I'm no scientist, but I do entertain opposing arguments -- much akin to the scientific method -- and try to consider the whole.

But the arguments have to be valid. Affirming the consequent is an invalid argument.

Scientists are NOT going to make simple logical mistakes as MidiMagic suggested.

Most of the people making these claims are social or environmental scientists. They do not follow the rigor that physical scientists use.

Social and environmental scientists usually can't perform experiments, because they will destroy the only sample they have if they try any experimentation. So they observe and record data, and make conjectures.


If you do reseaarch on global warming, it will be very difficult to get funding, if you do not subscripe to the 'gorist' junk science view of things. As jwenting says, this view has been elevated to the status of a religion.

Why would the Republicans not fund you?

I do not think that a scientist is going to publish a paper or do research against global warming because nobody would give them the funding to do so. Mainly because it would make the company funding them look bad. Where as there is alot more funding out there for research proving it because it makes the company giving the funding look like they care about the enviroment.

What the hell ever happened to biased scientific research? Would it look bad if the United States government funded scientists who came up with clear evidence that Global Warming was NOT occurring? I don't think so.. I know there are many companies out there that would cut funding if scientists found evidence refuting a popular topic.. however, there are organizations who fund for the sole purpose of discovering and Science.

All of the claims I presented as being global warming claims came from the Discovery Channel special as quotes by actual "experts".

I would hardly use the Discovery Channel as evidence..

So have I. I used to work in labs.

Oh, WOW! You are clearly an expert now.


What? I can't see all scientists posting data simply because their publishers and benefactors said to.. Theres no way that some scientist wouldn't publish truthful information.

It's not always a matter of publishing truthful information, it's a matter of making certain the truthful information is made widely known. I don't have the exact reference on hand at the moment (I'll try to grab a notebook and write it all down later today) but I remember a fairly interesting bit I read recently involving research done on the chemical substance we call DDT that faced that exact problem.

The basic gist was this:
1. Experiment done. Result: "Ooh, DDT Bad!"
2. Results published in well-known magazine.
3. Experimental error found. Experiment redone. Result: "We were wrong before."
4. Results taken to same well-known magazine.
5. Well-known magazine rejects new-experiment story because it isn't anti-DDT.
6. New-experiment results finally published in mostly-unknown magazine.

Yes, the truthful information was eventually published. But those who only read the well-known magazine, and not the little-known one, never heard about it. It goes back to my description of the gatekeepers of the community. It's far easier to keep popular opinion going the way you want if you emphasize the side you agree with and de-emphasize that you disagree with.

Besides, global warming has two sides. The Republicans would rather it not be happening, its in their best interest if businesses didn't have to spend a buttload of cash 'saving' the environment from global warming.. Theres always two sides.. and I would think the republicans would be trying desperately to get scientific evidence out there that global warming is not occurring.. especially since they're typically the wealthier party.

So how come the evidence of publication factors seems to indicate that most non-academic publishers (the ones who can sway public opinion; public opinion is one of the best weapons for and against research I can think of) will blanketly accept the 'Pro-warming' arguments and evidence, but blanketly reject the 'Anti-warming' arguments and evidence? Sure, there are two sides, but they're not being viewed equally nor given equal weight in presentation.


Oh sweet Jesus, I had one too many beers. I read "Global Warning" and actually looked at this! I am sorry!


Heh, heh, Ene - I was suckered too. But then again, you notice that this revival did not even add to the discussion; just some BS from out of the blue. Next, Dave will post the 3 typos in AG's book that prove it is all lies. Sigh! He's got nothing.

Move along, nothing to see here.


Now this post is INTERESTING and thought-provoking - I knew you had it in you.

Give me a couple hours for research before I accept this guy's word on what he did for a living and what other researchers say on the same topic.


That post was for fun. If you want me to add to the discussion, I'll submit this.

Dave, I know you are not particularly vested in much of what you post, and I honestly enjoy the research you force me to do. I will take each of David Evans point by point:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

This couldn't be more wrong. Here are some of the signatures he says are missing. Granted this is from a site that states "Climate Science from Climate Scientists" so you might consider them 'differently' focused than someone who writes for "The Australian" which has been a climate change denier for the last decade.

2 There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.

This is pure denial - as if he denies it often enough it will become true see:

The blue bands show temperature changes modelled using only natural forcings, while the red bands include anthropogenic forcings as well. The black line shows observations. Clearly, we must include anthropogenic forcings if we want to match the observations. The 2nd picture is just pure joy to look at and though it supports my point I don't want add too much more 'science' to this post -- I could also 'nitpick' rest of his points but why bother, the pattern continues.

Attachments Global.png 78.13 KB MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Time_Lat_v03_2.png 34.24 KB

Oh, Dave - sorry, I actually believed your previous statements that you are just trying to make sure the other side makes a comment. AGW is not my religion - sorry to disappoint you, but like I stated in my previous post, I will look at anyone's science and if it changes my mind, I will let you know. But I will do my own research and make up my own mind.

I went to James A. Peden's site - dang, the first thing he does (well, he waits until the 3rd paragraph) is compare AGW to Nazi's

Historians ponder how the entire nation of Germany could possibly have goose-stepped into place in such a short time, and we have similar unrest

then dismisses it all with

Have we become a nation of overnight loonies?

. It has almost become a guarantee - as soon as someone introduces Nazis into an argument, all hope is lost (and he starts with it, sigh!).

Then, in true 'well, duh!' superiority, it is stated that CO2 is a normal part of the atmosphere and plants need it so more of it will only help plants. Follow this with "carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. anyway". Plants need water but no one suggests that floods are good for plants.

"The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 have increased by 31% and 149% respectively since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the mid-1700s. These levels are considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores."
"Since about 1750 human activity has increased the concentration of carbon dioxide and of some other important greenhouse gases. Natural sources of carbon dioxide are more than 20 times greater than sources due to human activity, but over periods longer than a few years natural sources are closely balanced by natural sinks such as weathering of continental rocks and photosynthesis of carbon compounds by plants and marine plankton. As a result of this balance, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide remained between 260 and 280 parts per million for the 10,000 years between the end of the last glacial maximum and the start of the industrial era."

CO2 is just one of the heat absorbers that point to AGW; some of the others are water vapor, CFCs, methane, nitrous oxide, carbon tetrachloride, ozone, etc. One of the controls on CO2 in the atmosphere is its absorption by oceans; what a lot of people do not realize is that the colder a liquid is, the more gas it can absorb. The obverse is true; the warmer the liquid is, the less co2 (and other gases) can be dissolved in it, so as the average global temperature increases, the more CO2 is released into the atmosphere and so in a self-feeding cycle of 'warmer, more CO2 released which raises the average temperature, which raises the ocean temp. which releases more CO2.


Dave, if all you are going to do is post links, you just suck all the joy out of disputation. Look, if you are familiar with Monty Python, you will understand when I say Moncton is just an upper class twit. who has no sense of propriety. Look here and here to clear up any confusion wrt Moncton's letter to the APS - keep in mind it was just a letter to a journal, not an actual peer reviewed article


Hmm.. I believe you are forgetting one thing.. Scientists are more intelligent than you. The logic you propose is not exactly what scientists are saying.. all you have basically done is state something, and then refute it. You have given no evidence whatsoever that this is what the scientists claim. Sure, some of it is political.. and some people have used faulty logic is in your examples.. However, scientists use science and logic. You are not a scientist. Scientists are professionals.. they have performed many experiments before, and will continue to do so.. If any scientist was caught claiming some of the illogical points that you have made, do you not think they would have been fired?

Next time prove that the logic you are using in your examples is actually the same logic that scientists use in claiming the existence of the global warming effect.

you know josch i dont know how you are going to take this but here goes.

I dont really like you and we dont really see eye to eye on most issues.

But I really like the way in which you think.


Actually alot of the arguments made were against alot of the reasoning that scientists or other people for that matter have made as an argument for global warming.

This is simply a discussion and i really do not see any point in having to post evidence that one particular person (or a group) have acctually said these things. But what what i can see he made alot of good points against alot of the key reasonings behind global warming.

wrong. He did not even state the key reasoning behind global warming. He talked about ice and whatever else.

The idea behind green house gasses is that the earth is warmed by the solar radiation of the sun and that radiation escapes at night.

The presence of greenhouse gasses keeps that heat energy trapped on earth so that the average earth temperatre does not stay stable but rise.

He did not give any evidence or even conjecture on what scientists says about that and how their logic about saying that is wrong.


But the arguments have to be valid. Affirming the consequent is an invalid argument.

Most of the people making these claims are social or environmental scientists. They do not follow the rigor that physical scientists use.

Social and environmental scientists usually can't perform experiments, because they will destroy the only sample they have if they try any experimentation. So they observe and record data, and make conjectures.

I think you don't have a good grasp on what science is and how science works - you seem to be implying that astronomers, cosmologists, astrophysicist, etc are not scientists or can not do good science.


Oh sweet Jesus, I had one too many beers. I read "Global Warning" and actually looked at this! I am sorry!

Very funny Ene! Thanks for warming up this somewhat old and cold argument.


Let me subscribe us all to the new magazine called Modern Jackass - The magazine for the person who knows just a little bit and thinks s/he can work out the rest.

a person that talks expertly about something he/she actually knows nothing about

(Defined by the NPR show This American Life, the intro is only 4.5 minutes and is pretty good)
Usually occurs in a conversation when you know a little about a subject and when asked to expand upon it, you extrapolate completely unrelated nonsense.


Let the ridiculousness begin:

ATLANTA -Georgia business groups are appealing a judge's decision to halt the construction of a power plant, warning that the ruling could stall other energy plants and hamper economic development throughout the state
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore's ruling relied on the Supreme Court's decision last year that carbon dioxide could be regulated as a pollutant, and environmental activists said it set a precedent.

In the ruling, Moore contended that federal air pollution laws required permits for all pollutants that could be regulated under the federal Clean Air Act - including carbon dioxide. The gas, which is blamed for global warming, is not currently regulated.

If all Al Bore's friends would just hold their breath for 10 minutes, CO2 would be back in balance.


As I begin to read the reponse to this simplifcation of major decisions, I thought, I should put my 2 cents in on this one, having a fair bit of environmental, chemical and biological knowledge.

No matter if this guys right or the next guy, we all need to conserve the world by limiting pollution in all forms, be it gas, solid or liquid.

The world may cool, it may heat up, it might calapse due bioaccumulation of toxin in the food chain, or..... maybe nothing will happen. Although i think everyone will agree that given the worlds current state, (just take a look at beijing right now) and humans relentless exasperation of its resources and limiting factors, the planet earth will react negatively. Therefore no matter what way you look at it, the best thing to do is make a personal effort to be environmentally freindly and then legislation will follow.


I wonder what alternative energy source Georgia has to equal the energy output of a coal fired power station. Maybe they could harness all that extra hot air some of their politicos send out.


With the ever increasing heat, where does all the cold go?

It went with the cold war, most likely into outer space.


But with the Cold War over, shouldn't all that excess cold be spilling over somewhere? Remember, cold settles to low spots, thus it should not be escaping into space. ;)

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.