AGW DENIERS THREAD

[trichrider]

AGW DENIERS THREAD

Recently chastised for not providing evidence of the alternative position to anthropologic global warming, despite opposing views assertions the evidence was lacking, the alterative views are many and substantial should one care to look.

Find below links to some alternative views:

http://www.uscentrist.org/about/issues/environment/docs/Revelle-Suess1957.pdf

http://rankexploits.com/musings/

http://www.examiner.com/environmental-policy-in-national/global-warming-at-a-glacial-pace

http://wiki.nsdl.org/index.php/PALE:ClassicArticles/GlobalWarming/Article10

http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/25/the-biggest-source-of-mistakes-c-vs-co2/

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_M018

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/13145713/the-invigoration-of-deep-convective-clouds-over-the-atlantic-aerosol-e-ect-meteorology-or

http://www.climatedata.info/Home/overview.html

http://www.met.sjsu.edu/~wittaya/journals/Max&MinTemp.Trends.pdf

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/04/08/does-new-paleodata-show-that-current-co2-levels-are-already-too-high.aspx

http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/chandra/chandra.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~ackerman/Barcelona.html

Apologies to any who cannot follow the technical jargon, or who find the list of links overwhelming.

 

[grapeman]

It boggles the mind in that all this stuff is easily obtainable, but never championed on the networks of the mindless lemmings.

 

[immaculate]

Awaiting DiscoTriscuit's reply...

 

[paladin420]

This I gotta see.

 

[Neo 420]

 

[Tom Hill]

Okay just this once

It's astounding, the lengths some men will go to to justify their actions past or present. I would never fault a man for doing what he thought he had to do, be he a soldier, an engineer, a rocket scientist, or just driving the old ford truck around town. However, to not be able to stand back and accept the big picture for what it is, to squirm away in an attempt to justify, is absolutely cowardly. We can argue whether it's purple or red, but the fact of the matter is that we as a human race have a whole lot of blood on our hands, we are in double overtime with this industrial revolution etc, and it's high time to cop to it and attempt a change. This is really what all this is about, imo. -Tom

 

[ChaosCatalunya]

And I raise you

 

[Weird]

amen Tom amen

 

[Weird]

Climate change denial
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Page semi-protected



Climate change denial is a term used to describe organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.[1] Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.[2] Climate change denial has been associated with the energy lobby, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States.[3][4][5][6][7] Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.[8][9][10][11][12][13]

Peter Christoff, writing in The Age in 2007, said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. He went to say that "almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific sceptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change."[12] The relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships.[14] Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials.[15]

Scientists (notably climatologists) have reached scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity.[16] However, political and public debate continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions (including economic ones), to take in response. Numerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s.[6][7][14][17][18][19][20] On the other hand, some commentators have criticized the phrase as an attempt to delegitimize skeptical views and portray them as immoral.[21][22][23]

 

[Weird]

n Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth about Climate Change, Clive Hamilton describes a campaign to attack the science relating to climate change, originating with the astroturfing campaigns initiated by the tobacco industry in the 1990s. He documents the establishment of the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) as a 'fake front group' set up 'to link concerns about passive smoking with a range of other popular anxieties, including global warming'. The public relations strategy was to cast doubt on the science, characterizing it as junk science, and therefore to turn public opinion against any calls for government intervention based on the science.[17]

As one tobacco company memo noted: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the "body of fact" that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."[30] As the 1990s progressed ... TASSC began receiving donations from Exxon (among other oil companies) and its "junk science" website began to carry material attacking climate change science.
—Clive Hamilton, Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth about Climate Change

Naomi Oreskes, co-author of Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming,[14] describes how a small group of retired cold-war nuclear physicists, who through their weapons work had become well-connected, well-known and influential people, promoted the idea of 'doubt' in several areas of US public debate. According to Oreskes, they did this, "not for money, but in defense of an ideology of laissez-faire governance and opposition to government regulation". In 1984, Robert Jastrow, Frederick Seitz and William Nierenberg were instrumental in founding the George C. Marshall Institute, initially to defend Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) against other scientists' boycott of it. Oreskes said that this first campaign of the Institute's, from 1984 to 1989, involved demanding equal air-time in the media when mainstream physicists and engineers were critical of the SDI, and producing militarily alarmist material such as the article America has five years left, published in 1987 by Jastrow in the National Review. At the same time, Seitz was employed as a consultant to R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. His principal strategy on their behalf, said Oreskes, was to defend their products by doubt-mongering, by insisting that the science was unsettled and therefore that it was always premature for the US government to act to control tobacco use.[31]

After the Cold War ended, they continued through the Marshall Institute to campaign against environmental issues from acid rain, the ozone hole, second-hand smoke and the dangers of DDT on to a campaign against global warming. In each case their argument was the same: simply that the science was too uncertain to justify any government intervention in the market place. It is only recently, Oreskes said, that historians such as her have been able to 'join the dots': Individual environmental scientists, finding opposition to their warnings about ozone layer depletion or DDT residues, were at the time unaware that the same institute was using the same arguments at the same time against other scientists who were warning about the dangers of smoking, of second-hand smoke, and about climate change itself.[31][32]

 

[Mr. Bongjangles]

 

[In~Plain~Site]

While it may,or may not, be true...the 'fix' is rife with crooks trying to 'fix' what the other group of crooks 'supposedly' messed up.

My back is tired

 

[CLOWD11]

Enjoy your soggy sao chaps.

 

[trichrider]

...all in?

man you festers can read fast!!! didn't get enough?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/08/14/2655852.htm

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q...temperature-at-sea-level-increased-since-1900

http://www.solarlight.com/applications/aerosol.html

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/Climate_Change_3.pdf

http://geology.com/press-release/ordovician-extinction/ ?????



http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=688&Itemid=1

http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/Papers/Continentaldrift2002.pdf

http://geography.about.com/od/learnabouttheearth/a/milankovitch.htm


ok ok...the big picture; just another day at the beach for Gaia. surfs up, suns shining, life is good.

 

[Neo 420]

And I raise you

and all in..

 

[Tom Hill]

Yeah I'm down with not letting things getting to one and not tripping over life - and I come from the peak make no mistake. Not looking to cut it short, but, that's not what we're talking about here, no. We're not talking about the day to day and what we gotta do to survive. We're talking about ultimate truths, the only shit that's truly gunna get your souls -for lack of a better word- off the hook. Here you are, fucking anonymous, and this is what you fucking got man? Mother fuckers - shame on you...

 

[easy420dude]

Worst ever carbon emissions leave climate on the brink

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/carbon-emissions-nuclearpower

 

[grapeman]

Okay just this once

It's astounding, the lengths some men will go to to justify their actions past or present. I would never fault a man for doing what he thought he had to do, be he a soldier, an engineer, a rocket scientist, or just driving the old ford truck around town. However, to not be able to stand back and accept the big picture for what it is, to squirm away in an attempt to justify, is absolutely cowardly. We can argue whether it's purple or red, but the fact of the matter is that we as a human race have a whole lot of blood on our hands, we are in double overtime with this industrial revolution etc, and it's high time to cop to it and attempt a change. This is really what all this is about, imo. -Tom

Wait..what?

The above is a cheap post about pretty much nothing. Everything changes... all the time. Nothing stands still.

Do you really think I or most of our fellow man do not care about things as "you" do. Bullshit.

This blatant attempt to take a high road here and by default, assume we take a low road is just another ploy of the 'feel good" left that have been caught with their pants down when the "so called" science that they put their faith in has been shown to be lacking at best and false on it's face at worst.

I care about the planet. I care about whales, birds and the environment. As much as you.... maybe more. You don't know me. You are not better then me nor do you take care of your property or local environment better then me. The only thing I can tell you do is pat yourself on the back for saying words.

But if you are going to tell me that my lifestyle needs to change to the point where I can't fly, can't drive and I have to pay a carbon tax just to live here then I say bring the fucking science of go home.

 

[Tom Hill]

It was about everything, everything that drives you to expose the sad clown before us.

I do not think you are ready to peep into your mirror, that you are in complete denial, and unavailable for caring.

I could not care less about your lifestyle, clearly you're mind is tied up in knots. This is spewed out before us all, like a sad Greek play.

 

[trichrider]

i am ashamed Tom...for you. since you are obviously above us intellectually, your comments are duly noted, and forgotten.

as for Weird...

Dolt: A stupid person; a dunce. (only just one page).


Abstract
"The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the
traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which
is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in
which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is
radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. Ac-
cording to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary
literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm sci-
entific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying
physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws
between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric green-
house effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature
of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number
calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the
assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction
must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified."

link: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf