Gravity is Bringing Me Down

_{Barry Arrington

December 10, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Al Gore in Slate responding to climategate:

“The physical relationship between CO2 molecules and the atmosphere and the trapping of heat is as well-established as gravity, for God’s sakes. It’s not some mystery.…”

Now where have I heard the “as well established as gravity” mantra before? Hmm. It’ll come to me in a moment.

Comments

"I am impressed that you managed to understand so much in just two weeks that you are now certain about what is important, who is right, and the motivations of those who are wrong." I have been following it for several years without knowing the details and following who is for it. That has always been the revealing part of the debate. When you get inveterate liars such as the Green Parties, Al Gore and Barach Obama, you have a good idea that it is probably nonsense. I just didn't know why till the last few days. But my instincts which have been honed by watching these phonies over the years and how they operate is enough to tell one that something is wrong. It is nice to see one's instincts validated.jerry_{December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

#61 Jerry The average person hasn’t a clue about the essence of this debate and when I explained it to a couple friends in the last couple days they were amazed I have been following this debate since 2001. The more I understand, the more complicated it seems (ID is a doddle compared to AGW), and my opinion still wavers. I am impressed that you managed to understand so much in just two weeks that you are now certain about what is important, who is right, and the motivations of those who are wrong.Mark Frank_{December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

My objections have been clearly stated in each post. The hockey stick phenomena should be the main thrust of the debate. Because the truth of its premise is the basis for all the debate in terms of potential crisis. If in fact there was a medieval warming then the current temperatures are not anomalies presaging global problems. Essentially there may be lots of time to act if needed and there should be no rush to anything. Second, the best policies are far different from what is currently advocated. One has to wonder why such bad policies are advocated. It does not take anyone with half a brain to figure that out. It involves money not results. Why aren't people protesting that. I find that interesting. So far, no one I have seen has been able to obviate this logic which is not mine but others who seem to have their heads screwed on right. When the anarchist at Copenhagen are arguing for something, it immediately says to me, this is a political event and not a science or humanitarian event. The average person hasn't a clue about the essence of this debate and when I explained it to a couple friends in the last couple days they were amazed.jerry_{December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

#59 I am sorry Jerry - I did not realise you were essentially new to the GW debate. You ask: Would any of your issues have nearly the same merit if the hockey stick graph is false and has been shown to be pure fabrication? I am sorry that to answer this needs a little preamble and clarification. This makes for a much longer comment than I would like. The GW debate need not be so polarised as the politicians, journalists (and much of the blogging world) paint it. There is no question that man's activities have increased the GHGs in the atmosphere and that increasing the GHGs makes the earth's surface warmer than it would otherwise have been. You would be hard put to find a sceptic scientist who would deny this. The question is how much difference and what effect would that difference make. That is a continuum from a very small increase with little effect, to a lot and much effect. On top of that people may vary in the range of uncertainty in that estimate (it's like the difference between the mean and standard deviation). I am not an expert in this incredibly complicated field and therefore have a very wide range of personal uncertainty. Even the experts are pretty uncertain and say so. That is the end of the preamble. To return to your question. How much difference would it make if the hockey stick were shown to be false? It depends in what way false. Suppose it were demonstrated that there is no evidence that the hockey stick is the shape that Mann suggested (That of course is quite different from evidence that is a different shape. It still might be.) This mainly increases the uncertainly of any estimate of future temperature rise because one line of evidence has been removed. But there are plenty of other reasons for supposing it may happen. On the other hand if it were shown there was evidence for dramatic natural climate change in the past millenium then that suggests GHGs make a relatively small difference and while we may be concerned about climate change the solution is not to cut out GHGs. I should point out that the e-mails make little difference to the credibility of the hockeystick. McIntyre's concerns were already public knowledge, explained in published peer reviewed papers, and taken account of in the latest IPCC assessment. The lost data relates to the current temperature record (not proxy data) and there are several other independent data sets which give much the same picture (NASA for one).Mark Frank_{December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

"I am interested that Jerry and vjtorley are such fans of Richard Lindzen." I never heard of him till yesterday. I have paid little attention to the details of the global warming debate till the last couple weeks and have heard of the term "hockey stick" a few times but never knew it significance till the last few days. I never was aware that the key element in this was the hockey stick graph and this now looks like it was fabricated. Without the hockey stick, the whole global warming community would be laughed out of any sensible discussion. Here is a question for Mark Frank and anyone else who defends the global warming advocates. Would any of your issues have nearly the same merit if the hockey stick graph is false and has been shown to be pure fabrication? What I noticed before learning about the implications of the hockey stick graph was a trend and that it was the same group of left wing crazies that were pushing for it and they seemed to be using the same techniques as was used in evolution. Marginalize anyone who disagrees with you and never debate the substance of the key issue. Notice Mark Frank and others do not debate the substance of the key issue but seems to appealing to authority. Witness Mark's comment "It is actually based on quite a lot of consideration of how we should relate to “accepted expertise”." That is blindly submit to O'Brien and say 2 + 2 = 5 or 2 + 2 = 3 or 2 + 2 = 4 depending upon what the party wants. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/orwellian-nightmare-science-is-whatever-the-party-says-it-is/?print=1 Every one of the anti ID people seem to be members of O'Brien's party for both evolution and global warming. They have no capacity to think, only repeat what the party wants them to think. Maybe tomorrow they will be asked to believe 2 + 2 = 0.jerry_{December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

I am interested that Jerry and vjtorley are such fans of Richard Lindzen. Are you aware that he regularly attacks some Global Warming arguments as making the argument for intelligent design look rigorous by comparison? For example, in this recent paper page 3.Mark Frank_{December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT}

If someone decides to watch the MIT broadcast, the lone skeptic is Richard Lindzen. Here is a recent article he wrote about the topic. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.htmljerry_{December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

"Why would the press, the Democrats and the EU collude to give their own nations’ money away senselessly? This makes no sense as a conspiracy theory – they believe the mainstream science." If this were true, they would behave quite differently. The proposed legislation is the least effective way to attack global warming but the most effective way to extract money from the people. So your analysis is proof that they are not concerned about the climate but how to get hold of money.jerry_{December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT}

I just listened to the MIT discussion and found it sort of a waste of time. I should not say that because the pro global warming offered no science to back up their position. It just confirmed by assessment of most academics as sort of useless folks. It was four for global warming and one skeptic. And guess who talked science and guess who talked BS. It was sort of like the evolution debates. The skeptics talk science and logic, the others talk about something else. The issue is solely over the hockey stick graph. And the data has been destroyed that supposedly supported this graph. That is why this is such a humongous issue. These scientists should spend the rest of their lives in orange jump suits and not be lauded as they have up to this time. The hockey stick analysis supposedly rid the world of the medieval warming period and the little ice age and said they never happened. It said there has been no major temperature fluctuations in the last 1000 years and the Vikings never settled Greenland and farmed or did Scots grow vineyards in the 1100's nor did they skate on the Thames during the 1500's . Because if each existed then today's temperatures would not be extreme but sort of average. So in fact there could have been global warming in the last 150 years and it might be just normal temperature fluctuations. And if it has been accelerated by human activity, then it hasn't gotten close to a range where it poses an imminent danger. So when people debate this issue, the validity of the hockey stick is the most important thing they should keep in mind. The second most important thing they should keep in mind is that the corrections to global warming if in fact it exists are varied and the least effective solution is what is being proposed currently, namely cap and trade. And the reason this solution is being proposed is that it will enable governments to extract large amounts of money from the public without calling it a tax.jerry_{December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT}

Jerry, I must disagree with you on all counts. @49
Recent so called warming is just normal fluctuations seen over the past 1000 years.
I know of no one who disputes the importance of normal cycles in the climate. The broader issue, as I understand it, is that human production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases may contribute over and above the natural cycles. The effects of this are very likely to be increased average temperatures - there is no debate I know of about whether CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. This should be sufficient cause for at least caution. @50
If the average person knew this they would be outraged but the press and the Democrats are suppressing this as well as the EU. I was listening to 3-4 economists explaining what it was all about last night.
I think it would be a fallacy to say that 3-4 economists are able to correctly evaluate the entire purpose and value of Copenhagen. They are bound to view Copenhagen from a financial viewpoint, and leave the politics and science to more qualified commentators. Why would the press, the Democrats and the EU collude to give their own nations' money away senselessly? This makes no sense as a conspiracy theory - they believe the mainstream science.paulmc_{December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

"It also interesting to note that twice during the debate the public scepticism of evolution was held up as an example of how easily the public could get things wrong – neither sceptics nor warmers challenged this" This should mean that neither group knows what they are talking about. I bet none of these guys could defend their beliefs in evolution. Since they would be the first ones on the planet to do so. Relevant to Climategate, there is one and only one issue, whether the hockey stick data was fudged. For the hockey stick to be true all the history of six centuries has to be rewritten not climate data. I think not.jerry_{December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

#51 Great link todd. I highly recommend it to anyone whatever their persuasion. I thought all the panelists did well. All panelists (including Lindzen) seemed to recognise 1) That this is not a yes/no issue. It is subtle and complicated. 2) Scientists (and indeed others) need to get away from an antagonistic approach. (It also interesting to note that twice during the debate the public scepticism of evolution was held up as an example of how easily the public could get things wrong - neither sceptics nor warmers challenged this.)Mark Frank_{December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

There is a 2 hour debate at MIT on the Hadley CRU scandal: The Great Climategate Debate. Panelists: Kerry Emanuel '76, PhD '78 Judith Layzer PhD '99 Stephen Ansolabehere Ronald G. Prinn SCD '71 Richard Lindzen Lindzen is fantastic.todd_{December 13, 2009
December
12
Dec
13
13
2009
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

The meetings in Copenhagen are not about global warming. That is a facade for something else. It is about the world sharing of money from North American and Europe to the rest of the world. No one expects anything of consequence to change in terms of temperature and the real issue is extorting money from the industrialized countries and transferring it to the developing world under the guise that they will be damaged by global warming. There is no proof that any country has been damaged but the money will be transferred in anticipation of future damages. You should see what Bolivia wants. The whole thing in Copenhagen is a farce and few if any know what it is about. The main meetings are about money. The people have been scared by false climate data in order to send money around the world. If the average person knew this they would be outraged but the press and the Democrats are suppressing this as well as the EU. I was listening to 3-4 economists explaining what it was all about last night.jerry_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

You have to understand that without the data from those few trees, global warming disappears. There is no hockey stick and the Medieval Warming period was much warmer and the 20th century is just a normal trend rising from the Little Ice Age. So it is a fraud based on a few trees in Siberia that was manipulated to eliminate the warming and cooling trends of the past 1000 years. Recent so called warming is just normal fluctuations seen over the past 1000 years.jerry_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

I read somewhere that the climate data was based on 12 trees in the Yamal peninsula but that when the net was cast wider and data from a much larger number of trees in the area was taken into account, the apparent trend disappeared. What I haven't seen is anything about the reasons why the rings from just those 12 trees was used, assuming all this is true. The problem is that, even if there was fraud at the CRU - and this has not yet been established - it does not make the question of global warming go away. We still need to find out the extent of the threat and what, if anything, we need to do about it or can do about it.Seversky_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Someone said that the historical temperature data used by the AGW climate people is based on one tree in Siberia. Yamal peninsula data. Now that sounds absurd but it checks out. These guys were using one tree to overturn all other climate data. The medieval warming trend and the little ice age were wiped out by this falsification to make it look like the 20th century was abnormal. Just look at how much the world is being moved by the falsification of 3-4 people with this data. Could you say that these clowns have caused tens of billions of dollars to be spent based on their lies.jerry_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

#45 vjtorley As far as I can see this link does not accuse anyone of deceit. In fact all it discusses is a) the temperature record at single station shows a different trend according to which global temperature record you use b) a proposed alternative method for detecting warming trends In fact near the end he concludes: And overall – I.e. if a similar kind of analysis is applied to all of the stations in the HadCRUT3 data set (or “subset”) – I will not be surprised if there is not some evidence for warming. But that has never really be the issue. The issue has always been (a) how much warming, and (b) where has it come from?Mark Frank_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

The list of lies keeps growing longer and longer... Would You Like Your Temperature Data Homogenized, or Pasteurized? A Smoldering Gun From Nashville, TN . Guest post by Basil Copeland.vjtorley_{December 12, 2009
December
12
Dec
12
12
2009
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11/un-security-stops-journalists-questions-about-climategate/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpIJGuy_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

Ethical Bankruptcy at the American Physics Association. Physicists not be left out are all joining the ethically bankrupt biologists and climatologists in large numbers. The guy asked to evaluate the APA position on global warming has received tens of millions of dollars to investigate global warming. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking_liberties/entry5964504.shtml Will there be any honest scientists left standing when it is all over. Yes there will be several but there will be an attempt to marginalize them before it is all over.jerry_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Hence the estimated surface temps of about 400C.
We should be able to survive that.Mung_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

nvrmnd, here's a link that shows the comments: http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/current-events/op-ed-blog/19329-will-copenhagen-make-a-difference#dsq-commentstragic mishap_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Um, apparently the comments have all disappeared. In fact, just a few minutes ago I read through two pages of comments. Very strange.tragic mishap_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/current-events/op-ed-blog/19329-will-copenhagen-make-a-difference This is mostly a site for Christian young adults. The article makes the case that dealing with climate change is a moral responsibility for all Christians because the negative effects of climate change will disproportionately affect the poor. However, read through all the comments on the article. Overwhelmingly, the commentors are skeptical of AGW and are not buying the thesis of the article.tragic mishap_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

Here is something else for food for thought to see if there is substance for past science manipulating data to foster a social goal. Rachel Carson, , Alfred Kinsey, Margaret Mead all falsified their data with epic social results. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_ghost_of_lysenko.htmljerry_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

Barry, Other moderators, You should read this and give it a separate thread: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/orwellian-nightmare-science-is-whatever-the-party-says-it-is/?print=1 It is by Frank Tipler and is about truth and science and Climategate. So the thread about science and certainty is appropriate as is this thread is appropriate. It is so descriptive of science and how it now practiced in the West. as well as what we can expect from our left leaning politicians if they get the power they want.jerry_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Here's a potentially useful resource for getting more information we need on climate modeling data: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ What's the American equivalent? Does anyone know? And here's an excerpt from Dr. Roy Spencer's blog, Can Global Warming Predictions be Tested with Observations of the Real Climate System?
Furthermore, the computer codes for the climate models now being used by the IPCC should be made available to other researchers for independent testing and experimentation. The Data Quality Act for U.S.-supported models already requires this, but this law is being largely ignored. (Emphasis mine - VJT.)
Mark Frank: thanks for the compliment.vjtorley_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Those wanting to watch the video interview I linked to can watch a 4 minute excerpt at the top of the page or the whole 30 minute interview at the bottom of the page. If after watching this you are still for what the UN is doing, then there is no hope. This is an interview of someone who says the earth is warming. http://reason.tv/video/show/ron-bailey-talking-with-bjornjerry_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Here's a good overview of the fraud: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.htmlGilDodgen_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply