Comments on: The Incurious Case of the Carbon Alarmists http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-incurious-case-of-the-carbon-alarmists/ Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:57:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Greg Gatch http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-incurious-case-of-the-carbon-alarmists/#comment-266742 Greg Gatch Tue, 26 May 2009 12:04:23 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=49032#comment-266742 You should look into other blogging platforms, wordpress is getting slower and slower these days, I really like the site tho so its worth the wait!! You should look into other blogging platforms, wordpress is getting slower and slower these days, I really like the site tho so its worth the wait!!

]]> By: Marc Malone http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-incurious-case-of-the-carbon-alarmists/#comment-218889 Marc Malone Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:29:48 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=49032#comment-218889 Some of the posts and links here were far better than the article, which I found to be kind of muddled. The best by far was #61 gjbuilder. His last link leads to an alternate theory that seems strongly supported by actual solid data and correlation. It's the first thing I've seen that offers more answers than questions. It is only a bit technical and reasonably comprehensible. My response to it was, "Dang, that makes a lot more sense!" Some of the posts and links here were far better than the article, which I found to be kind of muddled.

The best by far was #61 gjbuilder. His last link leads to an alternate theory that seems strongly supported by actual solid data and correlation. It’s the first thing I’ve seen that offers more answers than questions. It is only a bit technical and reasonably comprehensible. My response to it was, “Dang, that makes a lot more sense!”

]]> By: Squirmn http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-incurious-case-of-the-carbon-alarmists/#comment-218868 Squirmn Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:14:17 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=49032#comment-218868 @ David S. "Nobody will deny that humans are releasing large amounts of CO2 and other pollution into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels." Large is a relative term. I may be "large' compared to you, your house may be "larger" than mine. Is the CO2 and other pollutants released by fossil fuels a "large" proportion compared to the atmosphere? The answer is no, and you should know that. I am not defending pollution by any means, but lets be realistic. "Nobody (with any sense) will deny that the earth is currently warming, as the data is quite clear." I do not have to deny that the earth is currently warming, I have seen no irrefutable proof that it is warming. Linky this oh so clear data please. "Nobody has offered an alternative theory to AGW that would explain the current trends in temperature." There does not need to be an alternative theory, as AGW is not a theory by any stretch. Again, I do not need to disprove something that has not been proven to any degree, let alone becoming a hypothesis or theory. "It is fine to be skeptical, nobody has a problem with questioning the data, but denying the current state of affairs is promoting ignorance. Burning fossil fuels is harmful to the environment, and using government policy to restrain and redirect industry to less harmful sources of energy is a proper application of law. Environmental pollution is an externalized, socialized cost of industry that should be accounted for, and a carbon tax is a good start." There is nothing to deny yet, other than pollution and I have already addressed that. "If you are going to deny that there is a negative impact from CO2 emissions, or that the earth is not warming - cite some data. Asking questions that have already been addressed only exposes your ignorance." Again David, the citing of data is your responsibility until there is no question that the data is beyond doubt. This has not been done yet, and there is no majority consensus, so the verdict is still out. Just because it has been addressed does not make it convincing. If this line of logic makes me ignorant, then I will join the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Darwin as those that are skeptic until compelled by proven data to believe otherwise. I do not think that anyone on this board is ignorant, and using that liberal libel is beneath you, comparative to your other posts. Still waiting- Pete @ David S.

“Nobody will deny that humans are releasing large amounts of CO2 and other pollution into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.”

Large is a relative term. I may be “large’ compared to you, your house may be “larger” than mine. Is the CO2 and other pollutants released by fossil fuels a “large” proportion compared to the atmosphere? The answer is no, and you should know that. I am not defending pollution by any means, but lets be realistic.

“Nobody (with any sense) will deny that the earth is currently warming, as the data is quite clear.”

I do not have to deny that the earth is currently warming, I have seen no irrefutable proof that it is warming. Linky this oh so clear data please.

“Nobody has offered an alternative theory to AGW that would explain the current trends in temperature.”

There does not need to be an alternative theory, as AGW is not a theory by any stretch. Again, I do not need to disprove something that has not been proven to any degree, let alone becoming a hypothesis or theory.

“It is fine to be skeptical, nobody has a problem with questioning the data, but denying the current state of affairs is promoting ignorance.

Burning fossil fuels is harmful to the environment, and using government policy to restrain and redirect industry to less harmful sources of energy is a proper application of law. Environmental pollution is an externalized, socialized cost of industry that should be accounted for, and a carbon tax is a good start.”

There is nothing to deny yet, other than pollution and I have already addressed that.

“If you are going to deny that there is a negative impact from CO2 emissions, or that the earth is not warming – cite some data. Asking questions that have already been addressed only exposes your ignorance.”

Again David, the citing of data is your responsibility until there is no question that the data is beyond doubt. This has not been done yet, and there is no majority consensus, so the verdict is still out. Just because it has been addressed does not make it convincing. If this line of logic makes me ignorant, then I will join the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Darwin as those that are skeptic until compelled by proven data to believe otherwise. I do not think that anyone on this board is ignorant, and using that liberal libel is beneath you, comparative to your other posts.

Still waiting-

Pete

]]> By: David S http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-incurious-case-of-the-carbon-alarmists/#comment-218806 David S Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:50:53 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=49032#comment-218806 Nobody will deny that humans are releasing large amounts of CO2 and other pollution into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Nobody (with any sense) will deny that the earth is currently warming, as the data is quite clear. Nobody has offered an alternative theory to AGW that would explain the current trends in temperature. It is fine to be skeptical, nobody has a problem with questioning the data, but denying the current state of affairs is promoting ignorance. Burning fossil fuels is harmful to the environment, and using government policy to restrain and redirect industry to less harmful sources of energy is a proper application of law. Environmental pollution is an externalized, socialized cost of industry that should be accounted for, and a carbon tax is a good start. If you are going to deny that there is a negative impact from CO2 emissions, or that the earth is not warming - cite some data. Asking questions that have already been addressed only exposes your ignorance. Peace. DS Nobody will deny that humans are releasing large amounts of CO2 and other pollution into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

Nobody (with any sense) will deny that the earth is currently warming, as the data is quite clear.

Nobody has offered an alternative theory to AGW that would explain the current trends in temperature.

It is fine to be skeptical, nobody has a problem with questioning the data, but denying the current state of affairs is promoting ignorance.

Burning fossil fuels is harmful to the environment, and using government policy to restrain and redirect industry to less harmful sources of energy is a proper application of law. Environmental pollution is an externalized, socialized cost of industry that should be accounted for, and a carbon tax is a good start.

If you are going to deny that there is a negative impact from CO2 emissions, or that the earth is not warming – cite some data. Asking questions that have already been addressed only exposes your ignorance.

Peace.

DS

]]> By: Squirmn http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-incurious-case-of-the-carbon-alarmists/#comment-218787 Squirmn Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:19:14 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=49032#comment-218787 I think we might be forgetting the simple fact that Global Warming Alarmists have yet to prove that Global Warming exists. It is not enough to have estimates or models, AGW needs to be proven to actually have happened. Then we can argue as to what caused it and how to fix it. I have never, not one time, by any consensus, seen proof that it actually exists. Prove me wrong please. Do not point me to conjecture or singleton theorists. Point me to a vast majority that believes and has irrefutable evidence in hand. Then I will be happy to evaluate the facts and possibly reverse my position. I wait on bated breath for the proof. I think we might be forgetting the simple fact that Global Warming Alarmists have yet to prove that Global Warming exists. It is not enough to have estimates or models, AGW needs to be proven to actually have happened. Then we can argue as to what caused it and how to fix it. I have never, not one time, by any consensus, seen proof that it actually exists. Prove me wrong please. Do not point me to conjecture or singleton theorists. Point me to a vast majority that believes and has irrefutable evidence in hand. Then I will be happy to evaluate the facts and possibly reverse my position. I wait on bated breath for the proof.

]]> By: gjbuilder http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-incurious-case-of-the-carbon-alarmists/#comment-217984 gjbuilder Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:41:46 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=49032#comment-217984 Recent discoveries have shown the lack of a complete accounting of all climate forcing agents. NASA's THEMIS program has recorded the solar wind reacting with the earth's magnetic field, it disintegrating and a magnetic reconnection occurring, which shoots out a cloud of plasma in opposite directions. The cloud that hits the earth is large and delivers 10 to the 15th power joules of energy into the atmosphere. For your reading; http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/themis_power.html http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html Also, cosmic rays do affect cloud growth, such that when the sun is less active more clouds form, changing atmosphereic albedo.Consider; http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684 Dr. Roy Spencer has published a peer-reviewed study which he claims has been well recieved by the climate community of open minded scientists; http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/ The above referenced info is no more than two years old and was discovered by myself, an unemployed builder, researching a paper for college English. It does not require a phd to understand. Those that would confuse the debate with excess scientific verbiage are sticking to the old dictum, " If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." Recent discoveries have shown the lack of a complete accounting of all climate forcing agents.
NASA’s THEMIS program has recorded the solar wind reacting with the earth’s magnetic field, it disintegrating and a magnetic reconnection occurring, which shoots out a cloud of plasma in opposite directions. The cloud that hits the earth is large and delivers 10 to the 15th power joules of energy into the atmosphere. For your reading;
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/themis_power.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html

Also, cosmic rays do affect cloud growth, such that when the sun is less active more clouds form, changing atmosphereic albedo.Consider;
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684

Dr. Roy Spencer has published a peer-reviewed study which he claims has been well recieved by the climate community of open minded scientists;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

The above referenced info is no more than two years old and was discovered by myself, an unemployed builder, researching a paper for college English. It does not require a phd to understand. Those that would confuse the debate with excess scientific verbiage are sticking to the old dictum, ” If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”

]]> By: SiliconDoc http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-incurious-case-of-the-carbon-alarmists/#comment-217750 SiliconDoc Mon, 09 Mar 2009 05:52:41 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=49032#comment-217750 If you jammed an ice cold ice pick up their rear end, they would experience global co2 warming, and it would only further their purely scientific consensus. Yes, that makes as much sense as they do. It's just another notch in the long line of psychobabbling, psychotic libtards that are hellbent on destruction, and although they scream aloud their hatred for the KKK USA, and bow in worship at their Oliar the illegal alien foreigner fraudster's flappy ears and feet, they can't imagine that might just pull the destruction off (with a little help from their terrorist friends), so they blunder forward, lying, and stupefying eachother in an endless menagerie of arrogant, elitist wannabe stupidity. I do now understand why there was only one Galileo, or Einstein. Because there were a bunch of other brainless morons who couldn't tell their right shoelace from their left, but loved leaving the "Holiday Inn" of the day, then telling all they were qualified professionals. Instead, they were idiot liars, often not even knowing it, one must assume, unless other aspects of their character reveal they were merely bipedal slimebags, which admittedly is equally possible. It is just amazing. I watched, for me, the precursor of this all through school, the endless number of complete idiots outnumbering the few of us in all the advanced classes. Somehow though, they never spoke up at all, certainly not so loud and so often, and never maintained they were correct about something the sane easily saw through in mere seconds of observation. Nowadays, the same jackassed idiots wail and carp that so and so should take college course in logic, so they can tell what is and isn't the truth - that of course, after the same jackassed idiot claims in liberal psycho-blabber that all truths are in perpsective and under parse of each individual observer, so noone can really know any fact or truth. That of course must be the basis for them excusing their ten thousand repetitive lies, since if you take just the right amount of mind melting acid, what they claim might finally emerge as truth... Yeah, they're just useless trash, and criminally insane, and dangerous, and destructive, and yes, they are mind controlled, but not by MKUltra as they claim, unfortunately, but by eachother, the stupid idiots and criminal sell outs of the century in collusion. If you jammed an ice cold ice pick up their rear end, they would experience global co2 warming, and it would only further their purely scientific consensus.
Yes, that makes as much sense as they do.
It’s just another notch in the long line of psychobabbling, psychotic libtards that are hellbent on destruction, and although they scream aloud their hatred for the KKK USA, and bow in worship at their Oliar the illegal alien foreigner fraudster’s flappy ears and feet, they can’t imagine that might just pull the destruction off (with a little help from their terrorist friends), so they blunder forward, lying, and stupefying eachother in an endless menagerie of arrogant, elitist wannabe stupidity.
I do now understand why there was only one Galileo, or Einstein. Because there were a bunch of other brainless morons who couldn’t tell their right shoelace from their left, but loved leaving the “Holiday Inn” of the day, then telling all they were qualified professionals. Instead, they were idiot liars, often not even knowing it, one must assume, unless other aspects of their character reveal they were merely bipedal slimebags, which admittedly is equally possible.
It is just amazing. I watched, for me, the precursor of this all through school, the endless number of complete idiots outnumbering the few of us in all the advanced classes. Somehow though, they never spoke up at all, certainly not so loud and so often, and never maintained they were correct about something the sane easily saw through in mere seconds of observation.
Nowadays, the same jackassed idiots wail and carp that so and so should take college course in logic, so they can tell what is and isn’t the truth – that of course, after the same jackassed idiot claims in liberal psycho-blabber that all truths are in perpsective and under parse of each individual observer, so noone can really know any fact or truth.
That of course must be the basis for them excusing their ten thousand repetitive lies, since if you take just the right amount of mind melting acid, what they claim might finally emerge as truth…
Yeah, they’re just useless trash, and criminally insane, and dangerous, and destructive, and yes, they are mind controlled, but not by MKUltra as they claim, unfortunately, but by eachother, the stupid idiots and criminal sell outs of the century in collusion.

]]> By: Mike Blackadder http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-incurious-case-of-the-carbon-alarmists/#comment-217678 Mike Blackadder Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:29:49 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=49032#comment-217678 "If CO2’s effect is too small, then we can;t explain how we got out of the glaciation. Too large and we’d expect a runaway effect." Boris, like I said, when the uncertainty in the cloud effect is much larger than the expected CO2 effect one explanation could be that there was a greater contribution from clouds, and no CO2 effect at all. You can not discount that possibility from the ice core data alone (ie. CO2 x2 = 1 +/- 2 degrees). It's not from lack of trying, it's just that this type of analysis has too much uncertainty to get any determination of the effect of CO2. In the meantime it is reasonable to have doubts, and to question why these 'climate experts' do not admit the same. “If CO2’s effect is too small, then we can;t explain how we got out of the glaciation. Too large and we’d expect a runaway effect.”

Boris, like I said, when the uncertainty in the cloud effect is much larger than the expected CO2 effect one explanation could be that there was a greater contribution from clouds, and no CO2 effect at all. You can not discount that possibility from the ice core data alone (ie. CO2 x2 = 1 +/- 2 degrees).

It’s not from lack of trying, it’s just that this type of analysis has too much uncertainty to get any determination of the effect of CO2. In the meantime it is reasonable to have doubts, and to question why these ‘climate experts’ do not admit the same.

]]> By: Jim Baker http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-incurious-case-of-the-carbon-alarmists/#comment-217619 Jim Baker Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:01:26 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=49032#comment-217619 #8 freetoken, I am a geophysicist and I am sure that I know more than you do on this subject. But the author here is far more qualified than I am to refute this ridiculus theory. You don't have to have credentials as a scientist in order to think rationally and speak with authority. So, you attack David Steinberg for not being a card carrying physicist, and you attack PJM for allowing him to post an article because you say he is not competent to speak on the subject, but you don't bother to try to refute anything he says. By the way I am still waiting for the people, who have foisted this theory on the rest of us, to prove this theory. Environmental science is just politics, else why do they call it environtmental science. Chemists, geologists and biologists don't have to mention that they are scientists as well, do they? #8 freetoken,
I am a geophysicist and I am sure that I know more than you do on this subject. But the author here is far more qualified than I am to refute this ridiculus theory. You don’t have to have credentials as a scientist in order to think rationally and speak with authority. So, you attack David Steinberg for not being a card carrying physicist, and you attack PJM for allowing him to post an article because you say he is not competent to speak on the subject, but you don’t bother to try to refute anything he says.
By the way I am still waiting for the people, who have foisted this theory on the rest of us, to prove this theory. Environmental science is just politics, else why do they call it environtmental science. Chemists, geologists and biologists don’t have to mention that they are scientists as well, do they?

]]> By: Boris http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-incurious-case-of-the-carbon-alarmists/#comment-217605 Boris Sun, 08 Mar 2009 22:21:45 +0000 http://pajamasmedia.com/?p=49032#comment-217605 Blackadder, What we know about the other forcings can constrain the estimates of CO2's effect. If CO2's effect is too small, then we can;t explain how we got out of the glaciation. Too large and we'd expect a runaway effect. Blackadder,

What we know about the other forcings can constrain the estimates of CO2′s effect. If CO2′s effect is too small, then we can;t explain how we got out of the glaciation. Too large and we’d expect a runaway effect.

]]>