Disagreements over the Science Behind Global Climate Change

[Keith R]

Originally Posted by cobraboy

(I guess Chris and Keith sorta kinda just ignored this little piece of contrarian data. I know, I know, it goes against the IPCC "consensus" and "arduous" Peer Review that Chris so detailed, I had to do Peer Review stuff in grad school, granted it was in economics, but still; I'm sure Chris and Keith had to do the same thing in their respective grad schools, too, a common experience we share . I'm doubting the True Believers will read the entird .pdf document, so I'll just c/p the conclusion. Enjoy: )

I had read it before you posted it the first time, and re-read when you posted it. I am still not impressed, particularly since I know a bit about the background and agenda of the people producing it. But then, that would not matter to you, would it, as long as it says what you want to believe and hear?

(Sounds properly "Peer Reviewed" to me... )

It would.

I'm still waiting for you to cite Lomberg, CEI, Cato and Heritage. They're the only sources for this line of argument that are missing from your citations.

I saw this quote somewhere; Ouch! The Truth stings...and seems soooooo close:

"The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it"
-H L Mencken

Yep, it's all one great big conspiracy to rule the world. There's not such thing as thoughtful people who want to tackle what they are convinced are real environmental issues.

Yeah, and a commie pinko under every bed, waiting to snatch your purse and freedom when you're not looking. Puh-leeeeeeeeeeezzzeee How do you live day-to-day being that paranoid?

[bob saunders]

Originally Posted by Keith R

Nope. I do think, though, about what it would be like to have my grandkids some day ask me why my generation sat on its hands and debated every fine point about global climate change instead of acting to take what steps they can while they still can, based on best knowledge at the time and steps that make good sense for other reasons (like the examples I gave before, higher energy & fuel efficiency, more use of renewable energy sources, reduction of wasting and waste, etc.)

Yes, but not carbon trading, or the way I think of it; paying cash for your ability to continue to pollute.

[Keith R]

Originally Posted by bob saunders

Yes, but not carbon trading, or the way I think of it; paying cash for your ability to continue to pollute.

Even I have my doubts about carbon trading and so-called carbon offsets, but that probably should be the focus of a separate thread.

[Keith R]

And I await for you to start citing Marx and Engels. Feel better? (nice little sideswipe slur coming from a Mod...)

Interesting that you think being associated with Lomberg, Cato, CEI and Heritage is a "slur."

[cobraboy]

I have the 250+ MMGW links I've collected over the years, maybe one of the largest collections on the subject in one place anywhere, on 13 pages, double spaced, in Word, I'm not one of those "Google when I'm backed against the wall" types. I find stuff and save it, a carry-over from college days. At least it's easier than 3x5 cards like back in the day. Even when I try posting just one page at a time here, it doesn't work. I get a 404 type error.

If anyone cares to have a copy of them, PM me with an e-addy, and I'll shoot you a copy, no problema.

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by Keith R

Ah yes, I forgot. Only you know what Truth is. Mea culpa.

We're making progress, Keith. One day at a time...

Originally Posted by Keith R

Interesting that you think being associated with Lomberg, Cato, CEI and Heritage is a "slur."

Oh, I don't. But obviously YOU do. You don't exactly have a long history of tossing roses, complements and kudos in my direction, Keith. Quite the contrary...

I do respect Cato, however, and they DO have this relevant opinion: Hot Enough for You? The state of the global-warming debate, and politicking . Here are a couple of interesting excerpts from it:

Originally Posted by Cato

Do other reviews of the scientific literature tell a different story? It depends on whom you ask. An article by Naomi Oreskes in Science last December examined 1,000 scientific papers published since the early 1990s. Oreskes concluded that 75 percent of those papers either directly or implicitly supported the argument that industrial emissions are driving global warming, and none directly argued to the contrary. A subsequent review of the same articles by Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer on the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, found nothing of the kind. Peiser concluded that only one-third of the papers reviewed by Oreskes actually supported the "consensus view," and only 1 percent did so explicitly.

and

Originally Posted by Cato

In any case, debating what constitutes the mainstream thinking on climate change is not particularly enlightening. Regardless of how one defines "the consensus," scientific truth is not revealed by a show of hands. As Thomas Kuhn demonstrated in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the history of scientific progress is a history of once-solid consensuses being overthrown by minority skeptics. In short, today's consensus proves nothing.

and finally

Originally Posted by Cato

The skeptics are on solid ground here because the atmosphere simply has not proven to be as sensitive to industrial greenhouse-gas emissions as some theorists have feared. Unless some temporary phenomenon is masking the effect of such emissions, atmospheric physics suggests that warming will occur at a linear rate -- a conclusion affirmed by almost all the computer climate models in existence. This insight suggests a simple exercise: Plot temperature data over the last 50 years and draw a trend line to see what the future has in store. Doing so suggests that warming will likely be at the low end of the IPCC's projections -- about 1.5 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

Thanks for jogging my memory about Cato.

[Keith R]

Originally Posted by cobraboy

Oh, I don't. But obviously YOU do. You don't exactly have a long history of tossing roses, complements and kudos in my direction, Keith. Quite the contrary...

Nope. You assume ... again. Not a slur. Just figured that their pronouncements on the issue are very much in line with yours, so I was surprised that (1) you had not yet cited them; (2) that you would react by suggesting it was a slur to be associated with them.

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by Keith R

Nope. You assume ... again. Not a slur. Just figured that their pronouncements on the issue are very much in line with yours, so I was surprised that (1) you had not yet cited them; (2) that you would react by suggesting it was a slur to be associated with them.

Well, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Now feel free to quote something from the New Republic or The Nation. Chris already beat you to the Center for American Progress, the group that YOU respect...

[cobraboy]

Chris and Keith, how do y'all explain this?

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Maybe they have jeepetas and motos on Mars...

[Keith R]

Originally Posted by cobraboy

Fact is, you have played heavy handed with "moderation" (as has Chris in other forums), so it is logical to ~think~ that behavior may continue.

As I told Chip, I usually try to keep hands off as much as possible in this Forum, and I think the 3-yr record of this Forum bears that out. But sometimes posters make it impossible to sit by. That's why there's moderators at DR1. We moderate.

If you don't like it, and think I am doing such a bad job, fine, you (or anyone else) have 3 basic choices:
(1) follow the rules of this Forum and your posts will be untouched;
(2) stop posting in this Forum;
(3) complain to Robert -- heck, even ask him to dismiss me if you think my moderation is so out-of-line. He's the owner; I'll abide by his judgment. Will you?