The harder the Alarmists try ...

[tacoman25]

You're correct - but why didn't the reviewers of Spencer & Braswell spot the paperr's flaws. Certainly they were easy enough to spot after publication. Were the reviewers incompetent, or was this a case of pal-review instead of peer-review? In any event the paper was widely hailed by the pseudo-skeptical denialist communitythe moment is was published. Were they honest skeptics, they would have given Spencer's paper the same thorough scrutiny Mann's papers receive. That didn't happen, did it?

I don't know. But clearly it's very possible for flawed papers to be peer reviewed and published. I'm sure bias enters the picture at times...humans do the peer review.

[LakeEffectKing]

Not really. You weren't very clear in your assertion until about 20 pages in.

Now care to answer my questions?

What would show you to be wrong? (I have asked you this about five times now with no answer)

Are you willing to admit the possibility that you might be wrong?

For me it would be verification photos similar to these scenic shots:

[valkhorn]

For me it would be verification photos similar to these scenic shots:

I don't understand the point of this. AGW consensus doesn't say that these things will happen. This is for all intents and purposes a strawman argument.

Plus my question was for YOUR point of view. What supports YOUR point of view? How could YOU be shown wrong?

Please be realistic.

[Strongbad]

To be slightly more on topic, another list proving that you can be a scientist and not believe that AGW requires immediate action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Position:_Accuracy_of_IPCC_climate_projections_is_questionable

[LakeEffectKing]

I don't understand the point of this. AGW consensus doesn't say that these things will happen. This is for all intents and purposes a strawman argument.

Plus my question was for YOUR point of view. What supports YOUR point of view? How could YOU be shown wrong?

Please be realistic.

My point of view is one of I need better science performed by either side to make an assessment of the degree to which CO2 forcing (along with all feedbacks) is driving long term temperature increase.....so being undecided....I'm not sure how I COULD be shown to be wrong.....maybe a bit slower than your typical genius...but it's my nature...

[valkhorn]

To be slightly more on topic, another list proving that you can be a scientist and not believe that AGW requires immediate action.

http://en.wikipedia....is_questionable

And yet you glossed over:

97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming.^[1] Another study found 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of all earth scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring.

Also: Are you now admitting that AGW is happening? The list wasn't of scientists who didn't agree with AGW, but disagreed with IPCC's predictions. Those are two separate things.

This is sort of like when you confused $79 billion with trillions.

[valkhorn]

My point of view is one of I need better science performed by either side to make an assessment of the degree to which CO2 forcing (along with all feedbacks) is driving long term temperature increase.....so being undecided....I'm not sure how I COULD be shown to be wrong.....maybe a bit slower than your typical genius...but it's my nature...

That's my point. If you're not sure how you could be shown to be wrong, then your initial position isn't very strong and probably shouldn't be used to argue against those who have stronger points.

Meaning, if you don't know how you could be shown to be wrong, and someone does, then how will you ever learn or change your opinion?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Is Bethesda banned in this forum? Or has he just left?

[PhillipS]

To be slightly more on topic, another list proving that you can be a scientist and not believe that AGW requires immediate action.

http://en.wikipedia....is_questionable

Good link - thank you for sharing it. Am I correct in thinking that since you shared the article you agree with its statement "97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming. Another study found 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of all earth scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring."?

Most of the names on the skeptics list are familiar and some are not really climatologists. Fred Singer, for example, was a tobacco industry 'scientist' who claimed cigarettes aren't harmful and nicotine isn't addictive. But most are and and I look forward to the complete list of the skeptical 3%. Please keep us informed as the list evolves.

I thought that a particularly nice touch in the article was padding the list with dead skeptics. How does one ask a dead skeptic for his views on the latest climate research? Seance, perhaps?

[Strongbad]

And yet you glossed over:

Also: Are you now admitting that AGW is happening? The list wasn't of scientists who didn't agree with AGW, but disagreed with IPCC's predictions. Those are two separate things.

This is sort of like when you confused $79 billion with trillions.

Based on what you are typing, I believe you haven't paid a single bit of attention to anything I have ever said. If so, why even respond to me? It's wasting our time. I never said AGW is completely fake or does not exist. I explicitly stated in an earlier post that disqualifying all of it would be just as anti-scientific as accepting all of it.

[Strongbad]

Fred Singer, for example, was a tobacco industry 'scientist' who claimed cigarettes aren't harmful and nicotine isn't addictive.

Who is the person not using any credible sources now? Please share credible information proving Mr. Singer made those exact statements, along with any additional information as to whether he walked back on those statements later on.

[Strongbad]

Fred Singer, for example, was a tobacco industry 'scientist' who claimed cigarettes aren't harmful and nicotine isn't addictive. ?

Screw it. I will do the work for you. What you just typed above was both dishonest and intellectually lazy. You did no research and provided no sources. Instead you made a bogus claim about Fred Singer, without even checking to make sure that this claim was accurate. Nothing I found ever said he disbelieved in the dangers of NICOTINE.

Good job on being completely lazy.

According to Singer, he serves on the advisory board of an anti-smoking organization, and has never been paid by Philip Morris or the tobacco lobby, or joined any of their front organizations

Source

[valkhorn]

Based on what you are typing, I believe you haven't paid a single bit of attention to anything I have ever said. If so, why even respond to me? It's wasting our time. I never said AGW is completely fake or does not exist. I explicitly stated in an earlier post that disqualifying all of it would be just as anti-scientific as accepting all of it.

You certainly implied it in most of your posts. Or, at the very least, showed a very clear misunderstanding of the science behind it.

[tacoman25]

I appreciate the sentiment, but I've been called a b**ch numerous times, the c word, had ovarian cancer wished on me, had a punk ass teenager with no accomplishments in life post that if he saw me walking down the street he'd punch me, and been threatened with physical and sexual assault by an (ostensible) adult poster. S&W's stuff is nothing.

Judging from your avatar and the statement below it, it seems you wear these insults like a badge of honor.

[Strongbad]

You certainly implied it in most of your posts. Or, at the very least, showed a very clear misunderstanding of the science behind it.

Something like this can be PM'd to me so as to avoid future nonsense. I never said AGW was completely fake and did not exist. Stop reading the tea leaves that simply aren't there. My standing has been that even if there is a component of AGW to the past century's warming, I have not seen anything to make me think WE need to do ANYTHING about it.

[valkhorn]

Something like this can be PM'd to me so as to avoid future nonsense. I never said AGW was completely fake and did not exist. Stop reading the tea leaves that simply aren't there. My standing has been that even if there is a component of AGW to the past century's warming, I have not seen anything to make me think WE need to do ANYTHING about it.

So you say:

• AGW is real
• "even if there is a component of AGW"
• We don't need to do anything about it

How does this make sense? So you say AGW is a good thing?

As for PMing you, it's not needed because we've told you this over and over in this thread.

[Strongbad]

So you say:

• AGW is real
• "even if there is a component of AGW"
• We don't need to do anything about it

How does this make sense? So you say AGW is a good thing?

As for PMing you, it's not needed because we've told you this over and over in this thread.

You haven't read anything produced by Lindzen, Lomborg, or the rest. If you had, you would know what I was saying. Do you actually sit down and ever read the entire publications of scientists who disagree with you? Are you even curious to learn?

[PhillipS]

Who is the person not using any credible sources now? Please share credible information proving Mr. Singer made those exact statements, along with any additional information as to whether he walked back on those statements later on.

That's an easy one. From Wikipedia:

According to David Biello and John Pavlus in

Scientific American

, Singer is best known for his denial of the health risks of

passive smoking

.

^[44]

Singer told CBC's

The Fifth Estate

in 2006 that he stood by the position that the EPA had "cooked the data" to show that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer. CBC said that tobacco money had paid for Singer's research and for his promotion of it, and that it was organized by APCO.

From SourceWatch:

In 1993, Singer collaborated with

Tom Hockaday

of

Apco Associates

to draft an article on "junk science" intended for publication. Apco Associates was the PR firm hired to organize and direct

The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition

for Philip Morris. Hockaday reported on his work with Singer to

Ellen Merlo

, Senior Vice President of

Corporate Affairs

at Philip Morris.

^[16]

In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report

Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination

published by the

Alexis de Tocqueville Institution

(AdTI). This was all part of an attack on the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

funded by the

Tobacco Institute

over a risk assessment on

environmental tobacco smoke

.

^[17]

At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI.

^[18]

"The report's principal reviewer, Dr. Fred Singer, was involved with the

International Center for a Scientific Ecology

, a group that was considered important in

Philip Morris

' plans to create a group in Europe similar to

The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition

(TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "

junk science

," defending the industry's views.39"

^[19]

And here's a ClimateProgress column on Fred Singer:

Singer has been an unstoppable industry gun-for-hire for a long, long time — even for the tobacco industry:

For example,

here is the link

to a memo in which an official from the

Alexis de Tocqueville Institution

solicits $20,000 from the Tobacco Institute for the preparation of a “research” paper challenging the health effects of second-hand smoke, and suggesting that Dr. Singer be retained to write the report.

Here is the link

to a letter thanking the Tobacco Institute for $20,000 intended “to support our research and education projects.”

Here is a research paper

, just as described in the earlier memo, with Dr. Singer’s name as the author. And here is another

Tobacco Institute memo

, reporting on Dr. Singer’s appearance with two Congressional Representatives releasing the paper to the media.

Are you seriously going to claim that Fred Singer wasn't a mouthpiece for the tobacco industry?

[valkhorn]

You haven't read anything produced by Lindzen, Lomborg, or the rest. If you had, you would know what I was saying. Do you actually sit down and ever read the entire publications of scientists who disagree with you? Are you even curious to learn?

A handful of people does not a consensus make, especially when people like Lindzen have conclusions that are highly contested and highly questionable.

I'm not an expert in climate science, but those that are experts are quick to point what is wrong with Lindzen's conclusions, so I side with them.

[Strongbad]

A handful of people does not a consensus make, especially when people like Lindzen have conclusions that are highly contested and highly questionable.

I'm not an expert in climate science, but those that are experts are quick to point what is wrong with Lindzen's conclusions, so I side with them.

So in other words, you simply do as you're told...

Anyhow, hopefully some day you will take the time to make up your own mind and actually READ for yourself these publications and scientists I have listed. In fact, the Wikipedia article with a whole slew of them is there for you.

[Sunny and Warm]

I appreciate the sentiment, but I've been called a b**ch numerous times, the c word, had ovarian cancer wished on me, had a punk ass teenager with no accomplishments in life post that if he saw me walking down the street he'd punch me, and been threatened with physical and sexual assault by an (ostensible) adult poster. S&W's stuff is nothing.

for the record, I wish you none of those harms. It is just an internet forum.

[skierinvermont]

You haven't read anything produced by Lindzen, Lomborg, or the rest. If you had, you would know what I was saying. Do you actually sit down and ever read the entire publications of scientists who disagree with you? Are you even curious to learn?

FYI Lomborg recanted

[valkhorn]

So in other words, you simply do as you're told...

Anyhow, hopefully some day you will take the time to make up your own mind and actually READ for yourself these publications and scientists I have listed. In fact, the Wikipedia article with a whole slew of them is there for you.

No. It's called listening to experts. It's called humility. It's called intellectual honesty.

I realize that I don't know everything so I leave some decisions to those who know more than I do. I wouldn't go to a doctor for a cancer screening and then argue with his methodology, now would I? I wouldn't go to an oil rig and tell all of the geologists there that they are wrong simply because I want to have an independent mind, now would I?

I did make up my own mind, thank you, and I used to think AGW didn't exist. However, after I did my own research I realized it was real and that man was changing the climate. I did this by listening to the experts and realizing that I didn't know everything.

Do you know of a better way? I hope you realize that there are people out there who know way more than you do on this topic (and others), and that you don't know everything. Sometimes it's good to listen to experts and not just summarily dismiss them because you don't like their conclusions.

[Strongbad]

FYI Lomborg recanted

Wrong. Lomborg eventually believed in more of the dangers associated with warming, he still however believes that technological progress and the free market will be better ways of combating it than by totalitarian government measures.

Also, Lomborg is still one of many people I listed for you previously. Thanks for trying.

[Strongbad]

Do you know of a better way? I hope you realize that there are people out there who know way more than you do on this topic (and others), and that you don't know everything. Sometimes it's good to listen to experts and not just summarily dismiss them because you don't like their conclusions.

Absolutely agreed with this statement. I have shown enough curiousity to try and learn more for myself. I still know so little compared to plenty, whether or not they believe in AGW. However, I have and will continue to make an effort to LEARN for MYSELF, and not simply agree with what "experts" claim because they are experts.

I however have read both sides, you have not.

[skierinvermont]

Lomborg's new position:

"Global warming is real – it is man-made and it is an important problem."

He advocates spending 10s of billions per year to mitigate it, which I basically agree with. Perhaps more should be spent but I am not sure. 10s of billions is a minimum IMO.

[skierinvermont]

And yes that is 10s of billions of government spending that are necessary, according to Lomborg.

[skierinvermont]

And he advocates a 150++ Billion dollar per year carbon tax:

http://www.guardian....e-change-u-turn

global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront"

[valkhorn]

Absolutely agreed with this statement. I have shown enough curiousity to try and learn more for myself. I still know so little compared to plenty, whether or not they believe in AGW. However, I have and will continue to make an effort to LEARN for MYSELF, and not simply agree with what "experts" claim because they are experts.

I however have read both sides, you have not.

Your actions belie your claims of 'intellectual honesty'

You claim that I have not read both sides. I have. I just said so in my previous post.

It's abundantly clear to me that you read only what you want to read and believe only what you want to believe. You can say all you want but your actions show your true nature.

[PhillipS]

Screw it. I will do the work for you. What you just typed above was both dishonest and intellectually lazy. You did no research and provided no sources. Instead you made a bogus claim about Fred Singer, without even checking to make sure that this claim was accurate. Nothing I found ever said he disbelieved in the dangers of NICOTINE.

Good job on being completely lazy.

Source

Here's a link to the DeSmogBlog column on Fred Singers ties tothe tobacco industry

And another from Tobacco.org.

Nothing dishonest in what I wrote.