Skeptic Project

Brad, your "argument" that global warming is a fraud rests primarily on four, possibly five points.

1. Your personal animosity toward Al Gore.
2. The Oregon Petition.
3. The British court decision about An Inconvenient Truth.
4. The Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper.
5. The CRU emails, which was the point of your first post here.

Point 1 is the most telling. You hate Al Gore. Let me guess, you're a political conservative? As Matt and Ed point out, you seem to assume that Al Gore is the source of climate change as a policy matter. He's not. He's an easy figure to attack because he's a politician, and as conservatives are generally allergic to any principle advocated by Al Gore or Barack Obama, naturally they've sided with the climate change deniers because they want to defeat policies associated with Al Gore and Barack Obama. I'm not at all a Gore fan. I didn't vote for him in 2000, I think he would have made a poor president and I don't think he did that hot a job as vice-president (which isn't a very hard job to do). But the fact that he's a visible spokesman for climate change issues doesn't change the validity of the science behind what he says. Denying climate change by attacking Al Gore as a "charlatan" and a "fraud" is like denying that there are starving children in Africa because Sally Struthers appears on their commercials and she's a hypocrite for living in a first world country and making money from TV. Or, claiming that there are no victimized women in the Central African Republic because you hate Mia Farrow and she's on YouTube publicizing that.

Point 2 has already been debunked. The Oregon Petition is garbage. Your tepid defense is that "Whatever proof you have that says the signatories are questionable or false in some way, it cannot prove that they are all questionable or false." Okay, so only 39 out of 32,000 signatories are actually climatologists; oh, but because those 39 haven't been won over, "there's no consensus!" Yeah, right. What about the fact that the Oregon petition is 12 years old? If this lack of consensus is as large or as widespread as you claim, how come the best you can come up with is 39 people out of 32,000 (approximately 0.122%) who signed something 12 years ago that said they doubt it, BEFORE the IPCC information came out, BEFORE the detailed studies about climate change were available, and BEFORE Al Gore made the claims that you find so fulsome? If Al Gore is such a fraud and a charlatan, why aren't scientists who disagree with him breaking down the door to sign on to renewed petitions to persuade the governments of the world to ignore global warming? I can't believe that the fraudulent nature of the Oregon Petition not only doesn't bother you, but that you're apologizing for it. Classic conspiracy theorist tenacity, cling to your discredited documents and shriek about them so loudly that you hope to convince people, by the mere volume of your shrieks, that what you say MUST be true even though it's been roundly discredited.

As to point 3:
"The British court found Al Gore's film to be political in nature."

Thank you for at least finally understanding what the case was about!

"The judge believes the IPCC is correct but, Al Gore's film to have significant errors that precludes it from being viewed as a scientific film."

So then, you admit that the British court did NOT rule that the science of climate change is faulty or "a fraud" and that Al Gore should be kept out of British classrooms for that reason? Well, then, you've pretty well undermined this pillar of your argument; thank you for acknowledging the truth.

"Al Gore is still stating that it is a scientific documentary contrary to what the judge ruled, he has made no effort to correct his errors, and goes as far as to say that the judgment was in his favor."

Al Gore is a politician. "An Inconvenient Truth" is a political film. That's what the case was about. I never said anything different, and in fact I was the one who explained this to you in the first place. The court found that Gore's spin on the scientific facts presented in the film--which again I stress, and you admitted, THE COURT AGREED WITH--meant that it could not be presented in British classrooms without an accompanying guide. In other words, it was to be treated like a political film. So that's that, and how exactly is this relevant to the underlying scientific facts of climate change?

Explain to me again how the verdict that Al Gore's spin makes "An Inconvenient Truth" a political film undermines the science of climate change that the court explicitly found to be correct? In fact, wasn't the point of the court case that the court was taking Gore to task for NOT sticking to the science, but spinning it in a political way? You can't cite a decision condemning Gore for deviating from the science as a decision damning the science itself--it's illogical.

"If he is not a fraud, what would you call him?"

I'd call him a politician, because that's what he is.

As to Point 4:

"I was hoping that your article refuting my reference would be a scientific paper rather than a blog trying to dumb it down to layman's terms. That would have interesting."

You might well have found it interesting if you had actually clicked on the link I provided, which is in fact a scientific paper. Here it is again, clicky with your mousey and maybe, um, READ it this time?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf</p>

Doubt you can read German, since you seem to have enough trouble following a logical train of thought in English, but I provided a link to another scientific paper in German as well.

I provided the blog links as an easy summary in layman's terms of what the refutation of the Gerlich/Tscheuschner paper says. Sorry you didn't like them, but considering one of the few things we agree on is that most people debating global warming (such as us) are not scientists, I thought they'd be helpful.

You have also made no attempt to rebut the statements I made about Gerlich beign a paid AGW skeptic, and his veracity questionable for having previously been associated with paid tobacco company research in the 1990s to the effect that there was no link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer. A lot of former tobacco deniers have rebooted their careers denying global warming, and Dr. Gerlich drinks from the same trough.

As to Point 5, I won't spend a lot of time on that because you seem to have given it up, and wisely so--the CRU emails, taken as they are out of context, prove nothing, and even if they did say what AGW deniers claim they mean, they have no hope of refuting mountains of scientific evidence that man is causing climate change.

If you think I'm discourteous to you it's because I find conspiracy theories such as yours to be frontal assaults on logic, common sense, critical thinking and scientific (and often) historical accuracy. You come in here waving around the CRU emails, throwing poo at Al Gore and proffering the fraudulent Oregon Petition and the spurious Gerlich-Tscheuschner paper--which we have now collectively debunked several times--and have the audacity to claim that I need to take my meds because I'm ignoring the evidence. I've found in my experience that the only thing that can get through to conspiracy theorists is a hail of very strong, sharp, heavy blows with the facts, because only through that can you crack through the thick armor of conspiracy thinking and actually get at the truth. It's not a courteous process or a pretty one, but sometimes, once in a while, it does work. Some of the members of this forum--myself included, believe it or not--are former conspiracy theorists. I feel a need to correct bullshit when I see it, and you're dealing in it quite copiously here. Sorry if my manner offends you, but we're dealing in important issues here, and in any event you should know that on a forum full of conspiracy debunkers we're going to speak our minds bluntly. It's not as if we're going to sit around in muu-muus listening to sitar music...

...oh wait, we ARE in that Venus Project topic. Sorry! I take it all back, global warming is a fraud!

Regarding the CRU emails like I said to him before, Creationists have a far stronger case to make for fraud than AGW deniers do.

It was probably HAARP.

Dear Muertos:
In response to your post regarding the paper “Proof Of Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect”. I want to thank you for providing an actual paper. It helps to show what fallacies the AGW crowd comes up with.
Mr. Smith proves that he can derive calculus problems. They even have a little to do with the Earth. They are not accurate representations but, they are fun to see. He is making a sphere rotating on a single axis as a representation for the Earth. Anyone that has taken High School science classes knows that the Earth is more like an oblate spheroid that obliquely rotates (tilted axis). The difference between the equatorial and polar radii is almost 22km. (Good thing he isn’t one of our rocket scientists) If you haven’t taken science classes you can go to Wikipedia to confirm what I stated. His calculations for surface area that are absorbing radiation are flawed due to his simplification and the ensuing calculations are then also flawed. So he cannot have calculated an accurate “average temperature” of the Earth. He may be close but, that is not proven to be fact. We need more data.
He correctly stated that the temperature for an idealized planet with an atmosphere is higher than a planet without one. In this, he is in agreement with Gerlich and Tscheuschner.
In Smith’s section IV INFRARED ABSORPTION IN THE ATMOSPHERE he finally gets around to the theory that is really the point of contention. He states the theory that “some layer above the planet must be absorbing or reflecting a significant fraction of the outgoing infrared radiation. I.e. the atmosphere must not be transparent to infrared.“ His model of the blocking effect is a thin layer of the atmosphere that absorbs a fraction of the outgoing radiation from the Earth’s surface. This layer will have its own temperature but he assumes the specific temperature is not relevant because they assume the heat capacity is low so it remains radiatively balanced through the day. This is also not proven to exist. We are still in the process of collecting data. Mr. Smith states that this layer continuously emits an amount of energy that’s equal to what it absorbs from the Earth. His next statement is what BREAKS THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS. Mr. Smith states “Since thermal re-emission is randomly directed, half the radiation from this atmospheric layer will go up, and half down.” (If you are unfamiliar with the laws of thermodynamics, you can refer to Wikipedia or there is a good explanation at http://physics-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/second_law_of_thermodynamics, or you could get ”Physics for Dummies” at a bookstore. ) This layer, that they are looking, for is going to be cooler than the surface layer that we live in. To state that a cooler body can transfer heat to a warmer one VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. The GREENHOUSE EFFECT is theoretically flawed because it calls for a condition that has never been seen to exist. To disprove a law, you a lot of evidence that can be verified by empirical testing. Mr. Smith is stating that the temperature doesn’t matter. He and the AGW crowd are confusing energy and heat. They are not the same or interchangeable. Heat is work. You need energy to work you do not need work for energy. That is what Gerlich and Tscheuschner are saying in their paper “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”.
In his conclusions Mr. Smith refers to others for their treatment on individual gases. One of those is K. N. Liou,. In a recent paper that includes Liou “Direct Retrieval of Stratospheric CO2 Infrared Cooling Rate Profiles from AIRS Data”
http://yly-mac.gps.caltech.edu/Reprintsyly/A_RecentPapers/Zjunk/Feldman05.pdf on pg. 11 the authors state “Stratospheric cooling rates caused by CO2 are assumed to be known to within a few tenths of a K/day, but the uncertainty has yet to be formally quantified in light of temperature uncertainties.” They go on to state “Unfortunately the AIRS instrument does not cover the entire v2 band, and the scaling between partial band and total band cooling needs to be explored further.” The paper is dated 2006 so up to that time the scientists admit to incomplete data.

One of the points that Gerlich and Tscheuschner make in their paper is that the analogy of a Greenhouse Effect is a poor one that unscrupulous people are using to scare people into immediate and irrational action. Greenhouses are hot due in part to mechanical isolation from the surrounding environment. The Earth does not have a mechanical barrier to space and learned people should not refer to it in that manner in scientific papers. Unless an unknown mechanism is discovered to bypass the laws of thermodynamics, the theory of atmospheric greenhouse effects is unproven and likely false. We need to do research, we do not need to panic.

It seems that in Brad's world there are only two ways of dealing with climate change:

1) Denying it.
2) Panicking about it.

The idea that there's a happy medium doesn't seem to enter his mind.

You spared yourself a lifetime of never getting laid Ed.

Kudos my good man.

Nice post Muertos.

Its interesting he used "second law of thermodynamics" in an argument, I thought only Creationists abused that one! :D

Dear Muertos:
I noticed that you did not address the AGW theory’s problem with the surface area of the Earth that’s absorbing radiation. The Earth’s axial tilt provides the difference between summer and winter. There are other variables including the Earth’s orbit isn’t perfectly circular. http://www.space.com/spacewatch/301206_happy_perihelion.html There is variability in the Sun’s output which could alone could produce the amount of warming we have seen over the past few decades. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html<br /> The AGW model starts out poorly and then gets worse. Not only are they using incomplete data to draw conclusions about “net energy” that the Earth receives and the “average temperature” that the Earth is suppose to have, they handle their equations wrong. I don’t know where you got your version of the laws of thermodynamics because you didn’t source it.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/law+of+thermodynamics has the following definitions of the classical laws of thermodynamics and a link to Wikipedia encyclopedia.

“The first law of thermodynamics (law of conservation of energy) states that the change in the internal energy of a system is equal to the sum of the heat added to the system and the work done on it.”

“The second law of thermodynamics states that heat cannot be transferred from a colder to a hotter body within a system without net changes occurring in other bodies within that system; in any irreversible process, entropy always increases.”
The subtlety of this statement causes a lot of confusion. Heat flows from a hot to cold. It requires more energy to transfer heat to a warmer body. (You need to provide energy to your air conditioner to make it cooler in your house) Heat is transferred through materials at a rate determined by their thermal conductivity which is a measure of the ability of a substance to conduct heat. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thermal+conductivity (or it has a link to Wikipedia encyclopedia)
The thermal conductivity of different gases is given here. http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/~cfd/pdfs/tables/1-10B.pdf The Earth’s atmosphere is an insulator that moderates heat loss.

There are theories that the laws of thermodynamics are not accurate and break down in extreme conditions like a black hole but, they are theories that have not enough proof or data to be considered laws. These theories seem to get linked to the Gaia hypothesis. If that is your belief fine, just don’t call it a fact.

Unfortunately for scientists, the AGW movement has politicized science. The idea that consensus has anything to do with science is laughable. Science needs proof and we are in the infancy of getting data The director of the CRU, the man in charge of organizing the datasets on which billions if not trillions of dollars worth of research, government policy, and investments, apparently is not too organized. He lost a lot of raw data and was reluctant to share the data with others. Thanks to the CRU emails coming out, they are now sharing information. Within a couple of months someone found errors with the data from all over the world. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7028362.ece Al Gore is not the source of science information. He is the source of exaggerated claims of apocalypse. That is why the British courts determined his film was political in nature. Being a politician does not preclude him from being a fraud. Gerlich and Tscheuschner may have done work for some industry that you don’t like but, I’ve done work for companies I didn’t like too and I converse with people that apparently can’t think for themselves and get sucked into hoaxes and conspiracy theories. Have a nice day.

Muertos wins this one.

http://csicop.org/si/show/mann_bites_dog_why_climategate_was_newsworthy

"You seem to like to attack the messenger that opposes your beliefs. Stephen Hawking has ALS, maybe you can make something out of that."

Doooooooooooooooooooouchebag.

I attacked the messenger because the messenger is a dbag.

You're still here, Brad? I'm not going to spend a lot more time debunking you because you're using the classic conspiracist dodge, that of ignoring your claims that have already been debunked in favor of pulling the conversation away to some new topic.

It's curious that the way you've attempted to frame the "debate" in your last post is to challenge me to debunk the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which you dare me to do by attacking Stephen Hawking (who believes in global warming, so far as I know) or dictionary definitions, while glossing over yours (really G&T's) application of it to greenhouse gases. Of course! Anyone who disagrees with your (G&T's) flawed understanding of how the Second Law of Thermodynamics does (or does not) apply to molecules in the atmosphere is not questioning that understanding--they're questioning the Second Law of Thermodynamics itself. Considering I've already debunked the G&T paper, I'm not going to go there again.

I also note for the record that you've done the following:
~ Changed positions yet again on "consensus." First you claim the Oregon Petition represents a consensus against AGW. When that's debunked, you next claim you don't NEED consensus. Now you're back to arguing that there's no consensus on AGW. Do you want to try to defend the Oregon Petition again, just so you can reverse your position an even number of times?
~ You've failed to indicate why, if your (G&T's) understanding of thermodynamics as applied to global warming is capable of being proven by reference to the dictionary, Wikipedia and Stephen Hawking's book, there is not an overwhelming scientific consensus IN FAVOR of G&T's position.
~ You've again repeated your accusations against Al Gore despite the fact that I've explained to you several times why your stated basis for that position, the British court decision, doesn't mean what you say it means.
~ The only statement you've made at all about G&T's lack of scientific credibility is to belittle me for disliking an industry they once worked for. Yes, the same industry that cooked scientific data to inject doubt that smoking causes cancer.
~ Your shrieking about the CRU emails assumes that the CRU is the only source for data supporting AGW. Nothing could be further from the truth, but neither you nor any other climate truther will ever admit that CRU isn't the whole show, because to do so would be to make the CRU emails irrelevant--and, for the sake of your holy crusade against the Antichrist Al Gore, you must above all preserve the CRU emails as sacred.

Considering that, since we've debunked the Oregon Petition, the CRU emails, your interpretation of the Al Gore court decision, Gerlich & Tschenscheur's paper, their erroneous application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to greenhouse gases, and their credibility, every single pillar on which your argument rests has been debunked. Not just one of them, not just a few of them, but all of them. And they have not just been lightly questioned. They've been debunked. As in, shown to be false. In other words, we're done.

Again, thanks for the debate, it's been enjoyable.

"the Oregon Petition was started to argue against the Kyoto Protocol and similar propositions."

So basically, it has no relevance to global warming at all as it is a political petition. Sort of like how CTs point to the 9/11 Commission report rather than NIST?

I think you're more of a CT than you'd like to admit.

"“An Inconvenient Truth” = “Zeitgeist the Movie”"

False equivalency. Fail logic is fail and it once again exposes your little hardon for bashing Al Gore. If Al Gore was not involved in this issue, I don't think you'd care about it at all. Every single one of your talking points is standard rightwing attack garbage.

Are you a Libertarian? You sound like a Libertarian. Boy, I hate Libertarians.

Dear Muertos:
You are obviously enamored with Al Gore. You actually believe he is a good source of information when even a judge says his movie has so many errors that it is to be considered political rather than scientific. Your ignorance and arrogance apparently has no bounds. You don’t know the meaning of consensus because you erroneously believe I have changed positions on consensus. Consensus is a political and religious term meaning general agreement.
1. Since you have Al Gore and his political cronies in the UN IPCC saying that carbon dioxide is the source of global warming and I document thousands of scientists that disagree with that theory then obviously there is not a consensus. Al Gore lies.
2. Consensus is irrelevant in science. If consensus mattered, then you would believe the Sun revolves around the Earth. How ignorant of science and history are you? Maybe you should read some books instead of playing with your computer and “joystick”.

You are delusional if you believe you debunked G&T’s paper with your personal attacks on who you say they used to do work for. Your supposedly scientific paper fell apart with just remedial science knowledge. Your science blog was debunked in its own comments section. Your lame attempt at stating your belief in energy transfer was not backed up with a source. Mine came from a dictionary and remedial science. You made no sense at your attempt because you are clueless as to what principles are involved. It is obvious from your statement “the atmosphere is doing too much moderation of heat loss” that you are unfamiliar with the function and use of a dictionary let alone any technical material.
All you can do is repeat the drivel you’re told by political hacks because you are a weak minded fool. You are willing to let these political hacks tax everyone into poverty, while they become billionaires, just so they can pat you on the head and tell you that you are saving the planet. What a tool.

"I'd like to see this conversation progress a single page without mentioning Al Gore or his movie."

Unpossible. Climate change denial relies on Al Gore hate.