Climate denial parallel to anti-relativity movement in the 1920’s?

Late last night I was bored and spent more time than I usually would looking through my twitter feeds (nothing was coming through on my reader) and I stumbled on a piece that was highlighted by Climate Safety, written by Joss Garman, that blew me away.

Einstein found himself surrounded but people arguing over his work regarding relativity. That must have been amazing – to have done all this work and debate, to then over hear two waiters argue whether they believe it or not… It’s certainly an interesting read that explores scientific denial and one I felt easily tempted to be so terrible as quote the whole thing. However, I will fight this urge of plagiarism except to offer one of the more interesting tid-bits; “there is no real point in debating conspiracy theorists, there was no point in explaining relativity to anti-relativists… Their strong opposition was not due to a lack of understanding, but rather the reaction to a perceived threat… Anti-relativists were convinced of their own ideas, and were really only interested in pushing through their own theories…”

Anyway, read it all here. 🙂

Advertisements

65 thoughts on “Climate denial parallel to anti-relativity movement in the 1920’s?

  1. Good article, but sad since the deniers will cause our extinctions.

    Here is a video I ran across done by a science teacher on why even if you don’t believe in global warming why it is in our best interest to move to renewables.

    Like

    1. I’ve seen this guy use a matrix before – but I’m worried that it is only as strong as the biggest foreseeable risk.
      However he makes a good point about science and the likely reality.. 🙂

      Like

  2. Even those of us that are Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Warming skeptics… (denial is a lame attempt to equate us to Holocaust deniars so you would do well to change your choice of words),do not want our earth destroyed and do our best to recycle and use eco friendly products. No one wants our earth destroyed, we live here.
    but what we don’t like is politicians trying to get rich off carbon trading schemes and Obama attempting to cram Cap and Trade down our throats and trying to illegally and ciminally bring us into the Copenhagen treaty as Clinton brought us into the WTO and the no end of trouble and loss of freedoms that caused because Congress was too gutless to stand up to him. If you or your readers are unaware of any of these facts on record and in evidence in numerous places… please come to my blog and I will be more than happy to have a civil discourse with you.

    Like

    1. I’ll call a “spade” a “spade” if that’s okay.
      Funny you should choose to comment on this one, as it’s the work of someone else which I was more or less just advertising (I was shocked to hear that Einstein had to listen to waiters debating his work with him – it’s amazing how valid someone without training thinks their view is. Nothing short of ego).
      It’s nice to hear that you feel you’re doing to responsible thing by recycling etc, however I would somewhat disagree – just because it doesn’t head to the tip does not mean that it’s eco friendly; the energy usage to recycle it and the wastes involved… it’s closer to greenwashing than it is to being sustainable (more or less my overall approach on this sight, which is why I’m not obsessed with the AGW debate).
      So you think it’s the politicians who are trying to get rich of the masses? Others think it’s the scientists. Elsewhere it’s the major banks or other companies – it’s little more than communist goblin paranoia. Are you a fan of the world government conspiracy also?
      I would argue that change invokes innovation. Make dirty energy more expensive, you’ll get the quick witted coming up with new ways of doing things. It’s the whole, “necessity is the mother of invention”; change is good.

      Like

  3. Aah, you must be one of the ones who are crying for government to help in the gulf now. WE all have contributed to the extinction of living species on this planet and that includes humans. Do you drink water out of a bottle. If so the the bottle is made from petrolum products and it takes 7 times as much water to make the bottle than the water that is in the bottle. That is not including the the effects of the transportation of the crude oil to the plastic factory and then to factory to fill the bottles and then the transportation to the stores where you purchase the water or does it include the use of your auto to the store and back.

    Here are some articles on why we are in the mess in the gulf right now.

    http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=113408
    Bottom line we deregulated and now we have an oil spill that will affect not only the gulf of Mexico, the marshes, marine life but the world, since the oil and dispersants will circulate around the world in 18 months.

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Oil-Spill-Intentional-Dis-by-martinweiss-100612-708.html

    I would not be surprised if the is the “tipping point” for the destruction of life on earth. As
    George Carlin, the comedian said “The earth isn’t going anywhere, but we are”

    http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=113444

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Gates-Of-Hell-Are-Opening-by-Allen-L-Roland-100612-581.html

    Like

      1. Tim,

        Have been a bit busy lately, so am glad I could reply to this arrogant, egotistical, I, me, mine thinking guy.

        I do enjoy all of your articles you put out. Thanks for staying on top of things.

        Owl

        Like

      2. I’ve become highly focused recently… I realized that a lot of what I say is more or less repetitive. So I figured if I put it out as an entire piece, in short pieces, I could get on with more appropriate agendas, such as asking what should be done to ensure survival for all.
        🙂
        He admits to being new to this “debate” which explains a lot about him. I’d say he’s an enthusiast and fighting like this is entertainment for him. C’est la vie.
        Cheers
        Tim

        Like

    1. Um no,
      I would rather not have the government sticking their noses into anything that they aren’t supposed to.

      This mess is as a result of some very bad decisions.

      However there are some things that once it gets beyond a single agencies ability to control the government should step in and help.
      There is far to much beuracracy involved for quick and proper movement. The US government has gotten so overbloated it can’t do anything effectively any more. Both sides are at fault, Republican and Democrat. Polarity is stupid and pointless and will get us no where!

      Like

  4. Here are some calculation by my boyfriend who is a mathematician on the dispersants they have used in the gulf. Yes, we need some regulations to stop this insanity:

    olympic sized pool holds 660,253 gallonss o a million gallons is roughly 1.5 olympic pools the LD 50 for the dispersant (immediately lethal to 50% of the animals tested) is 2.7 ppm (parts per million)so if that olymipc pool & a half worth of water had 2.7 gallons of dispersant in it (roughly 1/2 a water bottle)… so i…t begs the question
    at what level does it cause death by liver failure next week or 3 months?

    more calculations with 60 cubic miles polluted, and a million gallons of dispersant pumped the polluted region had 1/486 of the amount of dispersant needed to be immediately lethal to everything it comes in contact with, but that’s just dispersant. It doesn’t include the toxicisity… of the oil itself.we’re looking at an enormous “killing cloud” of toxic soup

    Like

    1. With much of the wetlands and estuaries important breeding and nursery sights for a much wider region, this will cause first a collapse of the ecosystem of the gulf and then the deeper waters which feeds on that coastal supply of nutrients. In short, when my son is old enough to go backpacking, there will be little to nothing in the Caribbean ocean worth swimming to look for. This is a massive ecological disaster.

      Like

  5. Tim,

    It saddens and angers me greatly. I feel for the future generations, you and your son. I feel for the extinctions we are going to see because of this spill. WE humans have created this mess. I have been fighting this since the 70’s and am at a lose on what to do. I post things on a daily basis on my facebook page and find many people learn new things because of it, give presentations, sign petitions, work with many groups. But it just isn’t enough.

    Like

  6. What ideas have you come up with for the survival of us all? Hopefully he will read the articles with an open mind and think about it.

    Owl

    Like

    1. Gosh… it’s a hard one to sum up at this point. I think I’ll break it up. Anyway, I’d more or less say that it all comes down to changing the mind frame of cheap, abundant energy. When we start to appreciate to energy requirements and ecological services provided to us we can start to think differently and more efficiently… I’ll explore it more as I go along.
      🙂

      Like

  7. Glad to hear that. Just wrote Obama and some other politicians tonight about renewables.
    Many of the people in the gulf are out of work because they were fishermen or oil workers and many of the the politicians still want off shore drilling. So suggested perhaps we should move to renewables today and the first trainees should be the people in the gulf that are out of work. That solves the problem for the off shore drill workers and it moves us in a new direction away from oil, coal and hopefully nuclear, since they are still debating this issue.

    Like

    1. Over at BraveNewClimate Barry talks a lot about nuclear and I have to admit that if forth gen reactors prove to live up to all the hype, I’d have to bet on that being a fair chunk of our future power supply. It’s a touchy issue, but certainly could be a much cleaner energy source than fossil fuels. Renewables are problematic at best, but will increasingly play a role in our future. There’s just a few hurdles to cover before they will compete with nuclear. I’ve been watching this gulf disaster unfold on the news. I couldn’t begin to fathom what it must be like for the locals. Every aspect has changed their lives…

      Like

  8. I don’t disagree it will be cleaner than fossil fuels, but I also believe we have the techonology to invent something even cleaner without the impact of nuclear. We just need to put money into it and let the scientist find what they can. Here is a debate on renewables and nuclear from Ted.com http://www.ted.com/talks/debate_does_the_world_need_nuclear_energy.html

    I live on the west coast of the US and feel as you do can’t even image how they must be feeling and Katrina was not that many years ago and they are still in recovery from the hurricane. This is hurricane season in the gulf, so hopefully that will not delay stopping this spill if it can be stopped. I wish my written skills were as good as my verbal skills so I could express myself better.

    Am looking forward to your future articles.

    Ow.

    Like

  9. Just passing this on a quote from a famous Lakota Indian:

    “The basis of knowledge is the fire, rock, water, and green. But when that power was given to man, he used it to twist his own mind. Tunkashila gave man just one drop of that wisdom.”

    –Wallace Black Elk, LAKOTA

    All of Nature has the wisdom to follow the Natural Laws. All of Nature knows how to live in harmony and use this wisdom in a good way, with exception of the human being. Often we misuse this wisdom. Wisdom always remains with those who use it in the proper way. Nature has used this wisdom well, so now we need to go to Her so we humans can relearn and change our lives. May we start doing this today, before it is too late.

    Creator, let me be open to the lessons that Nature can teach me.

    Like

    1. Nor have I. I’ve often made the point that we need to include indigenous understanding of ecology here in Aust. People who have lived with the land for many thousands of years know it intimately. It’d also have an excellent spin off by providing younger generations to relearn about their home (as many indigenous Aust’s are lost and dissociated people).

      Like

  10. That would be great if it happened. I know I have read a lot about the indigenous people of Aust and know they are treated worse than many of our people on the reservation here. I was lucky and was raised in an urban area here in the US and not a reservation. But many of my friends are Cherokee or from the tribe I am from. My mom was Norweign so I was more fortunate than many of my friends. The intervators on wind energy here in the US are the Native people.

    Like

    1. A journalist named John Pilger wrote about his life’s work in a book called “Heroes”. It starts with the treatment of indigenous Aust’s – even going on into the 60’s… it’s nothing short of disgusting. Even up to today the main work to “help” them is to throw them money.. it’s terrible and highly upsetting.

      Like

  11. Will check and see if they have the book on Amazon.com. I have a few books written
    by some of the tribal people of Aust. Tribal people all over the world have had to deal with the sub humans since the Europeans invaded so many countries. It is disgusting and some tribes have faired better than others.

    Like

  12. Arrogant me mine and my. My My we are quick to throw ad homonyms when we have never taken the time to get to know someone.

    Let’s get some facts straight.
    Let’s make one thing perfectly clear.

    It disgusts me when I see people throwing beer bottles and cigarettes out their car windows. I have on more than one occasion gotten out and cleaned sections of Highway on my own because I wanted to not because I needed too.

    It sickens me when people leave all sorts of garbage on our beaches. I have been known to clean that up as well.

    Whenever I used to watch the old commercial of the old Indian chief riding in his canoe and seeing the pollution and crying, I cried too.

    We were called by the creator (in my opinion God Yahweh but that’s another topic)to be stewards of this planet and we have failed miserably.

    Yes there are a lot of greedy people who have killed and destroyed in the name of the dollar.

    So now that we’ve gotten that out of the way.
    Like I said on Mandia’s blog I used to be a global warming believer rather than a skeptic.

    I would just let it go because it’s going to have an outcome and it’s going to be obvious in the end which side was right.

    And you are right; I and a mass of others are on a crusade, why?

    Gore, Obama, Pachauri, Soros and dozens of others are trying to use this as a gravy train at the expense of millions. They want to sacrifice our government’s sovereignty and tax us back to the dark ages through cap and trade.

    Make no mistake. Gore doesn’t care one whit about the globes ecology. He has two businesses that are controlling agencies in the carbon credit game. He has already made millions. Obama was a power player in the Chicago Carbon Exchange until it was sold the week after being outed on television.
    I love my wallet and my freedom and my nation. There are millions like myself who, while we love the planet that was made for us to live on, while we hate the greedy destruction, refuse to lay down and have our country, our rights, and our hard earned money taken away so a few can be wealthy and powerful.

    Like

    1. Brad,

      So it would appear you are a liberarian. Am I correct??? Did you read the articles I posted on why we are in the mess in the gulf right now??? Did you read it with an open mind or did you read to find an agrument??? I was the one who sent the video on “How it all ends” so if you have a problem with that please direct it at me. Are you a Glen Beck supporter??

      If you read the articles I posted on my comments then we can discuss them.

      Owl

      Like

      1. I’m not meaning to be flippant but with the mispelled word I want to verify. Were you asking if I was a Liberian, or Librarian or Libertarian. I’m going to assume you weren’t asking about me being a librarian or from Liberia, so we’ll go with the political model.

        I have leanings into the conservative camp. However, Bush and several others have betrayed the cause and the Republican party is no longer what it once was. I am actually registered as a democrat because the year I turned 18 was the year Nixon was booted out of office and I thought Carter was better than Ford, it turned out to be a tossup on that one but heck I was only 18.

        Whether you agree with the health care bill or not, The democrats showed that they do not care anything about what the people say to them. We’ve known it for years but they so eloquently proved it proved it this year.

        Glenn Beck? I listen to what he has to say. Some of it I support and some of it I don’t.
        On the other side of the coin I voted for the young new Senator from Alaska when I was up there because I thought he would be better for the state than Ted Stevens was.

        Like

      2. Brad,

        We all make spelling errors. Humans have that tendency, when I become god there will be not spelling errors. You are correct on the political point. I meant Libertarian. Thanks for answering most of my questions. Would prefer not to have your opinion but facts to back it up.

        You didn’t answer the question if you read the articles I posted. When you do we can have discussion.

        Owl

        Like

  13. I don’t see how you can even relate ACGW skeptics to those who scoffed at Einstein for over 40 years before he finally found the missing piece to his puzzle.

    They scoffed at him and denied him his place in academia, only until he finally was able to prove his theory. Are we supposed to accept bald theory at face value when it hasn’t been proven and hasn’t worked out?

    And you accuse me of not being a scientist. I know the scientific method and why it stands better than you apparently. Not to mention history.

    Like

  14. by the way. Since you made a snide remark on my commenting on your blog about that article. You presented it on your blog, and you presented it in a positive light, whether you are the originator of it or not, if you put something on your blog you have to be open to criticism.

    Like

    1. You certainly have some time to spare.
      4:03 comment; it’s great to hear that you do have concern for the environment.
      used to be a believer and now a skeptic? Based on dozens (as you put it) being on the gravy train of global warming fear… try being a little less cliché. I don’t care for the politics nor ideology. The research is overwhelming opposite to what you consider to be skeptical views. Why would I care what Gore thinks of ecology? I’m concerned with ecology in a noticeably changing climate – based on the available evidence.
      You love you’re wallet – check out rogerthesurf – NZ bloke who also loves his wallet; I’m sure he’ll have time for your paranoia.
      4:08 comment; you have a problem with governments governance? They should play no role except when shit hits the fan? They’re not an emergency dept.
      Polarity is stupid? You’re the warmest / skeptic – you talk about climate science in a similar fashion to that I’ve overheard fanatical Aussie rules football talk about their sport (ie. I used to support A, now I support B and when A play B I scream my guts out at supporter of A until the final bell and go home happy… it’s not a sport Brad).
      5:08 comment; I only posted this comment to highlight an interesting post I found elsewhere (but my, how it gets the deniers worked up).
      You know scientific method and history better than me? I see no evidence of this, but good luck with that.

      Like

    2. True, everything is open for criticism. Well founded and understood criticism that is.
      As previously mentioned, you treat science relating to climate change as though it was a spectator sport, which it is not. “it’s going to be obvious in the end which side was right”; indeed you’re right – I often say that it’ll be irrefutable in retrospect, however, how much species loss and change to the environment must occur (much of which would be irreversible)?
      I’m not concerned with this little denial agenda other than how it provokes inaction. If you’d bothered to read my posts to date under the “Innovation is key” heading you would see that AGW is not necessarily a major concern when one looks at the wider spectrum of environmental degradation occurring and is certainly not one I’m obsessed with (as you undoubtedly are).
      If you were scientific, you would understand that the rate of glacier melt have decreased over the last few years, not began to reverse. If you want longer term averages, go to NASA or NOAA – the world is changing. This year is so far proving to be warmer than the past decade averages (see http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ ).
      A scientist wouldn’t do (as you have done) just pull out random statements (ie. 31000 scientists – absolute denial rubbish). I reference my work where required. Read the bulk of literature, get some scientific qualification / training or stop wasting my time.

      Like

  15. I’m sorry you took that the wrong way.
    I was simply trying to figure out for sure what you were referring too.

    My human imperfectness is brought to my attention probably a million times a day.

    I have as yet not had time to read those articles although I intend to.

    I am currently unemployed but I am going back to college at the age of 50 so while I have a lot of time on my hands I do have a 5 yr old son and a wife and I’m writing a book and well going to school. So I have moments where I do a lot of talking. I type 65wpm so it’s fairly quick and easy and then I have moments of insanity where I meet myself coming and going.

    Like

  16. boy that was wierd. Twice now I hit shift and the submit button lit up and submitted what I had said without letting me finish.
    Wordpress has been having some serious technical issues lately.

    Anyway I will try to read your articles and get back to you shortly.

    Like

  17. I don’t have time for a lot of comments but do you really think Gore would have just spent 34mill for a house on the beach in Malibu if he was all that seriously concerned about the oceans rising due to global warming?

    Gore has two businesses that are major players, in fact the first player in the US, in carbon trading. He has made millions in the last 5 years in carbon trading. In fact he has exhorbitant electrical output, 250,000 kwh of electricity in his mansion in Kansas. Enough electricity to power 2500 homes for a month.
    He feels it’s ok to purchase Carbon trade off credits to offset his huge output of energy. This is all readily available in press.

    Now let’s get back to the hockey stick. There is not one independent study reproducing the hockey stick pattern that doesn’t use the same parameters or darn close to what Mann used. In fact the three major papers put out that supposedly reinforce the hockey stick paper were done by either Briffa or Ahmman or a combination. Not much independant about that since Briffa and Ahmman are intricately linked with Mann.
    If you want to believe in a paper that admits to removing data from two inconvenient time periods to make their hypothesis work which directly violates the scientific method then go right ahead.

    Now what part of Al Gore’s movie the Inconvenient Truth would you like me to shred to pieces first? The fact that it was found by a British court to be full of drama and misrepresentations and was forbidden to be shown in British courts without opposing side material being present and teachers reading a caveat as to the emotional manipulation of the movie?

    Or perhaps the part where Gore uses a chart with a 17% feedback showing temperatures off the chart that the IPCC 1,2,3, or 4th ammendment don’t even agree with?

    Could you please get a little bit more specific about what I’ve said that is not reality? There are so many things about Al Gore that I would love to talk about but I’m not sure to which you are refering?

    And as far as animals threatened by global warming… shall we mention the picture of the polar bear that Al Gore bought off a student who had no rights to sell it to show that polar bears are losing their territory when the bears were merely playing together according the person who actually shot the footage. Shall we bring up the subject of the lead scientist in Canada who shredded an alarmist scientist from New Zealand who opened his mouth regarding polar bears when he shouldn’t have?

    http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/0706_byrd.pdf
    Lomburg,Bjorn.m The Telegraph, November 10,2008, The not so disapearing polar bear

    Am I really so paranoid? Am I really so ignorant?

    Like

    1. Geez you’re boring.
      I’m really uninterested in Gore (do I quote him at all?). Polar bears are another fav of the deniers. Mike at Watching the Deniers has covered this time and time again (example here http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/no-mrs-nova-you-are-not-a-sceptic/ ). Polar bears have demonstrated reduction in fitness and from a scientific view, it is terrible to extrapolate that using this one example we conclude that all species are ok. It is just not the case. And base your rebuttal on literature, not media.
      I’ve grown tired of making the same points over and over again – hence why I’ve produces this “Innovation is key” work.
      The hockey stick is another beloved argument of denial and irrelevant. There’s are not the only work done (go and look over at Skeptical Science who has done a lot of work to illustrate this) and at the end of the day – the points I’ve made in Pt. 4 of this continuing work ARE OCCURRING.
      You certainly demonstrate;
      1) belief in a major conspiracy
      3) selectivity (cheery picking)
      4) creation of impossible expectations
      5) Use of misrepresentation and logical fallacies (Gore is a pig, thus climate science is false)
      http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=5463
      I don’t make stuff up. I base my views on the scientific literature and what I see in the field and as part of my job.

      Like

  18. hmm you continue to throw insults my way
    1. Hmm well if you want to believe that there is no connection between global warming and cap and trade then you rest in your ignorance.
    2. I’m not selecting, these are the two things we were discussing, I currently have 120 pages of things wrong with global warming and the hockey stick is a focal point because that is where the majority of the IPCC goes out from there. That’s why it is a major focal point.
    oh that was 3 you skipped 2
    4. creation of impossible expectations huh what?
    5. use of logical fallacies? Are you kidding me? where did I say anything to the effect of Gore is a pig therefore climate science is false.

    You are making things up because most of what you are saying here is like a magical mystery tour on the SGT Pepper’s lonely hearts pot smoking tour.

    I did not misrepresent a thing nor did I use any logical fallacies. I am very familiar with critical thinking skills and psychology and good writing skills. I used no causality arguments, you however have flung numerous red herrings and ad homonyms ad nauseum.

    what exactly is your field and job?

    Like

    1. 1. climate change = scientific evidence. cap and tad = political ideology.
      2. I wasn’t accusing you of number 2, that’s why.
      3. The hockey stick is still irrelevant. Climate change is occurring from multiple other sources of research
      4. You’ve said that it’ll be clear in the end who is right, thus we shouldn’t change our current practices until it’s conclusive – that will only happen in retrospect and certainly does not merit inaction at this point.
      5. You make the point that he and others will apparently score big out of change. Therefore this justifies your “skepticism”.
      If the science was so inconclusive or indeed as weak as you assume it is (ie. relying only on a hockey stick graph by 3 scientists), the scientific community would be the first to shut it down – there are thousands of professionals much smarter than you or I who would’ve picked it to pieces and loudly spoken against it – indeed their professionalism would invoke them to do so in the face of blatant abuse to scientific credentials. I’m sorry Brad, but you’re not onto a scandal.
      I’ve not made anything up. Red herrings etc? I’m sorry – if that’s what you think of scientific literature, I’ve got something to tell you. Read my innovation bits that are published to date. It’s more weighty that abc media.
      I do more in the field of environmental science than a student.

      Like

  19. You seem to miss a major point in this.
    If the science was so bad then major scientists would stand and refute it. There have been several major scientists including Bob Carter from Australia who is a paleo ecologist who has stood against it and there have been numerous on the side of the IPCC who stood against the science. The Hockey Stick is not a minor player in Climate science. It is a major integral part and is a major part of which makes up global science.You would think their profesionalism would force them to stand up to it. There have been some to defect because their profesionalism would not allow them to put up with Jones, Mann, Briffa et al’s. nonsense any more.
    Have you ever read the email between the CRU team around the time of the formative stages of the AR4?
    There is far more involved here than profesionalism and scientists that no better are not standing up. Why do you think I have said the things I’ve said and people like Watts and McIntyre and McKitrick.

    there is no independant science showing the same thing as Mann’s hockeystick that is valid science because in order to create a similar chart to Mann’s they also have to delete the Medevil warming period and the Maunder Minimum.

    You seem to suffer from a deplorable head in the sand syndrome.
    Perhaps you should read Air Con by Ian Wishart or the Crutape letters Climate Gate by Steven Mosher.
    Enlighten yourself beyond your narrow belief system. If you can read either of those two books and come back here and make the same statements that you made today then we’ll know who has the serious bias issue.

    I’ve read some of your innovation information.
    While some of it is good there are some things that you don’t talk about.
    If we need to be so terribly worried about the climate wiping out dozens if not hundreds of species… why is it that the polar bear has been on our planet for arguably millions of years and has gone through numerous times where our planet was warmer than it is now and yet is still here? Why is it that ferns and other plant species that we know to have been here at times that were so cold that the equator was frozen solid and yet are still here on the planet today?

    Why is it that we are so concerned about greenland when there is evidence from ice cores that at more than one point in history that Greenland was just as North America is today?

    What about the carboniferous period where the carbon levels were between 7000 to 140000 ppm versus the paultry 385ppm today and the very same animals and plants that are alive today were alive then?
    what cars were being driven then?

    You wonder why POlar bears are so often in the forefront of skeptic presentation. It’s because it’s always at the forefront of alarmist speach and rhetoric but incorrectly so.

    So you say the professionalism of scientists would not allow them to not speak out if scientists were really doing things like this.
    Seriously? Seriously? WHAT DO YOU THINK THE SKEPTIC SCIENTISTS ARE DOING?

    Like

    1. You’ve provided no evidence to the contrary, so why would I change my views?
      I’m not oozing bias, I just base my views on the literature and what I see in the field. From the sounds of it, yours is a view based on something like the book Air Con.
      You’ve admitted being new to climate science and being a student. You’ve not looked at anything I’ve written – except for this referral. You’ve not followed any references that are included and read from the mounting scientific literature.
      You maintain absurd claims that don’t match up with the evidence (31,000 scientists refuting, fitness of polar bears, glacial melting, climate change is just a government scare etc etc etc). Why am I at fault for being concerned about our future and developing a career based on scientific evidence (mind you, I don’t even make much of a noise about AGW, rather the realities of a changing, warming climate).
      I’m sorry if such a sound approach makes you feel that you cannot convert me to what in all accounts seems little more than a conspiracy theory. I’m not sorry if you conclude that I’m bias because I rely on scientific investigation. I’m open to being wrong and changing my views – where the evidence permits… however you provide no evidence.

      Like

  20. Brad,

    You are not worth the time to have a debate with since reading all your recent comments.
    You have no facts to back you up. You only have opinions and a opinions are a dime a dozen. Nothing conclusive in opinions.

    Owl

    Like

  21. I have mentioned numerous articles I’m sorry you didn’t see them.
    I have mentioned two incredibly valuable books in climate debate. Air Con alone has about 30 pages of peer reviewed articles cited. It is very informative and written by a investigative journalist who has an incredible knack for picking up bad science and putting two and two together. I may be a student but I am 50 years old and been following ecology and animal life for a very long time. My brother has worked for numerous National Parks, and we have categorized and studied animals and plants for a few decades now. In fact I can’t stand the smell of mothballs or amonia any more.

    I am currently writing a book. I currently have 10 pages of references from major scientists on both sides.
    Some of the information I have is from the emails of the CRU crew.

    At the very least these scientists are guilty of stupidity and violating Best Practice principle.

    I will be sure to send you a signed copy when it’s done being published and you can look at all the evidence you want to your hearts content.

    I’ve done months and months of research on some things, years on others, and even though people like Scott Mandia know what I’m talking about, they like to tire people down by constantly asking what is your proof, when they constantly are making outrageous statements without proof.
    Most of what is on Mandia’s website is theory backed up by pretty charts and mathematical modeling. No facts – conjecture. I point to published papers and they are ignored and still he says I provide no proof.
    Sigh

    Like

    1. I knew you’d read Con Air – it’s full of rubbish.
      30 peer-reviews? I’ll have more than that in the review paper I’m putting together. Another blogger worked out that over 40% of it is quotes… terrible.
      You’ve been following ecology and animal life for a long time? Read some of the papers I’ve recently cited and get back to me on that then.
      Climategate has been debunked – or did you miss that?
      I’m sure you could send me a signed copy (denial books are all the craze right now so your sure to make a packet).
      I’ve referenced myself throughout, you have not. I don’t make outrageous statements.
      FYI on the 30,000+ scientists

      Like

  22. Owl
    nothing conclusive in opinions.
    I will agree with you and be blunt.
    Opinions are like A-holes. Everyone has one and they usually stink!

    Hmm 99% of alarmist conjecture is that… opinion. hypothesis, theory, rhetoric.
    They seem to think that if they put something in a journal that is reviewed by their buddies that it’s fact.

    Sigh – you know what the really sad thing is?
    We’re both saying the same thing but we’re coming at it from opposite ends of the spectrum.
    The only difference is if you’re wrong???? There will be a lot to be worried about economically and politically.

    Oh and by the way, neither one of you responded to my comments backed up by scientific evidence and peer reviewed journals about the polar bear. You just threw some ad hominyms in and insulted me as is pretty custom in the face of AGW alarmists.

    Show me evidence of any animal that has suffered any sort of loss due to man’s supposed contribution to the changing climate?

    Oh I forgot about the trans-sexual lizard.

    Like

    1. FYI – from an ecological view

      To add to this, I’m happy to send you a copy of a related article;
      Amano, T., Smithers, R. J., Sparks. T. H., and, Sutherland, W. J. (2010) A 250-year index of first flowering dates and its response to temperature change. Proc. R. Soc. B. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0291
      As is said in the above video, plants don’t lie, they just react. This is the concern of an ecologist. Timing goes out of whack, you damage a whole chain of events.

      Like

      1. Great little video. I will post it to my facebook page. Brad most likely won’t watch it since he has school, a book to write and no doubtly doesn’t have the time. He appears he would rather be right than learn something new.

        Owl

        Like

    2. also, buddies reviewing their work? You really are an outsider to academia. It’s a painful process going through the review process and if you make a mistake that does make it through, you’ll hear about it sooner or later from someone somewhere else.

      Like

  23. Brad,

    We are not even close to being on the same page. I have read the article and it is not worth responding too. Everything so far with a couple of articles you have said is opinion and as you said “they usually stink.

    Owl

    Like

  24. take a look at this as to your comment about scientists rising to their profesionalism.
    This is from someone that was on the inside of the IPCC AR4
    http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf
    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/

    This is just one of many things wrong with Jones, Mann, Briffa et al. aka the CRU crew and others who stood to lose a lot behind their lies and deceipt and trickery.

    Here is just one of many pieces of proof that you’ve been crying for and it came from someone that was one of their own members.
    What is the first directive and question of Critical Thinking?
    Could I be wrong in my beliefs?

    Read those two articles and ruminate on that question for a while. Do yourself a favor!

    Like

  25. You don’t consider an article about Gore buying a picture that had nothing to do with declining polar bears but bears that were playing taken by another student who didn’t give permission to sell the picture something credible????????????

    You don’t consider an article written by the senior biologist for the Canadian fish and game department that has studied polar bears for over 20 years credible????????????????

    Try the next to articles I just mentioned no more than a minute ago and see how credible you think that is.

    Like

    1. what about what I’ve provide to you?
      Leave Gore out of it – let’s both call the man a fool (and I’ve stated on a number of occasions that I’m not sure that he’s done much good for climate science)
      I don’t think you’re evil, I think you’re missing the point.
      As for a previous state about if we’re wrong – ok, it’d knock economy around, but (as I try to make clear on my blog) the change in attitude will invoke innovation and will lead to a much more efficient society. If you’re wrong, we’re done.

      Like

    2. Brad,

      Do you go to amusement parks? Well, many of the rollercoaster are invented by scientist and engineers. Since you can’t trust them. I would advise you avoid amusement parks for you own safety.

      Owl

      Like

    1. if you watch those two vids, if you wish to read the related article and the one discussed in the vids, I can provide them. Plants don’t lie. Migrating animals don’t lie.
      I think by obsessing over the conspiracy regarding CRU scientists and Gore you’re ignoring a world making a loud statement

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s