Global Warming Debate

[inked]

Alcuin, thanks for the reference to the article. It relates a number of inconvenient truths. Data is such a nasty concept. Why should it interfere?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

Yes. I did.

I commend to you Eric Hoffer’s short masterpiece, The True Believer.

Thanks, but I think I'll pass. I'm not a fan of philosophy books.

[GrayMouser]

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Yes, Alcuin this exactly describes those who are emotionally committed to the idea that this is all a conspiracy cooked up by marxists, hippies, and greedy scientists trying to get research grants.

Did you read the report you cite? There is a pause in global warming of less than a decade after thirty years of increases. The scientists quoted disagree about the reason for the pause, but every one of them agrees that it is the result of a natural process that doesn't negate the underlying cause of additional human-caused warming. They all warn against complacency due to a short-term trend.

Since you believe they are lying due to ideology, it doesn't matter to you that the very people you cite warn aganst the conclusions you reach- that's simply further proof of their dishonesty.

Sorry, I think I'll still trust them instead of you.

[inked]

GM, what think ye of this............

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

[Alcuin]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Did you read the report you cite?

I did read it, ’Mouser: hence the sarcastic reference to Der Spiegel as a “paragon of right-wing revisionist denialism”.

I was trained in science and engineering. Painfully trained. I have read the science, and in my opinion – it is not a professional opinion, because I am neither a professional scientist nor a professional engineer – it stinks. You should draw your own conclusions. As best you are able, you should read both sides of the argument, and familiarize yourself with previous hysterias concerning warming and cooling fears.

Consider this scenario. Suppose a handful of scientists from several universities, along with a couple of colleagues from the government with whom they had worked and studied, suddenly proclaimed that they had a sure-fire cure for some disease or another. The disease, however, is sketchy – Morgellons – and controversial. (I happen to think evidence suggests Morgellons is real ailment, so I use it without prejudice here.) Several high-profile former elected government officials hop on the bandwagon, and they demand legislation to inoculate the entire population because – let us continue in this imaginary vein – it may be caused by meteoritic dust. (That’s actually been suggested in the case of Morgellons.) The vaccine in our imaginary case, however, is also sketchy, and has some pretty serious side effects. The Morgellans vaccine supporters insist that the science is conclusive, and using their influence in the government, they silence all official opposition. University scientists also manage to silence opponents, disparaging them both personally and professionally in faculty and professional meetings.

Then, lo and behold, it turns out that the high-profile former elected government officials are controlling investors in the vaccine companies. The scientists, who did their work using public funds and often in government employment and government laboratories, refuse to fully disclose the data or experiments that led to their conclusions, claiming private intellectual property ownership of the research. Finally, shady investors have been financing the scientists, and those scientists have been both blocking publication of articles critical of their conclusions and denying tenure and even employment to professionals with the temerity to question them.

Oh, I forgot to mention three other crucial components. First, the high-profile centerpiece exhibit proving that Morgellons is a substantial threat requiring immediate vaccination is seriously mishandled data – and that would be a generous assessment. Second, a powerful underlying trend has been going on for thousands – and probably millions – of years. It produces effects similar to those observed, and might even be about to cycle down again. Third, one of the most powerful proponents of the vaccine is found by the High Court in London to have misrepresented the facts and misled his hearers, the Law Lord proclaiming in his pronouncement of judgment: “The armageddon scenario ... is not in line with the scientific consensus.”

Big money controls the popular press, so the stories you read in the papers and see on television cry from the bandwagon, “Mandatory vaccinations now!” “Naysayers” and “deniers” are derided as kooks and crackpots – or villains or worse.

Is it true? Is it not true? If you think it’s worth the risk, take the vaccine. Just don’t make me take it.

-|-

While Eric Hoffer is called a “philosopher,” The True Believer is more like a handbook on what to look for in mass movements, and how people react to them. Another is available on-line for free, Charles Mackay’s wonderful treatise, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Be sure to read the famous section on the late-seventeenth century Tulip Mania, which bankrupted the Dutch Republic! Mackay’s book is mostly read these days by investors, but its applicability to politics and society as a whole is far more important. Besides being immensely entertaining (especially the Tulip Mania chapter) – Mackay (pronounced “Mack-KYE”) has an acerbic sense of humor – he reveals an accurate but sadly unflattering portrait of humanity, yet without disparaging recrimination or condemnation.

-|-

One specific rejoinder (the thread was well-written):

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I think you're confusing "demanding unreasonable acquiescence" and "demanding evidence, and insisting that without evidence people shut up."

No, I am clearly not making that error. But thank you for pointing it out for reflection.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

And why do you assume that we haven't read the arguments in the other direction? That's what most of this thread is, people responding to those very arguments. You have the right to disagree, of course; but remember the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to reflect upon the consideration. Senator Moynihan was wise: I could not agree more, though his quotation has been oft misapplied. It is most worth reflection.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

Those words were uttered by John Adams in defense of the British soldiers falsely accused in the Boston Massacre, when the city of Boston, whipped up by the Revolutionaries into hysterics, sought to murder those men by jury.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Further: comparing financial instruments to climate science is rather insulting to the scientists; the financial sector is famous for not paying attention to the past history of success or failure of various financial instruments, precisely the opposite of revising scientific hypotheses in light of evidence…

I strongly disagree. I am familiar with both, and despite the pretense that practitioners profess in both fields, people are people, and both scientists and investors refuse and refute what is before their very noses until it bites them on the … nose. It is not a matter of our professions, but that we are human beings. Our patterns and bad habits are repetitive whatever we do throughout history. I will cite one excellent example: If you would like to dispense with reading the morning paper, choose instead the little book of Amos, or if you prefer tabloids instead of the Times, try Hosea; both are more than 2700 years old. Nothing in human character or frailty has changed in all those long centuries.

-|-

Now I am out of this thread. I have presented my case, not once, but twice: for convenience, the previous post is here. I do not find this subject entertaining, but such thorough responses are exceedingly time-consuming, and I do not have the luxury to continue, particularly when I would rather be posting on the history of Arnor!

I do not purport to know the truth; however, the devices and arguments of one side in this debate are particularly disturbing. Specifically, as I wrote before, there is one side in this debate that:

1. demands unreasoning acquiescence;
2. vilifies its opponents rather than debates their positions;
3. tries by every means to silence its opposition;
4. the principal proponents are the recipients of vast sums of government largess dependent upon public acceptance of their idea; and
5. the principal proponents are altering laws and creating regulations to enrich themselves.

Whether the subject matter is global warming, mandatory Morgellons vaccine, or who should be dog-catcher, you would be wise to disavow those who employ these nasty tactics, and wiser still to avoid using them yourself. I must add that the tenor and tone of the debate fit the definition of “hysterical”:

irrational from fear, emotion, or an emotional shock.

Last, I would like to remind you that I have not accused anyone of deceit. I have pointed out:

• bad science by the reasearchers, certainly;
• mishandled data by researchers, directly;
• questionable motives by professionals involved in this debate, clearly, seeming cases of “the appearance of impropriety.”

But I have not accused anyone of lying, certainly not another poster in this thread! I did however take the time today to peruse this thread from its inception, and there are at least 15 instances where Entmooters accused others of lying. Far too often, they accused other Entmooters of being LIARS. Both sides are overheated in this – I am not a moderator, and to be QUITE clear, I would not care to see such discussions as this restricted or removed – but there is one side in this debate that has an unmistakable habit of calling its opponents “liars”, “deceivers,” and at least more than once implied not that they might be mistaken, but are deliberately and knowingly spreading falsehoods. Here is the list, which seems by no means to be complete. If you find one of your posts here, consider not whether you care to change your mind, but rather your strident tone; and if your position is so strong, why then are you so compelled to condemn your fellows?

1. 02-08-2007 07:58 AM
2. 02-08-2007 02:45 PM
3. 03-14-2007 05:54 AM
4. 03-14-2007 10:41 AM
5. 03-14-2007 12:01 PM
6. 03-22-2007 03:02 PM
7. 08-17-2007 02:59 PM
8. 08-17-2007 05:48 PM
9. 10-25-2007 05:23 AM
10. 08-20-2009 10:10 PM
11. 08-26-2009 09:32 AM
12. 08-26-2009 09:30 PM
13. 08-29-2009 12:08 AM
14. 08-29-2009 05:00 PM
15. 09-01-2009 05:23 PM

There is a rule of Logic attributed to Oliver Cromwell aptly known as Cromwell’s Rule:

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.

Now, I am back to work, and my time-constrained Entmoot posts must needs be henceforth confined to the study of Middle-earth and its environs. Carry on.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by inked

Alcuin, thanks for the reference to the article. It relates a number of inconvenient truths. Data is such a nasty concept. Why should it interfere?

You read "stagnant temperatures", I read "climate change"

The mention how of global temperatures have reached a plateau phase must lead many a global warming denier to draw some hasty conclusions.
In the article one can also read that:

"The differences among individual regions of the world are considerable. In the Arctic, for example, temperatures rose by almost three degrees Celsius, which led to a dramatic melting of sea ice. At the same time, temperatures declined in large areas of North America, the western Pacific and the Arabian Peninsula. Europe, including Germany, remains slightly in positive warming territory."

Global stagnant temperatures or not, this still pretty much sounds like climate change to me

[inked]

Apparently, these guys are using the same photo and the SAME OLD ERRONEOUS DATA:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/..._09_post_kyoto

They think warming's worse since 1997! Amazing how they ignore the real actual scientific data about it NOT.

Slow news day or internationalist conspiracy? You decide.


And have you heard the ones about the data that don't match and the English?

[Count Comfect]

Did you read the article, inked? It isn't just talking about it getting warmer, it's about the effects of climate change getting worse. Like the sea level rising an inch and a half in twelve years.

[inked]

CC, the question is not whether ocean levels change. We have excellent evidence that occurs in the geologic and paleontological record. The question is whether or not global warming is the culprit as an anthropogenic effect solely and somehow (oh, the hubris!) manageable by the imposition of alleged controls.

The following are points to ponder........

1. NASA’s real opinion of Dr. James Hansen
2. Somebody hacked into the global warming e-mail server…
3. …more on the same…
4. …yet more on the same…
5. …and another…
6. …and yet another!

When one obscures data and seeks ideologically to control the data flow in allegedly objective journals of peers, "Houston, we have a problem."

This will be most easily solved in the case of sea level rises by moving the affected cities out of reach of the oncoming elevations. Just as the villages now under the ocean had to relocate to current levels. And the ice bridge/land bridge effects of the last ice age were NOT due to human intervention but natural cycling. How much is anthropogenic? Can we alter the natural processes of climate change that are demonstrably cyclical without human effects?

[The Gaffer]

No, here are the points to ponder

The starting position of almost all climate change deniers is "it can't be true it snowed in x yesterday" or "it can't be true, that guy over there who is a proponent of climate change said something incorrect in this email that was hacked and taken out of context so the whole thing is a house of cards".

Further you see the denialists posting claims like "there is a large and growing body of evidence showing climate change is wrong" (or "data, data, data" for that matter) but can they post a single scientific study to support their claim?

No, they can't. Can you Alcuin? Can you post a link to something that is actual science? By the way, that's what's called reasoned debate.

For some reason, denialists expect to be given equal weight in a scientific debate, when they have NO SCIENCE TO BACK THEM UP. That's where the problem is.

Of course, there is no scientific debate, because the science is decided, until and unless new evidence arises. It is long past time to move on from debate to action. Which is, of course, what the deniers are worried about. The debate is now political, and they are getting increasingly desperate. Expect more underhand stunts and spin from now on.

[inked]

Okedokeee, Gaff,

Be sure and tell Al G next time he's on a big venue to get his facts right. It is kinda hard to take seriously claims that the earth's core has the same temperature as the sun. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4p...layer_embedded

Here's some science: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...07510701529653

But really, why should we be concerned when the Big Guys Who All Say There IS An Emergency, but whose data fail to demonstrate It?

Could it be that their computer models are wrong? Is there a chance they have a paradigm error?

Or should we not question but only believe?

[inked]

Gee, my links did not work, Gaffer! And you did not tell me? Could it be you did not try to read 'em?

Here are the links:
[*]NASA’s real opinion of Dr. James Hansen
[*]Somebody hacked into the global warming e-mail server…
[*]…more on the same…
[*]…yet more on the same…
[*]…and another…
[*]…and yet another!

I do apologize for my error in posting the links. I appreciate the message notifying me of the failure of the links! All help is appreciated greatly. We will not reveal names in case the Climate Police come on line and (*arrrgh*).......................................: eek:

[Count Comfect]

inked,

You keep saying we know nature has cycles. This is true. But we know based on the same science that tells us right now that things are going much faster than they typically did in those cycles - as in, an inch and a half of sealevel rise in a decade. Besides which, you never seem to confront the idea that, even if a lot of this is a natural cycle, we still know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and one we are releasing into the atmosphere at rates unknown in the past (because we're using up millions-to-billions of years of stored carbon in the form of fossil fuels, carbon that was sequestered naturally out of the environment and is now being pumped right back into the air directly). So even if there's a natural cycle going on, it's almost impossible to believe that we're not making things worse - and maybe we should stop doing that.

As to the links you posted, NASA, like most scientific research organizations, is administrated precisely by those people who did not hack it as researchers, or who have aged out of the field (this is why a lot of scientific organizations have rather poor administration, by the way, since they aren't professional administrators in the way they should be). Thus I would be disinclined to accept the opinion of Hansen's (former) supervisor; in addition, he may well be right that Hansen was premature in 1988, but that doesn't mean the past 21 additional years of data don't show Hansen may have been (lucky to be) right.

As for your other links, on the East Anglia controversy, I recommend this link quite highly.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...-bytes-of.html

[Alcuin]

As I was writing my last post – the post I wanted to be my last in this thread – the global warming scandal broke. I want out of this thread, but I am galled by what the folks at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia have done.

This is from an e-mail from Dr. Phil Jones at CRU:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

I’ve seen a lot of commentators say, “Oh, that’s just lab lingo.�

Well, you don’t need a PhD to see what “Mike’s Nature trick� did to the data (Click on the image for a link to the chart source and much more information):

Lord Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer 1983-89. Here’s his reaction:

The scientific basis for global warming projections is now under scrutiny as never before. The principal source of these projections is produced by a small group of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), affiliated to the University of East Anglia. ... Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that

1. the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend;
2. they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data;
3. the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and
4. they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.

I don’t know what compelled these researchers to initially alter their data, but once they did, they either had to give up their careers, or work together to slander and silence the people who opposed them.

The rest of you can make your own decisions, but I cannot bring myself to trust a group of people who have now been caught

1. manipulating data,
2. refusing to share raw data,
3. perverting the peer review process, and
4. destroying evidence to hide their actions.

For those of you who are not involved in one side or another of this thread, watch what happens to the exposed, compromised climate researchers over the next year or two. This is what makes Tolkien such a great writer: he is a conduit by which we can see our own world in a way that makes sense. Do you remember when Gandalf, Théoden, and their companions left Orthanc after confronting Saruman? Merry asked Gandalf if things were “likely to end any other way?�

“Not likely,� answered Gandalf, “…Saruman … cannot be both tyrant and counselor. When the plot is ripe it remains no longer secret. Yet he fell into the trap, and tried to deal with his victims piece-meal, while others listened. Then I gave him a last choice and a fair one: to renounce both Mordor and his private schemes… Great service he could have rendered. But he has chosen to withhold it… He will not serve, only command. He lives now in terror of the shadow of Mordor, and yet he still dreams of riding the storm. Unhappy fool! He will be devoured…�

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

The rest of you can make your own decisions, but I cannot bring myself to trust a group of people who have now been caught

1. manipulating data,
2. refusing to share raw data,
3. perverting the peer review process, and
4. destroying evidence to hide their actions.

But instead you'll readily believe a group of hackers that make far-going accusations based on interpretations of a single email that was not only maliciously obtained but very likely taken completely out of context.

And if we're making comparisons with Tolkien, I doubt the great man would approve of such a breach in the privacy of letters. He had standards after all.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by inked

Gee, my links did not work, Gaffer! And you did not tell me? Could it be you did not try to read 'em?

Here are the links:
[*]NASA’s real opinion of Dr. James Hansen
[*]Somebody hacked into the global warming e-mail server…
[*]…more on the same…
[*]…yet more on the same…
[*]…and another…
[*]…and yet another!

I do apologize for my error in posting the links. I appreciate the message notifying me of the failure of the links! All help is appreciated greatly. We will not reveal names in case the Climate Police come on line and (*arrrgh*).......................................: eek:

That is not science. Those are opinion pieces.

A cropped chart from a blog? Not science. Nigel Lawson? Not a scientist.

See? You can't find any because there isn't any. Your only argument is the assertion that the entire scientific community is engaged in a worldwide conspiracy.

Codswallop.

[Alcuin]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

That is not science. Those are opinion pieces.

A cropped chart from a blog? Not science. Nigel Lawson? Not a scientist.

See? You can't find any because there isn't any. Your only argument is the assertion that the entire scientific community is engaged in a worldwide conspiracy.

Codswallop.

Gee, Gaffer, you did not bother to click through the first link:

...James Hansen’s former supervisor, retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Programme at NASA who was responsible for all weather and climate research in the agency from 1982 to 1994...:

‘I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made... Hansen ... embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress…

...‘My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit... Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy...

But then, we cannot suppose that “retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Programme at NASA who was responsible for all weather and climate research in the agency from 1982 to 1994” is a real scientist either, can we? Nor can we attribute his comments to anything other than “opinion”, hm? Amazing.

Suppose we examine this:

If there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Opinion. Nothing but opinion. Don’t look anyone! No science here!

Just read through the e-mails at the links inked has provided:

• Somebody hacked into the global warming e-mail server…
• …more on the same…
• …yet more on the same…
• …and another…
• …and yet another!

Listen to comments of retired climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, who was smeared and derogated by the folks at the CRU. But then I don’t suppose he’s a “legitimate” scientist either. Right?

We cannot suppose Dr. Ian Plimer, PhD, counts as scientist, either, does he?

But it’s their behavior that’s the giveaway! Any parent who’s caught a child red-handed and red-faced can read their actions. Again, I say to everyone in the ’Moot, be very suspicious of anyone who:

1. demands unreasoning acquiescence;
2. vilifies its opponents rather than debates their positions;
3. tries by every means to silence its opposition;
4. the principal proponents are the recipients of vast sums of government largess dependent upon public acceptance of their idea; and
5. the principal proponents are altering laws and creating regulations to enrich themselves.

By the way, that “cropped chart from a blog? Not science.” The blogger is “an Associate Professor of Engineering in Michigan.” Not science, engineering. Nah, he can’t know what he’s talkin’ about.

We cannot suppose that any of these people know what they’re talking about. Of course not! We should not trust Dr. Jim Hansen’s old boss, who says Hansen’s global warming science is defective; or the man who spent his entire professional career studying sea level changes and is recognized as the foremost authority in his field, who says the global warming science is defective; or a retired climatologist who has been smeared by this merry mess of meta-meteorologists; or a professional geologist whose career success depended in part upon his accurate analysis of the geological history of global warming and cooling in the last hundred million years of earth’s history; or even an engineering professor who’s taken the time to go through the e-mails and computer codes of the Climate Research Unit and find them … deficient. Oh, no. We should trust a bunch of people now caught red-handed

• manipulating data,
• conspiring to slander and libel their opponents, trying to get them fired, and
• destroying evidence.

Yep! Those sure are the folks I wanna trust!

Look, let’s put this in terms of Entmoot the Tolkien Trail board. If I made up a quote to win a debate on Entmoot, and cited some private correspondence by Tolkien that no one else had heard of, conspired with one group of ’Mooters to smear the other side, and then tried to destroy the evidence, would you trust me? I can tell you right now, if you did that to me, I wouldn’t trust you ever again, either on a Tolkien board or anyplace else. That’s bad behavior! And you don’t have to be an amateur Tolkien buff – or a climatologist – to make that determination.

If you’ve made it this far into the post – and yes, I know I write TLDR posts – just think for yourself. If you’ve believed in man-made global warming, and you are convinced that’s the truth, well, ok. But I think you should pay attention to

• the behavior of the researchers,
• the behavior of their supporters, and
• what the other side has to say.

No one is going to know that you’re questioning what you’re “supposed” to believe. Dare to question it! It is hard to turn your back on the world and face the truth: but the truth will truly set you free. Don’t just rely on experts. Use your head! Think: look at both sides: reason it out. The old saying is, Cui bono? “Who benefits?” Who makes money on this? And even if you don’t have a PhD, or studied climatology, or read Science or Nature, or gone to college, or even graduated from high school, you can figure out enough of this to make a reasonable decision about what’s going on.

But lest I close this post without a piece of pure opinion, have a look at this.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Alcuin

But then, we cannot suppose that “retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Programme at NASA who was responsible for all weather and climate research in the agency from 1982 to 1994” is a real scientist either, can we? Nor can we attribute his comments to anything other than “opinion”, hm? Amazing.

I was under the impression he was more an administrator than an actual scientist, but I reckon that's beside the point. I do believe the claim of him being Hansen's boss at the time has been challenged. I've never heard of the guy, which is also besides the point, but after a short search I seem to find very little information on him aside from this interview.

Also, while NASA is always a great name to bandy around, has this guy actual been involved in science in the last 15 years? He retired from his position in NASA is the nineties but science has advanced quite a bit since then, not in the least in computer modelling.

Now, I reckon that posted quote is mostly mined from an entire interview, but I can't shake the impression he's generalising too much, which most scientists should know they shouldn't. For starters, he is very quick to dismiss all climate models because supposedly some scientists have tampered with theirs. That's not how science works either.

Suppose we examine this Opinion. Nothing but opinion. Don’t look anyone! No science here!

Well, I tend to keep my distance from opinion pieces in matters of complicated science too, so I'm not sure why that upsets you so much. Opinions may be interesting, but they are in the end opinions, if I am to learn anything, I prefer to get as close to facts as I can.

However, if I read a bit on Mörner, his point seems to be less that the sea won't rise at all, but that the sea will rise less then the IPPC projects. This may be a valid enough point, I suppose. I lack marine and coastal geology credentials (and time) to look in the pro and contra agruments. But remember this only touches on the projections of sea levels, though, not on global warming, or climate change as a whole. The INQUA, it seems, no longer supports his current views. And Mörner's certainly not without his own critics, and then I don't mean people who oh so cruelly vilify him, but also, you know, those that actually pose scientific questions regarding to Mörner's techniques and findings. I should see (if I have more time on my hands) if I can find whether his studies have been put before peer review and what was the result of that.

He is also retired, I note, (as most of the guys you mentioned are) and by the look of things his main speciality is paleogeology (which is awesome enough on its own). Seems like an interesting guy, but not without a few quirks, by the look of things! I was amused to learn he appears a supporter of dowsing, of all things. A most curious interest for a scientist lecturing the world community on water levels! I admit, I'm intrigued.

Listen to comments of retired climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, who was smeared and derogated by the folks at the CRU. But then I don’t suppose he’s a “legitimate” scientist either. Right? We cannot suppose Dr. Ian Plimer, PhD, counts as scientist, either, does he?

Do you believe everyone who has a title behind his name as an expert on a specific matter? Why, for one, do you believe that Ian Plimer or Tim Ball know things better than the IPCC? If we're going to be critical of some scientists, lets be critical of all. And then I don't mean just sarcastically. How many of the people you have mentioned have offered their own studies on climatological changes up for peer review? A lot less, I hazard the guess, then the scientists you repeatedly accuse of scientific dishonesty and evading peer review.

And even if you don’t have a PhD, or studied climatology, or read Science or Nature[/I], or gone to college, or even graduated from high school, you can figure out enough of this to make a reasonable decision about what’s going on.

Oh, I do wish it only was that easy! That would have been so awesome, and that I really mean. Unfortunately, in my experience, making a reasonable, educated decision on a matter such as this, is pretty tough without a solid basis in science yourself.

[The Gaffer]

Well said, Earniel. You are too kind.

Alcuin, I did follow those links, and none of them had any science in them. It was all spin.

Let's take one of your "science" credentials. Dr Ian Plimer PhD. (Does that mean he has two PhDs)?? He is a geologist, not a climate scientist. He is a member of a free market think tank. Oh, and he is a director of three mining companies.

You couldn't make it up, really you couldn't. If it wasn't so serious it would be funny.

That's your idea of science is it? Some bloke who is a scientist objects to a theory that's not in his discipline. This theory would, if believed, result in harm to his personal commercial interests. This bloke subsequently makes a very nice consultancy career out of campaigning against this theory.

[inked]

Now, here's some real science, ya'll:

128 YEARS of SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS ....
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegr...ernal_melting/


HOW THE DATA SHOULD BE PRESENTED ...
And, I love the way the photo shots are laid out in this lovely prospectus:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...searchers.html

But, really, we are overdue for an asteroid/comet impact! .......And the supervolcano under Yellowstone Park is waaaaaaaaaaay overdue........


Oh, golly gee whiz, Mr. Wilkins, I nearly forgot this lovely little rant which shall no doubt endear its journalistic author vitriol and such:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...-lost-the-war/

Please, step into your refrigerator before blowing a gasket and contributing to global warming in outrage.