels.  If you really want to save the planet start thinking about fixing your home territory first -- and do it without destroying the rights and freedoms of the citizens.

Then maybe we'll have a great conversation about it

[wendigo]

Not unlike writing reviews on a given product.  The manufacturer sends the product to you free of charge (often expensive items) and you are expected to fairly present the object to the public -- just not too fairly.

As a research scientist, I can state unequivocally that writing a review and doing science are not even in the same ballpark.

The problem with this subject, and raindogs position is that rather then actually discuss the possibilities presented, most AGW supporters (and raindog) throw out things intended to either discredit a source, belittle the individual questioning their position or discard them altogether.  All of which is intellectually dishonest.

I would argue that discrediting a source is part of science. Results are only as good as the data, if a source in bunk, well then...
Belittling a person is politics, and unfortunately climate change is more politics than science these days, at least in the public eye.

Furthermore, writing off multiple solar 'coincidences' as mere coincidence is not being very intellectually honest and ignores the obvious (common denominator).

Correlation does not (and never will) equal causation, and is not science. What is the mechanism? If you don't have one then start looking, but just pointing to correlated events shows nothing. I bet I can show you thousands of things that are completely unrelated yet correlated.

To be honest, I'm not a scientist, but I am an individual who is paid to solve problems and when I look at this problem I see so called  'peer reviewed papers' that are rigged by those interested in pushing the AGW theme and I see snippets of other documents, interviews, emails and anecdotal evidence from the other side that ignores everything put in front of them to the contrary.

That is because this topic has gotten so over the top politicized, that opinions are being used as results - from both sides of the debate. Throw in some good 'ol journalism - who rarely get scientific topics written up correctly (sorry journalists) - and the general public has no real idea of what is going on.

However, if I had to take a stance on one side or the other I'd have to go with the non-AGW group because they seem to have the most honest approach -- how?  Simple, they look outside and see snow, they notice cooler springs and winters and they just ask the question:  are you sure?

Honesty, like beauty, can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder. As far as casual observations, by looking outside, they are representative of one of the biggest problems with this entire "debate". Climate change cannot and will not be established by looking outside your back door. Ever.

The scale for looking at climate is generally 20-30+ years, weather on the other hand is reviewed in hours, days, weeks, etc. So if you want to debate a topic you should first be sure you know what you are debating. It is foolhardy at best to do otherwise.

And what is going on?  The progressive/socialist movement has glommed onto...

Earlier on you stated that

...belittle the individual questioning their position or discard them altogether.

as a negative point. though you are using the exact same thing to start off this diatribe. Pot meet kettle.

Now, before the responses fly let'/s get something straight:  I hate pollution and would like to see it stopped -- so, do you live in the city?  If so, consider this:  your city is nothing more then a cess pit and if you really want to save the planet start thinking about the unchecked expansion of cities around the world -- sewage piles up, rivers contaminated and garbage dumps grow at unbelievable levels.  If you really want to save the planet start thinking about fixing your home territory first -- and do it without destroying the rights and freedoms of the citizens.

Then maybe we'll have a great conversation about it

How can you have a great conversation about something when you have already set terms that may be unduly acceptable to others- destroying the rights and freedoms of the citizens as it were? Why is your opinion more valuable?


Lastly, I don't study the climate. I study fish. Fish however are impacted strongly by the climate and by weather. In the Arctic we have seen significant and dramatic changes over a long period of time. It will have an impact regionally, nationally, and globally. No matter what is causing this impact it is changing things, and fast. A few years back I sat in on a meeting of the American Fisheries Society where the topic was not about whether climate change was occurring, but how to deal with the impending changes, because the public raises quite a ruckus when their fishing gets closed down. Basically, they were saying we need to be preemptive.


Finally, since this is a political topic these days, with the real and observed impacts taking a backseat to cap and trade etc. In my political opinion to all those that cry foul about doing something that may have an economic impact in order to slow the changes that will be hugely disruptive to humans, on a global scale - if we went into Iraq to start a war based upon the possibility of WMDs and we don't do anything to curb our impacts upon the globe, even though the results could have far greater implications than WMDs - well then we get what we deserve.

[ballen]

I belive that one reason there is so much controversy about climate change is because we are discussing the wrong thing.  Just like we talk about bankers bonus' without talking about how the corporations made that much money to begin with.  With the climate, it shouldn't be about whether or not there is climate change but about the sustainability of continuing to poop where we eat (poluting our air, earth and water).  That's what the conversation should be about. 

[fishing_guy]

I had a research scientist once tell me, "The solution to pollution is dilution."  Makes you wonder about forcing people to live in cities and not spread out....

I live in Minnesota.  The DNR is now studying a decline in Moose in the Northern part of our state....
At one point, we had NO moose...

Animal's range move all of the time....they follow the food better than we humans do...

What gives us the right (or audacity) to determine what is the right/wrong climate for a given area?  I think it is this aspect of the AGW debate that I have the most problem with...
We could do with a temperature shift up here in the north.  I could stand for a lower midwest climate here in the frozen north.