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

[GIGObuster]

@jrodefeld

So, we are talking about 700 international bureaucracies, a world tax, a possible world currency, and a world police force. If this doesn’t sound like world government, what does? Its not some sinister “plot”, its just the evaluation of the facts. Unlike you, I have actually read much of the Copenhagen Treaty (at least the draft that was leaked in December) and I see what they are working on. Come on. Wake up.

I guess we have to wake up and not take anything of what you are saying seriously.

[Poptech]

@GIGObuster

As has been clear from the overall discussion, it is unwise to assume that that is taking place in a vacuum, the context has to be taken into account.

The context of someone’s subjective opinion on their own personal accomplishment? As I have demonstrated E&E clearly provides space for comments on published papers as any reputable journal would. The argument over E&E has never been about the science in the papers but rather an attempt to attack the journal for allowing these discussions to take place. Many of the scientists who have published in E&E have also published in more popular journals. But this is a typical hangup on the list as there are extensive papers from many other journals,

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming

Journal Citation List:

AAPG Bulletin
Advances in Geosciences
Advances in Global Change Research
Advances in Space Research
AIP Conference Proceedings

[[LIST SHORTENED]]

Journal Count: 179

[GIGObuster]

Meh, Gish gallop again.

Still unconvincing. As mentioned before, I don’t think anyone should worry about any scientific organization taking your list or your points seriously.

[Poptech]

@GIGObuster

Still unconvincing. As mentioned before, I don’t think anyone should worry about any scientific organization taking your list or your points seriously.

That is nice but reality is the list still exists and the papers still exist and there is nothing you can do about it,

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming

[jrodefeld]

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.

Yeah, thats the problem. He, more than anyone else is responsible for the international “response” and lobbies tirelessly for the United Nations to expand in power and pushed international treaties about “emissions reduction”. He is a very important figure in the international environmental movement. He was responsible for establishing the IPCC, was key in the Rio Summit and the UN Environment Program (UNEP) which established the framework for the Kyoto protocol. Look at these links:

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1201/1201strong.htm
http://euro-med.dk/?p=13721

MANGGA2BET: Situs Slot Online Gacor Terbaru Gampang Maxwin Hari Ini

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

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.

Look at wikipedia says about the “World Conservation Bank” and its purpose:

“The World Conservation Bank was created in 1987 at the 4th World Wilderness Congress. 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]”

Okay, since you are not too good with the Google, I’ll give you some help:

How Edmund de Rothschild Managed to Let 179 Governments Pay Him for Grasping...

A few youtube videos by the expert in the field of the agenda behind the climate change movement:

George Hunt: Maurice Strong and Baca Ranch Land Grab

- YouTube

A few about Al Gore:

Environment

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663

About “Ecoscience”, textbook dealing with eugenics written by John P. Holdren, Obama’s current science czar:

"Ecoscience" By John Holdren (PDF of Significant Sections, but Not Full Book)

Examiner is back - Examiner.com

http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com/?tag=john-p-holdren

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)
[[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.

I will concede that I should have wording that sentence more clearly. What I meant to say was that the IPCC was created to further the international political agenda behind global warming. When people talk about a consensus they usually point first to the United Nations IPCC to verify the science. I have said repeatedly that I don’t have a problem with acknowledging that many decent honest scientists can believe in AGW. The problem when you make a list about the “organizations” that all believe in climate change is that it doesn’t show individual scientists opinions and the wide variability of interpretations of the data, their assessment of the threat, and what to do about it. Some scientists may believe global warming is occurring, and think that the threat to the planet is relatively small, or that we couldn’t make a significant dent no matter what we do, or believe in some other “solution” other than Cap and Trade. Then there are those who believe in AGW yet reject the UN international approach to a solution. Maybe they advocate a voluntary, local approach to reducing emissions.

When you simply list a dozen or so “prestigious organizations” as proof of a scientific theory, you neglect to convey the very wide range of dialog that goes on between scientists on this subject. This is not a black or white issue, the science is complex, and it requires an adult appreciation of nuance. Why won’t the IPCC release its raw data as required under Freedom of Information Act requests?

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.

The treaty is finished and ready to be signed. This issue has moved to the backburner due to Health Care reform dominating the priorities of the White House. They will try to push it through when they can. They may not succeed, but the Cap and Trade scheme and this Treaty are the proposed solutions to this problem, and we can debate it whether it has passed or not. They’ve shown their hand. We know what they are planning. They write legislation and wait for the opportunity to push it through, based on the political climate in this country. Like Rahm Emanuel said, they never let a crisis go to waste. They’ll push it through.

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.

Completely false. Yeah, any scientists I name are on the payroll of big oil, yet when I point out the moneyed interests on the side of supporting the Cap and Trade carbon trading scam, you think I’m a conspiracy theorists. Believe me, there is more money to be made pushing this through than defeating it.

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.

No, I don’t think my claims have been shredded pretty thoroughly. I think most of you have given pretty weak rebuttals of my larger points. Since I’m in a generous mood, I will give you a few more links to back up my claims:

The relationship between Al Gore and Maurice Strong:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange--the rest of the story

International Man of Mystery: Who Is Maurice Strong?

Lack of transparency of the IPCC numbers:

http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm

http://www.heartland.org/article/27155/Institute_of_Physics_Chastises_IPCC_Scientists_Calls_for_Widespread_Reforms.html

Climate Change Scandal: Raw Data Tossed

Copenhagen Treaty effects on Industrial Production:

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/10/copenhagen_trea.html

The Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty Draft – wealth transfer defined, now...

http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/11/copenhagen-treaty-premises-and-motivations/

In fact, it is only reasonable to come to the conclusions I have after analyzing the data. By the way, what sources do you follow as far as news and information? Is it conventional, mainstream outlets like CNN, Time Magazine, Newsweek, New York Times, etc? If those are your ONLY sources, it would explain why you know so little of the things I am saying. Here is the state of Mainstream news in this country: Disney, Viacom, Turner, CBS and General Electric own more than 95% of media outlets in this country. If we care about having an informed populace, we should reject these forms of media and instead read more, learn how to use the internet to research, and educate oneself about how our government operates, who profits from what, and the agendas of our “leaders”.

If you want to respond, I would gladly continue this discussion.

[jrodefeld]

@matt

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.

To your first point, I didn’t mean to be noninclusive when I challenged “Progressives”, but I have posted elsewhere and people who disagreed with me did not post any replies. I just wanted to maybe “nudge” the global warming crowd to respond and it seems to have worked. But yeah, I’m not trying to be confrontational or turn anybody off of my post, and thanks for the reply.

And as far as your suggestion of nuclear, I actually agree with you, but I don’t want the United Nations pushing it on everybody. I’d rather we develop more nuclear capability here and persuade through diplomacy developing nations to get on board as well. But I think nuclear is one of the most practical alternatives to fossil fuel at the moment and it is quite safe. So we agree there.

[GIGObuster]

@Poptech

That is nice but reality is the list still exists and the papers still exist and there is nothing you can do about it,

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming

Should I do something?

In fact it is not a stretch to believe that it will just remain there doing nothing for researchers, academics and even politicians. (Inhofe is usually the only fool to fall for that)

[jrodefeld]

I am going to post some more links to reputable scientists who dispute Anthropogenic Global Warming:

U.S. Senate: Request not Accepted - Security Risk Detected

Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming

U.S. Senate: Request not Accepted - Security Risk Detected

An Inadvertent Study Shows All 20 IPCC Models Flawed

How to see for yourself the 'Global Warming' climate models are false | Peace...

http://www.jonathanbrun.com/2009/05/global-warming-models-flawed.html

http://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?id=11546

http://www.geek.com/articles/news/study-todays-global-warming-models-cannot-predict-known-historical-warming-trends-20090715/

http://www.nbcaugusta.com/weather/news/43402292.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4250/is_199807/ai_n13189125/
Admit that there are significant scientific evidence disproving the assessment of the IPCC, the climate models in particular. Admit that there is no scientific consensus. I could do this all day, posting links to peer reviewed papers, documented deceptions and science that refutes AGW. The capacity for some people to deny reality is truly staggering.

[Poptech]

@GIGObuster

In fact it is not a stretch to believe that it will just remain there doing nothing for researchers, academics and even politicians. (Inhofe is usually the only fool to fall for that)

The site traffic stats don’t lie. It is being widely used and will continue to in the future as I add another hundred papers or so.

[GIGObuster]

@jrodefeld

Admit that there are significant scientific evidence disproving the assessment of the IPCC, the climate models in particular. Admit that there is no scientific consensus. I could do this all day, posting links to peer reviewed papers, documented deceptions and science that refutes AGW. The capacity for some people to deny reality is truly staggering.

No, you can not even point to the main items or the reasons why one should spend the time checking your evidence.

[GIGObuster]

@Poptech

The site traffic stats don’t lie. It is being widely used and will continue to in the future as I add another hundred papers or so.

And? Even a spank the monkey site got more hits.

Your site is useless unless you can show that it is influencing a single scientific group, organization or an academic site.

[Poptech]

@GIGObuster

Your site is useless unless you can show that it is influencing a single scientific group, organization or an academic site.

Then best for you to ignore it. Anyone else interested in the skeptical peer-reviewed literature can look for themselves.

[GIGObuster]

@Ludovic

I see no scientific arguments here, just smears, innuendo and politics.

When all else fails, you can always call your opponent vile names.

Well, at least they are so far just limiting themselves to just scream “Lies. All LIES!”

Frau Farbissina: Lies, ALL LIES!

[Marley23]

POINT OF ORDER

Copying and pasting scores of names is not a valid debate tactic or even a good citation. It’s obnoxious and tiresome. This isn’t a contest to see who can post the biggest wall of text. This goes for everyone: don’t do it again. I don’t want to keep abbreviating these lists. And if you are quoting from another source, keep the quote to a reasonably short length and just link to the full text.

The SDMB’s copyright rules are over here.

[Poptech]

@Marley23

POINT OF ORDER

Copying and pasting scores of names is not a valid debate tactic or even a good citation. It’s obnoxious and tiresome. This isn’t a contest to see who can post the biggest wall of text. This goes for everyone: don’t do it again. I don’t want to keep abbreviating these lists. And if you are quoting from another source, keep the quote to a reasonably short length and just link to the full text.

[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7696968#post7696968](The SDMB’s copyright rules are over here.)

Why did you censor my list on my other post and link to conspiracy blog? Please remove the idiotic link. You don’t have a link to the names because it is my list and is not posted anywhere.

[Marley23]

@Poptech

Why did you censor my list on my other post

I explained this already. Since you asked me to use your updated list, I’ve now done that.

[Poptech]

@Marley23

I explained this already. Since you asked me to use your updated list, I’ve now done that.

Thank you.

[jrodefeld]

@Ludovic

I see no scientific arguments here, just smears, innuendo and politics.

When all else fails, you can always call your opponent vile names.

I have linked to plenty of scientific journals already on this post. My arguments are about much more than the science however. I didn’t call you a “vile name”, but I think I responded with the amount of snarkiness that you gave when you posted a one sentence reply to a lengthy, researched post acting like nothing I wrote had any substance whatsoever. Now, if you want to get in on the debate and present some links or substance yourself, maybe we could have a real dialog. If you do, I would be happy to drop the attitude and have a much more civil discussion. By the way, you could start by actually responding to the points I laid out.

[jrodefeld]

@GIGObuster

I guess we have to wake up and not take anything of what you are saying seriously.

I am saying that the totality of the effects of the Copenhagen Treaty and the talks of a new reserve currency of the world, an international carbon tax AND a world police amount to world government. These are all being planned and implemented. The point is you are saying I am a “conspiracy” theorist, yet the evidence supports my views on this subject.

How about you explain WHY the very idea of there being plans for a world government is crazy and worthy of derision. I mean, don’t just look at the links I have provided. Search google and see if there are any credible people concerned about global government. There is extensive research on the subject.

[jrodefeld]

@GIGObuster

No, you can not even point to the main items or the reasons why one should spend the time checking your evidence.

So you clearly didn’t look through those links. The moderator clearly advised against posting long paragraphs of text from outside sources. The reasons you should spend the time checking out the links is because they provide further evidence of credible, peer reviewed papers and scientists who dispute Anthropogenic Global Warming. You attempted to belittle the link to the 500 peer reviewed papers linked to previously, even though the rebuttals you cited were tremendously weak and contained some outright lies. So I thought I’d provide some more. I’ll give the headline to each link so you can judge its value and content before you read it:

“New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears”:

U.S. Senate: Request not Accepted - Security Risk Detected

“Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming”:

Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming

“‘Global Warming Will Stop,’ New Peer-Reviewed Study Says
Global Warming Takes a Break for Nearly 20 Years?”:

U.S. Senate: Request not Accepted - Security Risk Detected

“An Inadvertent Study Shows All 20 IPCC Models Flawed”:

An Inadvertent Study Shows All 20 IPCC Models Flawed

“How to see for yourself the ‘Global Warming’ climate models are false”:

How to see for yourself the 'Global Warming' climate models are false | Peace...

“Global Warming Models are Inherently Flawed”:

http://www.jonathanbrun.com/2009/05/global-warming-models-flawed.html

“IPCC ‘global warming’ model is flawed”:

http://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?id=11546

“Study: Today’s global warming models cannot predict known, historical warming trends”:

http://www.geek.com/articles/news/study-todays-global-warming-models-cannot-predict-known-historical-warming-trends-20090715/

“ICECAP data: global cooling continues; climate models seriously flawed”:

http://www.nbcaugusta.com/weather/news/43402292.html
The integrity of the computer models are critically important for the integrity of the science. If the models are flawed then so much of the science we are told, and the conclusions made by scientists will be wrong, possibly even without their knowledge.

So, why don’t you look through these links and debunk the information they contain, if you can.