Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Copenhagen's political science

It's the article in yesterday's Washington Post by the favorite whipping-boy (or girl) of the left, Fmr. Governor Sarah Palin. You Go Girl! Me personally? I don't really have a dog in this fight when it comes to the defense of Palin as the badge to the link on the upper left corner of this page would indicate. Here are some excerpts from the article on the adult fairy-tale for adults known as Anthropogenic Global Warming. gate
""Climategate" as the emails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle--the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economies for the worst...... "
Now who could ague with that?

27 comments:

GCT said...

Sigh.

The best evidence we have indicates that climate change is for real. Just because some scientists have vehement discussions over small specifics and use heated language doesn't negate the overall science that has led to the current understanding of the Earth.

JD Curtis said...

It's as big a fraud as Darwinism. It MIGHT occur as heat islands in urban areas BFD.

JD Curtis said...

Meet me halfway G. You gotta agree that the whole carbon credit trading scam that it's linked to is a complete fraud....right? If not, can you give me a million dollars and I'll promise to plant a couple of trees for ya?

GCT said...

"It's as big a fraud as Darwinism."

Oh, then you agree that it's not fraudulent at all. Great.

J/K. I realize that you are anti-science, so I'm not surprised that you'd be against global climate change as well. Unfortunately for you, the science for both is rather well evidenced (better evidence for evolution I'll admit). But, hey, you can continue to keep your head in the sand and ignore the evidence that's been presented to you in favor of your faith-based approach that holds the writings of a bunch of desert nomads as more conclusive than empirical data.

"You gotta agree that the whole carbon credit trading scam that it's linked to is a complete fraud....right?"

It might be true that carbon trading is a scam, in that the recipients of the money don't really do anything to offset carbon emissions, but what does that have to do with whether the science is correct?

JD Curtis said...

I realize that you are anti-science, so I'm not surprised that you'd be against global climate change as well

How is it being anti-science? "one does not require a Ph.D. in a related field to correctly identify statistical manipulation. A background in mathematics or statistics will actually be much more useful in a forensic examination of statistical fraud than a doctoral degree in climatology or meteorology." Link

JD Curtis said...

It might be true that carbon trading is a scam, in that the recipients of the money don't really do anything to offset carbon emissions, but what does that have to do with whether the science is correct?

Tell me, why do the 2 have to go hand-in-hand? I always thought they would have been much further along in their global governance agenda if they approached it from an air/water quality angle than the hoax of climate change.

GCT said...

Your denial of empirical evidence for evolution and global warming is an anti-science stand, which puts you on par with any other luddite IMO.

"Tell me, why do the 2 have to go hand-in-hand?"

What do you mean? If a scam is based on some piece of science, then of course they will go hand-in-hand so to speak.

"I always thought they would have been much further along in their global governance agenda if they approached it from an air/water quality angle than the hoax of climate change."

Both of those are being used to show the damages that we inflict on our environment as well as the very real empirical data used to show climate change. This is why you are anti-science. You're so quick to declare anything you don't believe as a "hoax" without understanding what you are rejecting or knowing about the empirical evidence. This is no different than your abject refusal to deal with the evidence for evolution that has been presented to you. It's much easier to simply believe something else and shut your mind to the possibility that you might be wrong. Of course, you're the only one that thinks you are infallible.

JD Curtis said...

Your denial of empirical evidence for evolution and global warming is an anti-science stand

Pssssst, didnt you get the memo? it's CLIMATE CHANGE, not Global Warming anymore. It's reminiscent of the types of belief the atheists and liberals are more suseptible to. Anyway, as if on cue G, out today, CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY.

JD Curtis said...

This just in: "A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others." Link

photogr said...

Climate changing and global warming.The only global warming I see lately is all the hot air coming out of Washington.

Is there a climate change going on? Yes I believe there is. Is fossilized fuels the main cause? Not as much as we are led to believe by that hot air in Washington.

Much of our climate changing can be attributued to natural processes that have been going on for thousands of years. If you look back in history over the many thousands of year, we have been going through processes such as the ice age and then followed by warming and then another ice age or a mini ice age.

Where I believe the issues are and are being over looked is the deforestation in South America( Amazon) of hundreds of thousands of acres of trees and plant life. In America we have the over development of many areas for housing, shopping malls, and businesses. Many were once green belts lush with abundance of trees and natural environments. Sadly greedy land developers had the laws changed for their own purpose leveling the lands to a baren waste land and laying down asphalt and concrete jungles. This certainly raises temperatures for those areas and cuts down on the trees left to regenerate the air. You do that all over the country and you get worse quality of air and higher heat temps. As an example in my own city we had a green belt area with over 50,000 acres of forest that was zoned "green belt and wild life habitat". Some land developers ( don't know why they are called that) decided to get the zoning changed and turned it into a giant shopping area with malls and car dealerships. The area adjacent to this forest was already over crowded with some businesses closing up due to lack of trafic in the area.

Two things happended in that area. The temps were higher afterwards since there wasn't trees and folaige. The streams running through the land dried up with all the asphalt and concrete buildings all over the landscape. The wild life died off and didn't survive or were shot as a nuisance if they did survive.

Ten degree temps in an area that normally has a 30 to 40 degree temp this time of the year leads me to believe Golbal warming scares is a haox. The summers here are usually very hot. This year it was a cool one.

GCT said...

"It's reminiscent of the types of belief the atheists and liberals are more suseptible to."

You're still going on about that spectacularly bad argument? Atheists are not susceptible to it, since we see woo as just as bad as your religion, and that doesn't even matter anyway. Are you really saying that 95% or more of practicing climatologists are either deluding the public (for what reason?) or are themselves deluded by the empirical evidence?

"Anyway, as if on cue G, out today, CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY."

Because the ignorant ramblings of a conservative think-tank should be held as more reliable than the empirical evidence and professional opinions of actual, practicing scientists? Really?

"This just in: "A pooled weighted average of 1.97%..."

Wow, 1.97%...across all scientists, not just climatologists. And, we all know that science must be repeatable, so there's a self-correcting factor in science that allows us find errors and misrepresentations, like the misrepresentations made all the time by creationists. Of course, I'm sure you think that all the science you agree with is correct and all the science that you disagree with since it conflicts with your belief is completely fabricated, don't you? That is anti-science.

GCT said...

photogr,
"Is there a climate change going on? Yes I believe there is. Is fossilized fuels the main cause? Not as much as we are led to believe by that hot air in Washington."

Really? Washington has been dragging its feet over climate change for years now! Bush and co used the common tactic of deny, deny, deny, and you think that Washington is pushing it on us? Really?

"Much of our climate changing can be attributued to natural processes that have been going on for thousands of years. If you look back in history over the many thousands of year, we have been going through processes such as the ice age and then followed by warming and then another ice age or a mini ice age."

That's not the professional opinion of the vast majority of actual scientists. What data and special training do you have that qualifies you to say they are all wrong or lying to us? (And, you do realize that if they are all lying to us, you are talking about a conspiracy that is so much larger than could possible work, right?)

"Ten degree temps in an area that normally has a 30 to 40 degree temp this time of the year leads me to believe Golbal warming scares is a haox. The summers here are usually very hot. This year it was a cool one."

You do realize that this is a subject that deals with many data points over lots of years, right? Pointing to one cool summer (which is actually part of some of the models, as we find some areas start to get more and more rain, dropping local temps and other areas dry up more and more increasing local temps and leading to the global average increasing) does not mean that the trend is not going up.

Seriously, you and JD need to check out this link and please don't go in thinking that you should start with the more advanced. The level of knowledge you two possess on the subject is rather limited. I would start with the "For Complete Beginners" section.

JD Curtis said...

I've been to RealClimate before.

Are you really saying that 95% or more of practicing climatologists are either deluding the public (for what reason?) or are themselves deluded by the empirical evidence?

No. I'm saying they are parroting the party line for a variety of reasons. Personal agendas and vying for research money among them.

Just make a quick scroll through this link to see where they are measuring temputatures from. Keep in mind that this is only scratching the surface of on their scientifically shoddy methods collection of data.

Photogr, thanks for your comment. You might be interested in this entry from a couple of months ago. WARNING: Contains the quote ""David Deming wrote, "This is not science – it's religion. It takes faith to believe in global warming. You need to pretend the sun is not the major factor in how warm the earth is at any given time. You need to pretend that your choice of light bulb can really impact the temperature of the planet. You need to pretend that buying carbon credits from Al Gore will actually save the planet."

photogr said...

GCT:

The current administration is trying to push it down our throats for all the wrong reasons. Should it be a benefit I would go along but it is not.

29 years ago when the government forced the auto industry to put catalytic convertors on cars we were told it would clean up the air. Well it hasn't so there is something else fouling up the air and contributing to the supposed global warming. It is called Earths natural cycle with a little help from human activity.

I don't think I or JD are less intelligent than you. Perhaps about the same level but I have my doubts about you considering you propose you seem to know it all and every one else is lesser than you mentality.

I have a lot to do so I don't have time to spend hours researching a topic like others may nor do I have time to belittle others thoughts. I do try to repect other views even if I don't agree with them but to belittle other to make your self look superior is actually showing who or what you really are.

It is good to dissagree with a thought. It brings other views to the table to consider others ideas and I welcome that. Don't mean I will change my mind but I will consider the arguments.

I have my views and you have yours. That is something we can agree on. You appear to be a learned person and so am I. Be civil and so will I. Be insulting and so will I.

GCT said...

JD,
"I've been to RealClimate before."

You obviously didn't pay it any heed. Have you looked at the stuff I linked to? Of course not, you don't need to see actual evidence to know that your beliefs are correct.

"No. I'm saying they are parroting the party line for a variety of reasons. Personal agendas and vying for research money among them."

So, you are contending that it's a giant scientific conspiracy...to get research money! If only you knew. The real conspiracy is tied in to abiogenesis and evolutionary research and it's a bid of all us atheists to take over the world! Muah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

"Keep in mind that this is only scratching the surface of on their scientifically shoddy methods collection of data."

It's always refreshing when non-scientists are suddenly experts on how all the professional scientists are getting it all wrong.

GCT said...

photogr,
"Should it be a benefit I would go along but it is not."

Actually, they haven't been strong enough on it. BTW, what do you mean by "benefit?" Cleaning up the environment by turning to cleaner fuel sources would increase jobs, could lead to new innovations, and would benefit our health as we clean pollutants out of our air and water. What other benefits do you need?

"29 years ago when the government forced the auto industry to put catalytic convertors on cars we were told it would clean up the air. Well it hasn't..."

"For example, the U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 required 90 percent reductions in three types of pollutants from automobiles by 1976...Despite opposition to the 1970 Amendments, a technology that allowed the regulations to be met, the catalytic converter, was invented by 1975. The invention not only decreased pollution but also gave U.S. industry patents. Neither the economy nor the automobile industry suffered due to the 1970 regulations. Since 1970, the number of vehicles in the U.S. has doubled, while the population has increased by only one-third. Between 1970 and 2000, emissions of sulfur dioxide, organic gases, and carbon monoxide each decreased by one-third, yet the U.S. Gross Domestic Product in fixed dollars doubled and the unemployment rate decreased from 4.9 to 4.0 percent. Regulations not only led to U.S. patents on pollution control technologies, engine technologies, fuel technologies, and alternative energy technologies, they also expanded industries, such as the clean-fuel, control-device, measurement-device, remediation, pollution software, pollution consulting, and satellite industries. Regulations further employed public- and educational-sector regulators, policy analysts, scientists, and engineers. Regulations also led to improvements in air quality, decreasing health and mortality costs." Link

"It is called Earths natural cycle with a little help from human activity."

This is not the professional opinion of over 95% of practicing climatologists. What makes you think you know better than experts who actually work in the field?

"I don't think I or JD are less intelligent than you."

Never said you were.

"Perhaps about the same level but I have my doubts about you considering you propose you seem to know it all and every one else is lesser than you mentality."

The difference between us is that my position comes from the experts and empirical data while your position and JD's are based on your beliefs. It's not about intelligence, it's about whether your beliefs are more correct than reality.

"I have a lot to do so I don't have time to spend hours researching a topic like others may nor do I have time to belittle others thoughts."

I'm sorry if you felt belittled, but that's not the intention. Certainly, pointing you to a source where you can read up on this stuff is not belittling. I would question, however, how it is that you can make these claims as if you are an authority and then turn around and claim that you don't have time to research this topic. Doesn't that make you hesitant to start opining on the topic, especially when that opinion happens to contradict the opinion of actual experts?

"Be civil and so will I. Be insulting and so will I."

Are you upset because I said that your knowledge on the subject seems to be limited? I don't see that as an insult when you actual admitted that you don't have time to research this stuff. I gave you a link that has a lot of evidence that is pretty accessible. I suggest you read up on that which you would deny so that you're not rejecting something that you are ignorant about due to lack of time to study up on it.

GCT said...

BTW photogr,
It doesn't seem all that civil to me that you are basically calling 95% of the world's practicing professional climatologists a bunch of incompetents and/or liars.

photogr said...

GCT:

You are actually funny.

I stand corrected on the catalytic convertors as far as the date. So am I to understad that you are saying the economy was inproved by the regulations of putting convertors on cars? I would have thought it was many variable instances that contributed to improving the economy in that time.

I did study some of your links. Still have some more to read. Actually in the advanced columns.

I did not call any one incompetent or liars. You said it. I just find it hard to believe some of the claims.

I also don't claim to be an authority on this subject. Far from it. What I stated was my on observations and experiences over the years.

Some of the articles I have read seem to point in different directions and were inconclusive as to what one mitigating factor would be the absolute cause of global warming. It appears they are suggesting several factors. However, I have only read some of the articles.

When one researches and studies a particular article of interest, one becomes basically theoretically knowledgable of the subject. This knowledge untested by experience is just that. Only therotical knowledge and not experienced knowledge.

As an example: A person reads all he can find about rebuilding an engine in a car but has no experience at ever doing that. One might think he can do the job. Not likely in most cases but one will have a good idea about rebilding an engine. This does not make one experienced to do so.

As far as some of the scientific scientist's claims, one would have to consider the claims as fact based on their experience but on the other hand, there are conflicting stories from other scientist based on their experience. So it then comes down to who do you believe?

I have enjoyed this debate.
Take care.

JD Curtis said...

It doesn't seem all that civil to me that you are basically calling 95% of the world's practicing professional climatologists a bunch of incompetents and/or liars.

"The conference occurred just months after the release of a blockbuster U.S. Senate Minority Report featuring over 400 prominent scientists who recently disputed man-made global warming claims. (LINK) The more than 400 scientists featured in the report thoroughly debunk the assertions that "all scientists agree" about man-made global warming. But as New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, science is ultimately not a numbers game

Furthermore, a Canadian survey of scientists released on March 6, 2008 offered even more evidence that the alleged ‘consensus’ is non-existent. A canvass of more than 51,000 scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found 68% of them disagree with the statement that ‘the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.'" According to the survey, only 26% of scientists attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA’s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We're not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."


Meteorologist Art Horn: “There are thousands of scientists around the world who believe that this issue is not settled. The climate is not being influenced by carbon dioxide.”



German Meteorologist Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis. The rational basis for extremist views about global warming may be a desire to push for political action on global warming.”



Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut: “The fluctuations in Earth’s temperature are caused by astronomical phenomena. The combined effects of all ‘greenhouse gases,’ albedo changes, and other Earthly changes account for no more than about 3 degrees C of the changes during transitions between ice ages and interglacials.”



Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review: “It is my belief that the strident and frequent claims of catastrophes caused by man-made global warming are stated with a degree of confidence not warranted by the data.

Weather Channel founder and meteorologist John Coleman: “Serious scientists and serious students of global warming have concluded after a lot of effort that there is little basis for the thought that we are going to have catastrophic global warming.”

Can you blame me if I take the side of the founder of the
Weather Channel on this one G?

JD Curtis said...

Sorry, here's the link to the cited article. It's from a fringe, extremist group calling itself Senate.gov.

GCT said...

photogr,
"So am I to understad that you are saying the economy was inproved by the regulations of putting convertors on cars? I would have thought it was many variable instances that contributed to improving the economy in that time."

Yes, there were many factors, but what we don't see is an economic hit due to the regulations that were put in place. We also did see cleaner exhaust coming from vehicles, which did help the atmosphere. The proliferation of more and more vehicles along with other pollutants helped to counteract the good that was done by adding catalytic converters, but it would have been much worse had we not added them.

"I did study some of your links."

Thank you.

"I did not call any one incompetent or liars. You said it. I just find it hard to believe some of the claims."

That's how it comes across when you say that it's all a hoax or all wrong.

"Some of the articles I have read seem to point in different directions and were inconclusive as to what one mitigating factor would be the absolute cause of global warming. It appears they are suggesting several factors."

That's because you're right, there are several factors, not just one. The bottom line, however, is that we are seeing trends rise and we are contributing to it.

"As far as some of the scientific scientist's claims, one would have to consider the claims as fact based on their experience but on the other hand, there are conflicting stories from other scientist based on their experience. So it then comes down to who do you believe?"

Much like the "science" that showed that tobacco is not harmful that happened during the 60s and 70s and even later, we find a similar phenomenon today where climatologists who speak out against global warming are by and large financed by oil companies and other companies that have a stake in not making waves. Not all, but a good percentage. (Often times they are also not climatologists.)

The best course of action is to look at the consensus that emerges. 95% of climatologists are in agreement over the data. That doesn't necessarily mean they are right, but it's a darn good indicator.

GCT said...

JD,
You've linked to Inhofe's page, which is not at all convincing. Yes, there are skeptics, and then there's Inhofe whose made this his personal crusade for a quite a while and is well known for his ability to get things wrong and misrepresent. See "The Republican War on Science" by Chris Mooney for more about Inhofe.

JD Curtis said...

The same Chris Mooney who has Abandoned Science, Logic and Reason?

photogr said...

GCT:

I did not say it was all a hoax or all wrong. I just dispute some of the findings and their motives. The point I made about the vast deforestation ( what I consider to be a major issue) going on seems to be grossly over looked in our country and in the Amazon. Shouldn't the scientist be addressing this issue too?

JD Curtis said...

PHOTOGR, if there is one question I could ask any self-described "environmentalist" these days, it would be "
How many trees have you planted during the last year?" I that thinkwould stop alot of the wannabee's and hanger on-ers to the green movement right in their tracks!

GCT said...

JD,
"The same Chris Mooney who has Abandoned Science, Logic and Reason?"

Epic fail. A) Chris Mooney wrote that piece. B) It's about his stance on how outspoken atheists should or should not be. Nice try, but still an epic fail.

Photogr,
"I did not say it was all a hoax or all wrong. I just dispute some of the findings and their motives."

It's not wrong, but you dispute the findings? It's not a hoax but you call their motives into question? Can you explain this, because it looks rather contradictory to me.

"The point I made about the vast deforestation ( what I consider to be a major issue) going on seems to be grossly over looked in our country and in the Amazon. Shouldn't the scientist be addressing this issue too?"

Who says no one is addressing it? It's part of the human activity that is leading to climate change.

Leo B. Vadalà said...

I thought you would enjoy this if you have not seen it yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8O-E_GN0Kg