SoAMadDeathWish

I agree with most of what you're saying here, but the bolded implies that you're not denying that man-made CO2 emissions are causing global warming. Is that the case? CO2 and what else is sustaining the current warm spell. Our buddies from IPPC absolutely refuse to factor in other natural drivers such as sun activity variation. Orbital variations. Axial tilt variations. The effect of cosmic rays on cloud production. Also feed back loops derived from the current climatic processes. They have centered on one cause. Human production of CO2 effluence. The earth had its worst warm spells when there were no mammals on the planet. The Devonian and Siberian eruptions are the Big Ones. Not only did they cause warming on a grand scale but destroyed must of the life on the surface. When IPPC and the AGW mavens factor in all the known natural drivers then their conclusions may be more believable. CO2 effluence is their version of Original Sin. If these people really believed what they say then they should be pushing hard for paving every industrial nation end to end with nuclear power generating stations. No CO2. Ba'al Chatzaf If you're saying that mainstream scientists are not taking these things into account, then you are misinformed. Like I've said about a thousand times now, if you have any actual evidence for this belief, present it. Otherwise, a claim unsupported by evidence can be denied without evidence. Furthermore, the reason that the IPCC focus so much on CO2 emissions is because that is pretty much the only variable that humans can at all effect. There's not much anybody can do about the orbit of the Earth or solar output. (but also because those things are not the cause of the recent increase in average global temperatures) Finally, you are committing a logical fallacy here: Not believing what they say is not the only reason for not "paving every industrial nation end to end with nuclear power generating stations". There are many ways to solve the global warming issue. I think Objectivists and other small government people should come up with their own solutions that don't involve violating rights on a massive scale or taking over the world or whatever, instead of irrationally denying climate science.

Well, finally. At least we have something here. Unfortunately, it is misleading. "The little Ice Age" was not a global phenomenon, and it was mainly restricted to Western Europe and some of the eastern parts of North America. The little ice age was a freezing era in Europe and Norther Asia, probably due to the shut down of the Atlantic Halocline Conveyor. In short the Gulf Stream cease to warm up England, Northern Europe, the Scandinavian countries and the portions of Russia west of the Urals. The effects of this climate change is well supported historically. The Thames froze in winter and the Londoners had lots of fun holding winter fares on the frozen ice of the Thames. In Holland the canals froze solid in the winter. Time for Hans Brinker to break out the Silver Skates. The tree ring evidences show closer packing of the annual rings and some to the trees used to make violins were denser because of the freezing (the rings grew closer together). That is where Stadivarious got his wood to make such excellent instruments. See this article for why Europe froze during the Little Ice Age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation The last great idea age started about 2.1 million ybp and ended perhaps 20,000 to 30,000 ybp. We have been living in a rather comfortable inter glacial period since. This is also the time when agriculture originated and civilization flourished. We have inherited the notion that the climate of this inter glacial is "normal". Not so. Earth has frozen its arse off much more frequently than it has warmed up during the last 5 million years or so. The next Big Climate Shift will probably be to a very cool climate era. It may be the case that our effluence of CO2 and other green house gases has delayed the return of the next Ice Age somewhat, that that probably will not last. Ironically, if we reduce our carbon foot print we may hasten the return of the next Ice Age. We are long overdue for it. Ba'al Chatzaf That last global freeze was the Great Ice Age I agree with most of what you're saying here, but the bolded implies that you're not denying that man-made CO2 emissions are causing global warming. Is that the case?

Well, finally. At least we have something here. Unfortunately, it is misleading. "The little Ice Age" was not a global phenomenon, and it was mainly restricted to Western Europe and some of the eastern parts of North America.

It's impossible to forget something which wasn't ever in one's thoughts. Ellen And you once again fail to back up anything you say with any sort of evidence whatsoever. (and I'm supposedly the religious fanatic...)

The models used in climatology have been subjected to many empirical tests and all the data we have supports them (your unfounded claims of unfalsifiability notwithstanding). They've been subjected to a great deal of fiddling and retroactive adjusting when the predictions they make, as always, don't pan out. Ellen You're going around in circles at this point. Back in this post: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14217&page=4#entry208211 I asked you to back up your claims that the models have been retroactively manipulated to fit the data after the fact, and you never followed through. Why? Because you have no such proof and you know it. (And let's not forget that the models' predictions actually HAVE panned out.)

The models used in climatology have been subjected to many empirical tests and all the data we have supports them (your unfounded claims of unfalsifiability notwithstanding).

Naomi, Look into the activities of all these groups and you will find government money, gobs and gobs of government money. I thought I said that (using other words) and we were making progress. Ummm... no? No I don't really think you will, and if you think otherwise, where is your evidence? Additionally, I don't think you really answered my question. If a private group funds scientists to create research that supports a certain conclusion, is that or is that not biased research? Either AGW is true, or it is not. Which do you believe and why? You can't say neither as reality is an absolute and does not allow anybody the luxury of remaining neutral with respect to the facts. It's fine if you are against big government and its proponents. But I don't think that arguing against AGW simply because some big government types happen to believe it is true is a rational position. If a communist came on TV and said "Gravity exists, therefore communism", I would not argue that gravity doesn't exist. It's far more likely that his argument or his other premises are flawed. Whether or not gravity exists can only be settled by empirical investigation.

What they actually said is the opposite of what the biased article you linked to said that they said. That has always been my message. Your true believer mission frame to enlighten the heathen has kept you from seeing it. I want the government out of this thing. And for the record, "they're distorting," means government funded scientists regardless of which side it is. Michael What about when Exxon Mobil and other private groups and individuals fund scientists and think-tanks with the goal of having them discredit AGW. Is that not biased research?

You're starting to glimpse the issue from your fog. The government funds climate research. The government funds climate skepticism. (What do you think a crony is?) When you say one discredits the other, where are you? Not much, but a start. Michael You seem to have changed your stance on this. At first, I got the impression that you were saying that the government was funding climate research in order to corrupt it and promote a made-up theory of AGW, (presumably, because they want to destroy industry) Now, are you saying that they're distorting both sides of the argument in order to confuse the public?

I caught this on a Google search and landed at a conservative climate change watchdog site: Peer reviewed paper: It’s OK to lie about climate by Craig Rucker April 4, 2014 CFACT From the article: Love those peer-reviewed standards of excellence when it comes to climate change... Michael Unfortunately, the media has a way of spinning things in a way that makes people seem to say something they never meant. The authors themselves came out in an email to Jayson Lusk: And as usual, what the authors actually said is far more mundane and boring. Basically, they're saying that the media and politicians *cough* Al Gore *cough* have a tendency to exaggerate the dangers of AGW. They go on to say that, while an exaggerated danger might increase overall participation by countries in an IEA, ultimately, because of credibility issues, lying about the dangers of AGW can screw you over. Essentially, it's the story of the boy who cried wolf in mathematical form.

I think it would be a good thing, and still is in some areas, but that it's never a good thing to presume about an article that appears in any source, and that you recite the "peer review" catechism like a religionist. Ellen Actually, I would say that it often is a good thing to presume that a non-peer-reviewed "scientific" article is bullshit, seeing as how that is what pretty much all of them are. Peer-reviewed research represents the best evidence, theories, and arguments that humanity has in any given field. The problem with religionists is not that they extol the virtues of peer-review, but that they take things on faith rather than evidence.

Ok, first of all, no. What I'm trying to get at is, doesn't this funding of AGW-skeptics by Cronies like Exxon Mobil and other to discredit AGW, and censorship of climate scientists by the government (specifically the Bush administration) kind of call into question the credibility of AGW skepticism? (just as you claimed that government funding of climate scientists calls into question their credibility).

And it's such a good thing people on the inside keep falling to the outside and complaining about all the bullying and fanaticism on the inside. It's so nice to ignore all that. I know where I have seen this pattern before: Scientology. They used to persecute the dissenters just like the AGW people are doing now. Lots of money and power to do it, too. The AWG zealots use different tactics, but have the same level of dirty tricks as Scientology. And they have even more money and power. The great thing about the Internet is that it is taking down Scientology because the gatekeepers were not able to restrict access to insider information. Man did they holler "conspiracy" and all kinds of stuff, but they couldn't stop the flood of information. This is the same thing that is taking down the fanatics in the AGW movement. Unfortunately too many scientists have been toadies to them. And too many useful idiots like this person here who worship the wrong myths and call them science. Michael Have you considered the opposite possibility? What do you think of this: US Climate Scientists Pressured on Climate Change Or this: NASA 'played down' global warming to protect Bush Or this: White house cuts 'global warming' from report. Or this: Political Interference in Federal Climate Science Or this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/va-supreme-court-tosses-cuccinellis-case-against-u-va/2012/03/02/gIQAeOqjmR_blog.html Or how about all this "government money" going to "mainstream climate research scientists and organizations." Or how about this too? Or how about this particularly funny incident. Or would you like even more money?

Out of curiosity, you being the resident imbecile asserting that position, please point us helpless lost folks to the exact page of the peer-reviewed journals wherein the "scientific standards" are clearly stated. Thks A... Everything you could ever ask for: http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/index.html For any journal, you can go on their site, look at the section for authors and find their guidelines. EDIT: More information here http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/index.html

Ba'al Chatzaf, I just recently checked out the book Global Physical Climatology, by Dennis L. Hartmann again. I understand you had some concerns about the natural causes of climate change. The book devotes a whole chapter to the effects of ocean currents on climate and another chapter to all other causes of natural climate change such as variations in solar output, volcanic eruptions and stratospheric aerosols, and the orbital parameter theory of Ice Ages. I think you could benefit greatly from reading it.

I think it's a good thing that peer-reviewed journals have scientific standards and reject papers which fail to meet those standards. If you think that dissenting papers are rejected, not because they have failed to meet the standards of scientific rigor, but because of a political agenda that is enforced by a world-wide conspiracy of governments and climate scientists, then the onus is on you to prove it.

A few minutes with a search engine would turn up plenty. But since you'll predefine "reputable" as confirming it... Ellen That is what I mean. I don't define "reputable" as confirming AGW. By "reputable" I mean a source that is either a paper by climatologists in a peer-reviewed scientific journal or other work that is based on such peer-reviewed research. As to why I can't find it, I guess it simply doesn't exist. Like I've said, if you can show it to me, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

He may not have been an Objectivist, but he most certainly was a crank who didn't know anything about physics. Ellen, You certainly saved yourself some needless aggravation. This girl is not a serious intellectual. She sees things only in a tribal "us against them" framework at root (with her "us" being the elite enlightened and "them" being the stupid people like OL members) and is on a mission to convert the heathen by snark and posture. I never claimed that I was a serious intellectual. I'm just somebody who posts on the internet and studies sciencey stuff as a hobby. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I just like to argue with people (but I also like to win! ) . Not for its own sake, it's just how I learn, and arguing with Objectivish people and libertarians is how I came to Rand and similar intellectuals in the first place. I actually never said that Ellen was an Objectivist, nor do I care whether or not she is. I'm not trolling anyone. I will admit that I am arrogant and that my style can be very direct and annoying, and the discussion can get kinda pointed at times. I'm not perfect, and I can get frustrated with people at times, just like anybody else. But I'm always willing to let bygones be bygones. Even with Selene. I know we don't have a pretty history, but if he posts something that he thinks is worth talking about, I always give it careful consideration, and give my reasons for disagreeing when I disagree. Even if I disagree very forcefully, I never arbitrarily dismiss what anyone says, nor do I quote them selectively, or "play mindgames" in any other way. I never give up on people, no matter what they've said or done, so long as what they're saying now has some merit. With regard to reasonable discussion, I stated my reasons for believing what I believe earlier in the thread, and I simply asked others to do the same. I don't think that that is at all unreasonable. I like to debate and argue, and that is what I do. What I really dislike is when things get all personal and stuff. That being said, Michael, in all honesty I think you've brought in some baggage from the past that I had nothing to do with and you're dumping it all on me. That's just how I see it, and I think it's uncool. Like I said, I don't really like to make things personal, but I have to defend myself when I think I'm being accused of stuff I didn't do. You can continue to mock me all you like, but I've said my peace on this subject.

Because he's a population biologist and not a climate scientist. In all of your deep studies of climate science, you've never come across Ehrlich's views and his influence over the subject? Wow. I guess that's what happens when one has a hasty Google search/Wikipedia "education." Well, his work has nothing to do with climate science, seeing as how it is population biology, which isn't climate science. Do you see how that works? So, your position is that he is employed at Stanford as Professor of Population Studies and Biological Sciences, as well as President of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology, because Stanford doesn't take him seriously? You can clearly see that I never said that Stanford University doesn't take him seriously, but rather that they don't take the alarmist claims that he published in his books seriously. Where did you get the idea that he has never published in a peer-reviewed journal? I never said that he has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal period. I said that he has never published the claims in his books in a peer-reviewed journal. You just now discovered who he is, and instantly you're an expert on what all of his peers think of him and his work? You selectively quoted me there. That quote should read: Which should answer your question.

According to that article: Note that he is an economist and not a climate scientist. He also did not criticize AGW or climate science itself, he merely argued that the economic costs of climate change won't be as bad as others think.

This is a flat-out in-your-face lie (the part about her not asking people to prove a negative). Liar. Michael Here is a perfect example of the bait-and-switch I mentioned. Notice she did not say no conclusion that did not have roots in the data would pass the peer-review process. She said the data would not pass if it did not support the conclusion. She is starting as if the conclusion is a fact. Obviously. If the conclusion is about climate change, then data on rabbit reproduction would not be acceptable. It would not support the conclusion. If the data contradicted the conclusion, it would not be acceptable. That would undermine the conclusion. Supporting the conclusion does not mean proving the conclusion. That happens sometimes, but not always. And the conclusion can be speculation, especially when words like, "seems," "tend to," "more work needs to be done," etc. are appended. This happens all the time. Michael Hahaha... ok dude, whatever you say.

Sure they have. You just say it doesn't count when they do. Who wants to engage someone childish like that? Liar. I always present very good reasons for not admitting a certain claim. The article that Selene posted is not from an authoritative source, first of all, and it also quite obviously misrepresents climate science. Ba'al has yet to give us any reason at all to believe that climate models are unfalsifiable. That's simply false. No scientific paper whose data did not support the author's conclusion would ever pass the peer-review process. Once again, I am also not asking anybody to prove a negative. The fact is that there are very good reasons and evidence for believing the claims about AGW. If anybody believes that the data and theories that support AGW are flawed in some way, then they must give their reasons for believing so. This is not at all the same thing as asking people to prove a negative.

How could someone who is the serious student of climate science that you pose as being not have heard of Ehrlich? Because he's a population biologist and not a climate scientist. Do you mean "no one" other than Stanford University and the leftist media and Ehrlich's leftist "critics" who think that he hasn't gone far enough? Since you've just now heard of Ehrlich for the first time, why are you claiming to know who does or doesn't take him seriously? Do you really believe that you can make us believe that you've had enough time to study the issue to come to a rational and informed conclusion? I said no one in population biology takes his claims seriously. And, no, neither does Stanford University, and I could care less about his leftist critics. It's obvious that since he has never published his claims in a peer-reviewed journal, that none of his peers in population biology take them seriously. I'll believe that you believe what you say about AGW when I see evidence that you've voluntarily changed your life accordingly. All the rest is just bluff and bluster. J Politically, I describe myself as a pessimist. I don't believe that AGW will be stopped, and am just enjoying myself while I can.

I didn't even know who Paul Ehrlich was until just now. It seems that he only ever published his alarmist predictions in his own books and not in any peer-reviewed journal. No one in population biology takes his claims seriously. I don't care what leftists do or don't believe or how they act in response to those beliefs. Leftists will believe a lot of stupid crap and do a lot of stupid things. I don't take my cues about reality from those idiots, and neither should anybody else. I'm not asking anyone here to take me at my word. All that anybody who is interested in reality has to do to find the truth is to just study the actual science and simply look at the data. Forget about all this political bullshit for a minute and use your mind. If after you've looked at all the data, you still have serious doubts, then it would be a good idea to figure out why the scientists are getting it wrong. However, I will point out once again, that even through this whole thread, despite having many opportunities, every AGW skeptic has failed to provide even a single good reason for being skeptical of the science behind AGW. That means that most people have not done their homework.

A little while back, I said this and I stand by it because the most recent posts demonstrate its truth perfectly: Sad to say it, the only people who are guilty of politicizing and distorting science at this point are Objectivists. For whatever reason, Obectivism attracts a lot of cranks and frauds. It is hard to think of one area of human intellectual achievement that some well-known or prominent Objectivist has not denied. Everything from abstract mathematics and modern physics, to evolution and climatology has been accused of either philosophical or political corruption. These "skeptics" are shown to be completely uninformed about the subject they criticize every single time. That Dennis L. May character was just one among many supposed Objectivist "experts" who engage in this sort of nonsense. Someone mentioned the Vatican earlier in order to ridicule climate science, but this is ironic when you consider that the Vatican currently engages in no science-denialism of any kind whatsoever. This is despite their explicit endorsement of faith over reason and belief in a god. For a philosophy that's supposed to be based on reality and reason, this is an embarrassment.