Or, at least one person hit back
Sound common sense – from a Minister for the Environment? Chance would be a fine thing. In our dreams. But no – this is for real. Sammy Wilson, Northern Ireland’s Environment Minister, has blocked a government “information” initiative on climate change, denouncing it as part of an “insidious propaganda campaign”. Inevitably, calls for his dismissal are already being made, as disciples of the global warming tabernacle squeal like stuck pigs.
Wilson dismissed the advertisements as “giving people the impression that by turning off the standby light on their TV they could save the world from melting glaciers and being submerged in 40ft of water”. This he described as “patent nonsense”. He duly wrote to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to tell officials that their campaign Act on CO2 “was not welcome” in his bailiwick of Northern Ireland. The most gratifying aspect of this ministerial intervention is that, for once, the climate loonies are themselves being censored instead of gagging everyone else.
I don’t think Wilson has anything to worry about. Despite all the years of scare-mongering and awareness garbage, such as Live Earth (remember the rare snow in South Africa?), the Believers do little, if anything to change their own behavior. They expect everyone else to change their behavior, particularly those evil Big Businesses, particularly the ones that allow them to have whine and cheese parties in support of Obambi and to go pick up the kids from soccer practice in the SUV.
And, oh
This has been a bad 24 hours for the climate-change liars, beginning with Christopher Booker’s exposure in The Sunday Telegraph of the fabrication of data to “prove” pretended warming in the Antarctic. As more and more scientists who have not been bought by the United Nations climate clique find the courage to voice dissent from the junk science peddled by the IPCC and a public plunged into economic depression loses patience with this multi-billion-pound scam, it looks as if the great global warming imposture is finally on the retreat.
Heh.
The death toll in Australia is now at 150 from the wildfires caused by a 10 year drought record 120 F temps and high winds. Deniers claim that this is only “weather” and not indicative of climate change. Teach are you also mocking the US military as they begin to make changes in their strategy for dealing with the effects of climate change ? Teach why do you hate the military ? http://www.adn.com/news/environment/warming/story/353550.html
Was the rare snow in South Africa climate change ?
Northern Ireland is not Ireland. Ireland is a free and sovereign country.
Teach,
Your argument again boils down to: “Hey, look at what this random person said about global warming! He’s against it, so it must be false.”
I am thoroughly convinced that if you would spend half the time you spend searching for more denialist propaganda, actually evaluating the scientific evidence on the issue, you would come to the realization that you have been misled. You would realize that the “hockey stick” was not wrong. You would realize that the evidence used to support claims of great warmth in the “medeival warm period” and great cold in the “little ice age” is largely anecdotal (freezing thames, vineyards in northern europe, etc.). You would see that the Sun and water vapor are not primary climate forcings. There is so much for you to learn, if only you would take off your ideological blinders and search for truth, rather than politically expedient answers. Sure the kool-aid tastes good, but maybe it’s not so good for you.
You know, I have to give it to you: you and other conservatives have it much harder than others when it comes to digesting information on climate change. Ideologically, you are pulled in one particular direction, because that is what is economically more pleasing for the free-market pro-business mindset. I understand that it is hard to swallow a nasty pill, but I ask you to please not let ideology govern your thoughts. Examine the arguments on their merits alone. Let the data lead you where it may, and THEN, if you want to apply your ideology to fixing the problem, then so be it. Just don’t let it lead you down a road of nonsensical logical fallacies.
Reasic said: You know, I have to give it to you: you and other conservatives have it much harder than others when it comes to digesting information on climate change. Ideologically, you are pulled in one particular direction, because that is what is economically more pleasing for the free-market pro-business mindset.
I have to disagree with you on this point, Reasic. There are many conservatives (myself included) who are persuaded by the evidence. And many prominent conservatives such as John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger support reasonable measures to reduce carbon emissions.
I would argue in Teach’s case it is not a matter of ideology but rather ignorance. This is why his arguments are not evidenced-based.
Ah, the old “ignorance” ploy. When I post scientific evidence, you don’t believe it. So, why bother, you have completely drunk the kool aid, but still refuse to live the life that reduces your carbon footprint. You just expect everyone else to do it.
Reasic starts his scientific inquiry from the position that “1. We know that CO2 concentrations have increased from human activity” so all that follows is Man’s fault. Yes, very scientific.
AGW is NOT a scientific debate: is is one of political, economic, and personal control. That is what the leaders and believers want. Money, status, and power. I do not concentrate on the deep scientific evidence showing that you folks are speaking out of your asses. If you want that, head to Watts Up With That?, IceCap, Junk Science, Climate Skeptic, and many more. Go speak to one of the many, many, many scientists how say you are full of shat. I concentrate more on the hysteria you Believers spew (and then I watch as you get in your SUV to go run around town to do your errands, leaving the lights on at home)
Teach said: When I post scientific evidence, you don’t believe it.
What evidence? You never post any peer-reviewed studies and when we ask you to provide your evidence you ignore it. So here’s your chance, Teach. Right now. What is your evidence that the Suns’s output has increased significantly enough to account for the recent warming trend?
The reason we don’t believe you is because your arguments are riddled with misconceptions, factual errors, and logical fallacies. You routinely make unsupported assertions and when we challenge you on them you simply revert to your, “AGW believers are hypocrites†mantra.
I do not concentrate on the deep scientific evidence showing that you folks are speaking out of your asses.
So you admit it, you’re not interested in the science. The problem is that everything follows from this “deep scientific evidence†that you can’t seem to be bothered with.
It is astounding, that people would prefer to think the worst, than to think that perhaps we are not responsible for the changes in the climate. Which have been occurring for milenniums.
I have read this week alone, many different scientists arguments against AGW, who can back their statements up with actual facts. (unlike Gore’s movie with falsified facts)
Hopefully these same people who insist on Global Warming fear, would be willing to at least hear some of the arguments against it (below), since we have no choice but to hear the Hype all of the time from the already bought into the scam propaganda media.
http://www.nmatv.com/video/642/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle
Silke,
Surely you can agree that the vast majority of “skepticism” comes from conservative circles. You, McCain, and others have proven that you have an ability to set ideology aside and objectively examine the evidence, for which I applaud you. However, I still believe that conservatives are at an ideological disadvantage in that they don’t want global warming to be caused by humans, because doing something about it is viewed as having a negative impact on the economy. There is a strong incentive for conservatives, therefore, to believe foolish nonsense because it means that they can still have their unfettered free market.
Or is it both: ignorance as a result of an ideological block?
Teach also feels that the military of the US who believe in global climate change are also dupes who have been drinking the cool aid.
Reasic said: Surely you can agree that the vast majority of “skepticism” comes from conservative circles.
I think you may be confusing correlation with causation. The fact that many prominent conservatives are persuaded by the evidence shows that this issue is not dependent on ideology.
I was going to say that I really don’t see the point in arguing this from an ideological perspective (no political philosophy has a monopoly on the truth). But then Teach made it very clear that he’s not interested in the scientific evidence. To him it is all about politics and economics. So in his case, at least, you may have a point.
I just didn’t want you to generalize all people the same way Teach does. He tends to categorize people (in some cases even demonize them) and then dismiss their argument without discussing the actual substance itself.
Teach,
So you post anything remotely scientific and we’re supposed to just blindly believe it without any ounce of skepticism? What if the “scientific evidence” you post is fundamentally flawed in some way, or is not, in fact, scientific?
The last time you claimed to have posted anything remotely scientific was more than a month ago:
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2009/01/06/agw-today-science-heres-your-science/
In this post, you provided a link to a denialist (DailyTech) post about sea ice levels. So, I analyzed the information you provided and provided a rebuttal of my own, which proved that the author of the original post cherry-picked data to make a point. The overall trend of sea ice levels is definitely downward, and last year was still well below the historical average. In response, you simply claimed that it was “unconvincing”, without any reasoning or evidence to back up this claim.
So, in this case, you provided denialist kool-aid, which you accepted without any objective analysis of your own, and I responded with actual scientific evidence. Then, YOU ignored my evidenced, by saying it was “unconvincing” without any explanation. By contrast, I considered your information and responded. Imagine if I had simply told you that I read the DailyTech article and found it to be “unconvincing”, without explaining myself.
So, you see, it is YOU who continues to ignore scientific evidence that is presented to you. You have even admitted in a recent comment that you “do not concentrate on the deep scientific evidence…”, preferring instead to gossip about people’s personal lives and point out radical statement and use them to generalize about the entire body of people who actually understand climate science. It seems that you are simply content with the fact that there are some scientists out there who disagree with AGW.
This, coming from a person who has absolutely no interest in learning about climate science. I think what you are confusing here is the difference between the overwhelming body of scientific evidence, which exists in published scientific literature, and the public statements of various political officials and activists. The science is settled, for the most part. Therefore, many activists have moved on to calls for action.
So, in a way, you are correct in that there is not a scientific debate going on. AGW is backed by scientific research. Conversely, the vast majority of “skeptical” arguments are founded on misinformation and confusion over the basics of atmospheric physics and other climate sciences. I’ve tried to get this across to you, but your unwillingness to engage in a scientific debate has hampered this endeavor.
This is just one more example of how deep you are in the kool-aid pitcher. You just can’t get enough of that stuff. You have to exercise some critical thinking when you see these lists of so many “experts” or “scientists” who disagree with AGW. The vast majority of them are not PhD’s. Those who are actual scientists of some kind, are not CLIMATE scientists (economists, engineers, etc.). Then, many of the few climate scientists on the list are far removed from the peer-review process, having either not published anything recently, or even at all. The fact is that only TWO of the many climate scientists who actively publish research are skeptics (Roy Spencer and John Christy). Also, only a handful of the published scientific research, out of over a thousand published papers, are skeptical in nature.
The fact is, it doesn’t matter how many scientists or engineers or economists or plumbers disagree with AGW. What matters is the validity of their respective arguments against it. I’ve seen just about every argument imaginable, and I have yet to find one that couldn’t be debunked with a sound scientific argument. The facts are not on your side, Teach, which is why most “skeptics” don’t reference scientific research in their arguments. They usually consist of red herrings, straw men, anecdotes, conjecture, etc.
The bottom line here is, if you’re going to pick a side, at least do so based on solid evidence. Be able to make a case for why you made your decision. If any time anyone brings up a rebuttal to your arguments, you simply turn and run away, it will become readily apparent that you haven’t thought things through, and are instead relying on the right wing propaganda machine for your global warming information. I know you don’t want to, but I think you should really try to approach this subject from a more scientific perspective. Gossip may be more fun, but it’s not proof of anything.
Trish,
First of all, I’m not just assuming the worst here. I have examined the evidence, and have made a decision based on that evidence. True, climate has always changed, but man was not always pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I like the analogy Silke uses: The fact that forest fires were at one time only caused by natural means, such as lighting strikes, does not negate the fact that many forest fires are now being caused by careless humans. Something like that, anyways.
The fact is that most possible natural causes have been eliminated. For example, the large changes, which brought us in and out of ice ages, were due to changes in the earth’s orbit and tilt. This cannot be causing current warming trends, because the changes going into an interglacial period are much slower, and also because we are already in an interglacial period.
Please give just one example of an argument that you think is particularly convincing. There are no “falsified facts” in Gore’s movie. If you disagree, please provide one example of that as well.
Right… the “scam propaganda media”. I am perfectly willing and open to any new arguments that anyone would like to share with me. I have watched the Swindle movie several times, and can tell you that it is filled with the typical misinformation that permeates the deniasphere. It has everything from manipulated graphs to misrepresentations of climate research, such as ice core data (co2 lag). I would hope that you would also be “willing to at least hear” some of the arguments against your denialist propaganda:
http://www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html
Let me know what you think.
Look, Silke, Reasic, there is nothing scientific that I could post that you will believe. You start from the POV that it is Man’s fault, then build your “evidence” after that.
You claim that it is CO2, yet, you ignore that the hockey stick model has been completely discredited, and that temperatures go up, THEN CO2, not the reverse.
Answer me this: if the evidence is so settle and perfect, then why did Gore’s movie have to feature lots of falsehoods, overkill, over dramatization, and flat out lies?
Teach,
Apparently, you haven’t been paying attention. No, my argument starts with scientific evidence and then arrives at the conclusion that man is mostly at fault.
No, this is yet another common denialist misconception. I’d be glad to discuss with you at length, if you like.
This IS what was shown to have happened during the warm up to the most recent interglacial period, from ice core samples. However, some deniers have twisted it to mean that co2 ALWAYS trails a rise in temperatures. This argument ignores the fact that we are already in an interglacial period. There was no comparable rise in temps 800 years ago that would explain this current rise in carbon dioxide. Also, co2 levels have risen to a point that is higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years.
It didn’t. Give me one example.
Teach said: there is nothing scientific that I could post that you will believe. You start from the POV that it is Man’s fault, then build your “evidence” after that.
If this were true I wouldn’t bother to ask you for the evidence that supports your position. A study (published in a peer-reviewed journal and supported by similar studies) that shows a significant change in the output of the Sun and which correlates to the current warming trend would be very convincing to me. So yes, I am willing to change my mind. Can you honestly say the same, Teach? What evidence would you find convincing?
You claim that it is CO2, yet, you ignore that the hockey stick model has been completely discredited, and that temperatures go up, THEN CO2, not the reverse.
Teach, this is a far too complicated an issue to be discussed in one comment or even several comments. It has to do with feedback mechanisms and amplifying effects of CO2 not to mention you are confusing different reasons for different warming periods. There’s an excellent discussion of it here if you really are interested in an answer:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/langswitch_lang/sw
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/
if the evidence is so settle and perfect, then why did Gore’s movie have to feature lots of falsehoods, overkill, over dramatization, and flat out lies?
Al Gore’s movie is irrelevant. The evidence for modern human influence on climate does not rest on a documentary. Peer-reviewed scientific literature is the only evidence that matters. Would you agree?
Another thought:
Maybe, just maybe, this could be because there is no valid scientific explanation for global warming being a result of natural causes. Have you considered that?
Regardless, even if I don’t agree with what you present, you can be sure that I will provide a detailed explanation, and that MY rebuttal will be scientific in nature. I will NOT simply dismiss it as “unconvincing”.
So, please, PLEASE, provide some evidence that you find particularly compelling.