Community-powered support for:- 350.org

I found these comments about one of my comments on this site:-http://getsatisfaction.com/350org/topics/enemy_of_350_movement

The original comment was posted at http://blog.nurturenatureproject.com and Heather, obviously a little disturbed by such a difficult request has passed my comment on to Alex who appears to be an employee of “350.org” and maybe I have been classified as an Enemy of 350.org .

They are obviously uncomfortable with the question and discuss how to answer it.

Alex replies ” He’s also asking for direct causation, which scientifically is impossible. We can’t create a planet in a laboratory and isolate only one thing. ”

which is quite true, but if the facts were there, there are other ways to come to a proof.

To me, Alex’s reply istantemount to an admission that there is no proof of AGW something I can agree with whole heartedly. Then he goes on to say that “we just have to trust the majority consensus of scientists.”

What consensus is that?!

If any readers wish to explore this non  factual notion of consensus please look at the links  under “Petitions on Anthropogenic Global Warming” on my blog  http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

Enemy of 350 movement

I just posted the youtube video of Bill McKibben’s Power Shift 2011 speach on my blog. I immediately received the following comment. ]
——————————————-I will join you if you can find me an academic paper showing reasonable proof of the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis by at least one of the following methods.
at least one of the following.1 Empirical proof that shows the causation factor of CO2 with respect of Global Warming.2. Statistical proof of Anthropogenic CO2. In case you dont know it, correlations are never proof.

3. Evidence for the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis to be adopted over the null hypothesis?

(Now you may need a little reading to understand what these things are. Here is a site which describes what is needed for #3 which might help. http://www.experiment-resources.com/n…)

If you are unable, then this is suggest very strongly that we are all being conned and you are participating in it.

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpr…

ps this comment and your answer will be posted under your url at http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wor…
————————————————————-

I was wondering if you are aware of this person and have developped a rebuttal.

Sincerely,
Heather
hcferris@gmail.com
http://blog.nurturenatureproject.com

 
Alex Bea EMPLOYEE

 
0
The short answer is that some people have long ago decided that they can’t be convinced by anything, even decades of scientific evidence. Pulling your hair out to try almost always gets you nothing but the need for a wig.One option would be to point him to the Skeptical Science blog post on the connection between CO2 and climate change. He’s also asking for direct causation, which scientifically is impossible. We can’t create a planet in a laboratory and isolate only one thing. What we can do is look at decades of scientific literature on all aspects of the climate and see that well over 90% of climate scientists, the most experienced and knowledgeable on AGW, agree that we are causing global climate change.Skeptical Science is generally a great place to look for the evidence that refutes most climate denier statements. But, as I said, arguing with someone who is close minded enough to create a blog called “Global Warming (or is it Global Cooling?)” probably isn’t worth your time to get into an argument with.
 
rogerthesurf

 
0
On the contrary, I have a perfectly open mind. Only catch is that I deal in facts and reality. Just show me an academic paper using any one of the standard scientific criteria above and I am happy to change my opinion of AGW. I mean, Alex, after decades of research something definitive should have been established by now right? Now are any of YOU as broad minded as that?

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpr…

PS if you are interested in any academic papers (peer reviewed and published) that contradict the IPCC sources, I can help you there as well.
BTW, Skeptical Science simply rely on correlations and models with built in assumptions of AGW for their “proofs”

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Community-powered support for:- 350.org”

  1. rogerthesurf Says:

    Alex,

    Sure, find me a scientist who will know where I can find me an academic paper (peer reviewed and pubished), showing reasonable proof of the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis by at least one of the following methods.

    1 Empirical proof that shows the causation factor of CO2 with respect of Global Warming.

    2. Statistical proof of Anthropogenic CO2. In case you dont know it, correlations are never proof.

    3. Evidence for the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis to be adopted over the null hypothesis?

    Thats not too much to ask is it? Scientific proof, strong enough to stake the lives of ourselves, our children and our communities on?

    Cheers

    Roger

    PS. Politics is inextricably tied in with economics, and as I said, the IPCC spends some effort in talking about the cost of “mitigating” global warming, as in moving cities to higher ground etc. for which I gave the link above. If they can discuss that, why can they not see the very real need to discuss the cost of meeting their emission reduction demands?

    Some sad stories are emerging from some of the societies you mention.
    http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/hallewisresignationaps.pdf
    http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647&ei=6KhjS9PZMJvu2ALEj6CjCA&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle#
    You moan that skeptics are fueled by big oil and the like. Well I moan that the societies are fueled by national governments money distributed via the IPCC.
    I just wish that someone would fund me.

    Also, I see you have made no effort to answer my question above. If you are unable to find the answer, (especially as the answer is in the IPCC reports), are you sure you are qualified to defend the beliefs of 350.org?

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  2. Alex Says:

    A) I said it wasn’t economic, not that it wasn’t political, but regardless it’s a scientific body under the UN because this is a global problem.
    B) I’ll restate that the IPCC is joined with every other major scientific body (including those listed above) in confirming AGW.
    C) I’ll again refer you to a scientist for your scientific questions if you’re serious about getting a complete answer to them. There are plenty at Union of Concern Scientists among other places.

  3. Alex Says:

    The scientific bodies I refer to aren’t only the IPCC. I’m also talking about NASA, the NSF, NOAA, and every other major scientific body.

    To the point that the IPCC should have put a heavier emphasis on economics, it is a scientific body purposed with summarizing thousands of scientific studies. Consensus doesn’t mean 100% Economic analysis was not the purpose. The point is to state what the physics tell us. The job of creating a societal response equal to the challenge is the job for world, state, and local governments as well as individuals and business.

    The 97% quote is there in the abstract – “Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” It seems if your debate is with the science, you should have that debate with scientists, not independent citizen bloggers.

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      Alex
      I disagree with your assertion that the IPCC is not a political body. Being part of the UN can make it nothing else and considering it has by its very name, associations with all governments further strengthens that fact.
      Furthermore the above is supported by the fact that not only does the IPCC publish special reports for “policy makers” it also, for example, does not hesitate to advise governments on the costs of mitigation ( which is NOT the same as the cost of adopting the CO2 emission requirements) . e.g. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter12.pdf .
      These are political activities.
      It is therefore indeed a major omission that the very relevant and important facts about the cost of adopting the CO2 emission requirements are omitted.
      I believe this is a serious and deceptive omission because without any idea of the costs of compliance to the IPCC’s CO2 emission demands, ( most people appear to be of the opinion that all is needed is to change ones light bulbs and use the bicycle on fine days), there is very little pressure from the public on the requirement for scientific proof.
      The cost will be extremely/catclysmically high and therefore the standard of proof for the so far unproven “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” should be absolutely rock solid.

      “The 97% quote is there in the abstract”
      Not only does consensus have very little to do with facts, I took a look at the studies where your quote comes from.

      Doran and Zimmerman and Anderegg 2010

      Even I can see the flaws in the studies. These are not random samples but either self chosen as in an online survey, or the sample groups were chosen by the authors.
      There are problems with the questions although Anderegg 2010. does not appear to publish his questions.

      This commentator describes it better than I.
      http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed/
      http://climatequotes.com/2011/03/27/is-it-97-or-66-of-climate-scientists-who-believe-in-agw/

      In any case, the studies are basically seeking out the converted and the deeply commited. One does not have to be a climate scientist to know whether scientific method is being followed. Therefore all scientists need to be polled if any meaningful result is to be obtained from such a survey.
      I also checked out Anderegg’s supporting documents and links. It is obvious which way he wants his results to turn out. Hardly a neutral stance.
      And of course, the number of scientists upset enough to put their names to public documents is not consistant with the results, even the results claimed by the authors of the above studies.

      Anyway, Do you have an answer to my question yet?

      Also did you visit my blog at http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com and consider that we are not even in a remarkable situation with our current warming. (if it actually a warming at all)

      Cheers

      Roger

  4. rogerthesurf Says:

    Alex,

    Thanks for your reply.

    You bet I do not trust the scientific bodies that are putting the IPICC reports together!

    For a start the IPCC reports are couched in obcsure language and are obviously political documents evidenced by their directives to governments etc.

    I am a graduate in economics and I would have thought that among the most important activities the IPCC should be involved with, would be analysing the cost of meeting their proposed CO2 emission reductions.
    In fact I can find no such analysis. The economic report by Nicholas Stern does not make economic sense. A first year student could pick holes in it and its wide spread criticism is well deserved. Why would such a prominent person allow such a report to be published in his name if it was not for political purposes?
    From my economic training I can see a distinct likelihood that meeting the IPCC CO2 emission reductions in the time frame they specify, will break western economies. This means poverty and starvation for the likes of you and me and our families, unless we manage to join the elite few.

    Given the costs of meeting the IPCC CO2 emission demands are so horredous, it is not unreasonable that the proof that the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis should be well proven before we commit the above seppuku in order to save the world.

    I disagree absolutely with your assertion that AGW is impossible to prove should the hypothesis be valid.

    Of the three methods I have mentioned, IF AGW is actually real, at least the one discounting the Null Hypothesis should be achievable considering the resources being put into the research.

    So then we have at least two reasons why one should not trust the research and hype over AGW. 1. There should be proper public logical research as to the costs to the taxpayers of this world for reducing CO2 emissions and other IPCC demands. 2. There should be reasonable research for a definitive proof that CO2 is going to heat the world.

    Your link says nothing about this 97% so far as I could see, and anyway any scientist can see the poor scientific practices being used. There are many thousands who have commited their names to say just that. Check my blog.

    There are also many hundreds of peer reviewed, published scientific papers that contradict every assertion made by the IPCC researchers. Why have these been ignored?
    Here is a sample.

    An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
    – Richard S. Courtney

    An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)
    (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, November 2009)
    – Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider

    Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
    – David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

    A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
    (Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
    – Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

    – Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
    (Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
    – Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

    A null hypothesis for CO2 (PDF)
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 171-200, August 2010)
    – Roy Clark

    A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 225-236, August 2010)
    – William Kininmonth

    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
    (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
    – David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

    A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
    (Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7, Issue 4, December 2000)
    – Robert C. Balling Jr.

    A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
    (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
    – Craig Loehle

    An empirical evaluation of earth’s surface air temperature response to radiative forcing, including feedback, as applied to the CO2-climate problem
    (Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Numbers 1-2, pp. 1-19, March, 1984)
    – Sherwood B. Idso

    An upper limit to global surface air temperature
    (Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Number 2, pp. 141-144, June 1985)
    – Sherwood B. Idso

    Further more we see data being manipulated without transparency, we see attempts to change history in order to support AGW http://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/porky-no-3-ipcc-attempts-to-change-history/ and we can see who are likely to profit from all this.

    To top it all off we see emminent scientists pointing out holes in the process as well.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/07/dr-roy-spencer-open-to-possibility.html

    http://www.financialpost.com/news/Climate%20models%20cold/4579652/story.html

    http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/lindzen_testimony_11-17-2010.pdf

    http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1

    and in my own country, our government department responsible for administering our temperature data is facing legal action because they cannot justify their numbers.

    An analysis of the IPCC reporting, in spite of their tremendous resources, scores badly. http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/upenncross.pdf

    Simply put, I do not believe that destroying our economies on the strength of a few correlations is a reasonable thing to do, and to do this in an underhand way as it appears currently, it is simply criminal.

    Why dont you have a read of my blog and see how the facts documented there make it difficult to believe the IPCC.

    Finally a question for you to help you see how obscure the IPCC language can be.

    The IPCC has stated that when the Greenland ice cap melts completely, it will add as much a 7 meters to the sea levels.
    Can you tell me at what future date are we to expect to feel the full 7 meters.

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  5. Alex Says:

    I’ll provide the rest of that paragraph – “We can’t create a planet in a laboratory and isolate only one thing. What we can do is look at decades of scientific literature on all aspects of the climate and see that well over 90% of climate scientists, the most experienced and knowledgeable on AGW, agree that we are causing global climate change.”

    The difference between what you say is “an admission that there is no proof of AGW” is actually an explanation of how scientific conclusions are made when dealing with a system as complex as the global climate. Since we can’t isolate the earth in a laboratory, we look at hundreds and thousands of peer-reviewed scientific data examining every kind of climatic indicator.

    Those thousands of papers together, along with the 97% of climate scientists who have agreed with the tenets of anthropogenic climate change, establish the consensus. (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract?loc=interstitialskip)

    And for the record, I don’t consider you an enemy. Clearly you aren’t stupid, but for whatever reason you have chosen not to trust our nation’s scientific bodies–the same ones that develop cures for diseases, send humans safely into space, and make our water clean to drink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: