How do you conclude that Harris and Ball support Romney? They seem to just be pushing him to say what they (and many American voters, they point out) believe is correct. Here are their two top pieces from their news page today:
If you close your eyes, and listen to Romney speak on global warming, you almost swear he's John Baird. The language is verbatum and equally as slippery.
"[Suzuki] urged today’s youth to speak out against politicians complicit in climate change, even suggesting they look for a legal way to throw our current political leaders in jail for ignoring science – drawing rounds of cheering and applause. Suzuki said that politicians, who never see beyond the next election, are committing a criminal act by ignoring science."
Ti-guy, are you writing Suzuki's speeches? Is has your name written all over it.
Oh sorry about that Ti-guy. I can see why decapitation would be more up your alley. From Wikipedia: "In Nazi Germany, the guillotine was reserved for criminal convicts and political crimes including treason. A famous example of the guillotine being used was the members of the White Rose resistance movement, a group of students in Munich led by Sophie Scholl and her brother Hans.(...)It is estimated that some 40,000 persons were guillotined in Germany and Austria between 1933 and 1945."
There is a good movie out on Sophie Scoll worth seeing. She was beheaded for distributing pamphlets. Free speech in Nazi Germany got you beheaded.
That's Sophie Scholl, and yes, I'm quite familiar with her, her brother and Die Weiße Rose. I don't seem to remember them recommending people be persecuted on the basis of their beliefs alone.
Luckily in Canada, challenging the Government doesn't get you beheaded; it just gets you fired.
...bet you had a free speech-induced climax over that, eh, you humourless cretin?
If I had to choose a method for my execution, I'd choose the guillotine (well, my preferred method is vaporisation at ground zero of a nuclear attack, but that seems a little impractical). Quick and painless...not like the slow torture and agony of living in a world where the transparently desperate rejection of science and reason is considered a virtue.
Your pro-AGW arguments wander further and further from any sort of scientific discourse. You seem less inclined to counter the scientific research and evidence with your own interpretations, and more quick to simply dismiss any claims as soon as you see the name of the messenger. How can you claim to be scientifically or intellecutally honest if you don't confront alternative viewpoints?
As this ti-guy says, whoever the hell he is, he's all for beheading the "deniers". What sort of brutally violent and ignorant mentality is behind such a comment?
As I've read the IPCC reports, their supporting documents, critics of that work, and contrary non-AGW papers, it is abundantly clear to anybody with even a shred of reasoning ability that not only is the science not "settled", it is not even clear that CO2 is a significant climate variable at all.
You constantly complain about conservative ideology, rhetoric, and demagogy, but you've taken each of those concepts to incredible new highs with AGW.
John Cross says:Ok, lets look at some of the science:
1) We are responsible for all the recent increase in CO2.
WRONG - WE ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE CO2 RISE BUT NATURAL CO2 VARIATIONS OCCUR ALL THE TIME DUE TO VARIOUS FACTORS.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and adding it will cause more IR radiation to strike the Earth's surface.
WELL, SORT OF - CO2 IS AN 'INFRARED ABSORBING GAS', LIKE WATER VAPOUR, THE MAIN GHG IN THE ATMOSPHERE. IT ABSORBS HEAT RADIATED FROM THE SURFACE AND RE-RADIATES IT IN ALL DIRECTIONS, INCLUDING BACK TO THE GROUND. ITS EFFECT IS HOWEVER NON-LINEAR, MEANING THAT ITS IMPACT DIMISHES AS ITS CONCERNTRATION RISES - WE ARE ACTUALLY 75% OF THE WAY TO A FINAL EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE THAT A DOUBLING OF CO2 FROM PRE-INDUSTRIAL LEVELS WOULD CAUSE EVEN THOUGH WE ARE ONLY 33% ABOVE PRE-INDUSTRIAL LEVELS. tHIS MEANS FUTURE TEMP RISE WILL BE MODEST.
3) Increasing IR radiation to strike a surface will cause it to warm or to cool more slowly.
YES, OF COURSE, BUT YOU ARE IGNORING HALF OF ALL THE HEAT LOST FROM THE SURFACE WHICH IS IN THE FORM OF CONVECTION DUE TO WIND, ETC. THIS IS WHY THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT DOES NOT WORK LIKE A GREENHOUSE AND SO IS A MISNOMER.
1) We are responsible for all the recent increase in CO2.
This can be shown fairly easily and it surprises me that there are those that still argue it. We have good production numbers which we can use to calculate the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere as well as very good global readings showing the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. What those two facts tell us is that we produce more CO2 then shows up in the atmosphere. Consequently we must be responsible for all the recent increase.
An appropriate analogy is to consider a bank account (atmospheric CO2) with a number of different owners (the various sources and sinks). All of the owners can put money in and take money out. You put in $7 over the year. At the end of the year the bank account has $3 more than it started with. My question to you is what would the account be if you did not put in your $7.
Your point about natural variation only becomes relevant if the amount we produce becomes less than what shows up in the atmosphere.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and adding it will cause more IR radiation to strike the Earth's surface.
It is somewhat amusing to note that your response to this point is to agree with me and then thrown in a datapoint (your 75% of the way there) that you do not even attempt to justify.
3) Increasing IR radiation to strike a surface will cause it to warm or to cool more slowly.
In response to this point you again agree with me but this time throw in a strawman argument (about the misnomer term Greenhouse).
So the way I see it, if we take out your logical fallacies, you argument seem to consist of an argument against my point #1 which has not stood up and then agreeing with my points #2 and #3. An interesting style, but forgive me if I don’t feel that I am crushed by your logic! However I am interested in seeing your response to #1.
Your so-called argument consists of you saying it is so. Doesn't make it true. Natural CO2 variations SWAMP man-made contributions. That and the fact that most climate scientists understand that CO2 is a lagging climate variable, not a leading. You also completely ignore the impact of the most important GHG, which is water vapour. Plus the fact that CO2 levels have been higher than now in the past but have somehow been mysteriously ignored by the IPCC reports. Why would they ignore direct CO2 measurements that go back almost 200 years in favour of using several different inaccurate CO2 proxies instead?
Your understanding of global climate thermodynamics is childlike. Don't even bother to talk about 'greenhouse theory'.
Lenny at least Johnny Cross is trying to persuade us that AGW is true, unlike those that shout out like Nazis and expect us to submit to their nonsense. That said I agree with Anon 4:30, Johnny has failed to demonstrate his case and the onus is on him since he aserts AGW is true. He who asserts must prove. Give it another shot by all means Johnny, you've got more pluck than the likes of Lenny and BCL.
Anon: Please read my post again. I have laid out the chain of logic that shows we are responsible for the recent increase in CO2. You do not need to accept anything I say (and I would encourage you not to). You can check my methodology and check my logic. The analogy is very simple yet clear. If you disagree with it, what part don’t you disagree with?
However you have introduced a number of new points so let me address these as well.
Water vapour – another strawman. I have not ignored it and agree that it is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2. Please quote me where I have said anything else or relate it to my argument.
Regarding previous CO2 levels being ignored by the IPCC. You got me there – it was pretty tricky to hide the fact in the AR4 report. I mean who would have expected anyone to read the Executive Summary of Chapter 6 where they say ”It is likely that earlier periods with higher than present atmospheric CO2 concentrations were warmer than present.”
If you are talking about the work of Jaworowski then I am really interested in having that discussion. Jim Easter and I did a joint post deconstructing one of Jaworowski’s paper over at Jim's site:
There is no chain of logic leading to the conclusion that CO2 drives temperature increases - it simply is not proven. Further it is one of the least likely explanations for ANY impact on climate change.
Your mind is closed.
Do you know how the 'hockey stick' graph was built, what it's supposed to represent and what it actually represents? Do you know why direct C02 measurements were ignored in favour of proxies? Do you understand the problems in actually trying to record temperatures around the world on a standardized basis? Do you not realize how little we know about climate thermodynamics, and how GCMs are very poor parameterizations of only a selected few variables of known climate modifiers, never mind the UNKNOWN climate modifiers which are constantly being discovered or refined? Do you know why the IPCC modellers used CO2 emission rates much, much higher than have ever been recorded? How can a weak regional temperature proxy in any way be a valid indicator of GLOBAL temperature records? When the IPCC reports themselves indicate weak correlation to man-made climate change, why then does the Summary tell us there is STRONG evidence of AGW? Have you an understanding of how impotent the full adherence to Kyoto targets will be in mitigating temperature change, using the IPCC's own models?
You've done no reading on the other side of the fence. You've heard the media talking points, been brainwashed by the eco-zombies, and want to feel good about yourself for "saving the environment". You're a stooge who is putting money in Al Gore's pocket. What's he worth now, $100 million and counting?
As I said before, for the only point that we disagree on I presented a clear argument showing my side of the position. You can either accept it or disagree with it and point out specific flaws in it.
The rest of your post is a jumble of what I could politely describe as unrelated points presented in a colorful manner.
And your final comment is not based on any evidence one way or another. You can not know what I have read on climate change. I will note that I have read enough skeptical stuff as well as the peer-reviewed stuff to feel that I have a good understanding. However like always, I do not think you should accept or reject what I post based on what you think I have read. If my points are valid they will stand based on how I can defend them. If not then you can crush them as you wish.
But as an aside, I can prove that I have read the “other side” in that I waded through one of Jaworowski’s papers, as I referenced above. You can find my name on the review (a joint post with Jim Easter).
1) it's true that records of world fuel burning track along with the rise in CO2. They don't match it exactly since oceans and forests are still a net sink. They absorb, for the time being, about half the excess CO2 we put in the air.
b) but the smoking gun is C14. Natural processes and living things recycle CO2 with a known ratio of that isotope. Coal and fossil fuels contain much older carbon. And no measurable C14 remains, it has all decayed. Beginning with Hans Suess 50 years ago have measured that. The non-C14 isotopes in the air continues to grow. It comes from fossil fuel burning, not living processes.
It doesn't matter where the CO2 comes from, because there is no confident link between 'average global temperature' and CO2 levels - period. It is more likely to be a lagging temperature indicator than leading.
29 comments:
It all makes sense now. Ball and Harris came by their insights while staring at a set of gold plates with the aid of an urim and a thummim.
Between calling your enemies Deniers and Nazis I gotta tell you I am seriously impressed with your argumentation.
How do you conclude that Harris and Ball support Romney? They seem to just be pushing him to say what they (and many American voters, they point out) believe is correct. Here are their two top pieces from their news page today:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1696
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080204/COMMENTARY/651887021/1012/commentary
If you close your eyes, and listen to Romney speak on global warming, you almost swear he's John Baird. The language is verbatum and equally as slippery.
"[Suzuki] urged today’s youth to speak out against politicians complicit in climate change, even suggesting they look for a legal way to throw our current political leaders in jail for ignoring science – drawing rounds of cheering and applause. Suzuki said that politicians, who never see beyond the next election, are committing a criminal act by ignoring science."
Ti-guy, are you writing Suzuki's speeches? Is has your name written all over it.
No way. I've been recommending that the science deniers be beheaded.
Oh sorry about that Ti-guy. I can see why decapitation would be more up your alley. From Wikipedia: "In Nazi Germany, the guillotine was reserved for criminal convicts and political crimes including treason. A famous example of the guillotine being used was the members of the White Rose resistance movement, a group of students in Munich led by Sophie Scholl and her brother Hans.(...)It is estimated that some 40,000 persons were guillotined in Germany and Austria between 1933 and 1945."
There is a good movie out on Sophie Scoll worth seeing. She was beheaded for distributing pamphlets. Free speech in Nazi Germany got you beheaded.
That's Sophie Scholl, and yes, I'm quite familiar with her, her brother and Die Weiße Rose. I don't seem to remember them recommending people be persecuted on the basis of their beliefs alone.
Luckily in Canada, challenging the Government doesn't get you beheaded; it just gets you fired.
...bet you had a free speech-induced climax over that, eh, you humourless cretin?
Beheading the deniers might not be a bad idea, it might finally allow some oxygen to penetrate their brains.
If I had to choose a method for my execution, I'd choose the guillotine (well, my preferred method is vaporisation at ground zero of a nuclear attack, but that seems a little impractical). Quick and painless...not like the slow torture and agony of living in a world where the transparently desperate rejection of science and reason is considered a virtue.
Your pro-AGW arguments wander further and further from any sort of scientific discourse. You seem less inclined to counter the scientific research and evidence with your own interpretations, and more quick to simply dismiss any claims as soon as you see the name of the messenger. How can you claim to be scientifically or intellecutally honest if you don't confront alternative viewpoints?
As this ti-guy says, whoever the hell he is, he's all for beheading the "deniers". What sort of brutally violent and ignorant mentality is behind such a comment?
As I've read the IPCC reports, their supporting documents, critics of that work, and contrary non-AGW papers, it is abundantly clear to anybody with even a shred of reasoning ability that not only is the science not "settled", it is not even clear that CO2 is a significant climate variable at all.
You constantly complain about conservative ideology, rhetoric, and demagogy, but you've taken each of those concepts to incredible new highs with AGW.
WAP! Done!
...Eeeewwww...
Anonymous @ 1:22
Ok, lets look at some of the science. At the core of AGW are three fundamental points.
1) We are responsible for all the recent increase in CO2.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and adding it will cause more IR radiation to strike the Earth's surface.
3) Increasing IR radiation to strike a surface will cause it to warm or to cool more slowly.
Which of these do you not agree with?
Regards,
John Cross
"As I've read the IPCC reports, their supporting documents,..."
No, you haven't.
John Cross says:Ok, lets look at some of the science:
1) We are responsible for all the recent increase in CO2.
WRONG - WE ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE CO2 RISE BUT NATURAL CO2 VARIATIONS OCCUR ALL THE TIME DUE TO VARIOUS FACTORS.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and adding it will cause more IR radiation to strike the Earth's surface.
WELL, SORT OF - CO2 IS AN 'INFRARED ABSORBING GAS', LIKE WATER VAPOUR, THE MAIN GHG IN THE ATMOSPHERE. IT ABSORBS HEAT RADIATED FROM THE SURFACE AND RE-RADIATES IT IN ALL DIRECTIONS, INCLUDING BACK TO THE GROUND. ITS EFFECT IS HOWEVER NON-LINEAR, MEANING THAT ITS IMPACT DIMISHES AS ITS CONCERNTRATION RISES - WE ARE ACTUALLY 75% OF THE WAY TO A FINAL EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE THAT A DOUBLING OF CO2 FROM PRE-INDUSTRIAL LEVELS WOULD CAUSE EVEN THOUGH WE ARE ONLY 33% ABOVE PRE-INDUSTRIAL LEVELS. tHIS MEANS FUTURE TEMP RISE WILL BE MODEST.
3) Increasing IR radiation to strike a surface will cause it to warm or to cool more slowly.
YES, OF COURSE, BUT YOU ARE IGNORING HALF OF ALL THE HEAT LOST FROM THE SURFACE WHICH IS IN THE FORM OF CONVECTION DUE TO WIND, ETC. THIS IS WHY THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT DOES NOT WORK LIKE A GREENHOUSE AND SO IS A MISNOMER.
John Cross - like all AGW fanatics has been one-upped. Come on Johnny, are you man enough to engage in real debate?
Hehe,
John cross came to a gun fight with a.......well with nothing.
Anonymous @ 8:30
1) We are responsible for all the recent increase in CO2.
This can be shown fairly easily and it surprises me that there are those that still argue it. We have good production numbers which we can use to calculate the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere as well as very good global readings showing the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. What those two facts tell us is that we produce more CO2 then shows up in the atmosphere. Consequently we must be responsible for all the recent increase.
An appropriate analogy is to consider a bank account (atmospheric CO2) with a number of different owners (the various sources and sinks). All of the owners can put money in and take money out. You put in $7 over the year. At the end of the year the bank account has $3 more than it started with. My question to you is what would the account be if you did not put in your $7.
Your point about natural variation only becomes relevant if the amount we produce becomes less than what shows up in the atmosphere.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and adding it will cause more IR radiation to strike the Earth's surface.
It is somewhat amusing to note that your response to this point is to agree with me and then thrown in a datapoint (your 75% of the way there) that you do not even attempt to justify.
3) Increasing IR radiation to strike a surface will cause it to warm or to cool more slowly.
In response to this point you again agree with me but this time throw in a strawman argument (about the misnomer term Greenhouse).
So the way I see it, if we take out your logical fallacies, you argument seem to consist of an argument against my point #1 which has not stood up and then agreeing with my points #2 and #3. An interesting style, but forgive me if I don’t feel that I am crushed by your logic! However I am interested in seeing your response to #1.
Regards,
John
Anon 9:25,
Your so-called argument consists of you saying it is so. Doesn't make it true. Natural CO2 variations SWAMP man-made contributions. That and the fact that most climate scientists understand that CO2 is a lagging climate variable, not a leading. You also completely ignore the impact of the most important GHG, which is water vapour. Plus the fact that CO2 levels have been higher than now in the past but have somehow been mysteriously ignored by the IPCC reports. Why would they ignore direct CO2 measurements that go back almost 200 years in favour of using several different inaccurate CO2 proxies instead?
Your understanding of global climate thermodynamics is childlike. Don't even bother to talk about 'greenhouse theory'.
Shorter anon @ 4:30:
"Being unable to respond to John's points I'm just going to move on to the next perpeptually-recycled-denier-canards on my handout."
Lenny at least Johnny Cross is trying to persuade us that AGW is true, unlike those that shout out like Nazis and expect us to submit to their nonsense. That said I agree with Anon 4:30, Johnny has failed to demonstrate his case and the onus is on him since he aserts AGW is true. He who asserts must prove. Give it another shot by all means Johnny, you've got more pluck than the likes of Lenny and BCL.
Can you read?
It's you that'll need to give it another "shot", anony.
Anon: Please read my post again. I have laid out the chain of logic that shows we are responsible for the recent increase in CO2. You do not need to accept anything I say (and I would encourage you not to). You can check my methodology and check my logic. The analogy is very simple yet clear. If you disagree with it, what part don’t you disagree with?
However you have introduced a number of new points so let me address these as well.
Water vapour – another strawman. I have not ignored it and agree that it is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2. Please quote me where I have said anything else or relate it to my argument.
Regarding previous CO2 levels being ignored by the IPCC. You got me there – it was pretty tricky to hide the fact in the AR4 report. I mean who would have expected anyone to read the Executive Summary of Chapter 6 where they say ”It is likely that earlier periods with higher than present atmospheric CO2 concentrations were warmer than present.”
If you are talking about the work of Jaworowski then I am really interested in having that discussion. Jim Easter and I did a joint post deconstructing one of Jaworowski’s paper over at Jim's site:
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=54
That should be enough to get us started.
Regards,
John Cross
Hi Anonymous: Are you still thinking about your response or have you accepted my point of view.
Regards,
John
There is no chain of logic leading to the conclusion that CO2 drives temperature increases - it simply is not proven. Further it is one of the least likely explanations for ANY impact on climate change.
Your mind is closed.
Do you know how the 'hockey stick' graph was built, what it's supposed to represent and what it actually represents? Do you know why direct C02 measurements were ignored in favour of proxies? Do you understand the problems in actually trying to record temperatures around the world on a standardized basis? Do you not realize how little we know about climate thermodynamics, and how GCMs are very poor parameterizations of only a selected few variables of known climate modifiers, never mind the UNKNOWN climate modifiers which are constantly being discovered or refined? Do you know why the IPCC modellers used CO2 emission rates much, much higher than have ever been recorded? How can a weak regional temperature proxy in any way be a valid indicator of GLOBAL temperature records? When the IPCC reports themselves indicate weak correlation to man-made climate change, why then does the Summary tell us there is STRONG evidence of AGW? Have you an understanding of how impotent the full adherence to Kyoto targets will be in mitigating temperature change, using the IPCC's own models?
You've done no reading on the other side of the fence. You've heard the media talking points, been brainwashed by the eco-zombies, and want to feel good about yourself for "saving the environment". You're a stooge who is putting money in Al Gore's pocket. What's he worth now, $100 million and counting?
Anonymous said...
As I said before, for the only point that we disagree on I presented a clear argument showing my side of the position. You can either accept it or disagree with it and point out specific flaws in it.
The rest of your post is a jumble of what I could politely describe as unrelated points presented in a colorful manner.
And your final comment is not based on any evidence one way or another. You can not know what I have read on climate change. I will note that I have read enough skeptical stuff as well as the peer-reviewed stuff to feel that I have a good understanding. However like always, I do not think you should accept or reject what I post based on what you think I have read. If my points are valid they will stand based on how I can defend them. If not then you can crush them as you wish.
But as an aside, I can prove that I have read the “other side” in that I waded through one of Jaworowski’s papers, as I referenced above. You can find my name on the review (a joint post with Jim Easter).
Regards,
John
1) it's true that records of world fuel burning track along with the rise in CO2. They don't match it exactly since oceans and forests are still a net sink. They absorb, for the time being, about half the excess CO2 we put in the air.
b) but the smoking gun is C14. Natural processes and living things recycle CO2 with a known ratio of that isotope. Coal and fossil fuels contain much older carbon. And no measurable C14 remains, it has all decayed. Beginning with Hans Suess 50 years ago have measured that. The non-C14 isotopes in the air continues to grow. It comes from fossil fuel burning, not living processes.
It doesn't matter where the CO2 comes from, because there is no confident link between 'average global temperature' and CO2 levels - period. It is more likely to be a lagging temperature indicator than leading.
Post a Comment