Climate deniers act like actual skeptics, do own research, get "surprising" results.

reply to post by stanguilles7


Well there's quotes in my OP where he himself says he was. There's also youtube videos where he gives public talks pooping all over Al Gore, the IPCC, and the supposed politics of man made global warming.

He's a physicist so he at least does have an understanding of the physical basis for CO2 based warming, but he was notorious for often repeating various other denier memes about the hockey stick, plight of the polar bears, etc.

If you want to make the case that he was never a full blown denier I could buy that - especially now - but he certainly did make enough goofy public statements in the past that made him a champion of full-blown deniers - like Anthony Watts' initial post implies.

Personally I think the guy is just into self-promotion, and he liked the attention he got from saying controversial things - but now he's come to realize that ultimately the truth will play out in nature, and history will be the ultimate judge - so he's jumping ship and washing his hands of his previous statements so that he's remembered as a noble skeptic who saw the light - rather than one of the clueless stooges who sank the Earth in a sea of denial.

reply to post by unityemissions


Well, you are right in so far as the 1970's wasn't so full of 'experts' from every side of the field declaring they absolutely know, all the sudden now, how the complexities of the global climate system actually operate and know it with such certainty that it's time to start talking about how to artificially alter it. There were far less of them then and the public had the science and basic education to a level that those people were pretty much laughed at.

It should still be that way now, as the knowledge for how the complex system above and around us is still as much a question mark as it is known.

My point on this whole thing is very simple. I don't deny climate change. Not for a moment. In fact, I quite readily agree. It's changing alright and God help us if it's changing even remotely close to how it has, hundreds of times before across the history of our planet.

I only disagree and always WILL....short of hard evidence that doesn't find itself contradicted in OTHER evidence....about Man being the CAUSE. Effect? perhaps...CAUSE? You have to be kidding me... The Global Warmers aren't kidding tho.....and I weep for the loss of Science education in the schools as if it mattered. Kids barely even get it now and so, have no way to even know what is right or wrong without being told their opinion by others.

Originally posted by juleol
reply to post by mc_squared

 

If co2 is a big player, then it should have been in past as well but that is just not the case.

I don't know where you're getting your information from. Most of the evidence shows that CO2 is a very major player in the planet's natural climate past.

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature

Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.

The direct warming effect of CO2 is also well known. Again, because it's based on basic physics. It's the climate sensitivity response to that forcing which is less understood, but CO2's strong role in the past is one of the key factors that help us pinpoint and quantify that:

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate's sensitivity to CO2.

reply to post by mc_squared


Then dont you think its rather disingenuous packaging for the media to claim he is a 'skeptic' who jumped ship when he has repeatedly stated he wasn't a 'skeptic', and that he only took exception with certain aspects of climate research?

I mean, I think Al Gore is a tool, too, but that doesnt make me a 'skeptic.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by unityemissions

 

I only disagree and always WILL....short of hard evidence that doesn't find itself contradicted in OTHER evidence....about Man being the CAUSE. Effect? perhaps...CAUSE? You have to be kidding me... The Global Warmers aren't kidding tho.....and I weep for the loss of Science education in the schools as if it mattered. Kids barely even get it now and so, have no way to even know what is right or wrong without being told their opinion by others.

Well you go ahead and weep all you want. You still seem to not grasp the fact that CO2-induced warming is not some controversial opinion, but a basic principle of radiative/atmospheric physics. It's not all that hard to confirm on your own. So while you're busy weeping for "the kids these days", they're at least moving on and figuring this much out for themselves:

reply to post by stanguilles7


I don't think it's disingenuous on the media when they happen to quote him saying:

he now considers himself a "converted sceptic" and his views had undergone a "total turnaround" in a short space of time.

If anything I think it's disingenuous of him to be flip-flopping all over the place like that. But like I said: self-promoter, yaddi yadda.

The important thing is his results - and anyone, skeptic (real, phony, or half of the time) is invited to analyze those and judge for themselves.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by unityemissions

 

Well, you are right in so far as the 1970's wasn't so full of 'experts' from every side of the field declaring they absolutely know, all the sudden now, how the complexities of the global climate system actually operate and know it with such certainty that it's time to start talking about how to artificially alter it. There were far less of them then and the public had the science and basic education to a level that those people were pretty much laughed at.

Maybe it's the fact that I just woke up from a nap, but this seems to be more rambling than anything else. Sorry, I'm just not following you here.

It should still be that way now, as the knowledge for how the complex system above and around us is still as much a question mark as it is known.

That's just a logical fail as far as I can tell. The system is complex so we should simply question it forever erm, no. the constant is human activities, and the climate being obviously disrupted.

My point on this whole thing is very simple. I don't deny climate change. Not for a moment. In fact, I quite readily agree. It's changing alright and God help us if it's changing even remotely close to how it has, hundreds of times before across the history of our planet.

Again, this is a logical fail. Nobody is denying the climate doesn't have natural cycles, or that it hasn't changed drastically before. We're not trying to alter the climate...just cause...we're concerned with the fact that human activity is exacerbating these natural cycles effects. The concern is that if the rate of change is too rapid, human beings will not be able to cope with the change and remain civil, IE ecosystem collapses causing a collapse of civilization.

How many times did the climate change rapidly while we lived in a global society? Yea, not comparable. How many times has it changed rapidly since our species even existed. It's just a fail, sorry.

I only disagree and always WILL....short of hard evidence that doesn't find itself contradicted in OTHER evidence....about Man being the CAUSE. Effect? perhaps...CAUSE? You have to be kidding me... The Global Warmers aren't kidding tho.....and I weep for the loss of Science education in the schools as if it mattered. Kids barely even get it now and so, have no way to even know what is right or wrong without being told their opinion by others.

edit on 29-7-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Well then you're simply not being reasonable, or truthful. There are 7 billion plus minds on this planet. There will always be counter arguments and "evidence" which can be used to claim it's not going on. That's because it's, as you said, a highly complex issue. You're essentially saying that you're not concerned with the truth. That's your prerogative.

reply to post by mc_squared

However it is interesting because the Berkeley analysis team not only consists of a few prominent (or I guess now - former) climate skeptics like Richard Muller...

Richard Muller is hardly a "climate skeptic":

"If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions."

Muller is speaking to his criticisms of the infamous "hockey stick" controversy and this was around 2005. Because Muller made these remarks he was embraced by many skeptics, but Muller was not skeptical of AGW and was taking bad science to task.

Just as Muller had said about the "hockey stick graph" should be said in regards to this thread. Misinformation does harm and distorts predictions. It is either by ignorance or disingenuousness that Muller is now being heralded as being the exact opposite of what he has long been, a believer that humans are the cause for recent warming trends.

There is an amazing amount of evidence out there to support theories that The Earth is warming up.

There is also an amazing lack of evidence out there suggesting why.

Originally posted by babybunnies
There is an amazing amount of evidence out there to support theories that The Earth is warming up.

There is also an amazing lack of evidence out there suggesting why.

Actually, no. There is an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence suggesting why. And some of it is conflicting. Some of it not. But the evidence is there, nonetheless.

Originally posted by mc_squared

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by unityemissions

 

I only disagree and always WILL....short of hard evidence that doesn't find itself contradicted in OTHER evidence....about Man being the CAUSE. Effect? perhaps...CAUSE? You have to be kidding me... The Global Warmers aren't kidding tho.....and I weep for the loss of Science education in the schools as if it mattered. Kids barely even get it now and so, have no way to even know what is right or wrong without being told their opinion by others.

Well you go ahead and weep all you want. You still seem to not grasp the fact that CO2-induced warming is not some controversial opinion, but a basic principle of radiative/atmospheric physics. It's not all that hard to confirm on your own. So while you're busy weeping for "the kids these days", they're at least moving on and figuring this much out for themselves:

What I grasp is that you started this thread with an agenda and a purpose. What was it? To draw people like myself in after seeing the other threads on this subject throughout the day and 'letting us have it'?

I certainly grasp that insults and repeating the lines and data of others seems to be the basis of discussion here. I don't necessarily come to every debate with my boxes of notebooks for years online in tow. I bring my brain and my ability to reason and think through a problem with logic. I don't look to simply repeat the data of others while offering no reasoning of my own.

Finally, I grasp that I've been insulted about the last time I'm going to be on this thread. Enough..and we're barking at each other anyway. I'm sure as hell not changing my stance and my purpose for coming in was to stir the discussion a little while seeing what might be new on offer for this discussion. Well, there is absolutely nothing new being offered except an interesting way of putting down everyone who might disagree with your thread, even slightly.

You enjoy good thread. I believe I'll go seek some mental stimulation elsewhere. It seems distinctly lacking here, since a contest to who can run the other down the furthest isn't my thing.

(BTW.. I hadn't missed your last comment. I ignored it outright and chose to reply to someone else who, while I disagree with them, seemed as interested in a two sided discussion as I. I don't need lectured to....)

Originally posted by babybunnies
There is an amazing amount of evidence out there to support theories that The Earth is warming up.

There is also an amazing lack of evidence out there suggesting why.

Only in the minds of "skeptics" who choose to willfully tune out this evidence. This is already the 3rd time in this thread that I'm posting this link:

The human fingerprint in global warming

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000


I certainly grasp that insults and repeating the lines and data of others seems to be the basis of discussion here. I don't necessarily come to every debate with my boxes of notebooks for years online in tow. I bring my brain and my ability to reason and think through a problem with logic. I don't look to simply repeat the data of others while offering no reasoning of my own.

In other words, you present your own opinion, with zero evidence to back it up, and when pressed for evidence, you take your ball and go home.

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

I don't think it's disingenuous on the media when they happen to quote him saying:

he now considers himself a "converted sceptic" and his views had undergone a "total turnaround" in a short space of time.

It is when they neglect to mention all his previous quotes where he repeatedly says he's 'not a skeptic' (his words). Leaving out that info leads me to believe the intent is to frame the issue as if he was a hard core denier, when all he ever did was question certain aspects of the hockey stick graph, etc, which many, many other credible climate scientists have done as well.

This sort of framing of the debate only muddies the waters, and ads to the highly divisive and unhelpful 'denier vs beleiver' debate that encourages dogma and not science.

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by mc_squared

 

You do realize, of course, that based on absolute CERTAIN predictions in the 1970's, we should be hopelessly locked in the early stages of the next Ice Age (glances at Calendar) right about now? Those scientists were certain too. Absolutely, certain.

A HANDFUL of scientists were. One is being inaccurate by conflating a prediction made by a handful of scientists from 4 decades ago to a near total consensus of thousands and thousands of scientists from around the globe on climate change. It's not the same thing. At. All.

APPEAL TO NUMBERS!!! Stick it in your ear...

I mean, what you are basically saying is that because a handful of scientists made some wacky prediction based on inaccurate data, that that means that ALL future predictions are false. So your entire argument is based around the total rejection of all science. That is the ultimate end of the argument you are making.

No, it is not...not even if you THINK it is...

That's disingenuous, at best, of course, because anyone can make a 'prediction'. it doesnt somehow negate anyone else making a prediction. One discredits a scientific prediction with data, not spurious comparisons and what is essentially a personal attack on science in general.

The whole of your post is disingenuous, as is the science behind AGW.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
What I grasp is that you started this thread with an agenda and a purpose. What was it?

I've already stated that my "agenda and purpose" was to ween out some actual skepticism from self-advertised skeptics. That means open-minded, objective and critical thinking. Not this:

I'm sure as hell not changing my stance

So thanks for stopping by and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

reply to post by mc_squared

That means open-minded, objective and critical thinking.

The phrase "climate deniers" is hardly borne of critical thought. It is a tool of propaganda designed to equate AGW with recent climate changes. It is the kind of political language found among many government funded scientists these days.

There are three main theories to explain the origins of the universe:

1.) The Steady State Theory

2.) The Pulsating Theory

and the

3.) Big Bang Theory

The Big Ban Theory is generally accepted as the most plausible theory, but those scientists who embrace this theory don't go running around in media outlets calling the advocates of the other two theories "universe denialists". Those advocating Steady State and Pulsating universes remain respected scientists and are given their due as scientists. The nature of science and the scientific method demands experimental testing that either bears out a theory, or rules it out. If a theory is going to be ruled out, that requires scientists who are willing to challenge "conventional wisdom" and the status quo advocating a certain theory.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
It is when they neglect to mention all his previous quotes where he repeatedly says he's 'not a skeptic' (his words).

Perhaps - although who's to say they were aware of his previous quotes?

Leaving out that info leads me to believe the intent is to frame the issue as if he was a hard core denier, when all he ever did was question certain aspects of the hockey stick graph, etc, which many, many other credible climate scientists have done as well.

This sort of framing of the debate only muddies the waters, and ads to the highly divisive and unhelpful 'denier vs beleiver' debate that encourages dogma and not science.

I agree with you that it shouldn't be framed as denier versus believer, but that's also why I'm using this topic to post an APB out for legitimate skeptics here - where are they?? (So far you seem to be the most legitimate one on this thread lol). Unfortunately this "debate" gets dragged into believer vs denier because no one wants to play any other part it seems.

I just think it's pretty telling that the supposed "skeptics" simply sang his praises when they thought he was on their team, then attempted to eviscerate him when it turned out otherwise - never really bothering to look at or evaluate his actual results, something you know - an actual skeptic might do

reply to post by mc_squared


Your O.P. and title to this thread hardly bears out your claim in the post I am replying to. You are simply backpedaling now and are just as guilty as those you seek to discredit.

The skeptics who used Muller's statements did not view Muller as being "on their side". Indeed, they used his statements precisely because they knew Muller was not a skeptic himself.

Science is not a game where two sides play and the winner walks home with a championship ring. Science is about getting at the truth and the truth has no "sides".

reply to post by mc_squared


Now if we can just get science to do the same thing with parapsychology, we might be able to get on with fixing this planet.