Comments on: Climate skeptic: We are winning the science battle

By: HBC

HBC — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 02:22:47 +0000

If by “winning the war” you mean deliberate muddying the Pollution issue with the hocuspocus of climate change until Nothing Worth Doing Gets Done – please note that “worth doing” does NOT include rewarding pollution bandits with Cap & Trade allowances – then this war is one you ought to be thoroughly ashamed of even trying to win.

Eventually, as all the BS falls away, you will find the whole world against you. Then go ahead and try conniving your way out of that war, why don’t you?

By: CWilson

CWilson — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:36:55 +0000

Instead of marginlizing the information and the source (which I can understand the motivation as the writer is obviously backed by industry) – rely on common sense. The climate is changing and will get more extreme. We should be demanding our leaders to outline plans to remove people from dangerous coastal issues(reducing our overall costs), reduce population growth (incentives, required birthcontrol, etc), safeguard agriculturals areas and aquaculture. We have too many people, not enough resources and seem to focus scientific data to support agendas rather than survival.

By: 1desofMarch

1desofMarch — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:03:21 +0000

TomFP
I would be very glad if AGW sceptics did take your advice, as a significant part of global warming seems to be due to both sides of the debate’s blood boiling. I too am an adherent to Occams Razor, but if AGW were proved to be true the science underlying the simplest explanation would probably still be beyond the comprehension of the average person, hence Occam can’t help them. I would love AGW to be wrong, along with the majority of the population, who tend to believe what they want to believe, given the smallest opportunity.

By: TomFP

TomFP — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:19:27 +0000

1desofMarch
What you say is a reminder to sceptics of the dangers of trading counter-theory with warmists. The true sceptical position is that there is nothing in any of the readily available evidence to suggest that there is a climate phenomenon to worry about, that therefore there is nothing to theorise about, and that it is up the warmist to present convincing arguments, from first principles if necessary, for his theory. To the true sceptic there simply is, in principle, no phenomenon to explain, still less “respond” to.

In obedience to Occam, the simplest explanation for the continued existence of the biosphere after several billion years of the Earth’s existence is that the globe does NOT harbour a mechanism for runaway warming. It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that this is not disproof of AGW, but when dealing with warmists it seems you have to.

In reality you can’t start the argument afresh. The CRU emails really made sure of that, because notwithstanding the pathetic protestations of the Climate Science diehards, ordinary people are entitled to assume that when people systematically and conspiratorially evade scrutiny of their work, the simplest explanation (Occam again) is that that work would not survive that scrutiny. “Falsus in unum, falsus in omnes”

Sceptics of CO2/AGW, unless they have relevant scientific expertise, would be best to confine their efforts to scrutinising and, where they can, refuting the hypotheses of the warmists. That is all they need to do, and keep doing.

By: TAJW

TAJW — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:57:52 +0000

It’s interesting to see the comments by the Global Warming Enthusiasts (yes, enthusiasts…it’s all a game to them). By continuing to shout down the opposing views, make outrageous claims (i.e. the ice is melting, the seas are rising, we’ll all die!)…continuing to claim the …ahem…’SCIENCE’ is settled. Clearly the data they are basing their views on has been exposed as garbage (their own developer said exactly that), there has been manipulation of data via loaded algothrithms as normal practice, extensive hiding and deleting data that didn’t agree with the already set solution, and some incredible lack of skill has been displayed in scientific analyzing of data by scientists who should be among the most skilled of all in a field that demands it.

These enthusiasts continue to shout down others, obfuscate the truth, make outrageous claims, and ignore detractors, except to demonize them. These are all pages out the book on socialism, and acts right out of the sixties to make your ’cause’ right. Now is the time, people, let them know we are tired of these attempts at manipulation….let’s get some sanity back and shut down the key individuals perpetrating this huge fraud on the world…these so-called scientists, Al Gore, the Hollywood elite, the IPCC…let’s let them all know we’re tired of their tirades.

By: eddieblack

eddieblack — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:12:56 +0000

How come Dr. Singer’s profile page annexed to this page is blank?

By: 1desofMarch

1desofMarch — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:53:37 +0000

As a scientist (PhD) and engineer (MIMechE) I have seen enough data manipulation to have a healthy scepticism for both sides of the argument. But the degree of certainty implicit in probably the majority of AGW sceptics positions cannot possibly be justified on any scientific basis and has many similarities with paranoia. It certainly would not be accepted within any professional association. I’ve yet to develop a strong opinion on AGW, but have a hunch that many sceptics are using something less than a common law standard of evidence.

By: JohnQPublic

JohnQPublic — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:42:30 +0000

Last year, on official figures, buying and selling the right to emit CO2 was worth $126 billion across the world. This market, now enriching many of our leading financial institutions (not to mention Al Gore), is growing so fast that within a few years it is predicted to be worth trillions, making carbon the most valuable traded commodity in the world. Forget Big Oil: the new world power is Big Carbon.Truly it has been a miracle of our time that they have managed to transform carbon dioxide, a gas upon which all life on earth depends, into a “pollutant”, worth more than diamonds, let alone oil. And many of those now gathered in Copenhagen are making a great deal of money out of it.

Christopher Booker – Telegraph Newspaper, UK

And guess who is paying for this all? You got it. John Q. Taxpayer and Sally W. Consumer.

Anybody remember the Boston Tea Party?

By: WarmingHoax

WarmingHoax — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:57:40 +0000

Oh, so only corrupted scientists are qualified to manipulate, hide and destroy data and shunned other honest scientists from revealing the truth?

Hide the decline has been exposed many times.

By: eddieblack

eddieblack — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:29:31 +0000

Dr, Singer is a physicist and electrical engineer. His doctorate of science is honorary from Ohio State University. He has pioneered the field of electronic data collecting devices and satellite deployment for atmospheric studies. He is an expert at developing such tools to collect data. His work for NOAA and NASA has landed him some a professor emeritus position with the University of Virginia. He has no formal training in oceanography or climate science even though he teaches it. He is not well qualified to analyze the data he collects in regards to climate change.