Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Comment For Braden's Site
I have been involved in a back-and-forth on Global Warming Hoax over at Braden’s Corner, but my comment doesn’t seem to be posting over there. As such, I have posted it here. If you want the background, go to his site and read the comments section on the article titled “Holy Crap!”. Here is my rebuttal:
So much nonsense, so little time.
With regards to Kenneth Tapping, I was not aware that he completely reversed his position. In light of the methods evironmentals use, I would not be surprised if his job was threatened, or someone suggested a war-crimes trial, or called him a “bastard” or “Holocaust denier”. While not reported by the media, it happens:
“I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric.”
Nonetheless, the editorial that was linked which referenced Tapping’s findings had more scientists in the mix. You might have noticed:
“A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion (that the sun is what dictates our global temperatures).
‘The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100,’ according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.
The study says that ‘try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures.’
The study concludes that if you shut down all the world’s power plants and factories, ‘there would not be much effect on temperatures.’
But if the sun shuts down, we’ve got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that’s hanging in the balance.”
Pardon me if I’m “oversimplifying” here, but this study sure follows what common sense tells us. However, if you don’t like that editorial, you could reference this:
“According to Dr. Douglass: ‘The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.’”
Yeah, I know – “on the Exxon payroll”, yadda-yadda. I’m sure his co-authors are too:
“One of his co-authors, Dr. John Christy, added: ‘Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater.
‘We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.’”
Effects overestimated? Ignoring scientific elements of the measurement? Wow, that’s sound science you fellers have going on there!
“And the third co-author, Dr. S. Fred Singer, said: ‘The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals.
…
“‘Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless — but very costly.’”
And there you have it – the reasoning behind all of this nonsense. It’s “very costly”. Who benefits? Obviously, by example of the original story we’re all discussing, the taxpayer does not. Obviously, by the notions of one contributor here, businesses do not. Now … doesn’t Algore have vested financial interest in Carbon Credit companies? Interesting…
Who else benefits? If given their way:
“The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Wednesday is expected to debate amendments to a bill proposed by Sens. Lieberman of Connecticut and Warner of Virginia that would create a ‘cap and trade’ system designed to cut total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. These systems require industries to pay fees when they emit carbon dioxide or other greenhouses gases above a set limit, with the money going to reward cleaner businesses.”
Yes, rewarding “cleaner businesses” which I’m sure make significant donations. Not to mention are already in the business of propagating this myth, as we are already spending $6.5 billion per year – tax dollars – on it. Anyone else that stands to benefit?
“Holdren (U.N. panel scientist), however, says even these measure will achieve very little unless they are accompanied by a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions.”
A global tax from the U.N. Terrific! Looks like this myth is going to financially benefit a whole variety of folks – not you or I – certainly not the environment!
“Better to hedge our bets and try to live more responsibly”
Nobody disagrees with that. While a rational notion, the problem is your definition of that responsibility. There is no scientific evidence that clearly indicates a correlation with CO2 and methane to global warming. Most of the scientists who claim so are running on seriously flawed science. Before I even get into the flaws of the science of Global Warming Hoax, we need to back this train up slightly. If we are to make accurate scientific correlations to temperature, shouldn’t we be measuring temperature properly?
Alas, I digress. Let’s make the rash assumptions that temperatures are rising and that they are being measured properly. Dr. Tim Ball notes the major flaw in Global Warming Hoax theory:
“A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.”
Get that? The theory was accepted before it was even tested. Again, I don’t think anyone endorses living irresponsibly. Simply put, I cannot fathom how one can consider questioning the seriously flawed nature of this hysteria as irresponsible.
“Are the ice caps melting and breaking apart? YES.”
Wrongo. Although this quote is from the eee-vil Fox News, don’t discount it:
“Brazil’s MetSul Weather Center reports the ice and snow cover in the Arctic have recovered to within one percent of normal — even though the official start of winter is still more than a week away.
“And it says the southern polar ice cap actually has an additional 772,000 square miles of ice now — compared to a year ago.”
Or how about this from the National Post:
“Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.”
Sorry guys, but I’m not interested in buying the bridge you’re selling.
“‘We missed what was right in front of our eyes,’ says Prof. Russell (Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona and prominent climate modeler). It’s not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind’s effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.”
But, by all means let’s continue to tax such nonsense as cow farts.
So much nonsense, so little time.
With regards to Kenneth Tapping, I was not aware that he completely reversed his position. In light of the methods evironmentals use, I would not be surprised if his job was threatened, or someone suggested a war-crimes trial, or called him a “bastard” or “Holocaust denier”. While not reported by the media, it happens:
“I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric.”
Nonetheless, the editorial that was linked which referenced Tapping’s findings had more scientists in the mix. You might have noticed:
“A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion (that the sun is what dictates our global temperatures).
‘The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100,’ according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.
The study says that ‘try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures.’
The study concludes that if you shut down all the world’s power plants and factories, ‘there would not be much effect on temperatures.’
But if the sun shuts down, we’ve got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that’s hanging in the balance.”
Pardon me if I’m “oversimplifying” here, but this study sure follows what common sense tells us. However, if you don’t like that editorial, you could reference this:
“According to Dr. Douglass: ‘The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.’”
Yeah, I know – “on the Exxon payroll”, yadda-yadda. I’m sure his co-authors are too:
“One of his co-authors, Dr. John Christy, added: ‘Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater.
‘We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.’”
Effects overestimated? Ignoring scientific elements of the measurement? Wow, that’s sound science you fellers have going on there!
“And the third co-author, Dr. S. Fred Singer, said: ‘The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals.
…
“‘Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless — but very costly.’”
And there you have it – the reasoning behind all of this nonsense. It’s “very costly”. Who benefits? Obviously, by example of the original story we’re all discussing, the taxpayer does not. Obviously, by the notions of one contributor here, businesses do not. Now … doesn’t Algore have vested financial interest in Carbon Credit companies? Interesting…
Who else benefits? If given their way:
“The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Wednesday is expected to debate amendments to a bill proposed by Sens. Lieberman of Connecticut and Warner of Virginia that would create a ‘cap and trade’ system designed to cut total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. These systems require industries to pay fees when they emit carbon dioxide or other greenhouses gases above a set limit, with the money going to reward cleaner businesses.”
Yes, rewarding “cleaner businesses” which I’m sure make significant donations. Not to mention are already in the business of propagating this myth, as we are already spending $6.5 billion per year – tax dollars – on it. Anyone else that stands to benefit?
“Holdren (U.N. panel scientist), however, says even these measure will achieve very little unless they are accompanied by a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions.”
A global tax from the U.N. Terrific! Looks like this myth is going to financially benefit a whole variety of folks – not you or I – certainly not the environment!
“Better to hedge our bets and try to live more responsibly”
Nobody disagrees with that. While a rational notion, the problem is your definition of that responsibility. There is no scientific evidence that clearly indicates a correlation with CO2 and methane to global warming. Most of the scientists who claim so are running on seriously flawed science. Before I even get into the flaws of the science of Global Warming Hoax, we need to back this train up slightly. If we are to make accurate scientific correlations to temperature, shouldn’t we be measuring temperature properly?
Alas, I digress. Let’s make the rash assumptions that temperatures are rising and that they are being measured properly. Dr. Tim Ball notes the major flaw in Global Warming Hoax theory:
“A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.”
Get that? The theory was accepted before it was even tested. Again, I don’t think anyone endorses living irresponsibly. Simply put, I cannot fathom how one can consider questioning the seriously flawed nature of this hysteria as irresponsible.
“Are the ice caps melting and breaking apart? YES.”
Wrongo. Although this quote is from the eee-vil Fox News, don’t discount it:
“Brazil’s MetSul Weather Center reports the ice and snow cover in the Arctic have recovered to within one percent of normal — even though the official start of winter is still more than a week away.
“And it says the southern polar ice cap actually has an additional 772,000 square miles of ice now — compared to a year ago.”
Or how about this from the National Post:
“Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.”
Sorry guys, but I’m not interested in buying the bridge you’re selling.
“‘We missed what was right in front of our eyes,’ says Prof. Russell (Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona and prominent climate modeler). It’s not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind’s effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.”
But, by all means let’s continue to tax such nonsense as cow farts.
Rebuttals:
<< Home
Absolutely a top notch rebuttal. Well worded, my friend.
As for you not being able to post your comment on my own site, it's because there is a limit as to how big an actual comment can be. I myself, have run into that very same snag. I think that's one of the only negatives of the Subtext blogging engine. :)
But like I said before, your rebuttal is extremely well thought out.
Nice job!
As for you not being able to post your comment on my own site, it's because there is a limit as to how big an actual comment can be. I myself, have run into that very same snag. I think that's one of the only negatives of the Subtext blogging engine. :)
But like I said before, your rebuttal is extremely well thought out.
Nice job!
Here are two unfortunate truths related to the Global Climate Change debate:
1) Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth—Vladimir Lenin
2) Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem—Joseph Stalin
I read a recent comment the other day on a Global Warming post responding to the question: “How Will We Know When Climate Change has Stopped? The commenter lamented that no one is seriously suggesting that we can stop climate change completely; but maybe we can stop catastrophic climate change before it's too late. I should have re-engaged with the question: How Will We Know When Catastrophic Climate Change has Stopped?, but didn’t because all I read and hear is phrased—Stop/Halt Global Climate Change. Until we all start Thinking Strategically About Global Climate Change, the Lenins and Stalins among us will get their way.
1) Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth—Vladimir Lenin
2) Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem—Joseph Stalin
I read a recent comment the other day on a Global Warming post responding to the question: “How Will We Know When Climate Change has Stopped? The commenter lamented that no one is seriously suggesting that we can stop climate change completely; but maybe we can stop catastrophic climate change before it's too late. I should have re-engaged with the question: How Will We Know When Catastrophic Climate Change has Stopped?, but didn’t because all I read and hear is phrased—Stop/Halt Global Climate Change. Until we all start Thinking Strategically About Global Climate Change, the Lenins and Stalins among us will get their way.
This was ranted by 
at 11:31 AM
at 11:31 AM
Thanks very much, Braden. I actually read the comments from your other contributors yesterday and once I did I knew that I would have to compile lots of data. Not that it matters much – Global Warming Hoax believers are akin to the religious: their beliefs are based on faith, not science. When you present either with science, it is summarily dismissed.
Post a Comment
<< Home
