A Few Things Ill Considered

A layman's take on the science of Global Warming featuring a guide on How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.

Sunday, February 19, 2006

send this to... Digg it! | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Reddit | Furl | Spurl

Global Warming is Just a Hoax

(Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic guide)

This article has moved to ScienceBlogs

It has also been updated and this page is still here only to preserve the original comment thread. Please visit A Few Things Ill Considered there. You may also like to view Painting With Water, Coby Beck's original fine art photography.

Labels:

45 Comments:

  • At March 08, 2006 9:19 AM, Anonymous Joel Shore said…

    You might want to add a few corporations like BP (the 7th largest corporation on the planet) and Shell to your list of "enviro-nazis" and "left-wing loonies" who believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and well supported by sound science. See BP and Shell. You could probably find similar stuff for Ford.

    Of course, the real diehards will just say that these companies are somehow part of the conspiracy, duped by the environmentalists, or intimidated by the all-powerful environmental movement. But, such people are incorrigible!

     
  • At March 09, 2006 8:23 AM, Blogger coby said…

    Good idea about the oil companies, I'll add it. Hard to argue bias for them, but yes, not much we can do about the real diehards, though just maybe we can stop the spread of this strange malady ;)

     
  • At March 15, 2006 8:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    How about adding the CEO’s of a dozen of Canada's biggest corporations to your list of "enviro-wakos". Here is an open letter they send to the PM of Canada urging him to set reduction targets for the next 50 years.
    Executive Forum On Climate Change

    We are still waiting by the way.

     
  • At March 15, 2006 9:29 AM, Blogger coby said…

    That's great, thanks. I added it!

     
  • At March 20, 2006 4:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Global warming is actually universel. It is happening on every planetary body with an atmosphere in this solar system. So why is Earth an exception?
    For instance have a look at Mars :
    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

     
  • At March 20, 2006 8:13 AM, Blogger coby said…

    Please see the "Mars is Warming" article. I discusses Pluto too. There is no evidence of global anything on either of those planets. Do you have any other planet in mind, you did just claim "every planetary body with an atmosphere" perhaps you can actually substantiate that?

     
  • At March 24, 2006 6:21 PM, Anonymous Jim Baerg said…

    I might also note this fellows argument that we should substitute a carbon tax for eg: the income tax. He says this should be done on libertarian grounds even if there wasn't evidence for CO2 induced warming.

    Go to
    http://www.holisticpolitics.org/Home/PageOne.php

    & click on the "Stop Global Warming" Button

     
  • At April 01, 2006 3:14 PM, Anonymous Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) said…

    As Mars presents Turbulence in its 'relatively' rarefied atmosphere, there is indeed a 'warming process' and on a 'global' scale. Turbulence is not driven by 'absolutes of temperatures', but by relative differentials of temperature/pressure, so even Pluto might display turbulence within any atmosphere even if the overall 'median temperature' was ~5 K, as long as there was suitable differentials produced in a persistent manner. The effects would also have been cumulating over millions if not billions of years.

    To continue relating some of the issues of 'fault' within the 'Terrestrial Greenhouse based Climate models', apart from the obvious discrepancies of the included materials behavior to those actually presented, there is the further exasperations from the realisation of the 'double' inclusion of kinetic energy within the calculations'.

    It is easily seen in the slide ' glob_jan-dec_pg' in:-
    http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
    (Along with the comparative version of a displayed trend to Human Population)
    , that the rise in median temperature of the surface ocean waters runs in a trend similar to that of the land surface, but with a delay, and in a muted manner.

    The dampening of the trend is due to the ability of the liquids of the ocean being able to produce Turbulence in reaction to these gains of kinetic energy. As such these processes of Turbulence lower the residual energy that is recordable as 'temperature'.

    So the water surface will show a lagging trend of lower and more moderate increases whilst the dry land surface continues to be rematerialed and present a generally rising median temperature from altering interactions with incident radiation produced by the altering of the materials OF the surface made within the sprawl of Human Habitat.

    The atmosphere being a gas is able to display much more readily the effects induced by Turbulence, hence the observed weather patterning alterations.

    The combined 'land/ocean' plot is however presenting a 'double count' of much of the kinetic energy. This is WHY the 'models' are NOT preemptive AND give scenarios of such 'alarming fantasies' as they include TOO MUCH energy (as well as NOT handling the 'energy calculations' in a valid manner). Certainly much MORE 'energy' is included than is actually present.

    (This situation I have been attempting to indicate for a few years, and is seen in many differing portions of 'calculation conceptualisations' including the remittance behaviors of molecules being presented as 'blackbody' radiation linked to 'atmospheric temperature' when the reverse is the reality, these photons present the energy NOT retained as a 'kinetic gain', thus have no link to 'atmospheric' molecular temperature.)

    This (and other) 'misnomer(s)' is(/are) reason for WHY there are still some attempting to platform 'greenhouse concepts', as the claim is made of a need to 'account' for the 'energy observed'. It is just that the energy is not actually present in the amounts 'inferred'.

    Again I mention this to play the difference of OBSERVATION to INFERENCE.

    You need to avoid PREDETERMINATION as this psychological behavioralism 'taints' inferences of even the most reliable observations.

    Too often we all see INFERENCE (especially as platformed 'opinions') being given precedence over OBSERVATION in relation to 'greenhouse (and related) concepts'.

    Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
    From the PC of Peter K Anderson
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

     
  • At May 28, 2006 6:37 AM, Blogger Co2emissions said…

    You can also add Exxon, believe it or not. Although they avoid admitting that climate change is artificial, they do think that emissions are part of the cause:
    http://www.exxonmobil.com/Europe-English/Citizen/Eu_VP_climate.asp
    http://www.exxonmobil.com/files/PA/UK/cc_our_view.pdf

    "The nature and causes of climate change are still debated,
    but as climate change poses serious long-term risks, uncertainty is no
    reason for inaction."

     
  • At May 28, 2006 9:02 AM, Blogger coby said…

    That's pretty ironic, isn't it...

     
  • At June 22, 2006 3:38 AM, Blogger Co2emissions said…

    Hi Coby.

    I'm trying to counter the garbage posted to the UK Conservative quality of life forum by a certain Tom Bolger of Oldham and he came up with this:

    "Thr basis of the temperature reconstruction in the Hockey Stick graph is the vaiying thickness of tree growth rings, the thicker the ring the higher the temperature but the tree rings for recent years don't get thicker, they get thinner. Now ithe fact that tree rings get thinner when the temperature is too high and thinner when its too low calls into question the basis of this graph which purports to show that the present temperature rise is unprecedented.
    In fact it is the only evidence that the present temperature rise is unprecedented. "

    You possibly don't have time to join in, but if any of your UK readers would like to, the forum is here

     
  • At June 22, 2006 7:22 AM, Blogger coby said…

    Hi CO2,

    You're right, I won't have time for a guy like that! My advice is insist on some evidence for his claims, like everything but tree rings show high variability. Not the case according to NOAA see the MWP article)

    Also, the recent comment facility does not work properly, you may want to place you "call to arms" on a the most recent thread instead.

    He is a real gattling gun of standard septic talking points, isn't he?

     
  • At July 20, 2006 1:31 PM, Anonymous KAZ said…

    Your appeal to authority is perfectly appropriate, because it illustrates the fallacy of the "there is definitely AGW" position.

    You can no more trust someone who gets his funding from fear than you can trust someone who gets it from selling toxins.

    Government scientists who are demanding more money and authority in order to "stop global warming" are exactly the same as tobacco scientists insisting their drug is neither addictive nor carcinogenic.

    I worked as a consultant in DC for ten years, and one thing I learned at NASA, NOAA, NSF, and other government agencies is that "Fear Equals Funding".

    This is the motto of the people, including scientists, working at any typical government agency.

    I was told, at NOAA, that the reason they focused on a doomsday interpretation of El Nino...which actually reduces the loss of life and property in the US...is because "you can't justify your budget by saying how good things are".

    At NASA, I was told that the reason for the focus on threat of asteriod impact, which they admitted was laughably unlikely, was because it could bring in more money.

    Fear Equals Funding.

    One should not completely ignore the claims of the tobacco scientists, nor of government doomsayers. But neither should one TRUST them. Their claims should be treated as just that; allegations to be examined and considered, with a conclusion to be independently drawn.

     
  • At July 20, 2006 3:12 PM, Blogger coby said…

    The appeal to authority is an appropriate response to someone who thinks GW is a hoax.

    But thanks for your ad hominem: scientist work for money, therefore they have no integrity, therefore GW is not real.

    Not.

     
  • At September 08, 2006 9:53 PM, Blogger -Sam said…

    Voby,
    some of the links in this article no longer work.

     
  • At September 09, 2006 9:10 AM, Blogger coby said…

    Thanks, Sam. Fixed now.

     
  • At October 06, 2006 10:03 AM, Anonymous John Palkovic said…

    The American Institute of Physics has a public statement at aip.org, the full url is http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html.
    "The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change."

    I'm a physicist. Please consider including the AIP in the list at the top of the page. :-) I think they carry some scientific weight.

     
  • At October 06, 2006 11:39 AM, Blogger coby said…

    Thanks, John. It is in the list now!

     
  • At January 29, 2007 1:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Endorsements in Beaurocratese is hardly an endorsement to trust. And neither is there an abundance of signatures. There are 20-30 high level Beaurocrat signatures.

    Be warned: The real goal of the left is an International Carbon Tax, and they will do anything to accomplish this goal.

     
  • At January 29, 2007 2:26 PM, Blogger coby said…

    Anonymous,

    I refer you to this website for your own protection.

    Beware the LeftWing Liberal Scientists who want only to control the world.

     
  • At February 21, 2007 9:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You provide 20 signatures, and call it a concensus. Neo-Communist.

     
  • At April 27, 2007 9:00 AM, Blogger ROC said…

    I'm not going to say it's a hoax but because there is some great work thats been done however there is not doubt that the subject has been hijacked by radical envirmentalists and a libral press.

     
  • At May 28, 2007 10:02 PM, Blogger Devil's Advocate said…

    It would be nice if you actually talked about the data itself rather than the number of people who support your side.

    See my Post which actually discusses the data.

    http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com

     
  • At June 30, 2007 10:25 PM, Blogger Weatherlawyer said…

    Of course, the real diehards will just say that these companies are somehow part of the conspiracy, duped by the environmentalists, or intimidated by the all-powerful environmental movement. But, such people are incorrigible!

    Speaking as an incorrigible, I would like to point out that whilst the sea surface is undeniably warming up, the substrate is not necessarily doing so.

    Not if it is a global warming problem.

    If the heat input is not entirely from insolation then the problem is like the sea surface temperatures, a lot deeper.

     
  • At July 01, 2007 11:40 AM, Blogger coby said…

    Hello Weatherlawyer,

    I don't believe it is expected that sub-surface sea temperatures would have risen much yet. It takes a long time for deeper ocean waters to mix with the surface. So I don't know if you are trying to point out some inconsistent evidence or not but that would not be it.

    I don't understand your last sentence.

    Thanks for the comment!

     
  • At July 11, 2007 11:18 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hmmm... a bunch of people and organizations whose livelihoods depend on funding that comes from people being scared of global warming.

    On a similar note, the following "notable expert sources" have informed me that I am not eating enough breakfast cereal:

    Toucan Sam
    Cap'n Crunch
    Tony the Tiger
    Count Chocula
    Lucky the Leprechaun
    Snap, Crackle, & Pop

    You get the picture. These people are feeding junk science to the public so that people will be scared and give them money so they can do more junk science. Continuing the analogy above, the source that I should be listening to would be a doctor or nutritionist; someone who does not have a stake in whether or not I eat cereal. The parallel sources to these in the global warming argument are the 19,000 scientists who signed the OISM petition that human expulsion of CO2 is not harmful. These people are all scientists, most of whom are in other fields and therefore have no stake in the human causation premise.

     
  • At July 28, 2007 7:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You need to include Maurice (pronounced like morris)Strong, the United Nations guy who helped cook up the global catastrophe idea in the first place. He's definitely a liberal whack job, but also a de-populationist and eugenicist and one-world government advocate. And then I guess include the corporations he's in bed with behind the scenes, too. And Paul Watson, if you dont already have him on your list, because he also shares Strong's desire to reduce the human population to below 1 billion. You can google him and find this stuff and more for yourself. Might as well make your list as complete as possible.

     
  • At August 15, 2007 9:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    No one denies that the Earth is getting hotter and that humans have played a part. What is so often, with reason, denied, is that the extent of the consequences and/or of the human effect are greatly exaggerated by activists for ulterior impractical ideological reasons.

    Those trying to restrain industry, either for political/economic reasons, or because going on an environmetalist crusade is fun, will often take this consensus and constru it to mean that all scientists agree with their agenda. Meanwhile, anyone willing to do the research can see that they do not.

    As for these corporations - isn't it odd that leftists will smear anything a corporation says until it's convenient not to? Further, of course they're going to try to appease any group for pr reasons, hoping a hippi will fuel up the SUV he drives to his environmental meetings with their company's petroleum as opposed to another's.

     
  • At August 15, 2007 9:59 PM, Blogger coby said…

    I agree that there is plenty of legitimate debate about how much the climate will change and how bad the impacts will be for humans.

    However:

    No one denies that the Earth is getting hotter and that humans have played a part

    is completely false and the rest of your comments are so simplistic and generalized as to be useless.

    Most people are not single minded ideologues, left or right, and regardless science and empirical reality are indepent of political world views.

    Thanks for the comments.

     
  • At August 16, 2007 11:21 AM, Blogger R.I.P. Redeemed In Prayer said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At August 16, 2007 5:44 PM, Blogger coby said…

    Hi RIP,

    I have deleted your comment because it is just a massive copy-paste from here. Please don't do that. If you would like to point to it and present a couple of short representative quotes I have no problem.

    As a general response I would say that while we are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts and you have many very basic things just plain wrong. You touch on many issues that are well covered with other entries in my guide so I invite you to have a look and make any specific comments you wish to on appropriate articles.

    If you want to comment or ask here rather than look for other articles I will gladly point you to relevant information and discussion.

    Thanks for the visit.

     
  • At August 29, 2007 10:03 AM, Blogger z2x said…

    Since I am not convinced either way, I can't agree or disagree. However, if you are so sure humans have caused catastrophic global warming, you might be entitled to a prize. See my blog.

     
  • At August 29, 2007 10:11 AM, Blogger z2x said…

    Plus, NASA is lying too!
    Proof

     
  • At August 30, 2007 1:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hi Coby, Not sure if you are still updating this, but here's updated links for the above. Hopefully this comes out right.



    NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
    [url]http://www.giss.nasa.gov/[/url]
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    [url]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html[/url]
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
    [url]http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM-v2.pdf[/url] (3MB pdf)
    National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
    [url]http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Global_Climate_Change_Policy_and_Budget_Review.asp[/url]
    Environment Canada (EC)
    [url]http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=6EE576BE-1[/url]
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    [url]http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html[/url]
    The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
    [url]http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4814[/url]
    American Geophysical Union (AGU)
    [url]http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html[/url]
    American Institute of Physics
    [url]http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html[/url]
    National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
    [url]http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html[/url]
    American Meteorological Society (AMS)
    [url]http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html[/url]
    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
    [url]http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html[/url]

    Also the national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India issued their support:
    [url]http://www.royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3222[/url]

    And a joint statement by several more national academies adn royal societies here:
    [url]http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf[/url]

    And the list of science orginazations goes on and on.

    Not good enough for you? How about those socialist nutbars in the oil companies:

    Shell Oil:

    [quote]There is now a strong scientific consensus that recent changes in our global climate are almost certainly caused by human activity. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in particular from fossil fuel use and deforestation, are the main contributing factors.

    [/quote]
    ([url]http://www.shell.com/home/content/envirosoc-en/environment/climate_change/what_is_climate_change/what_is_climate_change_000407.html[/url])

    British Petroleum:

    [quote]we support precautionary action on climate change although we recognize that aspects of the science are still the subject of expert debate and not fully proven
    [/quote]
    ([url]http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9015582&contentId=7028604[/url])

    Imperial Oil:

    [quote]The accumulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere poses risks that may prove potentially significant[/quote]
    ([url]http://www.imperialoil.ca/Canada-English/Corporate_Citizenship/CC_Enviroclimate05.asp[/url])

    Chevron:

    [quote]In our opinion, the fundamental challenge facing Chevron and other fossil-energy producers is that global carbon emissions must start to fall in the next two decades to prevent the most severe potential effects of climate change.[/quote]
    ([url]http://www.chevron.com/cr_report/2004/environmental/climate_change/[/url])

    Or this from an organization representing 18 Canadian CEOs:

    [quote]Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the
    scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept
    the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human
    health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the
    impacts of climate change.[/quote]
    ([url]http://www.ggcap.net/uploads/news/execforum%20eng%20%20FINAL.pdf[/url])

    zipperfish@hotmail.com

     
  • At August 30, 2007 6:25 PM, Blogger coby said…

    Thanks for the link checks anonymous (zipperfish). I should fix that up shortly.

     
  • At October 12, 2007 10:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    There is NO SUCH THING as man-made global warming. You're all insane socialists who simply want to control the population with confiscatory taxation and regulatory fascism.

    Earth's temperature changes over the decades. It's perfectly natural. Al Gore should be in prison for criminal fraud.

    All of these reports you mention have been bought and paid for by either tax money, or corporate trade-offs. For example, of course BP sees where the money is. They see the government falling victim to the madness of all the hysteria - they want the federal grants! They want the money! They know they can take advantage of the sheer ignorance of the left-wing population for good PR.

    Everyone knows this is all a lie. I will fight to the death this socialist madness. You're not fooling me.

    I'm going to get in my SUV right now and drive around for no reason, just to use some more fossil fuels. I will work to cancel out any conservation efforts any of you liberal fools attempt. If you save a trip to the store, I will take an extra 10-mile drive in my SUV for NO REASON other than to cancel you out!

    al-Gore should be in prison!

    T-Hawkk in Texas
    Live Free or Die!

     
  • At October 15, 2007 10:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Now that Dr. Gray has labeled al-Gore's global warming paranoia as a hoax that we will all feel foolish about in a few years, I wonder what all you libs say now?

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

    You're all tools of the socialist movement to destroy out economy and way of life. Figure it out. Get your heads out of your butts.

    al-Gore should be in prison for criminal fraud!

     
  • At October 20, 2007 1:08 PM, Anonymous Peggy McGilligan said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At October 20, 2007 2:06 PM, Blogger coby said…

    Hi Peggy,

    Your comment was deleted because it was %100 unattributed quotation...and rather poor satire at that.

     
  • At November 13, 2007 7:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    hello all,
    And if the Global Warming is a natural and cosmic cycle? Of corse, it's a hoax because they won't the people to be afraid.... BS

     
  • At December 12, 2007 5:38 PM, Blogger Will Nitschke said…

    Does any serious person actually believe that global warming is only proposed by 'nut jobs'? I think intelligent people accept that it is a credible theory. So once again this line of reasoning is only attacking a 'straw man' as they say...

    (Those who don't accept climate warming in the last 100 years may be similar to those groups that don't believe we ever landed on the moon, or that Illuminate control the High Court, etc. Whatever you write is not going to convince them, so I wonder what purpose is served by writing posts like this? Wouldn't it be better to address real arguments and concerns made by rational people?)

     
  • At February 28, 2008 5:51 AM, Blogger dan said…

    All of these sources are from the western empire. Canada, UN, USA. My country is New Zealand and here we are taught to lay waste to idiots that beleive Al Gore.

    This is a scam to tax not only the energy market but the weather itself.

    The models are full of holes and built to prove a point. For eg. increasing the influence of positive more than negative feedback effects eventually tips the scales but that concept might be a bit beyond your level of understanding if you still think paying extra "weather tax" & turning off your heater is going to in some way help your fellow human.

     
  • At March 27, 2008 12:02 AM, Anonymous S. Khratzinski said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At March 27, 2008 8:09 AM, Blogger coby said…

    Hi S. Khratzinski,

    Is there a particular issue you have with the wikipedia article on Climate Change? Last time I was there I found it to be well in line with all the fine organizations mentioned in the main article ablve. If you don't have any specific point you think needs correcting I don't think a general invitation to vandalize the article is very constructive.

     
  • At July 11, 2008 8:45 PM, Blogger yezi said…

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home