Archive for December, 2011

Doubtful Newsblog:- Paranormal, pseudoscience and anomalous news: Can you really believe this stuff?,

December 28, 2011

Before I talk about this crazy religious zealot there is an interesting observation I must acknowledge. For almost two years now, I have regularly checked the WordPress Tag Surfer, and recently I have noted a marked drop off in the number blogs advocating AGW. In fact the average seems to be about one new blog every two days instead of dozens a day.  Perhaps the combination of Lambrosie’s book and the latest email leaks coupled with Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto agreement is at last hitting home at these gullible alarmists and is sending them away to occupy Wall St or something..

Anyway on to our friend at the Doubtful Newsblog:

I had the following conversation with          idoubtit              at

The blog is headed

“Fox news biased on climate change. Shocker! “

She seems concerned that “Fox deliberately promoted a doubtful view of climate change”

Well I say thank goodness on Fox for taking a pessimistic approach.

The truth is that if there was firm evidence of AGW, Fox would have had some difficulty maintaining that approach.

She finishes off one of her replies to a previous commenter by saying :-

” Yet science is what gets us ever closer to the answers. Not denialism or spin. That prolongs the inevitable facing of facts.”

a sentiment of which I cannot but totally agree.

So I took her up on that, and pointed out some real science for her.

” Yet science is what gets us ever closer to the answers. Not denialism or spin. That prolongs the inevitable facing of facts.”

Denialism is just a label thrust upon people who unlike the name callers can intelligently penetrate the hype around the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” debate and are horrified by the lack of science being bandied around.

You are no doubt aware that there is NO proof for the assertion that Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming.

If you had the privilige of studying statistics at any time during your life time, you would understand that correlations are never proof, only a necessary condition for proof and without any substantiating factors emerging over the many years of research, any idea of a proof upon which we should radically change our civilisation over is very meager indeed. In fact there are plenty of disproving factors which have not gone away. (I welcome you to read my blog and it’s links if you are interested in some of these.)

Thus if it cannot be shown that the climate change is anthropogenic, we should simply sit back and enjoy/adapt/endure whatever mother nature throws at us. Seeing as how we do not appear to have reached previous temperatures which have been calculated from historical events yet (and which also appear in proxy records), there seems to be very little to be concerned about.

As for CO2 being toxic, I finish by giving you a few facts about that subject, in case you haven’t explored that aspect yet.

<b>A scientist untainted by the AGW lobby would say that a concentration of about 1,000ppmv would be beneficial to life on earth, this being the concentration that Glass House growers prefer,*cWuzeO4qmDVbgA_/Greenhouses.CarbonDioxideInGreenhouses.pdf

Our exhaled breath is about 4500ppmv

Up to 5000ppmv is acceptable for work places (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.).

Up to 3000ppmv for residences (Canadian exposure guideline for residential buildings)

Medical oxygen has between 10,000 ppmv and 20,000 ppmv in it.

Currently our atmosphere has about 390 ppmv of CO2 in it.

Furthermore, some scientists credit the extra CO2 in our atmosphere as the reason for our increased food production.</b>

Oh and CO2 does become toxic at about 50,000 ppmv

Why and how have we got so far from actual scientific reason?

Well we all owe it to ourselves to read this recently book which is, as you will read, somewhat critical of the IPCC, but it is well researched and documented and all facts are easy to verify.

“The Delinquent Teenager who was mistaken for the world’s top climate expert”

I would like to give you a link for the entire pdf but the author does deserve her USD$4.99.

I thoroughly recommend you download for yourself.



She replied with this “well referenced” group of assertions. 


You are completely incorrect. To deny anthropogenic global warming is to be illogical and absurd. But, I’m not really going to argue this with you, it wouldn’t be a good use of time.


One can tell that she is used to looking at things scientifically  NOT!

So I continue:-

Thank you for publishing my comment and your reply.

You don’t have to argue with me, but instead of avoiding discussion, how about you simply display the logic behind your beliefs.

If you have a logical scientific proof, presumably you have at least one of the following that you could share with me.

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

2. Statistical proof of Anthropogenic CO2? As you must know, correlations are never proof.

3. Evidence for the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis to be adopted over the null hypothesis? In this case a reasonable null hypothesis is that climate change occurs anyway and therefore one must prove that the current is a special case.

Although I am sure you must understand what I am talking about, here is a website that will help.

So I take it you can point me to at least one academic peer reviewed paper that clearly shows proof of AGW using one of the above methods?

If not, then you should definitely down load the book I mention

I am not wedded to my current beliefs, as facts come to hand I always take them into account.




She cops out again!


We can’t independently evaluate every single conclusion about the world. I rely on the demonstration that science is the methodology and ethos that consistently gets us the most reliable answer. I’ll stick with the best bet. If it’s wrong, then it will eventually be overturned. So be it.

As I’ve said, my philosophy is that there are OTHER valuable reasons to cut emissions, move to sustainable, renewable energy sources and conserve. There are too many papers to point to just one. And there are converging lines of evidence to show that the earth’s climate is changing – temperature recordings, tree ring data, ice cores, migration patterns, weather patterns, etc.- that confirm warming to such a degree that it is absurd to believe otherwise.


So well referenced” yet again. One has to admit it is difficult to find any scientific reasoning in her thinking ”

So I gave her another comment but she refused to publish this one. One can only come to the conclusion that here is yet another unreasonable person who has no scientific or reasonable justification in believing in AGW- just another religious zealot.

“I rely on the demonstration that science is the methodology and ethos that consistently gets us the most reliable answer. I’ll stick with the best bet.”

Agreed, absolutely! But science is not what we are being fed.

And you obviously did not understand my careful descriptions on what constitutes a scientific proof and evidence which I outlined in my previous comment.

You are being fed some correlations, possibly contrived, but these papers are meaningless anyway unless there is clear scientific evidence that specifically shows that these correlations are caused by anthropogenic CO2.

Most of the proxies you mention such as ice cores and tree ring data agree that we have not yet reached the temperature of the holocene maximum, (There are links to scientific papers on my blog that show this BTW), and therefore because of this and many other warmings and coolings, it appears that climate change is the norm not the exception.

Moves to sustainable energy sources because of the limitations of the current fossil fuel supply is an entirely different subject, has no bearing on the current AGW scare and the two subjects should be discussed independently.


If you want to get an idea of the quality of “science” that we are being fed, for heavens sake check out the book of which I have already given you the link.




I tried to coax her into giving a reasoned answer but it appeared to be beyond her, the above comment was never published:-


“We can’t independently evaluate every single conclusion about the world.”

Yes but it may help if you keep an open mind.

Any particular reason why you are not publishing my previous comment?



%d bloggers like this: