The Factual Argument Against Global Warming, Cap and Trade, and the Copenhagen Treaty

I would like to propose this post as a challenge to all the Liberal Progressives posting on this forum to spark a debate on the science of global warming, Cap and Trade legislation and the Copenhagen Treaty. The reason I feel compelled to submit my views and the research it is based on, is due to a rant I witnessed on tonights episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. Bill, typical of many on the left, expresses a smug dismissal of so-called “skeptics”, equating them with flat-earthers, and clings to the notion of a 100% consensus among ALL scientists and recites many of the most apocalyptic climate change forecasts (“don’t you want to live?”, he asks condescendingly of conservative Amy Holmes and Libertarian Gary Johnson). I almost find it funny that Bill Maher has such an attitude of elitism, posturing as a member of a sophisticated class of intellectuals, when in fact he has such a poor grasp of the fundamentals of the pressing issues of our day (economics and US history come to mind) and he seems to be blind to the way in which ALL political agendas (of both parties) are brought about by the use of fear, exaggerating the danger, and straight out lies.

I do think that this exchange illustrates that there still exists a great deal of ignorance towards the facts of climate science, the agendas of bankers and politicians, and the corporations which seek to make a profit from Cap and Trade. So I would like for those of you who, like Bill Maher, feel that the facts are all on your side, or that all “skeptics” are dumb hicks from rural america, please read the facts that I will lay out, study the quotes and investigate the scientists who dispute the credibility of the IPCC, please correct me and show me where I go wrong. The error for most people comes due to the continuous barrage of media exposure and lowering standards of adequate education of our populace, and people no longer study economics or climate science, we merely accept that “experts” (that the media parades in front of cameras) have decided what the truth is, and we are expected to follow in line without a second thought. And isn’t it interesting that these “experts” always advocate for the continual concentration of power among fewer and fewer hands and an authoritarian approach as a solution, while at the same time protecting the profits of the “corporatocracy” that we currently live in. We would do well to look into the numbers and actual science ourselves and do our patriotic duty to challenge conventional wisdom, rather than just roll over whenever our government asks us to.

Just to clear up any misconceptions, although I take the position that is against Cap and Trade and Climate Alarmism, I am no Republican. I am a proud Independent. I am a Political Atheist (credit to Gerald Celente, who coined this term). I like the notion of simply looking at the facts dispassionately and giving a diagnosis (like a doctor). I have seen enough material and science to throw doubt on the whole “Al Gore / Cap and Trade / Copenhagen Treaty” agenda and merit serious investigations. Although I want to keep this thread open for all to participate, I especially would like for those Obama supporters and Progressives who believe in the conventional view of Global Warming to really respond to the information I will be presenting. Take the challenge, Prove me wrong. If it is as much of a slam dunk consensus as so many think, it should be no hard task, Right?
Consider the following quotes:

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

  • Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

  • Prof. Stephen Schneider,
    Stanford Professor of Climatology,
    lead author of many IPCC reports

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”

  • Prof. Chris Folland,
    Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”

  • Dr David Frame,
    climate modeler, Oxford University
    I will attempt to show you all exactly how the environmental movement has been hijacked and subverted and now is fueled by an entirely different agenda from a humanitarian desire to protect the environment. As you will see, the movement evolved over the last forty years through the encouragement of politicians like Al Gore, financed by international central bankers, and given a scientific gloss through the efforts of Maurice Strong and the United Nations, whose talking points are parroted endlessly in our Corporate Media. Yet, the agendas of these men are far from noble. The desire is to create an authoritarian world government and a world central bank, with the goal of destroying industrial production, capitalism, and the greatest engine of human progress in the history of the world. They would also be able to exercise unprecedented control over our lives through assigning us with a “carbon footprint”. Since all nearly all human activity produces Co2 (just breathing produces it), near complete control of our lives would be accomplished. This does not even mention the way in which big corporations will be making money off of selling and trading carbon credits. Most alarmingly, some very radical characters associated with the United Nations and involved in climate legislation are very serious in their desire to pursue an agenda of depopulation. There is NO humane way to reduce the worlds population drastically. Even if you are an Obama supporter, I urge you to LOOK at the actual U.N. documents and THINKabout the effects of the Copenhagen Treaty on the economy, industrialized society, and personal liberty. I think you will quite easily be able to tell that this is not a conspiracy theory, there are mountains of evidence that support everything that I am saying.

The origins of the modern environmental movement came into being during the 1960s. It is important to note the cultural and political climate of the time. The 60s were at the tail end of what can be considered the “Progressive Era”, a period of time characterized by massive expansion of government and radical new proposals spearheaded by ambitious politicians. FDR gave us the New Deal, and Lyndon Johnson “The Great Society”. Following the Great Depression, the newly devised Keynesian economics came into vogue. This allowed the new Federal Reserve system to exert more control over the economy. The desires of many wealthy bankers (Rockafeller, Morgan, Warberg, etc) to control the destiny of our nation seemed to come to pass. Also, this was a period of time where there was a push towards international government and treaties that spearheaded the “globalization” that has taken place since then. The creation of the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the IMF came during this time frame.

As you can see, this was a time in which there was a tremendous centralization of power and growth of government, almost always as the result of a perceived crisis. If you study the history of our banking and monetary system, you will see that the real story to come forth from the time of Woodrow Wilson through the Great Depression was not the New Deal or public libraries or minimum wage laws or any supposedly Progressive initiative designed to help the poor or middle class. No, it was the successful coup of our government by the bankers, affirming the long standing ambitions of the most powerful banking families in the world and sowing the seeds of financial ruin. I find it amusing when I hear partisans talking about how only one side of the isle uses fear and some legitimate concerns to pursue ulterior motives. The history of mankind is that some men will try to control and rule over other men, using any form of deceit and propaganda to pursue those ends. Our politicians, from both parties, have over many decades used what is termed the “Hegelian dialectic”. This is “Problem-Reaction-Solution”. So, powerful men either create a problem or capitalize on a real problem, eliciting a provoked reaction among the American people, and then offer up a “solution” to that problem. They all do this. When Rahm Emanuel sayed “Never let a crisis go to waste”, he wasn’t joking. I am pointing this out because whether man-made climate change is a very serious problem, or whether it is mostly manufactured propaganda and hysteria (in reality it is probably a little of both), it doesn’t preclude powerful men from capitalizing and pursuing an altogether different agenda in its name. It happens all the time.

Looking at the origins of the modern environmental movement and the creation of UN agencies, early fears were founded around the population itself getting out of control. Rather than focus on what humans DO on the planet (industrial production, litter, wasteful behavior), the early hysteria centered around there being too many of us on the planet (and getting worse by the year). The Club of Rome was formed in April of 1968 and led to the publication of the book “Limits to Growth”. Another book published in 1968 titled “The Population Bomb” provided fuel to the fire. There is another piece of evidence that illustrates that many influential policymakers feel that humanity itself is the threat, rather than our behavior. In 1977, Obama’s current science czar John P. Holdren wrote a book called “Ecoscience”. In this book, Holdren clearly illustrates that population reduction is a very serious goal that policymakers are looking to deal with. Holdren very seriously and soberly proposes the following steps to combat the “population problem”:

*• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” – in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives – using an armed international police force. *

See this website: http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/ (There are many others that cover this material. Do your research.)

The man considered the godfather of the modern environmental movement is a man named Maurice Strong. Maurice Strong was Edmund de Rothschild’s right hand man and represented the bankers interests in the United Nations. Maurice Strong once said he is “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology”. He was tasked with several objectives in pushing the environmental agenda. His was a war against humanity, not against pollution. The goal of Edmund de Rothschild and the international bankers was to create a world bank. In fact in 1987 at the 4th World Wilderness Congress, Maurice Strong established the World Conservation Bank. From Wikipedia: “The bank is a creation of Edmund de Rothschild (now dead) to transfer the debt of third world countries to this bank in exchange for their land. This will create a world bank controlled by the House of Rothschild.[1]” Other agendas of the bankers are to deindustrailize and weaken the wealthiest nations and to gain control of the land and national resources of the poorest nations.

Maurice Strong’s challenge was two fold. He needed to advance the political agenda and provide the scientific evidence to provide legitimacy. He organized and established the first Secretary General of the United Nations Environmental Program in 1972 to provide the political platform. Out of this was created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to advance the scientific research. When people talk about a consensus, they are talking ONLY about the IPCC. It is far from objective, it has been a political agency from its inception. However, it has convinced the public that human production of Co2 is a dangerous threat to the planet through the publishing of ever more apocalyptic forecasts each year.

The politically driven IPCC is the sole basis for the claim of scientific “consensus”. A consensus is not important or relevent to real scientific research, yet it is vitally important with regards to politics. There are 2500 members in the IPCC divided between 600 in Working Group I, who examine the actual climate science, and 1900 in working Groups II and III, who study “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively. Of the 600 in Working Group I, 308 were independent reviewers, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. They accept without question the findings of WGI and assume warming due to humans is a certainty. In a circular argument typical of so much climate politics the work of the 1900 is listed as ‘proof’ of human caused global warming. Through this they established the IPCC as the only credible authority thus further isolating those who raised questions.

Yet with some help from the Corporate Media they have succeeded in generating plenty of fear and concern among the American people. Al Gore was instrumental in the pursuit of these goals. Al Gore was a disciple of Maurice Strong. He helped Strong push through the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and benefited politically from his association with this issue. Although his early involvement in global warming can be boiled down to a narrow, short term political agenda, as his political ambitions receded following his narrow loss in the 2000 presidential election, he began to make a lot of money in Carbon Trading. His Generation Investment Management private equity fund has taken a 9.5 percent stake in a company that has one of the largest carbon credit portfolios in the world. A recent article suspected that Al Gore will become the worlds first Carbon Billionaire. The Cap and Trade system will not actually reduce emmisions. It will provide a new lucrative market built on a bubble which will allow many people to get rich trading carbon credits. And there is no evidence that this will reduce pollution by any considerable amount over the next fifty years. It simply won’t work.

Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, said of the Strong directed Climate Change agenda in The Australian in 2008:

*“I am afraid there are people who want to stop the economic growth, the rise in the standard of living (though not their own) and the ability of man to use the expanding wealth, science and technology for solving the actual pressing problems of mankind, especially of the developing countries. This ambition goes very much against past human experience which has always been connected with a strong motivation to better human conditions. There is no reason to make the change just now, especially with arguments based on such incomplete and faulty science.” *

It is important to understand the consequences of the Copenhagen Treaty on the world. It is about lowering the standard of living of most peoples throughout the world and an attack on Industrial production and Capitalism as an engine of human progress. We have to be honest about that.

I have many more quotes and facts to give, but since I have already written a “novel” on this thread, I feel I should take a step back and leave room for discussion. Again, I really hope the Progressives and Obama supporters would take my challenge and respond to the information and concerns I have laid out here. Don’t just take my word for it, google Maurice Strong, Al Gore Profiting from Global Warming, John P Holdren, “Ecoscience”, Edmund de Rothschild, and New World Bank and World Currency. I am sure you will find that the facts are on my side of this debate.

As I said earlier, the motivation behind this post has to do with the smug and condescending demeanor so many liberals take with this issue. I have never seen any highly visible advocate for global warming have to confront and respond to these issues I am raising. In fact, I highly doubt Bill Maher and his ilk even know who Maurice Strong or Edmund de Rothschild are, or what the World Conservation Bank is, or the manner in which some are going to profit from this swindle. So, from now on, lets quite passing off ignorance as intelligence, okay? The people I read on these subjects, and the research I do is based on a studious, intellectual quest for truth, rather than left-right partisan fodder. I have posted on some other topics and people here seemed afraid to engage with me in debate. So, please, I am very curious to see how the liberals respond to this information, and I look forward to sparking a discussion based on the agenda behind the Green Movement. Please take time to defend you positions.

By the way, on his show last night Bill Maher claimed that there are no serious scientists on the planet who dispute the science of global warming. Not sure if he understands that the field of science extends beyond the confines of the IPCC and the short leash of politically motivated government funding, but my initial reaction was: What type of pot did he smoke before the show?

No, actually there is a very wide range of dispute among scientists throughout the world. Just a few off the top of my head:

Timothy F. Ball, Candian environmental consultant and former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg. He heads the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and is on the Scientific Advisory Board of Friends of Science

Richard Lindzen, an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Philip Stott, a professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and a former editor (1987-2004) of the Journal of Biogeography.

Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia,[1] specializing in planetary science, global warming, ozone depletion, and other global environmental issues.

Patrick Moore, He is now Chair and Chief Scientist of Greenspirit Strategies in Vancouver,[1] providing paid public relations efforts, lectures, lobbying, opinions and committee participation to government and industry on a wide range of environmental and sustainability issues

Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Professor of Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia where he worked from 1980-2007.[1] He is a former state climatologist for Virginia, a position he was appointed to in 1980[2] and resigned from in 2007 amid uncertainty over whether he still officially retained the position.[3] He earned his Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979.

Nir Shaviv, an Israeli/American physics professor, carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics and climate science. He is currently an associate professor at the Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

There are many more. Suffice to say, there is no consensus (outside of the political IPCC).

Progressives, Prove Me Wrong.

In addition, for those of you who still cling to the notion that all “serious” scientists believe in the alarmism and the IPCC reports, consider the following link: “500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming”:

And for those who believe that Co2 is harming the planet, a few more links for you to consider:

http://www.iloveco2.org/2009/01/co2-climate-facts.html

If liberals are going to continue to posture as the intelligent, critical thinkers and intellectuals, then they better begin to truly debate the substance of the science of climate change, rather than resorting to tactics of intimidation, marginalization of contrary views, and pretending that there isn’t a wealth of information and scientists who dispute the IPCC reports.

Why exactly is it so hard for people to link increased CO[sub]2[/sub] to industrialization? If it isn’t hard, then why is it hard to understand that CO[sub]2[/sub] increasing consequently increases the amount of retained solar energy. And if that’s isn’t hard, then why is it not possible that increased retention of solar energy will drive global average temperatures up?

Discount the increased acidity in the oceans, 1 problem at a time

Now given the broad uncertainties about the eventual temperature profile why wouldn’t you attempt to mitigate the problem?

The leftist commies over at The Economist are even for it.

Yes, I saw that, too. He’s not linking to a blog or trying to get page views, and it’s a legit topic. That said, jrodefeld, we’ve had a lot of global warming arguments on this site. Global warming or some aspect of it gets debated about once a month, in fact. Here are just a few examples.

Global Warming Redux: Have they lost their credibility?
Are There STILL People Who Deny Global Warming Is Happening?
More Proof That Global Warming Is Toast
Physicists don’t believe in global warming anymore?

TLDR.

Yeah, I posted this same topic on another forum, didn’t get any responses, so I decided to see if I could get some more participation here. I don’t know what your objection to that would be. I’ve gotten serious hesitation from global warming proponents to participate in debate about the facts. I have studied this material, read many scientific journals, and looked into the methods which some are profiting from carbon trading. I think I understand the topic very well. I’m just trying to find someone who would actually respond to the substance of my post.

If you don’t care to respond in a substantial way, there is no reason for you to reply at all. What I’m looking for is: “Your facts about Maurice Strong and the UN, Edmund de Rothschild, and the agenda to deindustrialize prosperous nations and control the land and natural resources of the poor nations is factually wrong because…” or “The Scientists you quote have no credibility because…” or “The scientific journals (and Peer-Reviewed papers) are wrong because…”.

Basically I’m looking for some substantial objections to the substance of what I am trying to say. I have many, many more links to climate scientists on my side of the debate, tons of documented lies and deceit practiced by those supporting the political agenda in the IPCC, and non political information which disputes many of the claims of the AGW crowd.

The way a debate is supposed to work is that I state my case and give quotes, links, and facts supporting it. Then you rebut my views and provide links which contradict mine, etc. The evidence supporting a subversion of the environmental movement by an authoritarian agenda by which bankers and corporate powers can create a method of controlling humanity is so strong that it is not surprising that proponents of Global Warming are resistant to discuss this aspect. I know you didn’t actually look at my links, but there is a quote by Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT,

“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”

Why is it so hard to see that this is a method to control human behavior, not a war against pollution? The evidence is overwhelming. Now, if any of you would actually participate is this discussion, I could provide additional evidence to support this.

Yeah, I know global warming is a debate that is debated frequently all over the internet. I am interested in seeing people respond to the information I am presenting. I don’t think most of what I have posted has been repeated in other posts I have seen. Global warming is a serious topic. I think this board can handle multiple threads about this issue. A significant difference between my post and others is that I focus more on the agenda of those who would use the environmental movement to further consolidate power and make some money on the side. I haven’t heard these issues brought up much. So, maybe you could respond to the issues I have raised? Do you think its all crazy?

Sounds fair. Let me know when you’ve started, k?

“Urine for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s metabolism, it’s the product of all plant material digestion, it is essential for certain sexual kinks and bed time comfort, it’s a product of all industrial binge drinking, it’s a product of life – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from water consumption to frosh week, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.” :wink:

Yeah, it’s plain to see that they’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Why should it be either a “method to control human behavior” or a “war against pollution”?
Why can’t it just be “something that happens” like cracking your head on the steering wheel when you try to adjust your seat while your foot’s on the brake pedal?
Why must you reduce physical reality to human terms? You do realize that it exists outside of our machinations and desires, don’t you?

Many times before, just check the previous discussions Marley23 linked to.

Most of it is crazy indeed.

http://www.bloomsburypress.com/books/catalog/merchants_of_doubt_hc_104

http://rs.resalliance.org/2010/03/05/naomi-oreskes-of-merchants-of-doubt/

Long videos, but it is a history that no true skeptic should ignore.

This is a perfect example of the perennial “I hope no one will notice that many already replied or debunked that item before”

Long analysis, but suffice to say that it shows that those papers were:

Ever heard of a Google vomit? that list was the Google scholar vomit equivalent.

With more substance, but still just trowing up anything with the hope that something would stick :slight_smile:

Very. Just like every other one world government conspiracy theory I have ever come across.

Okay.

Not, it is not. The environmental movement has no godfather. The environmental movement existed long before Maurice Strong was born. Strong was the head of a Canadian utility company and held a variety of posts for the United Nations. He’s an environmentalist, but not a particularly important one. Most people have never even heard of him.

A somewhat unusual goal, given that there already is a World Bank.

Wrong again. The following scientific organizations have issued statements to confirm that man-made global warming is occurring.

Network of African Science Academies
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Royal Society of New Zealand
National Research Council (US)
Polish Academy of Sciences

[[LIST SHORTENED]]

That’s every single significant scientific organization in any field with any relationship to the global warming debate. Hence your claim that the IPCC is the sole basis for the claim of scientific consensus is false.

Perhaps we should first be honest about the fact that there is no such thing as “the Copenhagen Treaty”. There were talks in Copenhagen last December, but there was no treaty.

You may want to be more careful about challenges like that in the future. I did search on Google for those topics and found nothing credible to back up any of your claims. For example, look at the search results for Edmund de Rothschild.

As for the seven scientists listed at the end of that post, I’m not going to bother looking up all of them but the names that I recognize are all on the payroll of oil or energy companies.

I think you’re going to have to do that, since your first set of evidence has been shredded pretty thoroughly. If you want anybody to believe that Al Gore was a disciple of Maurice Strong or that the IPCC features an insufficient amount of independent review or that the Copenhagen Treaty would lower standards of living throughout the world, you’ll have to list credible sources to support those claims, rather than just repeating the claims over and over.

The whole “progressives, prove me wrong” challenge isn’t a great way to get people to engage here. Particularly people who don’t know what a “liberal progressive” is (not everybody on this board is American.)

That said, there’s more than a few grains of truth in what you say, but I think the whole notion of an organised conspiracy is ridiculous. The phenomenon of the bandwagon is not exactly new, and this one has really got some momentum behind it.

The environmental movement (now THERE’S a broad term!) has a strong romantic streak- they see themselves as fighting the good fight. Greenpeace (and more recently Sea Shepherds) vs. the evil whalers, Friends of the Earth vs. greedy loggers, etc. Environmentalists like to regard themselves as the tiny, plucky rebel Alliance fighting the Galactic Empire, and for a long time and on a lot of issues it wasn’t a bad comparison. On the issue of AGW the situation has largely reversed and it’s the dissenters who are David vs. a Goliath of orthodoxy, but that doesn’t make them right.

There’s also a darker side to environmentalism, a tendency to misanthropy. Learning about the greed and waste and shortsightness of your own species doesn’t endear them to you. I’ve felt it myself, the urge to chase after a moron who just dropped a cigarette packet on a pristine beach and cram the thing down his throat. So your Club of Rome quote doesn’t surprise me, but I wouldn’t read too much into it. The vast majority of environmentalists are good people - Patrick Moore from your list of dissenters was a founder member of Greenpeace, for example. Barring a few fanatics, they are not the enemy, but they are zealous and passionate.

Of course the various stripes of environmentalist were going to get behind AGW. They’d probably have made a lot of noise about it even if there wasn’t any supporting evidence for it. But as it happens there
WAS a lot of supporting evidence for it, enough to get the attention of governments and the global media, and suddenly environmentalist zeal was the new big thing. The media love scare stories - witness the Millenium Bug, SARS, Bird Flu and Swine Flu - so stories about how we’re ruining the planet and we’re all going to roast and drown and starve as civilisation collapses was business as usual for them. And joy of joys, the governments of the world took notice and looked into the matter and the whole thing turned political. Huge amounts of funding became available for climate studies, and the more worrying the results, the more the funding increased. To persuade the international community to do something about it was going to take an overwhelming amount of evidence, and so the usual scientific habit of reporting everything with caveats and uncertainties and drawing attention to any potential flies in the ointment was sidelined. The past natural variability of the climate was minimised to make the current temperature spike look more artificial. Of all the various paleoclimate reconstructions that have been published, the one that made it into the media and the IPPC summary and presumably a whole bunch of government documents was Mann’s hockestick, a reconstruction that basically flattened out any natural variability and just showed a big latter 20th century spike. Even if Mann’s work was sound (and I really don’t want to get into that) his famous hockeystick was very far from the whole story but it was practically viral in its distribution. The whole thing became a juggernaut and it still is, but there’s no conspiracy, just the age-old madness of crowds.

Underneath all the politics and the crusading, there is the science, which paints a pretty strong picture but it’s rather more of a mixed bag than your average AGW advocate will admit. The instrumental temperature records do show an overall latter 20th century rising trend, but there are some discrepancies between the hemispheres and the ocean coverage, 70% of the global surface, is pretty sketchy. There may also be some issues with adjustments made for urbanisation, measurement time of day, movement of weather station sites and the like. However we can get round all this by taking the temperature of the sea. Measurement of ocean heat content, which has a far greater heat capacity than the atmosphere or the surface layers of land, show that the Earth is taking onboard more and more heat energy. Apparently it still is, despite the decade-long hiatus in measured surface temperatures. It was actually the small but positive warming of the sea reported on John Daly’s sceptic site that persuaded me of the fact of warming. The planet is taking heat onboard. It’s happening.

What I’m not so convinced about is how much of it is our fault. Natural climate variability has shown temperature rises at similar rates in the past (quite recent past in fact), and possibly similar temperature levels. Paleoclimatology isn’t good enough for us to be sure, although there’s been some recent developments with isotope balance testing of tree rings and clam shells which are very promising and I hope will settle the paleoclimate debate in the next couple of years. In the meantime the estimate of the human GW contribution comes from the difference between the actual temperature record and that predicted by climate models, a process which I have real misgivings about. Nir Shaviv, another name from your list, has a nice summary on his website of the problems as he sees them (and yes he is a climate scientist).

I’m completely with you on cap-and-trade being ineffective. It certainly will act as a brake on the world economy and will transfer a lot of money into the pockets of beaurocrats and lawyers without achieving much at all. But I don’t think you’d like my solution any better, which is to rip off the fossil fuel bandaid with an international push for nuclear, Manhattan Project style. Not because of AGW but because I’d like to see the developing world enjoy the same standard of living as myself, but not burning coal in order to do it.

History does not say that. In fact the bandwagon was to assume that the rise in CO2 was not going to be an issue as there was no good evidence (until the 50’s) that oceans and other natural sinks would not deal with the human released CO2. It took almost 100 years of research to convince most scientists that it was indeed an issue.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Actually, based on history again. The rebels fought the Galactic Empire and blew the death star in the early 80’s, what we see right now is like a bad sequel where the empire is trying to come back with deceptions. :slight_smile:

Seeing Greenpeace’s position with nuclear power I agree, but then I agree more with the science and evidence that says that nuclear power is safer than many of the fossil fuel options out there.

Science BTW is still telling us that the recent warming is not natural.

:rolleyes:

Sorry, as I explained before, but you ignored:

"This was the item that shows me why is that many deniers hate the ones doing reconstructions.

Thanks to early reconstructions we got the concept of a medieval warming period, in those early reconstructions (IPCC 1990) it looked like that medieval warming was as warm or warmer than today, and there was much rejoicing among skeptics, pseudo-skeptics and deniers. Because it could mean that today’s warming was natural (There are other more important reasons why the current warming is not natural and it does not depend on proxy reconstructions, but never-mind)

However, it was suspected that the early reconstructions looked at samples that were too narrow in scope (mostly samples from England and northern Europe). Later and more detailed reconstructions were made (that included more samples and regions) and did not depend just on tree rings (1998), they showed that the medieval warming was not as big as before. Skeptics acknowledged the evidence, pseudo-skeptics have not learned about the progress and deniers continue to cry foul to this day. (Their current solution is to play to the refs)

The harder contrarians continue to complain about the evidence from tree rings, the more doubts they logically should be getting about the medieval warming period. If the tree evidence is shot down, it leads also to shot down or to minimize one important bit of evidence for the medieval warm period, what drives me nuts is that contrarians never seem to get this."

If there is a madness of crowds, it is the effort to discredit the research behind the Hockey stick.

And here you show the misconception that Paleoclimatology is one of the main reasons why scientists think the current warming is not natural. In any case the models that convinced researchers that there was an issue were not just made using computers, and it is not with prediction models that scientists are telling us that we are the main cause of the current warming, the models use current and recorded levels of gases in the atmosphere to report that human emitted gases are the main reason of the warming and this is because when the modelers remove the man made CO2 then the recent recorded warming is gone.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/

Other climate scientists found problems with his research:

And if there is an item that makes me trust your points even less is that it seems that you are accepting what the researchers on his list are saying.

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272

I believe then that he will do the right thing and avoid any political groups then…

Ah, fiddle sticks… :slight_smile:

As George Marshall at climatedenial.org reported once:

Wrong,

Rebuttal to "450 more lies from the climate change Deniers"
1. Greenfyre starts off with childish ad hominem attacks of calling skeptics “deniers”. This is a typical propaganda tactic to try and associate skeptics with holocaust deniers. It is a desperate attempt to move the argument away from the science and instead try to silence the skeptics through ridicule. This tactic was popularized by Ellen Goodman in the Boston Globe,

“Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers” - Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, 2007

Global Warming Denial = Holocaust Denial? (FrontPage Magazine)
Global Warming Ad Hominem Attacks Show Alarmist Believers’ Desperation (The Heartland Institute)
2. Greenfyre makes the absurd conclusion that Roger Pielke Jr. “pulled” papers off the list. This is impossible since Dr. Pielke never submitted any papers to the list. The list is a resource of peer-reviewed papers that support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Dr. Pielke wrongly assumed the list claimed all the papers “refuted” global warming. Nothing could be further from the truth as many of the papers are supporting evidence contrary to the alarmist positions of alleged catastrophic effects of man-made global warming. Most of Dr. Pielke’s papers fit into this category and support skepticism of “alarmism”. In the comments to his blog post, the readers of his blog were surprised Dr. Pielke does not consider himself a “skeptic” as so much of what he writes challenges the alarmist orthodoxy. I share these readers sentiments but was well aware of his outspoken verbal position on where he stands and made no attempt to apply a certain position to him or any of the authors of the papers on the list. This is again stated in the note: “The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors”. I suspect Dr. Pielke received a hysterical email from an alarmist which clearly backfired. Regardless I clarified this in the comments of his blog post of which Dr. Pielke accepted as an explanation.
3. Greenfyre lies that the journal Energy & Environment is not peer-reviewed. He links to the Thompson Reuters corporation’s Master Journal List, impling that only journals on this list are peer-reviewed. This is absurd as anything listed there is purely subjective. Other competing companies clearly list E&E as a peer-reviewed academic journal,

EBSCO; Energy & Environment: Peer-Reviewed - Yes, Academic Journal - Yes (PDF)

EBSCO has been around for over 60 years and their services are used by Colleges, Universities, Hospitals, Medical Institutions, Government Institutions and Public Libraries.
4. Greenfyre lies that some of the papers do not count because they are “submitted” not “published” papers. Apparently he failed to read the note: “Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count.” Submitted papers are included on the list to make people aware of their existence and they will be counted when they are accepted. There are many more listings than just the 450 papers. Greenfyre should try counting the papers on the list - something he has obviously never done!
5. Greenfyre lies that some of the peer-reviewed papers are known to be wrong by linking to blogs and wikis as “refutations”. It is a common alarmist tactic to claim that the existence of a refutation makes something “wrong”. That is not how peer-reviewed papers are challenged. Any valid criticisms would follow the established peer-review process of submitting a comment for publication in the same journal, which allows the author of the original paper a chance to publish a rebuttal in defense of their paper. It is also a common alarmist tactic to only list the comment criticizing a paper and not the rebuttal by the original author. These rebuttals are included in the list. None of the papers he listed have been proven wrong,

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)

  • David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

Defended - The Consistency of Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere: A Comment on Santer et al (PDF)
*(Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2009)

  • Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick*

A deliberate corruption of the peer-review process regarding the intentional withholding of the print version of Douglas et al. 2007 for 11 months to coincide with a non-standard rebuttal by Santer et al. 2008 is detailed here, A Climatology Conspiracy? (American Thinker).

Ancient atmosphere- Validity of ice records
(Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Volume 1, Number 3, September 1994)

  • Zbigniew Jaworowski

No Published Criticism

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
(Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp. 1-9, January 2008)

  • G. V. Chilingar, L. F. Khilyuk, O. G. Sorokhtin

No Published Criticism

Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, Issue D14, July 2009)

  • John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter

No Published Criticism

Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres (PDF)
(Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Volume 111, Number 1, pp. 1-40, 2007)

  • Ferenc M. Miskolczi

No Published Criticism

Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration
(Journal of Climate, Volume 21, Issue 21, November 2008)

  • Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell

No Published Criticism

Does a Global Temperature Exist?
(Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp. 1–27, February 2007)

  • Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Bjarne Andresen

No Published Criticism
6. Greenfyre lies that the Hockey Stick papers have been refuted. Only one of those papers have published criticisms and they both have been rebutted,

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, Issue 3, February 2005)

  • Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Defended - Reply to comment by Huybers on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” (PDF)
*(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, October 2005)

  • Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick*

Defended - Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” (PDF)
*(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 32, October 2005)

  • Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick*

Background:
What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Economics)
Hockey Stick - What is Normal? (Video) (8min)
7. Greenfyre lies that various papers are strawman arguments. What is ironic is he then fabricates an actual strawman in regards to the papers he listed as not “evidence against climate change”. No kidding! None of the papers are arguing against “climate change”. The debate is not about “climate change” but rather man’s influence on it and the alleged catastrophe. Again the note states that the papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. The one thing he has demonstrated is his inability to read clearly.

A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 13, July 2007)

  • Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, Sergey Kravtsov

“These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the great climate shift of the 1970s. We also find the evidence for such type of behavior in two climate simulations using a state-of-the-art model. This is the first time that this mechanism, which appears consistent with the theory of synchronized chaos, is discovered in a physical system of the size and complexity of the climate system.”

This is contrary to the popular theory that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols and directly implicates natural variability associated with ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation).

Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland
(Science, Volume 310, Number 5750, pp. 1013-1016, November 2005)

  • Ola M. Johannessen, Kirill Khvorostovsky, Martin W. Miles, Leonid P. Bobylev

“A continuous data set of Greenland Ice Sheet altimeter height from ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites, 1992 to 2003, has been analyzed. An increase of 6.4 ± 0.2 centimeters per year is found in the vast interior areas above 1500 meters, in contrast to previous reports of high-elevation balance. Below 1500 meters, the elevation-change rate is –2.0 ± 0.9 cm/year, in qualitative agreement with reported thinning in the ice-sheet margins. The spatially averaged increase is 5.4 ± 0.2 cm/year, or ~60 cm over 11 years, or ~54 cm when corrected for isostatic uplift. Winter elevation changes are shown to be linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation.”

An increase in the thickness of the Greenland ice sheet and the cause directly related to natural variability associated with the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) supports skepticism.

A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 1, January 2008)

  • Elizabeth R. Thomas, Gareth J. Marshall, Joseph R. McConnell

“The Gomez record reveals a doubling of accumulation since the 1850s, from a decadal average of 0.49 mweq y−1 in 1855–1864 to 1.10 mweq y−1 in 1997–2006, with acceleration in recent decades. Comparison with published accumulation records indicates that this rapid increase is the largest observed across the region. Evaluation of the relationships between Gomez accumulation and the primary modes of atmospheric circulation variability reveals a strong, temporally stable and positive relationship with the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). Furthermore, the SAM is demonstrated to be a primary factor in governing decadal variability of accumulation at the core site,”

An increase in snowfall accumulation on the antarctic peninsula related to natural variability associated with the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) supports skepticism.
8. Greenfyre lies that the CO2 lag is consistent with climate science. Only if you declare it irrelevant, make unsubstantiated assumptions and support your assumptions with hand tuned computer climate models that are nothing more than the subjective opinions of the scientists creating them - just like Lorius et al did.

Ancient ice shows warming ahead of CO2 (UPI)
CO2 & temperature: ice core correlations (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist)
CO2, Temperatures, and Ice Ages (Frank Lansner, Civil Engineer, Biotechnology)
The inconvenient truth about the Ice core Carbon Dioxide Temperature Correlations (Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Professor of Physics)
9. Greenfyre lies that papers supporting the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) are a strawman argument. If this was true then there would have been no need for the IPCC to prominently feature Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick reconstruction (MBH98) in their third assessment report (TAR) in 2001. It was clear that their intent was to show that the 20th century warming was unique and due to man-made causes. It is only after the Hockey Stick (MBH98) was exposed for what is was - fraud, this argument was changed. Clearly the existence of an earlier time period (MWP) with warming equivalent or greater than today puts in doubt the apocalyptic scenarios being pushed by any current warming.
10. Greenfyre lies that certain papers are trivial and implies they do not support skepticism. The paper he lists is not trivial and in directly support of skepticism,

Grape harvest dates are poor indicators of summer warmth
(Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 87, Numbers 1-4, pp. 255-256, January 2007)

  • D. J. Keenan

“The model used by Chuine et al. (2004) has greatly overestimated the temperature of 2003 and greatly underestimated the temperatures of the warmest years in the instrumental record prior to then. These failures of the model imply that the model is inadequate for estimating the temperature in unusually warm years.”

This paper [Keenan 2007] refutes Chuine 2004 which alleged 2003 to be the warmest year on record and finds that the warmest year on record to be 1947. Clearly this supports skepticism of a recent significant warming trend due to man-made CO2.
11. Greenfyre lies that certain “dated” papers have had their content “answered”. This is absolutely not true,

Overlooked scientific issues in assessing hypothesized greenhouse gas warming
(Environmental Software, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 100-107, 1991)

  • Roger A. Pielke Sr.

“The questions which need to answered include the importance of other anthropogenic influences such as landscape changes and enhanced atmospheric aerosol loading.”

Dr. Pielke Sr. to this day continues to argue for more emphasis on land use changes and enhanced atmospheric aerosol loading over CO2. He recently just published a paper on this very issue!

Climate Change: The Need to Consider Human Forcings Besides Greenhouse Gases (PDF)
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 45, November 2009)

  • Roger Pielke Sr. et al.

“In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, other first-order human climate forcings are important to understanding the future behavior of Earth’s climate. These forcings are spatially heterogeneous and include the effect of aerosols on clouds and associated precipitation [e.g., Rosenfeld et al., 2008], the influence of aerosol deposition (e.g., black carbon (soot) [Flanner et al. 2007] and reactive nitrogen [Galloway et al., 2004]), and the role of changes in land use/land cover [e.g., Takata et al., 2009].”
12. Greenfyre lies that the paper “Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming” does not support skepticism. He pathetically resorts to using a strawman by saying it does not support “denial” [1]. This paper clearly supports skepticism of the “effects of”, in this case CO2 climate sensitivity since up to 89% of the observed warming in the time period studied cannot be explained by CO2 forcing.
13. Greenfyre incorrectly believes that because some of the papers are mutually exclusive, the list is falsified. The purpose of the list is to provide a resource for the skeptical arguments being made in peer-reviewed journals and to demonstrate the existence of these papers (contrary to the lies about them not existing, as is implied in Naomi Oreskes’s fraudulent 2004 paper: “BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”). It is not supposed to be a single argument but rather a resource for ALL of them.
14. Greenfyre in closing continues to repeat his earlier lies [1, 3] and that none of the papers he looked at are current. This is simply propaganda as 170 of the papers on the list are from the last three years (78 from 2007, 33 from 2008 and 59 from 2009).
Conclusion = Greenfyre is Completely Refuted