Skeptic Project

Brad, I can't help feeling that you're not really arguing against anthropogenic global warming because of the science, but because you are predisposed to believe it's a conspiracy theory. It seems pretty clear that you didn't read the link I posted to the survey of peer-review articles which indicate an overwhelming consensus by climate scientists that AGW is real.

There are 3 main reasons why your arguments are faulty.

1. You cite "the Oregon petition" also known as the Global Warming Petition Project. It is fraudulent. It's a creation by a guy named Arthur Robinson and his "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" which is a very tiny organization that hardly represents a significant majority of climate scientists. The petition has been circulating for about 12 years and many of the names of the people who signed it are questionable, either as outright frauds or as unqualified to render opinions on AGW. You can read a host of debunkings of the Oregon petition here:
http://debunking.pbworks.com/Oregon-Petition</p>

The logic problems inherent in the petition are strangely similar to what 9/11 Truthers use when they argue that Stephen Jones's "peer-reviewed" articles represent "science" regarding 9/11 controlled demolition. Here's an explanation of those fallacies specifically with respect to the Oregon petition:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Debunking-the-Oregon-Petition-Project&id=1675285

2. You cited Lord Monckton as a reliable source on climate change. He is not. He is a fraud. Proof? Try this:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/moncktons-artful-graph/<br /> And this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/</p>

Anyone who overlooks the manipulation and outright falsification of the science that Lord Monckton does clearly is grinding an ideological axe, not raising legitimate questions about what the science means.

3. You said to me, "As to your statement that the science is settled is straight out of the Al Gore playbook." This is a very telling statement because this argument has no effect unless you already believe Al Gore is a fraud, and rings very similar to 9/11 Truthers when they denounce the NIST as "government shills" and pretend that the Popular Mechanics debunking of 9/11 Truth theories must be fraudulent because one of the publishers of Popular Mechanics is named Chertoff (no relation, in fact, to the Bush Administration official named Chertoff). You've provided not a single example of statements made by Al Gore regarding climate change that have been proven to be false. Therefore, tarring me as playing by Al Gore's "playbook" is a classic conspiracist dodge.

I do have to give you credit, though, you argue slightly more articulately than most of the conspiradroids who come here to dispute us on one thing or another, but it's much easier for a global warming denier to sound rational because (A) the myth that AGW is "controversial" or "unsupported" is unfortunately widespread in popular culture, probably for political reasons (most conservatives hate AGW because climate change policy is associated with Gore and Obama), and (B) the science behind it can get pretty arcane, and as has been pointed out in this topic, most people debating AGW aren't scientists, meaning it's easier to obfuscate and misconstrue the data. But, the truth is that you are a conspiracist, and the theory you're peddling here today is no more defensible than 9/11 Truth or Alex Jones and his "New World Order."

Muertos,
You seem to have me confused with someone else in reference to Lord Monckton.

As far as the Petition Project is concerned, the site lists the names and degrees of people that have signed it. My purpose in bringing it up was to show that there is disagreement in the scientific community, not a consensus. There may be some questionable names on the list but, I know some important ones are absolutely on it.

As to my reference to Al Gore's playbook and whether I believe he's a fraud, the British courts have already issued a verdict on his fraudulence in the affirmative and I agree with them.

I'm not sure where you're going with the "slightly more articulate conspiradroid" thing. I thought this was a website that exposes and debunks conspiracy theories and hoaxes. It is my belief that Al Gore is a much bigger conspiracy monger than Alex Jones and the Zeitgeist Movement put together. He sure has a much bigger following.

My educational background is in engineering, I've met and talked to scientists, and I grew up with a meteorologist as a neighbor. Perhaps that makes me inclined to be skeptical. If you think that makes me sound like a 911 Truther I believe that says more about you than me.

I was drawn here due to an acquaintance's belief in the Zeitgeist movement. Some of what he said set off my bullshit meter so I watched the movie and my bullshit meter was red-lining. As I was looking into the facts I discovered that Edward had already done most of the work. Thanks Edward.

@Brad270:

You wrote: "As an example, he claims that climate deniers (his and your wording) point to the research about the Antarctic ice cores to claim that CO2 is a lagging indicator of temperature rise, yet have not read the article or understood it completely. He then points out sentences that refer to anthropogenic CO2 from the article and says see, it's right there. Well if Mr. Sinclair had spent a little time on researching his farcical film's facts instead of figuring out what music to play he might have discovered that everyone agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, just not a good one. It requires the out-gassing from the whole planet to reach levels high enough for CO2 to effect climate change and our contribution to that level is negligible. Also, after that level of CO2 is reached, the amount of CO2 that needs to be added to effect more climate change rises logarithmically."

---------

First Climate Deniers do not all agree that Co2 is bad, do you want me to find all the times they claim its essentially harmless? After all, we all breath out Co2, right?

Secondly, that video was about pointing out that the way the Great Global Warming Scam film portrayed that graph had little to do with the paper from which it came. The paper explains how climate change can takes place naturally. The film misrepresented it, like they do everything else. Its the equivalent of a quote-mine, basically.

Heres Sinclair's video giving a general overview of the deception in that film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk

When I was a truther I didn't want to believe I was essentially defending the equivalent of Creationists in terms of honesty and pseudoscience, which is exactly what you are doing now. You are on the side of the pseudoscientists that will shamelessly distort, lie and quote-mine the shit out of everything in order to obfuscate the science behind it. Is it any wonder that so many of these guys have such clear ties to the Oil Industry, just like the sell out scientists supported the tobacco industry before them? No. Can you tell me just how much obvious dishonesty one has to prove to you is coming from the deniers (I mean "skeptics") in order for you to question their claims?

EDIT: In regards claims of fraud by Climate Scientists by deniers, having been involved in many evolution-vs-creation debates on the internet since 2000 (before I found 911 that's all I debated) Creationists actually have a BETTER case to make for claiming pro-evolution fraud in the scientific community than you guys do for climate science. That's REALLY saying something...

"As to my reference to Al Gore's playbook and whether I believe he's a fraud, the British courts have already issued a verdict on his fraudulence in the affirmative and I agree with them."

Not exactly.

The issue in the British courts was whether "An Inconvenient Truth" was a science film, eligible to be shown in classrooms, or a political film, which is considered partisan. The British court ruled it was a political film. It is. The issue in the British courts was not whether anthropogenic global warming was true or false. In fact, the court opinion found that (and I am quoting exactly from the opinion) that the film rests on "four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC." The opinion also stated, "It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film."

In fact, the court decision did not ban the presentation of the film or label Al Gore a "fraud" as you claim--they stated that if the film was presented in schools it would be accompanied by a guide that mitigates the political arguments Gore makes for what should be done about climate change, NOT that the fact (notice I say fact, not "theory") of anthropogenic global warming is itself subject to question.

Your argument also suffers from the defect of assuming that it's Al Gore who's the main source of data about climate change. He's not. The science existed and was irrefutable long before Al Gore made the deal to make his movie. You seem to think that Al Gore invented the theory and is responsible for pushing it on us, and he and his friends are the ones suppressing the "truth" (such as what you claim is the proper interpretation of those hacked emails). That's not the way it is at all, and furthermore, I think you know this, or could easily discover it if you managed to look beneath the spurious motives of those whose views you promote--such as the very questionable people who are behind this Oregon petition (which I already debunked).

In short, Brad, your facts are wanting and you're merely perpetuating the spin and obfuscation that AGW deniers have been purposely peddling to try to undermine political consensus for action on climate change. Survey says? *DING* You're a conspiracy theorist. Thanks for playing.

Yes, isn't it curious how quickly and easily conspiracy theorists give up? Once they decide that our tiresomely repetitive demands for evidence and skeptical thought is incompatible with their theories, they stop trying to convince us surprisingly fast. I'll give credit, though, at least Brad didn't call us "sheeple" or suggest that water fluoridation is the cause of our intransigence.

Brad, a point-by-point rebuttal.

"The British courts determined that Al Gore's movie had significant errors. The errors are huge."

I've already addressed this by QUOTING FROM THE ACTUAL OPINION. The court AGREED that the science of global warming is sound. The issue was whether the film was political or not. It was. You have not responded to this argument.

"Al Gore is perpetuating a fraud for his financial gain by promoting his movie as a scientific documentary."

Proof? Considering I've already refuted your argument based on the British court decision, that is not acceptable evidence.

"I stand by my assessment that Al Gore is a fraud even by the low standards of the IPCC."

Totally faith based conclusion.

"The IPCC has itself been shown to have significant errors in its portrayal of data."

Example?

"The IPCC is a political body that is littered with people that are heavily invested in trading carbon credits."

Proof?

"There is financial motivation both for and against AGW. They are having trouble keeping scientists on their side due to their misuse of data and subsequent poor conclusions."

Are they, now? Which ones? Proof? Not that silly Oregon Petition again, which I've already debunked.

"Some Phd's in Physics will state that many climatologists on the AGW side are incorrect due to their theories breaking the laws of thermodynamics. I refer to an article published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 25, No.3 (2009) 275-364, DOI No:101142/SO21797920904984X World Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb titled "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics".

This is the only substantive statement made in your response. The Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper has been refuted many times. Their basic hypothesis is that global warming defies the second law of thermodynamics. It does not.

Layman's explanation of the issue here:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/greenhouse-violates-thermodynamics.php</p>

Scientific refutation of Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper here, hope you read German:
http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/Treib/Hauptseite.pdf</p>

Another scientific refutation here (in English):
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf</p>

Layman's explanation of the refutation here:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/formal-reply-to-gerlich-and-tscheuner.html</p>

More here:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-you-never-wanted-to-know-about.html</p>

Dr. Gerlich is a longtime AGW skeptic. He also did work for an organization called the European Science and Environment Forum, which was a front for various tobacco denial claims funded by tobacco industry money. Hmm, strange how tobacco cancer-link denialists seem to have been born again as AGW deniers, isn't it?

"I can list many more articles opposing the theory of AGW."

Please do.

"I reject the proposition that AGW is a fact."

And I reject your totally faith-based conclusion, because, well, it's totally faith-based.

"AGW,I believe, is a mechanism for some charlatans (like Al Gore) to take advantage of the basically good nature of people to accumulate political and financial power."

The key words in this statement are "I believe."

"To suggest that CO2 is a pollutant is in the least presumptive and at most laughable."

To suggest that CO2 is NOT a pollutant is, well, hate to use the word, laughable.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/historically-co2-never-causes.php</p>

"To agree to schemes that would limit our access to different energy sources and increase our costs associated with politically accepted sources is going to hurt a lot of people."

The old "doing anything about global warming is suicide!" argument. Ah, deniers' greatest hits. This one makes less sense than most, because it's based on pure denial and not a shred of logic.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/action-on-global-warming-is-suicide.php</p>

"These considerations should not be treated lightly."

The implications of reversing AGW and how they should be implemented are serious, I agree. Your argument that AGW is a fraud, however, IS to be treated lightly, because it's crap.

Sorry to step in front of you there, Ed. Brad has some points to address to both of us for sure.

@Muertos:

I don't have anything to say that you didn't :)

Also, I don't want him to weasel out of my points by getting me distracted on these other things. I gave some specific examples of denier dishonesty including a claim he made here about the petition. I'd like to see him address it. Hopefully since you also touched on the petition he won't be able to ignore it without realising he is looking really bad.

So wilbur22, you going to address your denialist experts lies?

btw

"you can not disagree with gravity, because there is proof. There is no proof of global warming(caused by carbon), "

Way to go sounding like a Creationist.

"The theory behind Global warming is based on the upcoming carbon tax."

That doesn't make sense at all. Global warming has been discussed for quite a long time.

"Taxes hurt people with less money than those with much of it."

That is not always true.

"And has not the government proven itself to be incompetent when it comes to legislation, especially recently (lets not forget about how well the bank bailout is going)(or the war in Iraq)(or afghanistan)(or....)"

But it seems to have proven itself competent enough to provide you with a civic infrastructure that allows you to go online and rant about it.

Each of you need read my other post about bashing people that do not agree with you:) What makes a conspiracy a conspiracy?

the only reason we do not pay forOxygen is because of supply and demand. If they can convince us that the world is being overcome with co2 gas, oxygen becomes a money maker. Its not hard to see. I am not a business man, but understand how to create a market if one does not exist. Who is in denial?

A lot of people pay or oxygen.

http://www.google.com/search?q=buy+oxygen

Sorry, I couldn't resist, but yes I get your point.

@Brad,

"Again I was delayed in replying to you but, this time I was busy shoveling the latest foot of snow so I could get out of the house. I suppose that you would state that this is proof of AGW. I think it's because it is wintertime."

Yeah, we keep getting all that snow too.

In Oklahoma.

"I admit to having animosity toward Al Gore. I know it is an emotional response to a charlatan and I should just try to ignore him but, he keeps on getting airtime for his drivel. He is constantly and unabashedly stating his "facts" like the Earth's temperature is millions of degrees Fahrenheit as you get closer to the center. It wouldn't be so bad if he were dismissed by more people but, he still gets a pass by most of the media and his hype is still promoted and his hype is going to cost me and almost everyone else a lot of money if it becomes policy. As to him being loaded so what is his motivation to get more money, in his circles, making $100 million is peanuts."

Anyways, I think you just hate rich people. Its like the idea that Al Gore does what he does because he believes in it never enters your equation. Reaching a certain tax bracket does not automatically strip you of your humanity.

I don't know how most of the media gives Al Gore airtime, especially since Fox has the highest ratings.

@Brad:

You said:
"Again I was delayed in replying to you but, this time I was busy shoveling the latest foot of snow so I could get out of the house. I suppose that you would state that this is proof of AGW. I think it's because it is wintertime."

-------------

Oh and btw Brad you are confusing weather with climate with this little "joke" and showing how you only listen to denialists.

This year had generally been one of the hottest on record. Just because it was very cold in certain specific areas doesn't mean it wasn't hotter than previous years in many other areas.

Here's another video for you to ignore. I am giving you videos, because I doubt you'd bother reading anything:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTUuckNHgc

EDIT:

And forget about Al Gore, it seems climate scientists seem fixated on him like Creationists seem fixated on Darwin even though Darwin was a scientist not a politician repeating something that is already a scientific consensus. Discrediting Al Gore means nothing, you do realise that? Well, I guess not.