Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates

[pattylou]

Thank you... 2 seconds back -

two seconds:

http://www.realclimate.org/

I clicked on the link ... who is the environmentalist in this picture? (Inhofe? Crichton?) In what way did he use the scaremongering tactics that prompted my question in the first place? No *transcript* is provided from Crichton's appearance. I have no idea what he said!

Again, please show me an environmentalist who uses scaremongering. This will require (1) that the person you cite is indeed an environmentalist (Is Crichton? I have no idea) and (2) demonstration of the scaremongering (like a transcript saying the sorts of things you implied the greens promoting, earlier in the thread.) I maintain that the disinformation (and the planted idea that greens are promoting panic) is coming from the oil lobby, not the environmentalists.

"He is jerk so he is wrong."

It appeared to me, that the problem ... is with calling a science fiction author to discuss climate change (with the senate, no less.). I don't think Crichton's a jerk or not a jerk. I have enjoyed his books, as fiction, but that is hardly reason to have any idea as to his leaning wrt environmental issues, or whether he scaremongers or not. Thanks again, I'm off for a few hours now.

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Where did I go?

LD
Hey! who stole my post?? WHO STOLE MY POST Rotten sodder I'll get 'em, or turtle will, when he gets back, anyway, here it is as it was


It would appear to me that the tendency of recent Accountings of the Increase in the number of Catagorey Four and Five storms/hurricanes is indicative of the planetary atmosphere attempting to cool by the driving of the Warmer sea surface temperatures upward to the Higher altitudes, there to cool by radience of the stored heat, so it indicative of an increase in the Blending rates.

The Idea though must contain the Atmospheric pollutants that are accumulated, as, even if there isn't a Greater danger now then ever before in History, the changes we have undertaken in emplacement of Housing and Cities-Towns exposes much greater numbers to effects of more active climate situations, and the Smog, as evidenced by Horizon line coverage indicates that 'affectations' are taking on greater spatial occupations then perhaps had been previously thought, not just heat sinks in the cities, but out 'into the reaches' as well.

Good thread though.

LD
Ou Sont Les Lapine? "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" Il pleurer

 

[Andre]

Smart tactics PattyLou and a well known red herring, the fallacy of the restricted choice. You used it earlier asking me to find a political leader who would say anything about economic things. I have a few dozen economists available, but you would immediately reply that I did not comply with your restricted choice.

Therefore let's see what main world leader battling global warming T Blair has to say:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1796800,00.html

Tony Blair has hinted Britain may pull out of attempts to draw up a successor to the Kyoto climate treaty because the economic price of cutting greenhouse gas emissions is too high.

Now, back to realclimate, those writers Mann and Schmidt are climate scientists, the first one is nominated for the Guiness Book of World Records for his record number of ad hominems, And indeed they are not environmentalists so if they use an ad hominem ad circumstance, it doesn't count and I have failed to comply. Hence I'm wrong

Chrichton BTW holds degrees. He is medical doctor so he knows about scientific methods and he also knows very well what is going on in the scientific word of climate science.

So the abundance of fallacies supports the general understanding that there is no scientific basis for any theory of AGW (other than marginal which I agree to) but there is no supporting proof as well. So all what the global warmers can do is revert to red herrings and models, that play no role in the scientific method. Which also gives the impression winning discussions with fallacy tricks is much more important than finding the truth.

For instance:

we find tropical warming consistent with that found at the surface and in our satellite derived of middle-upper tropospheric temperature

Which stands in stark contrast to your statement:

Quote:
The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed.

... boldface part is plainly wrong. Period.

The fallacy here is strawman. My quote is a repetition of the opening post, which is intended to support the title of the thread “Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates", but you make it sound that it is used against the abstract of one the articles and then slam me for it. A perfect strawman.

Now if we study the numbers in detail we only find that it is all about minor adjustments, which need to be sensationalized to "Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates" because that is what this thread is all about. Not about the content of those articles but about “Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates” So the trick is to stretch the truth abit: “….not cooling as the data previously showed” and produce a lie in the process. I’m only exposing liers. Since for the third time: the previous data ALSO showed warming. Nobody is claiming that previous data showed cooling. I do wonder what is Chinese about that

But then again in only twenty minutes it must be quite hard to comprehend what a non native tongue intends to say.

So why is the reporter using that line? To initiate another strawman. Make believe that previous data showed something completely different to try and substantiate his overstatement: "Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates"

I can certainly find the oil industry as part and parcel of your 'home'

Now why would that be so interesting? I’m really looking forward discussing oil companies

Now finally, my return restricted choice question is please find me a baker (knows all about warming) who proofs that global warming is mainly caused by human activities (but any climatologist is okay too).

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Don't know about the argument evaporating, but the sheer volume of people using energy sources daily outstrips anything in Historical record for (natural) additions of, or to, Heat, or heating values.

!% added to what the Sun gives us, that is in addition to the Suns' donation, and it is perpetuated every single day, that 'adding' is telling, over time, no doubt.

Conservation of energy, or heat, rules.

 

[Andre]

C’est vrai Lapin, However I’ve seen calculations somewhere that the anthropogenic energy to atrophy conversion is some hundreds or so orders of magnitude lower than the solar energy.

Anyway, I found a Swedish article in my house:

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/debatt/story/0,2789,705588,00.html

author: http://www.gvc.gu.se/geovetarcentrum/PERSONAL/WallinGosta.htm

So what does the header say?

Do not blame on carbon dioxide
Gösta Walin: Those the violence suckling hurricanes as ravaged is horrible but can meagreliest to be related to the increased greenhouse effect

I think the gist is clear, albeit that “meagreliest” appears to be the result of a rather liberal interpretation of the English idiom.

How about this:

Hotelser om fler och starkare stormar, översvämmningar på grund av mer koldioxid som vi dagligen serveras är tagna ur luften. Tvärtom så bör den förväntade något jämnare temperaturen minska risken för busväder. Hotelser om fler och starkare stormar, översvämmningar på grund av mer koldioxid som vi dagligen serveras är tagna ur luften. Tvärtom så bör den förväntade något jämnare temperaturen minska risken för busväder.

becomes:

Threats about more and stronger blows a gale, översvämmningar because of more carbon dioxide that we daily to be waited on is taken from the air. However so, some the expected more even temperature should decrease the risk for mischief weathers.

”översvämmningar” is anybodies guess, personally I would go for inundations, whilst ”taken from the air” does not seem to indicate a strong relationship. Apparently the more equal temperatures should reduce those perils.

Now the start of the next paragraph:

Which is then the alarmistiska the arguments? With gigantic computer models, one tries to pretend the climate's development. The result farms to show on hotter future, sometime high-temperature. The results are called projections (projektioner) or scenarios (scenarier), which means that the forecast value is “obefintligt” (lacking?). I see the most as a rash of quantity habit mind to believe that the climate can be projected in a computer.

The last sentence puzzles me, perhaps something like: “I consider
it a substantial carelessness to believe that climate can be properly imaged by a computer” ?

So what is his conclusion?

Culture area delivers a hypothesis that to be caught up of ideologiska forces, the in front environmentalism that carries out effective lobbyism. The mass mediums follow up and since is the only for the politicians to correct in itself in the stage. The truth is thereby conclusive. The that balances object becomes idiot explained or scolded in order to be bought.

Ways halts for that life hostile bill corporal punishment breath, you that has power to influence. Experiments see the positive with more carbon dioxide and calm down your, the climate can nevertheless not to be governed.

Dear me. Babel fishes are not the answer. The first word “Vetenskapare” sounds more like “wetenschap” in Dutch, which is “science”, not culture. So what does he mean? The gist of the article and some free interpretations could get us something like:

Science produces a hypothesis (Anthropogenic Global Warning) which is grasped by ideological movements, headed by the environmentalists lead
who are highly skilled in lobbying. Media follow suit and politicians have no choice to adapt to the wishes of the people. Thus, truth is established
and those who dare to oppose objectively are declared either idiots or greedy traitors with special interests.

whoever has the power to influence, stop the crime (?) propaganda(?) against life. Try to see the positive side of carbon dioxide and calm down. There is no way that mankind could ever control climate.

I see now that he is retired (professor emeritus). Is that the reason that he jumped off the bandwagon? No more risk of loosing his position/budgets/ etc when really speaking up and giving a honest opinion?

I expect him in our house soon. But the members should express themselves more in the open, get rid of the World War II- like illegal underground status. Good job Gösta Walin!

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Forgive me but it sounds a little bit like the scientists who insisted that we could never damage the oceans as they were simply Too Vast, he was clearly very wrong.

As for the heat values I had heard that adding 1% of the Solar input to the planets heating would make a difference, then again just look at all of the bleached and bleaching corrals around the Center, the equator and the rest of the Worlds Oceans Thousands of years old, and now? Heat death?

Sorry but I prefer to realize that all of the heating that six Billion people can accoplish on a regular, and daily, basis doesn't just 'vanish into thin air' slower when it is thicker air I might add.

Nice reading you though, good sources, good sense, sort of just that we apparently differ as I seem to see that the situation is different that ever before, in History, due to the Sheer Number of People living today, so the effects can have much larger consequences.

6 Billion people, everyday, making at least One fire, can you see the smoke, or the horizon? for that matter?

 

[Mk]

MOOOO

*I'm a cow whose destroying the Earth with farts. *

(nice post #40 Andre!) :!)

 

[Lapin Dormant]

LD
Once again someone stole my post, who keeps stealing these posts?

Look a Condescending Derision! the last intellectual argument of an intellectual who has no arguement.

*I'm a cow...

At Least your an Honest Condescending Derisionist

LD
Seen leaving the scene, in a Hurry « (≈ Zooooooooom » but Please let it stand this time. otherwise your demonstrating yourselves as Prejudice and Intolerant

 

[pattylou]

Smart tactics PattyLou and a well known red herring, the fallacy of the restricted choice. You used it earlier asking me to find a political leader who would say anything about economic things. I have a few dozen economists available, but you would immediately reply that I did not comply with your restricted choice.

Therefore let's see what main world leader battling global warming T Blair has to say:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1796800,00.html



Now, back to realclimate, those writers Mann and Schmidt are climate scientists, the first one is nominated for the Guiness Book of World Records for his record number of ad hominems, And indeed they are not environmentalists so if they use an ad hominem ad circumstance, it doesn't count and I have failed to comply. Hence I'm wrong

Chrichton BTW holds degrees. He is medical doctor so he knows about scientific methods and he also knows very well what is going on in the scientific word of climate science.

So the abundance of fallacies supports the general understanding that there is no scientific basis for any theory of AGW (other than marginal which I agree to) but there is no supporting proof as well. So all what the global warmers can do is revert to red herrings and models, that play no role in the scientific method. Which also gives the impression winning discussions with fallacy tricks is much more important than finding the truth.

For instance:



The fallacy here is strawman. My quote is a repetition of the opening post, which is intended to support the title of the thread “Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates", but you make it sound that it is used against the abstract of one the articles and then slam me for it. A perfect strawman.

Now if we study the numbers in detail we only find that it is all about minor adjustments, which need to be sensationalized to "Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates" because that is what this thread is all about. Not about the content of those articles but about “Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates” So the trick is to stretch the truth abit: “….not cooling as the data previously showed” and produce a lie in the process. I’m only exposing liers. Since for the third time: the previous data ALSO showed warming. Nobody is claiming that previous data showed cooling. I do wonder what is Chinese about that

But then again in only twenty minutes it must be quite hard to comprehend what a non native tongue intends to say.

So why is the reporter using that line? To initiate another strawman. Make believe that previous data showed something completely different to try and substantiate his overstatement: "Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates"



Now why would that be so interesting? I’m really looking forward discussing oil companies

Now finally, my return restricted choice question is please find me a baker (knows all about warming) who proofs that global warming is mainly caused by human activities (but any climatologist is okay too).

This isn't how the sequence in this thread reads to me at all Andre.

Here is how the sequence reads to me. You make claims without backing them up. I ask you to back them up. You don't. You may provide something that doesn't address my question at all (the crichton reference, for example), and so I point out that you are not understanding the sequence I am enumerating ... and can you please try to address the question. At this point you start pointing fingers at me and saying "well known fallacy, red herring, etc etc" and you *still* don't answer the question.

I re-entered this particular conversation because somebody appeared to think that you represent some sort of largely held view, and they seemed impressed with your quantities of acronyms and references. There seemed to be a sense (to me) that this was seen as authority on the topic. By your own admission, you get it from "Climateskeptic.org," a bit of an information clearinghouse for those who *want* to see the skeptical viewpoint. In other words, there *may* be a bit of bias there!

If what you say truly "makes sense" to others, (and I trust those individuals to decide for themselves if your posts are truly sensible or not) then I am happy for you and for them.

But if your posts merely make them feel good about things, ("oh good, all the warming reports are just sensationalism, because Andre 'obviously knows what he's talking about'" ... which I take to mean that you put up something that looks informed --- but as soon as I start to visit your links ... it's like wading into a morasse of nonsequiturs to the discussion at hand.) then I would like to point out to those readers that they should apply their own reasoning skills and perhaps do their own research into the literature.

Frankly, your posts don't sound to me like you 'know what you are talking about.' No offense, I am the first to admit I could be wrong. But they have never sounded to me like you know what youare talking about. I simply can't follow your chain of comments, not at all. I have found the links of yours that I have followed, to be incomplete and unsatisfactory. I have a good amount of education, (PhD), and read Science regularly, and I have only a little trouble following the Science articles that deal with climate change. This leaves me with the rather uncomfortable conclusion that I *should* be able to follow your discussion... and yet, I can't! Either the entire scientific community has dumbed down their publications, or you are not presenting a coherent picture, or I simply have some mental block against you.

It bears pointing out that when I try to dissect through your posts with you, in order to understand them, you point and call "Fallacy! Fallacy!" This leads me to conclude that options 2 or 3 above, are most likely.

Ultimately, it is up to the reader to decide which side "makes sense" to them. Perhaps the failing is mine, and perhaps your take really "rings true" to some people here. I trust the individual readers to reach their own considered opinion on the matter, and one that they can live with, with integrity.

I hope you are well, Andre. You may see me again, but probably not for a few days at the least. You wear me out.

 

[Mk]

By your own admission, you get it from "Climateskeptic.org," a bit of an information clearinghouse for those who *want* to see the skeptical viewpoint. In other words, there *may* be a bit of bias there!

I got to thinking why we can't use "biased" material, but we can use material biased against us? Does it matter they are all valid studies that we are speaking of right? I would more than frown upon anyone who invented a reference.

And like there's no bias among environmentalists? Greenpeace or PETA, or even LiveScience or Scientific American who routinely make fun of Global Warming skeptics. What is ironic here is that skepticism is the very foundation of science.

Science articles that deal with climate change. This leaves me with the rather uncomfortable conclusion that I *should* be able to follow your discussion... and yet, I can't! Either the entire scientific community has dumbed down their publications, or you are not presenting a coherent picture, or I simply have some mental block against you.

I seem to have much less education than you with an almighty PhD, and understand Andre well

Who is scaremongering now?

Show me where *any* head of *any* country is talking about spending googillions to address climate change.

junkscience.com estimates the Kyoto Protocol has cost signers about 9.45x10¹⁰ USD while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is immeasurably small. They use common sense and primary school reasoning to figure the number.

The recommendations from the concerned scientists and other groups are:

(1) Develop alternative energies (create jobs, reduce dependence on foreign oil)

I think nuclear fission and fusion are the way to go for the next generation of power plants. Why try and do all this hydrogen fuel cell and solar cell and hydropower stuff?

(2) Reduce emissions at a steady pace (through hybrid technologies, hydrogen cells, in other words see #1)

I say just move on, the less developed nations would still be burning fossil fuels, then what would the environmentalists say? Stop them from developing into a nation with miniscule emissions?

(3) Sustain habitat (maintain biodiversity, which has benefits for health and tourism and other industries ... here's an abstract on how an unusual frog may help in the fight against AIDS:http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050829204919data_trunc_sys.shtml . Also, this maintains the carbon sink a little better.)

I don't understand this. To sustain habitat would mean like passive conservation, what industries get money from spending money on keeping people out? And what does the HIV vs. Frog fight have to do with this? And what carbon sink? *rips hair out* Yes, I really would like you to clarify on this statement, PLEASE!

Find me an environmentalist who is scaremongering.

I laughed at that one.

LD
Once again someone stole my post, who keeps stealing these posts?

Look a Condescending Derision! the last intellectual arguement of an intellectual who has no arguement.

At Least your an Honest Condescending Derisionist

Please let it stand this time. otherwise your demonstrating yourselves as Prejudice and Intolerant[/color]

Ooooohhhhh big words!

 

[Andre]

Dear Pattylou I do apologize for wearing you out and from your post I understand nothing too, which seem to confirm that we live on totally different worlds.

Before explaining my world, let me try and understand about your world.

You worry about the negative impact of mankind on Earth and nature in general and you are dedicated to contribute constructively to correct for that.

You can see several problems on your specialities and you trust that the mainstream is science is dealing correctly with other major problems like climate change, something like this:
http://www.stabilisation2005.com/programme.html
and how it went: http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/exeter_peiser.pdf

Considering this, it’s unthinkable that there are still people opposing the good cause of correcting the adverse anthropogenic impact on Earth, like pollution, destroying habitats, depleting resources and fooling around with the climate.

Now in my world I worry about the negative impact of mankind on Earth and nature in general and I am dedicated to contribute constructively to correct for that.

Hmm sounds familiar. Well, anyway,

Although I’m not a scientist and having no specialities like for instance oh …something like the genetics of Escherichia coli, or something, I happen to love solving riddles and learn immensely in the process. As a result I challenge any Ph.D to beat me on the knowledge of complete worldwide climate around the era of the Younger Dryas and, why the perception in that link about that period is a bit erroneous. Now please, I beg you read http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Hot%20Springs.doc and look at http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/BB.ppt to get an idea of who I am.

Based on that more complete picture of the climate at the termination of the Pleistocene ice ages it became clear that the current mainstream conclusions –the very fundamentals of the current climate hype- need some revision. Seeing what has really happened, it is clear to me how remarkable stable climate on the average really is and how little carbon dioxide has to do with it. Consequently I see in all the details where, how and why mainstream science went astray.

However, doubting mainstream science the is unthinkable, challenging the shortcomings and revising the battle against the adverse effects of mankind. This leads inevitably to the label of:

“cash-amplified, flat-earth pseudo-scientists; the Carbon
Cartel; incessant denialists; villains who have managed to drag “the
process” [of Kyoto negotiations at COP10] to an almost complete halt;
flacks; refuseniks; our enemies; skeptics-cum-denialists; polluters; a
powerful and devious enemy; profligates; conspicuous consumers; crank
scientists; some individuals on the fringes; extremist rearguard;
climate loonies.” (quoting of one of my fellow residents of that house who registered all the classifications given by the alarmists to the sceptics).

You have mentioned oil companies on more than one occasions, doubting my intentions and indicated bias. This is an indication of how successful the climate lobby is. Of course they think that they are on the right side of the truth despite the substantial difficulties to explain the greenhouse warming phenomenons both physically and empirically. And of course opposition –crime against humanity in their view- has to be eradicated, but what if that opposition happens to be right?

The world is completely different and I try to convey that message before it’s too late and we have spend our assets with re-arranging the deck seats in an attempt to prevent the sinking of the Titannic. Instead wouldn’t it be great if those assets lost to pointless climate studies could have been used directly for fighting pollution and preservation of biotopes and biodiversity?

Now what exactly didn’t I address?

 

[iansmith]

People, try to maintain the discussion civilized and let's try to focus with the original poster comments.

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Just some Humor

Agreed, but doesn't the Statement of "Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates Suggest" that it got Heated to much, that is what 'evaporation' implies.

 

[pattylou]

I got to thinking why we can't use "biased" material, but we can use material biased against us? Does it matter they are all valid studies that we are speaking of right? I would more than frown upon anyone who invented a reference.

And like there's no bias among environmentalists? Greenpeace or PETA, or even LiveScience or Scientific American who routinely make fun of Global Warming skeptics. What is ironic here is that skepticism is the very foundation of science.


I seem to have much less education than you with an almighty PhD, and understand Andre well


junkscience.com estimates the Kyoto Protocol has cost signers about 9.45x10¹⁰ USD while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is immeasurably small. They use common sense and primary school reasoning to figure the number.


I think nuclear fission and fusion are the way to go for the next generation of power plants. Why try and do all this hydrogen fuel cell and solar cell and hydropower stuff?


I say just move on, the less developed nations would still be burning fossil fuels, then what would the environmentalists say? Stop them from developing into a nation with miniscule emissions?

If what you say truly "makes sense" to others, (and I trust those individuals to decide for themselves if your posts are truly sensible or not) then I am happy for you and for them.

I'm happy to let you decide for yourself, MK.

I don't understand this. To sustain habitat would mean like passive conservation, what industries get money from spending money on keeping people out? And what does the HIV vs. Frog fight have to do with this? And what carbon sink? *rips hair out* Yes, I really would like you to clarify on this statement, PLEASE!

My interest in the environment actually has very little to do with climate change. I am more concerned with deforestation and pollution. Human activities are destroying habitat all over the planet - from measures that interfere with salmon spawning waterways to cutting down trees in the Amazon.

Insofar as a warming planet isn't *helping* this trend, I pay attention to the warming argument as well.

Carbon sink: Forested areas. Trees contain an incredible amount of carbon, and they get it from the CO2 in the air. They pull it out of the air, and make cellulose with it, and grow bigger. This traps the CO2 from the atmosphere, into plant matter. Cut down the trees and replace it with asphalt, and you have lost that carbon "sink." Replace it with farmland, and you have still incredibly reduced the sink (a field of grass contains far less carbon that a patch of trees on the same land. And, the grass isn't a long term sink, as it is harvested and decomposed every year. In essence, replacing with farmland is no better than paving the area, in terms of the carbon sink that has been lost.)

The frog is an example of the value of biodiversity. Biodiversity is lost when habitat is destroyed (see preceding stuff.) Many amphibia have gone extinct thanks to man in the last 30 years. Imagine if this frog had gone extinct - and as a result we had never found that it has a powerful anti-AIDS chemical in it's blood (or skin or whatever.) The point is that if you are going to argue economics, you might wish to consider the cost of the AIDS epidemic. If we develop a treatment from this frog that cuts the cost of that epidemic by half - then we are saving billions of dollars per year. In other words, living green can be cheaper.

This frog is not unique - lots of medical treatments have been found in wild animals, plants, fungi, etc. In other words, the benefit of maintaining habitat (and this includes, but is not limited to, heating up the planet) is that we can more easily discover new pharmaceuticals, and cut health care costs.

I laughed at that one.

So... name one. Go ahead.

-Patty

p.s. My PhD isn't 'almighty.' It's just something I earned. I am neither bragging, nor do I see any sense in not mentioning it out of ...decorum? What? It's a degree. I am sure you have one yourself. I mentioned it only because in the program, I was required to learn to read the scientific literature - and that applies to these discussions. Now, it is an easy thing to pick up Nature or Science and see what is cutting edge in any area, including the climate debate.

You are certainly free to earn your own PhD. It requires an investment of time. I encourage you to seriously consider the possibility, the experience is priceless.

 

[pattylou]

Dear Pattylou I do apologize for wearing you out and from your post I understand nothing too, which seem to confirm that we live on totally different worlds.

Before explaining my world, let me try and understand about your world.

You worry about the negative impact of mankind on Earth and nature in general and you are dedicated to contribute constructively to correct for that.

You can see several problems on your specialities and you trust that the mainstream is science is dealing correctly with other major problems like climate change, something like this:
http://www.stabilisation2005.com/programme.html
and how it went: http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/exeter_peiser.pdf

Considering this, it’s unthinkable that there are still people opposing the good cause of correcting the adverse anthropogenic impact on Earth, like pollution, destroying habitats, depleting resources and fooling around with the climate.

Now in my world I worry about the negative impact of mankind on Earth and nature in general and I am dedicated to contribute constructively to correct for that.

Hmm sounds familiar. Well, anyway,

Although I’m not a scientist and having no specialities like for instance oh …something like the genetics of Escherichia coli, or something, I happen to love solving riddles and learn immensely in the process. As a result I challenge any Ph.D to beat me on the knowledge of complete worldwide climate around the era of the Younger Dryas and, why the perception in that link about that period is a bit erroneous. Now please, I beg you read http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Hot%20Springs.doc and look at http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/BB.ppt to get an idea of who I am.

Based on that more complete picture of the climate at the termination of the Pleistocene ice ages it became clear that the current mainstream conclusions –the very fundamentals of the current climate hype- need some revision. Seeing what has really happened, it is clear to me how remarkable stable climate on the average really is and how little carbon dioxide has to do with it. Consequently I see in all the details where, how and why mainstream science went astray.

However, doubting mainstream science the is unthinkable, challenging the shortcomings and revising the battle against the adverse effects of mankind. This leads inevitably to the label of:

“cash-amplified, flat-earth pseudo-scientists; the Carbon
Cartel; incessant denialists; villains who have managed to drag “the
process” [of Kyoto negotiations at COP10] to an almost complete halt;
flacks; refuseniks; our enemies; skeptics-cum-denialists; polluters; a
powerful and devious enemy; profligates; conspicuous consumers; crank
scientists; some individuals on the fringes; extremist rearguard;
climate loonies.” (quoting of one of my fellow residents of that house who registered all the classifications given by the alarmists to the sceptics).

You have mentioned oil companies on more than one occasions, doubting my intentions and indicated bias. This is an indication of how successful the climate lobby is. Of course they think that they are on the right side of the truth despite the substantial difficulties to explain the greenhouse warming phenomenons both physically and empirically. And of course opposition –crime against humanity in their view- has to be eradicated, but what if that opposition happens to be right?

The world is completely different and I try to convey that message before it’s too late and we have spend our assets with re-arranging the deck seats in an attempt to prevent the sinking of the Titannic. Instead wouldn’t it be great if those assets lost to pointless climate studies could have been used directly for fighting pollution and preservation of biotopes and biodiversity?

Now what exactly didn’t I address?

I've been very forthcoming that my field of expertise has nothing to do with climate. It is relevant *only* because through that training I was forced to learn to read scientific literature for comprehension.

I've also said that I am the first to admit that you may well be 'right.' In fact, we probably agree on far more, than what we disagree on.

Of course they think that they are on the right side of the truth despite the substantial difficulties to explain the greenhouse warming phenomenons both physically and empirically.

In my understanding, this isn't the case. In my understanding, the models are presently fairly good, and continue to get better. For example, the reference that began another thread - From Science, shows that the troposphere is warming, as had been predicted by most if not all models. It is my understanding that the consensus position is fairly strong.

And of course opposition –crime against humanity in their view- has to be eradicated, but what if that opposition happens to be right?

Again you are inciting emotion. Where has anyone called it a crime against humanity to oppose the consensus position on climate change?

Science can't progress without questions, and skeptics provide questions. The concern is, that with every year that passes without some measure to make our best guess to keep the planet "healthy," (for humans), that we are digging the hole deeper. The precautionary principle comes to mind.

Thank you for not telling me my previous post was nothing but a fallacy.

 

[Andre]

It is relevant *only* because through that training I was forced to learn to read scientific literature for comprehension.

Sorry I was fooling around on a quotation page:

Try not to have a good time... this is supposed to be educational.
Charles M. Schulz

But reading well over 500 scientific papers and abstracts about the ice age, it was still a good time seeing ones hypotheses getting more and support.

In fact, we probably agree on far more, than what we disagree on.

Yes

Thank you for not telling me my previous post was nothing but a fallacy.

I do regret that I felt forced to mention fallacies sometimes and I'm sorry about that. I'm afraid it's a part of the unexplaining proces of global warming.

I had made a 3 pages worth of reply one a lonely net-less PC but the file crashed after transporting. I'll post it tomorrow as a new thread.

 

[Mk]

I had made a 3 pages worth of reply one a lonely net-less PC but the file crashed after transporting. I'll post it tomorrow as a new thread.

OMG I HATE it when that happens! I'm always like WHAT TEH F***? @#$$*&! Happens inmmeasureable amounts of times to me when writing many page emails, General Physics replies, blog and journal posts... I close the window, the tab, quit the program, or accidently restart the computer!

So now, anytime I am writing something more than a few paragraphs, I always save it as a .rtf or .txt file on my computer, as "PF Post," or "Wikipedia," or something like that. Yay!

 

[Andre]

Relax Mk. I had a safety copy but on another location. Putting it up in a moment.

 

[Mk]

Sorry if I was too erratic and "fast and furious" in that last post.