posted July 31, 2012 12:48 PM            

Characterizing scientific entities as "institutions" doesn't change them. They are still populated by scientists. "Bureaucrats" have nothing to do with it. That's a standard attempt to denigrate something you can't combat with a label you think registers as unsavory. As I said last post: "You're not going to make a good case against NASA. You're not going to make a good case against the NOAA. You're not going to make a good case against the NAS." Understand that. It's not going to happen. You're not going to prevail in this debate with nary a scientific institution of your own.

posted July 31, 2012 01:42 PM            

Nope, doesn't change them at all. They ARE institutions run by bureaucrats grubbing for government funding to proliferate their nonsense...because their man made global warming religious nonsense is the flavor of the day. Their previous flavor of the day was...Global Cooling...a New Ice Age on the near horizon.

They are therefore untrustworthy...as they've proved over and over and no one with 2 braincells to call their own believes a word they say on the subject.

So where's your list of 31,000 US scientists who say the man made global warming religion is the real deal?

I know you can't produce any such list because real scientists won't stick their necks out for such a crackpot theory.

posted July 31, 2012 02:38 PM            

You can't detract from our major scientific institutions. It isn't possible. You don't have any scientific credibility. Once again throwing around the word "bureaucrats" doesn't help your cause. They are trustworthy, and what's more you aren't offering an alternative.

The only people that act religious about this topic are the skeptics. No one else.

quote:

---

So where's your list of 31,000 US scientists who say the man made global warming religion is the real deal?

---

See the last several posts.

quote:

---

I know you can't produce any such list because real scientists won't stick their necks out for such a crackpot theory.

---

That's rather recklessly false. Even after your last revelation piece, which YOU thought disproved global warming, the scientists came out and said that the skeptics got them wrong; that they agreed with the modern manmade global warming premise. Randall posted it as a topic.

quote:

---

That alone should tell anyone with 2 braincells to call their own that they're pis$ing into the wind and swallowing a hoax. But not you acoustic. You lack the requisite qualification

---

All your bravado is for naught, I'm afraid. If anyone looks completely, ridiculously stupid here, it's you. You have no science, plain and simple. This is the same problem you've had for the last several years.

posted July 31, 2012 03:21 PM            

You may well be the only true believer left in the man made global warming religion. It's certain the institutional blitherers, blatherers, bloviators and bullshiiiters don't believe a word of it. Their computer models don't work, never did work and utterly failed to predict the gradual cooling trend that's been going on for a very long time.

They were reduced to saying...yeah it's cooling now but just wait until 2025, 2035, 2045 blah, blah, blah...and the true believer believes them and not the evidence of his own eyes...oh and real scientists who say man made global warming is a crock of crap.

I've proved everything I needed to prove to make my point.

Randall has provided overwhelming evidence...studies, reports...that man made global warming is a scam, a fraud, a hoax and those pushing the crackpot theory are utterly corrupt money grubbers attempting to enhance their wallets and reputations.

posted July 31, 2012 03:51 PM            

Everything else you wrote is delusional. No one has better science than the list I posted. No one has disproven the manmade global warming premise. (Not here, and not elsewhere.) There are no scietific institutions backing the "belief" of the skeptics.

To try to make my argument out as infantile shows a supreme lack of awareness. The argument that you try to put forward doesn't even resemble an argument. There's nothing rational about your premises at all.

You can't give a bunch of educated people material that's false, ask them to make a decision on it based on that science, and then claim that this list is proof against a scientific consensus. That's absurd. The scientific community still paid attention, and conducted multiple studies to get people like you over the hump, but any rational person would find flaw with the process.

posted July 31, 2012 04:38 PM            

About-face: Former climate change skeptic now says global warming is man-made

By Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News | The Lookout – 6 hrs ago

He finally came around to what other climate scientists have been spouting for years. Richard A. Muller, a physics professor at the University of California-Berkeley, announced over the weekend that his much-publicized investigation into climate data has found that humans' production of carbon dioxide is causing the world to slowly warm up. And this process could speed up dramatically in the coming years.

Muller's conclusions attract special attention because of his vocal self-styling as a converted climate change skeptic. Muller criticized global warming studies for sloppy and self-serving data selection and a lack of transparency that obscured errors; he then lambasted fellow scientists for circling the wagons and calling any climate change deniers wrong. Muller says he's still upset that the American Physical Society declared the evidence for warming "incontrovertible" a few years ago in an official statement.

"We don't do things in science that are incontrovertible," Muller said in an interview with Yahoo News.

Muller took matters into his own hands and embarked on his own investigation into the data with his daughter Elizabeth and a team of scientists two years ago. His Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project attracted funding from the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, the nonprofit outfit of a wealthy businessman who denies that global warming is happening. Three years later, Muller ended up surprising himself when his research confirmed everything those same studies that drew his skepticism concluded, and then some. Muller says his study's results are more reliable than many previous ones because he intentionally avoided the data pitfalls he objected to, such as only using a portion of the global temperatures available. (He expounds on his methods here.)

Muller's study has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but he says he plans to do so at some point. One climate scientist, Benjamin D. Santer, told the Los Angeles Times he thinks posting the study online and not in a journal is in "the spirit of publicity, not the spirit of science" and may do more to hurt the global warming cause than help it. But Muller wants to get feedback on his methods and to share his results with everyone, avoiding what he sees as a secrecy and lack of transparency that surrounded earlier climate change studies.

Though Muller is now entirely convinced that the Earth is warming due to man-made causes, he still expresses disdain for people who try to raise passions around the issue by pointing to local weather events, such as the drought scorching up America's Midwest right now, as proof of the phenomenon. (He attributes the drought to La Niña, a temporary cooling of the ocean.) The effects of global warming on local weather patterns are unknown, and even as two-thirds of the world has heated up, another one-third has shown a gradual cooling over the past 250 years, he says. The overall effect is a troubling global warming, but Muller has no patience for simplifications that stray from the truth.

"I'm personally very worried," he says of global warming. Muller says that so far the warming has been "tiny," but that everything points to the process speeding up. "I personally suspect that it will be bad."

Muller is now wading into another controversy, by endorsing the process of natural gas extraction called fracking for developing countries, which tend to rely more on coal. Coal production creates more carbon dioxide, but fracking has also drawn its share of environmentalist critics.

"I believe the only kind of action that is sustainable is that which is profitable, and fortunately we can do that," he says. "We can become much more energy efficient."
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/former-climate-change-skeptic-now- says-global-warming-134617449.html

posted August 01, 2012 09:56 AM            

As Randall has noted...and as any 5th grader could tell you acoustic...if you weren't so delusional...the sun is the driver of earth's climate.

Man made CO2 which represents about .003% of earth's atmospheric green house gasses is not the driver of earth's temperature. Further acoustic, water vapor at about 96% and methane at about 1% of earth's atmoshperic green house gasses are each about 25 times more potent as heat traps than CO2.

posted August 01, 2012 11:29 AM            

The delusion continues to be with you skeptics. This guy was your chance at scientific verification, and he came to the same conclusion as climate scientists. He even claims his work exceeds all of the IPCC work.

posted August 01, 2012 12:35 PM            

You made unsubstantiated claims on this former skeptic's work, and didn't back them with anything.

The "science" you posted is not proof against global warming. If it were, the consensus would be on your side. Clearly, it's not.

You don't get to claim something false as true. You don't have proof on either the science or your claims on Koch-funded Muller.

posted August 01, 2012 01:38 PM            

You remain delusional jwhop, and the math in that statement is so off my 9 yr old grandson could spot the errors.

if you are going to claim superior science as an argument you will have to check your math before you use it for backup.

posted August 02, 2012 05:13 PM            

When the environment, followed by climate were politicized some time back smart people followed the money trail.

Rachel Carson was demonized largely because she lost money for Chem corps, and shareholders. Now we have gone through all of the stages [in these threads as well] of denial from:

• It’s part of a natural change
• It’s not caused by CO2
• It happened before
• Models don’t work
• there is No consensus
• Contradictory evidence
• Inadequate evidence

yadayada

Now a high profile physicist redacts. why is that? Muller has come forward and it is all over the news [for once] why is everyone sitting up in their chairs after a long nap>?
What's different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to "The Daily Show" is paying attention is who is behind the study.

One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.

posted August 02, 2012 05:41 PM            

On your side, you have con artists and fraudsters pushing your idiotic religion that even they don't believe in.

Trouble with leftists is they think they can string together a bunch of words which mean basically nothing and win a debate. It didn't happen and it's not going to happen.

Take katatonic for instance. She "seemingly" wants to dispute my man made CO2 atmospheric number...but offers no number of her own. Sloppy, very sloppy and doesn't begin to pass the giggle test.

And take acoustic. He wants to quote imaginary scientists whose scientific reputations are so tarnished by disclosed fraud, abuse of scientific process, fantasy graphs...like the hockey stick graph and deliberate misrepresentation of temperature from temperature reporting stations...that no real scientists will listen to a word they have to say.

There's a handful of these people on the side of man made global warming and the usual suspects want that handful declared...The Consensus. Bats in the belfrey time in leftist land.

posted August 02, 2012 06:49 PM            

Con artists and religionists might describe the skeptics, but for the rest of us, it's simple science.

quote:

---

Trouble with leftists is they think they can string together a bunch of words which mean basically nothing and win a debate. It didn't happen and it's not going to happen.

---

What a hilarious thing for you to write! You're saying that you're a leftist now? ...because that's literally all you ever do: spout nonsense and claim victory.

quote:

---

Take katatonic for instance. She "seemingly" wants to dispute my man made CO2 atmospheric number...but offers no number of her own. Sloppy, very sloppy and doesn't begin to pass the giggle test.

---

That's NO different than you did. Really this is your most amusing post in quite awhile. Getting mad at other people for presenting cases the same way you do.

quote:

---

And take acoustic. He wants to quote imaginary scientists whose scientific reputations are so tarnished by disclosed fraud, abuse of scientific process, fantasy graphs...like the hockey stick graph and deliberate misrepresentation of temperature from temperature reporting stations...that no real scientists will listen to a word they have to say.

---

I thought you were talking to me. Now you're talking about me? I haven't quoted a single "imaginary" scientist, and none of them have been found to be fraudulent where the science is concerned. The only "imaginary" thing here is your belief that you're on the right side of this debate. You have no legitimate scientists, and no legitimate scientific-backing-community in your camp. How is it that you're on the side of science, while the vast majority of the valid scientists hold an opinion opposite yours?

posted August 02, 2012 07:32 PM            

Oh, but Jones readily admitted...there's been no significant warming since 1995.

Got that acoustic? Even one of the scammers and priests of your man made global warming religion admits...there's been no significant warming since 1995.

End of the game for the fraudsters...and for you too acoustic. You need to find another catastrophe of the day to worry about. Yeah, get yourself a ribbon to show how concerned you are over whatever your new flavor of the day is.

Or, if you want to continue to get pounded by facts, you can continue. Of course, I'll ask you for your list of at least 31,000 US scientists who agree with you...since you insist there's a consensus of scientists who agree with you.

posted August 02, 2012 09:53 PM            

And NO to the rest of your failed attempts at argument as well.

This is a done deal. No amount of backtracking over false data, or imaginary consensuses will prevail over the simple truth: A consensus of scientists studying the climate have found evidence of manmade global warming. Every agency where you'd look for the data; every agency where you would find the data agree. Over 95% of scientists that have published works for peer review about the climate agree with the manmade premise.

Now you've got me repeating myself.

posted August 02, 2012 11:47 PM            

The 3 main priests in the man made global warming religion...Phil Jones, Michael Mann and James Hansen have each destroyed their professional careers by fraud, deception and forged data.

Man made global warming is finished as a force to be reckoned with. Even their UN conferences fall totally apart without any resolutions...except to meet again...next time. But then, they're all on taxpayers dimes and trying desperately to keep the fraud going.

The sun is the driver of earth's climate. The sun is the heat source for earth and every other planet in the solar system...planets which by the way, were all heating up...along with earth and all the way out to Pluto...at the same time.

posted August 03, 2012 12:08 PM            

The "religion" is clearly on YOUR side. When you BELIEVE something in the face of science that contradicts it, that is akin to religion.

Quoting what you believe to be the driver of the climate doesn't change the underlying science. I'm sure Muller thought the same way, and he found himself wrong. It would be great for you to show that kind of integrity yourself.

quote:

---

If you were as smart as a 5th grader you'd already know this and I wouldn't have to tell you.

---

posted August 03, 2012 12:34 PM            

Your 3 main priests in your religion are thoroughly discredited.

Your 3 main priests in your religion are being investigated or have been, 2 by state attorneys or have been and congressional investigations are on the horizon for at least 2 of them.

The UN meetings of your man made global warming religion end in chaos with nothing to show for spending all that money on flights, hotels, food, cars and hookers but some blither, blather, bloviation and bullshiiit.

But, you say there's no bad news on the man made global warming religious home front. Right! Check!

Where's your list of 31,000 scientists who agree with you acoustic. You have to have at least that many or more to say...there's a consensus; because I have a list of 31,000 American scientists who say man made global warming is a crock of crap.

posted August 03, 2012 12:49 PM            

Claiming [falsely] that three scientists were discreditted doesn't undo the science. There are still scientists around the world that make legitimate claims on the climate that agree with those three.

Once again with the religious nonsense.

quote:

---

Your 3 main priests in your religion are being investigated or have been, 2 by state attorneys or have been and congressional investigations are on the horizon for at least 2 of them.

---

This is NOT a statement that disproves the manmade global warming premise. If you'd like to post what happens with those, you're welcome to. I can virtually guarantee it won't change the consensus view on the science.

quote:

---

But, you say there's no bad news on the man made global warming religious home front. Right! Check!

---

Not where the science is concerned, no. It's only where idiot skeptics are concerned that there's an issue. The fact that some of these skeptics have made it into government office is unhelpful.

quote:

---

Where's your list of 31,000 scientists who agree with you acoustic. You have to have at least that many or more to say...there's a consensus; because I have a list of 31,000 American scientists who say man made global warming is a crock of crap.

---

posted August 23, 2012 08:36 AM            

Several reasons depending on who they are.

For the hard core, it's a matter of political ideology. Who in the hell would let these Socialist morons control their lives if people couldn't be made to believe they were otherwise "Doomed"?

For others, it's all about career opportunity and money.

But, the thing to keep in mind is that not a single one of their predictions has come true...NOT ONE!

Not one prediction coming off their computers modeling the weather has come true either...NOT ONE!

The reason their predictions are wrong is simple. They're frauds, con artists and faux scientists engaging in non scientific processes to reach a predetermined desired result.

The high priests of the man made global warming religion ignore the true source of earth's climate, the sun and focus their attention on the least of earth's green house gasses, carbon dioxide.

The high priests can't do a damned thing about the sun's radiation and if the truth were known, they can't do a damned thing about carbon dioxide either. The human component of carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere is only 0.5%. The naturally occurring portion is 99.5%

When Krakatoa erupted in 1883, it is estimated that more carbon dioxide was spewed into the atmosphere than all of man's puny contributions in history. That's right, just one volcanic eruption dwarfed all of man's contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Every year, the active volcano Mt Kîlauea in Hawaii spews more carbon dioxide into earth's atmosphere than all of man's annual puny contributions combined.

Still, the high priests of the church of man made global warming and their church goers labor on in their delusions.

Facts don't mean a thing to true believers.

George F. Will
Why doom has not materialized
By George F. Will
August 17
The Washington Post

Sometimes the news is that something was not newsworthy. The United Nations’ Rio+20 conference — 50,000 participants from 188 nations — occurred in June without consequences. A generation has passed since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, which begat other conferences and protocols (e.g., Kyoto). And, by now, apocalypse fatigue — boredom from being repeatedly told the end is nigh.

This began two generations ago, in 1972, when we were warned (by computer models developed at MIT) that we were doomed. We were supposed to be pretty much extinct by now, or at least miserable. We are neither. So, what went wrong?

That year begat “The Limits to Growth,” a book from the Club of Rome, which called itself “a project on the predicament of mankind.” It sold 12 million copies, staggered the New York Times (“one of the most important documents of our age”) and argued that economic growth was doomed by intractable scarcities. Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish academic and “skeptical environmentalist,” writing in Foreign Affairs, says it “helped send the world down a path of worrying obsessively about misguided remedies for minor problems while ignoring much greater concerns,” such as poverty, which only economic growth can ameliorate.

MIT’s models foresaw the collapse of civilization because of “nonrenewable resource depletion” and population growth. “In an age more innocent of and reverential toward computers,” Lomborg writes, “the reams of cool printouts gave the book’s argument an air of scientific authority and inevitability” that “seemed to banish any possibility of disagreement.” Then — as now, regarding climate change — respect for science was said to require reverential suspension of skepticism about scientific hypotheses. Time magazine’s story about “The Limits to Growth” exemplified the media’s frisson of hysteria:

“The furnaces of Pittsburgh are cold; the assembly lines of Detroit are still. In Los Angeles, a few gaunt survivors of a plague desperately till freeway center strips . . . Fantastic? No, only grim inevitability if society continues its present dedication to growth and ‘progress.’”

The modelers examined 19 commodities and said that 12 would be gone long before now — aluminum, copper, gold, lead, mercury, molybdenum, natural gas, oil, silver, tin, tungsten and zinc. Lomborg says:

Technological innovations have replaced mercury in batteries, dental fillings and thermometers; mercury consumption is down 98 percent, and its price was down 90 percent by 2000. Since 1970, when gold reserves were estimated at 10,980 tons, 81,410 tons have been mined, and estimated reserves are 51,000 tons. Since 1970, when known reserves of copper were 280 million tons, about 400 million tons have been produced globally, and reserves are estimated at almost 700 million tons. Aluminum consumption has increased 16-fold since 1950, the world has consumed four times the 1950 known reserves, and known reserves could sustain current consumption for 177 years. Potential U.S. gas resources have doubled in the past six years. And so on.

The modelers missed something — human ingenuity in discovering, extracting and innovating. Which did not just appear after 1972.

Aluminum, Lomborg writes, is one of earth’s most common metals. But until the 1886 invention of the Hall-Heroult process, it was so difficult and expensive to extract that “Napoleon III had bars of aluminum exhibited alongside the French crown jewels, and he gave his honored guests aluminum forks and spoons while lesser visitors had to make do with gold utensils.”

Forty years after “The Limits to Growth” imparted momentum to environmentalism, that impulse now is often reduced to children indoctrinated to “reduce, reuse, and recycle.” Lomborg calls recycling “a feel-good gesture that provides little environmental benefit at a significant cost.” He says that “we pay tribute to the pagan god of token environmentalism by spending countless hours sorting, storing and collecting used paper, which, when combined with government subsidies, yields slightly lower-quality paper in order to secure a resource” — forests — “that was never threatened in the first place.”

In 1980, economist Julian Simon made a wager in the form of a complex futures contract. He bet Paul Ehrlich (whose 1968 book “The Population Bomb” predicted that “hundreds of millions of people” would starve to death in the 1970s as population growth swamped agricultural production) that by 1990 the price of any five commodities Ehrlich and his advisers picked would be lower than in 1980.

Ehrlich’s group picked five metals. All were cheaper in 1990.