Bullet to the head of the AGW hoax?

[citizenzen]

Palerider, I could respect your position if you said, "I've looked at the evidence and it doesn't hold up. Over time, with more observation and data my side will prevail as global warming will be proved false."

But when you call climate science a hoax and that you'll reject all future evidence because it will only be politically motivated, then you've proven that you're guilty of being an acolyte to your political agenda instead of the truth.

Now I am more than willing to let science dig deeper into this issue and over time gain a clearer understanding of the issue. I am open to the possibility that global warming isn't caused by humans.

One thing you can't do is stop time and others from pursuing the issue. I have a feeling that as more discoveries come forth your position will become even less popular than it is today. You'll become marginalized as a crackpot, desperately clinging to your "flat Earth" while the rest of the world moves on and ignores your rants.

That's my prediction. And I have all the time in the world to put it to the test. So stick around my friend. Let's see where the science takes us.

[cue rant]

 

[palerider]

Said the man that called climate science a hoax.

Pot, the kettle called...

I provided hard evidence to support my claim. You, on the other hand are operating on faith by your own admission. By the way, I said that AGW was a hoax. Building strawmen to attack doesn't represent rational argument or defense of your position either.

 

[palerider]

Palerider, I could respect your position if you said, "I've looked at the evidence and it doesn't hold up. Over time, with more observation and data my side will prevail as global warming will be proved false."

The physical laws aren't going to change over time. No matter how long we wait, the saturation point of atmospheric CO2 as a greenhouse gas is not going to change. It is limited by physical laws that simply won't change to support a claim.

But when you call climate science a hoax and that you'll reject all future evidence because it will only be politically motivated, then you've proven that you're guilty of being an acolyte to your political agenda instead of the truth.

I said that AGW is a hoax. CLimate science is a legitimate field of study but has been hijacked by the political hoax.

Now I am more than willing to let science dig deeper into this issue and over time gain a clearer understanding of the issue. I am open to the possibility that global warming isn't caused by humans.

There is much to learn about the climate, but human influence on it via CO2 is not one of them. The fact is that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 will never alter the climate and further "study" into that particular theory is about as valuable as additional study into whether water is actually H20.

One thing you can't do is stop time and others from pursuing the issue. I have a feeling that as more discoveries come forth your position will become even less popular than it is today. You'll become marginalized as a crackpot, desperately clinging to your "flat Earth" while the rest of the world moves on and ignores your rants.

I have no such feeling because I operate from a position of fact. Because I grasp and understand the facts, I am not limited to how I "feel" about a particular issue. The more we learn about the climate, the more the idea that CO2 can alter it will become a subject for laughter. I am sure that you hope that your postion becomes more credible, but the laws of nature are against you. Eventually, the facts will outweigh and overwhelm the political hoax and it will go the way of eugenics.

That's my prediction. And I have all the time in the world to put it to the test. So stick around my friend. Let's see where the science takes us.

I suggest that if you looked at the peer reviewed materials you would realize that your prediction has already failed.

 

[citizenzen]

CLimate science is a legitimate field of study but has been hijacked by the political hoax.

Climate science, being a pseudoscience whose primary interest lies in truckloads of grant money and political power, is never going to show you a clear picture.

Nice little flip-flop.

How can I trust what you say when you directly contradict yourself in the span of less than one week?

 

[palerider]

Nice little flip-flop.

How can I trust what you say when you directly contradict yourself in the span of less than one week?

Today, climate science is a pseudoscience. It lacks enough basic information to be called a legitimate science much like paranormal investigation. Study into any field is legitimate, but till sufficient information is known, it doesn't become a science. Here is a little quiz. Refer to your high priests and tell me that you can answer any of them to the degree of accuracy one would expect from a science.

1.What is the "correct" (or expected) mean temperature of the Earth?

2.Can this be determined to within
a.Several degrees (C)
b.One degree
c.One-tenth of one degree
d.One one-hundredth?

3.What is the current mean temperature of the planet?

4.Can this be determined to within
a.Several degrees (C)
b.One degree
c.One-tenth of one degree
d.One one-hundredth?

5.What is Earth's precise albedo?

6.Can this currently be stated to within
a.Several percent
b.One percent
c.One-tenth of one percent
d.One one-hundredth?

7.Are net climate feedbacks
a.Positive
b.Negative
c.Neutral
d.Unknown?

8.Can we accurately account for how energy moves through the system?

9.Do we know all climate forcings, their values and signs?

10.Do we know enough about the climate to make confident predictions
a.One Week
b.One Month
c.One Year
d.One Decade
e.One Century into the future?

These are bare bones basics and yet, none of them can be answered to any real degree of accuracy by any climate "scientist" today.

Erecting a strawman in lieu of defending your positon only further weakens your position.

And if contradictions are your basis for trust, then if I post you examples of real contradictions by individuals and groups does that mean that you will lose trust in climate science or as I suspect, is the whole trust issue just one more example of selective blindness on your part so that you may maintain your faith?

 

[citizenzen]

Erecting a strawman in lieu of defending your positon only further weakens your position.

My position is to wait and see what develops in the future. How that can be "weakened" is beyond me.

Game on, dude. Just promise me you won't run and hide when the tide turns against you... it sounds like something you would do.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Even the "alzheimer" patient was more intelligent then you:
http://archives.chennaionline.com/science/Environment/environment24.asp
Environment
"Air pollution comes from trees," Ronald Reagan declared more than 20 years ago, soon after the start of his presidency. The remark earned him widespread derision as proof of his ignorance of environmental issues. Even his first press secretary, James Brady, teased him about it. Once when Air Force One was flying over a forest he grabbed the President by the elbow and, pointing down out of the window, said in alarm: "Look, Mr President: killer trees!"

But now new scientific research is showing that the former Hollywood B-movie star was at least partially right all along. For studies in both Britain and the United States have shown that some trees do indeed emit pollution and may even be killing forests downwind.

The news comes during the National Tree Week when the government and environmental groups are combining to extol the benefits of trees to the environment and health. Even more embarrassing, the British research, at Lancaster University, shows that the English oak, one of the symbols of nationhood, is among the worst offenders.

Others include the poplar, the red and sessile oaks and the crack, goat and white willows. The scientists say: "Most people assume that trees only benefit air quality. In fact, some tree species can have a negative effect and actually help to form pollutants in the atmosphere."

Research at the University of California at Berkeley, meanwhile, suggests that pollution from oak trees is destroying the pine forests of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. They have found that the oaks are producing between 40 per cent and 70 per cent of the ozone that is damaging and killing Jeffrey and ponderosa pines that are the dominant species in the forest.

And it's not only plant life that is at risk: Other Californian research, as exclusively reported in The Independent, shows that ozone can cause asthma.

The detective work that led to the incrimination of trees began after American cities found, to their surprise, that ozone levels failed to decline rapidly after the imposition of anti-pollution measures.

Ozone is formed by the effect of sunlight on nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons, both emitted from car exhausts. It became clear that some trees like oak and poplar were producing huge amounts of a hydrocarbon called isoprene, which dominated in the formation of ozone.

Professor Russell Monson of the University of Colorado, who also made a special study of the issue, said: "The problem is that forests around many southern US cities have so many oaks, and isoprene is many times more reactive with the atmosphere than man-made hydrocarbons.

"This meant that, although monitoring programmes showed a significant decline in hydrocarbon emissions from automobiles, ozone did not go away."

The scientists point out, however, that trees are not the only culprits: isoprene can only form ozone when it combines with nitrogen oxides emitted from cars, industry and power stations. The Lancaster University research also shows that some trees help to clean the air of ozone and nitrogen dioxide.

The best are ash, silver birch, larch, Scots pine, common alder and field and Norway maples. Others - such as apple, holly, sycamore, hawthorn, hazel, lilac and the common elm - also clean the air but less well. The scientists add that cutting down the worst trees will not solve the problem and may even make things worse. For all trees help to cool the air, and rising temperatures cause more ozone to be formed.

What they do recommend is that care should be taken to plant trees that clean the air rather than those that exacerbate the problem.

All trees also help to absorb the carbon dioxide that causes global warming - though again the oak does so less effectively than other species because it grows so slowly - and all also absorb tiny particles emitted by car exhausts that kill thousands of Britons each year through heart disease and cancer. The Lancaster University scientists calculate that doubling the tree cover of the West Midlands, for example, would save 140 lives a year.

I hope that you are not suggesting that Ronnie knew about this tree chemistry 20 years ago.

Trees produce chemicals, in fact they can produce toxins that can deter insects from attacking them, but to suggest that they are in some way the cause of the pollution we are experiencing is nonsense. If it were true, then in human history we would find pollution killing people at every turn since there have been far more forests in the past than there are now.

A little learning can be a dangerous thing.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Pointing out obvious flaws in a person's arguments is nasty and egomanical? If you are stuck in logical fallacy, you need to be informed otherwise you might be stuck there for a lifetime, unaware. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. I am merely encouraging critical thinking which apparently has not been taught within our educational system for a very long time.

It isn't the content nearly as much as the tone, you sneer as you write, you could correct, encourage, and enlighten people without being abusive.

Having lots of mental horsepower and information doesn't make one a good teacher, one has to be able to impart that information in such a way as to educate rather than bludgeon.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I provided hard evidence to support my claim. You, on the other hand are operating on faith by your own admission. By the way, I said that AGW was a hoax. Building strawmen to attack doesn't represent rational argument or defense of your position either.

The sad thing for me is that the hard science in contradictory. There is no overwhelming preponderance of proof. While at the same time I can see with my own eyes that the climate is changing and plants and animals are responding to it. I worked for a long time in agribusiness and we changed crops as the climate changed from what our fathers and grandfathers had experienced.

Even if mankind isn't responsible for all of the global climate change, we have done our part. I see the destruction of the benthic and pelagic fisheries, the dead zones in the ocean, the islands of floating trash, the slash and burn destruction of the rainforests, the retreating glaciers, the disappearance of the amphibians... and the list goes on and on. Research has shown that PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyls) are ubiquitous in the environment--they are completely manmade. We need to clean up our act even if other forces are at work here.

 

[citizenzen]

Having lots of mental horsepower and information...

Mental horsepower means nothing if you lack the means to steer. Calling Climate Science "pseudoscience" and closing his eyes to forthcoming evidence qualifies palerider's horsepower as the Toyota variety: rushing full-speed into oblivion, out of control.

There are no recalls for a lack common sense and paranoid thinking.

That's a defect he'll just have to live with.

 

[palerider]

My position is to wait and see what develops in the future. How that can be "weakened" is beyond me.

Wait and see what? If physical laws change to accomodate AGW theory?

 

[palerider]

The sad thing for me is that the hard science in contradictory. There is no overwhelming preponderance of proof.

Actually there is. I provided it at the beginning of this thread. If additional CO2 in the atmosphere caused warming, it would be doing so by absorbing outgoing long wave radiation in the CO2 spectrum. The spectra from the 70s and the spectra from 2006 in the CO2 spectrum are identical. Atmospheric CO2 had reached its saturation point prior to the 1970's. It simply isn't possible for more CO2 to cause global warming.

While at the same time I can see with my own eyes that the climate is changing and plants and animals are responding to it. I worked for a long time in agribusiness and we changed crops as the climate changed from what our fathers and grandfathers had experienced.

It has been happening since the beginning of time. What, exactly, makes this time different, our presence?

Even if mankind isn't responsible for all of the global climate change, we have done our part. I see the destruction of the benthic and pelagic fisheries, the dead zones in the ocean, the islands of floating trash, the slash and burn destruction of the rainforests, the retreating glaciers, the disappearance of the amphibians... and the list goes on and on. Research has shown that PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyls) are ubiquitous in the environment--they are completely manmade. We need to clean up our act even if other forces are at work here.

Glaciers retreating are not our fault and a great deal of research has also shown that it was a fungus that was killing amphibians. Also nothing to do with us. I never said that we couldn't soil our living spaces, I said that we could not alter the climate.

 

[OldTrapper]

I hope that you are not suggesting that Ronnie knew about this tree chemistry 20 years ago.

Trees produce chemicals, in fact they can produce toxins that can deter insects from attacking them, but to suggest that they are in some way the cause of the pollution we are experiencing is nonsense. If it were true, then in human history we would find pollution killing people at every turn since there have been far more forests in the past than there are now.

A little learning can be a dangerous thing.

As can a lack of knowledge, or one pretending to have knowledge.

If I remember correctly, it was during the time that "Ronnie" was governor of Cal. when a "green" project was started in Los Angeles, or one of the major cities, to reduce pollution. Suddenly they discovered that pollution was actually increasing after planting thousands of trees. It was then they discovered that trees can actually increase, not decrease, certain pollutants.

Now, I realize that it is fashionable for you to use the illness of Reagan as a scapegoat for your hatred, however, it could just be that he knew something you don't as he did in many other issues.

Thern too, it is your habit to ignore parts of an article that you deem harmful to your inclination like:

"Research at the University of California at Berkeley, meanwhile, suggests that pollution from oak trees is destroying the pine forests of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. They have found that the oaks are producing between 40 per cent and 70 per cent of the ozone that is damaging and killing Jeffrey and ponderosa pines that are the dominant species in the forest.[/quote]"

Now, no one has said that the trees are producing as much pollution as man, although the research in this matter seems to show that it is the trees that are killing other species of trees, not man.

The point being: Reagan was right; 2. Going "green" based on ignorance can be more harmful then helpful.

Live and learn Mare. Others really do know a hell of a lot more then you.

 

[palerider]

Mental horsepower means nothing if you lack the means to steer. Calling Climate Science "pseudoscience" and closing his eyes to forthcoming evidence qualifies palerider's horsepower as the Toyota variety: rushing full-speed into oblivion, out of control.

What evidence? Which evidence are you speaking of? Evidence that exists or evidence that you wish and hope comes into existence? Show me some evidence.

There are no recalls for a lack common sense and paranoid thinking.

That's a defect he'll just have to live with.

Are impotent ad hominems the best you are going to be able to manage? If so, why bother. It merely makes you look foolish. I presented credible evience that disproves AGW theory and the best you can do is make juvenile comparisons between me and toyota? When you have matured enough to make at least a passing attempt at defending your postion, let me know.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

As can a lack of knowledge, or one pretending to have knowledge.

If I remember correctly, it was during the time that "Ronnie" was governor of Cal. when a "green" project was started in Los Angeles, or one of the major cities, to reduce pollution. Suddenly they discovered that pollution was actually increasing after planting thousands of trees. It was then they discovered that trees can actually increase, not decrease, certain pollutants.

Now, I realize that it is fashionable for you to use the illness of Reagan as a scapegoat for your hatred, however, it could just be that he knew something you don't as he did in many other issues.

Thern too, it is your habit to ignore parts of an article that you deem harmful to your inclination like:

"Research at the University of California at Berkeley, meanwhile, suggests that pollution from oak trees is destroying the pine forests of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. They have found that the oaks are producing between 40 per cent and 70 per cent of the ozone that is damaging and killing Jeffrey and ponderosa pines that are the dominant species in the forest."

Now, no one has said that the trees are producing as much pollution as man, although the research in this matter seems to show that it is the trees that are killing other species of trees, not man.

The point being: Reagan was right; 2. Going "green" based on ignorance can be more harmful then helpful.

Live and learn Mare. Others really do know a hell of a lot more then you.

I didn't hate Ronnie, I felt sorry for him. Doing anything blindly can cause unexpected effects--even planting trees. Your "green project" story needs a link for us to look at since you have little credibility after your Doctorate of Theology hoax.

Not only do trees not produce as much pollution as man, they produce ozone which is also caused by lightning. Ozone is not a big problem until you mix it with other pollutants in the air that people breathe. Bear in mind that no one has shown that ozone from trees caused any problem for people until it was mixed with manmade pollutants.

Are you livin' and learnin', DOT?