Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history'

[Sir Loin]

"0"

Your first “contribution” to this thread was a claim that sunspots were to account for any past claims that any particular day was hot.

Your second “contribution” to this thread was that you were unaware of any credible scientific debate at all. And that the only debate you were aware of was from scientist in the employ of ExxonMobil.

Your third “contribution” to this thread was that you might not know everything there is to know about this topic. You’re not so stupid that since you have not heard of something, it doesn't exist.

Your fourth “contribution” to the thread was a complaint that I had not submitted links that rebutted your prior link absent claims listed above.

So in short, you like to make lazy arsed claims and try to highjack threads with the most commonly used clichés that pertain to the topic at hand. According to you there are no credible scientist or studies (peer reviewed) that debunk MMGW. According to you the theory of Man Made Global Warming is not a theory but an accepted fact. You need internet links, and you’re looking for someone who might have so little time and activity in their life that they will happily jump into that debate with you. So…..start your thread about the matter and see if you can get any takers.

Your intellectually dishonest dissembling is unappealing to me. Perhaps had you started the thread not regurgitating the idiotic “ExxonMobil” claim, your later decision to play adult intellectual would hold more appeal. Glancing at your continued “contribution” to the thread, all I see is an opportunity to participate in a circular argument with no particular end in sight.

You should have made note of my earlier reference to the similarities between religious zealots and MMGW ones. The whole deny deny deny, label all dissenters as heretics ruse is no more intelligent or attractive when you add the words “give me internet links” to it.

Glancing at your last two posts, I see you are still up to the same thing as before and frankly the impending tee time at my local golf course holds a lot more interest than your offered internet link circle jerk festival. Good luck with your “case” you’re going to need it. Keep starting your deeply thoughtful and straightforward “debates” with claims that the only people who dispute MMGW are ExxonMobil scientist and that you are ignorant of anything else. Whether you recognize it or not, that really does say so much to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.:lol:

 

[cascadian]

Sir Loin,

Could you please stop posting all in bold?

It would be much appreciated and would help ensure that people actually read what you write.

You seem quite ardent about attacking Binary_Digit and reluctant to actually convince anyone of your viewpoint. Unless you count calling someone ignorant as some form of persuasion.

Also your admitted laziness and unwillingness to support your claims are duly noted.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Im still wondering how cows farting on earth are making mars hotter.


Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Looks like your not up with the latest science on that:

Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds

Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
April 4, 2007
Temperatures on Mars have increased slightly over a 20-year period due to the action of Martian winds, scientists have found.

New research has shown that dusty tornadoes called dust devils and gusty winds have helped the surface of Mars become darker, allowing it to absorb more of the sun's rays.

Read more here: Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds

This guy better watch it. No one likes to have their religion questioned.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,"

Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth

Junk science is right. Steve Milloy, the guy that runs that site is a paid lobbyist for the chemical and fossil fuels industries. You may as well be getting your science from the president of the pathological liars association.

The New Scientist has an excellent collection of articles that debunk the myths propagated by propaganda sites like junkscience.

Switch off the Sun and Earth would become a very chilly place. No one denies our star's central role in determining how warm our planet is. The issue today is how much solar changes have contributed to the recent warming, and what that tells us about future climate.

The total amount of solar energy reaching Earth can vary due to changes in the Sun's output, such as those associated with sunspots, or in Earth's orbit. Orbital oscillations can also result in different parts of Earth getting more or less sunlight even when the total amount reaching the planet remains constant – similar to the way the tilt in Earth's axis produces the hemispheric seasons. There may also be more subtle effects (see Climate myths: Cosmic rays are causing climate change), but these remain unproven.

On timescales that vary from millions of years through to the more familiar 11-year sunspot cycles, variations in the amount of solar energy reaching Earth have a huge influence on our atmosphere and climate. But the Sun is far from being the only player.

How do we know? According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason: higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the sun’s heat.

Read more here:

Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment

 

[Sir Loin]

Sir Loin,

Could you please stop posting all in bold?

It would be much appreciated and would help ensure that people actually read what you write.

You seem quite ardent about attacking Binary_Digit and reluctant to actually convince anyone of your viewpoint. Unless you count calling someone ignorant as some form of persuasion.

Also your admitted laziness and unwillingness to support your claims are duly noted.

Thus far I’ve had no problem getting people to both read and respond to my post. But I’ll consider your request and let you know what I decide.

I’m not really interested in trying to convince anyone of my viewpoint. We are not and have not been arguing my viewpoint. The argument such as it is has been mired in the denial that there any debate at all. Then credible debate, then credible peer reviewed debate…the circle spirals on.

And let me see if I get this right. The arbiter of what is “credible” here is the same goof that says if there is any debate it is not credible because “they” work for ExxonMobil. I feel so lazy not devoting time to such a fine circle jerk offer.

There is no credible debate at all, nah. Makes one wonder what all the arguing is about.

This oxymoronic circular argument has now become comic. :joke:

 

[DeeJayH]

if you were confident in what you post, you would not need to embolden the entire post
putting certain points of a post in bold highlights them
btu doing the whole post makes it seem as if you think everything you type is some sort of apocalyptic revelation
which translates into, not worth reading by most
just like people who type in all capitals, or whatever

 

[cascadian]

I’m not really interested in trying to convince anyone of my viewpoint. We are not and have not been arguing my viewpoint. The argument such as it is has been mired in the denial that there any debate at all. Then credible debate, then credible peer reviewed debate…the circle spirals on.

From the start of your interaction with Binary_Digit it has been "credible scientific debate." If you understand how scientific debate progresses, that implies peer reviewed research in the journal of the respective field. It's not a moving goal post. It's the same standard you will see applied throughout any number of debates on this matter.

The arbiter of what is “credible” here is the same goof that says if there is any debate it is not credible because “they” work for ExxonMobil.

Everyone makes their own call on what is credible. Some people actually understand the science and add knowledge to the field, some folks rely on trusted scientific authorities, and others might believe anything that reinforces their world view.

Feel free to demonstrate the evidence that you find credible and we will all form our own opinions I'm sure.

 

[DeeJayH]

From the start of your interaction with Binary_Digit it has been "credible scientific debate." If you understand how scientific debate progresses, that implies peer reviewed research in the journal of the respective field. It's not a moving goal post. It's the same standard you will see applied throughout any number of debates on this matter.

Everyone makes their own call on what is credible. Some people actually understand the science and add knowledge to the field, some folks rely on trusted scientific authorities, and others might believe anything that reinforces their world view.

Feel free to demonstrate the evidence that you find credible and we will all form our own opinions I'm sure.

Great post, and I would like to add


MMGW if BS :lol:
atleast its apocalyptic effects(affect?)
source: Online groups, social networks and online communities at me.com

 

[Sir Loin]

From the start of your interaction with Binary_Digit it has been "credible scientific debate." If you understand how scientific debate progresses, that implies peer reviewed research in the journal of the respective field. It's not a moving goal post. It's the same standard you will see applied throughout any number of debates on this matter.

The start was the truly stereotypical and telling brain fart that only scientist working for ExxonMobil had any issue with the theory of MMGW. Acknowledging such a clichéd generalization would have been a step in the direction or a real debate. As such was not the desire at the outset, but rather an attempt to dismiss the entire matter with truly lazy thinking and rationalization, I could care less about what Johnny Come Lately now wants to do. But I have suggested how he could achieve said in his own tidy little thread where anyone who wants to can revel in the ignorance of his initial claim and proceed to have truly progressive scientific debate spring forth from said. Chuckle.

Everyone makes their own call on what is credible. Some people actually understand the science and add knowledge to the field, some folks rely on trusted scientific authorities, and others might believe anything that reinforces their world view.

Oh thank you for declaring that oxymoron. I feel much better knowing that you have managed to come to grips with why I chose to mock the ExxonMobil idiocy and not really place much value or stock in all the attempts to recover from said that followed. But you keep waving your pom poms and cheering on this deeply thoughtful and highly progressive scientific debate you keep alluding to.

Feel free to demonstrate the evidence that you find credible and we will all form our own opinions I'm sure.

It is my opinion that anyone who claims only scientist working for ExxonMobil present any scientific debate about the theory of MMGW is not credible, intelligent or even very honest. Have you some kind of magic wand that will make such a stupid opening now come across as brilliant? No of course you don’t. But feel free to keep arguing the matter as if you do. With whom ever you can drum up to have it with it. I won’t be that person. The appeal of the initial circle jerk has not been enhanced by your contribution IMO.

 

[Sir Loin]

if you were confident in what you post, you would not need to embolden the entire post
putting certain points of a post in bold highlights them
btu doing the whole post makes it seem as if you think everything you type is some sort of apocalyptic revelation
which translates into, not worth reading by most
just like people who type in all capitals, or whatever

The use of bold faced Arial font size 10 is now a declaration of a lack of confidence and hides some sort of apocalyptic revelation scheme? And use of that text is going to prevent me from having conversations with more people who feel that way? Well I can only hope you are right.:rofl

 

[Binary_Digit]

I’m not really interested in trying to convince anyone of my viewpoint.

That much is obvious, since you can't even support your viewpoint in this thread. I'm curious, why would you come to a debate forum and flat out refuse to debate?

We are not and have not been arguing my viewpoint.

Actually, I've been arguing against your viewpoint from the beginning:

"If there were not so many scientists that agree with the maverick weatherman"

Please try to keep up. I've asked you repeatedly to support this claim, and based on your repeated and pathetic attempts to dodge it, it's pretty clear that you can't.

The argument such as it is has been mired in the denial that there any debate at all. Then credible debate, then credible peer reviewed debate…the circle spirals on.

If you don't know what credible scientific debate is, then maybe you should inform yourself before making assumptions. Here's a hint:

Random Scientist: "MMGW is wrong because of X."
All Other Scientists: "Actually, X is wrong because of Y."
Random Scientist: *** crickets ***

That is not a debate.

And let me see if I get this right. The arbiter of what is “credible” here is the same goof that says if there is any debate it is not credible because “they” work for ExxonMobil. I feel so lazy not devoting time to such a fine circle jerk offer.

It's pretty bad when you can't even address the strawman you created for yourself, much less the argument I actually made:

The only "scientists" I'm aware of who flatly deny AGW are the ones working for ExxonMobile etc.

I admit this was hyperbole. It was supposed to be an obvious exaggeration, but I guess it was too subtle for you to recognize. Sorry about that. The point is still there though, so why don't you just prove it wrong? I think because you can't.

 

[cascadian]

It is my opinion that anyone who claims only scientist working for ExxonMobil present any scientific debate about the theory of MMGW is not credible, intelligent or even very honest.

No one cares what you think of Binary_Digit. I don't even think he cares. You can add to the debate or make excuses and insults.

Have you some kind of magic wand that will make such a stupid opening now come across as brilliant? No of course you don’t. But feel free to keep arguing the matter as if you do. With whom ever you can drum up to have it with it. I won’t be that person.

Sweet, now I can stop reading your all bolded text and know that I won't be missing anything.

 

[Sir Loin]

That much is obvious, since you can't even support your viewpoint in this thread. I'm curious, why would you come to a debate forum and flat out refuse to debate?

I simply have no desire to engage in a protracted link argument with you over whether or not there is a debate ongoing about MMGW. I've better things to do than sit around collecting links from the millions of them available just to satisfy your desire to have an oxymoronic argument that there is no debate about MMGW. I suppose doing so would what? Assist you so you could now cease to feign as if you did not know better about this claim too? Waste someone else’s time with that idiot’s errand.

You can call it what ever you wish, victory, me being lazy, you choosing to be "subtle" or whatever floats your boat. Add it to your list of feeling “insulted” and the other bromides you tried to float in the same vein as there is no debate about MMGW. Have at it and have a blast while doing it. If you sincerely want to have the argument that there is no debate at all, go ahead. Solicit it and see if you can get others to argue the matter with you.

Good luck.

No one cares what you think of Binary_Digit. I don't even think he cares. You can add to the debate or make excuses and insults. Sweet, now I can stop reading your all bolded text and know that I won't be missing anything.

And I really don't care what your opinion on this matter or any that comes to mind is either. I'm sorry it upsets you that I won't agree to join in on a useless circle jerk. Maybe if you whine some more at me about it I'll change my mind. What next? Ad hom type stuff? Oh wait; didn’t I already get accused of that too? Chuckle.

 

[FreeThinker]

Oh yes, nothing like getting our scientific information from a maverick weatherman, as opposed to the scientific community. Try the Woodshole Oceanographic Institute. It consists of.... drum roll please--->

Scientists.

You know, those guys who actually formulate positions based on observation and data? Ever hear of them?

You think somehow the moment you wear a white lab coat you become all knowing?

Science isn't some infallible mythical god, it's just a research method. You and I and everyone else are perfectly capable of reading research documents on a topic and developing an opinon which, *gasp*, is the same thing a scientist does. The "scientist" is just someone that claims to be an expert in a given field, a field which may OR MAY NOT encompass what he's commenting about.

Anyone making statements about global warming AT ALL would need to be a marine biologist, a chemist, an archaeologist, a climatologist, and whatever the hell field encompasses solar radiation. I guarantee 99% of the people screaming about global warming are no where near qualified to do so.

Faith in a scientist is no better than faith in a priest. The title means nothing.

 

[Binary_Digit]

You think somehow the moment you wear a white lab coat you become all knowing?

Science isn't some infallible mythical god, it's just a research method. You and I and everyone else are perfectly capable of reading research documents on a topic and developing an opinon which, *gasp*, is the same thing a scientist does. The "scientist" is just someone that claims to be an expert in a given field, a field which may OR MAY NOT encompass what he's commenting about.

Anyone making statements about global warming AT ALL would need to be a marine biologist, a chemist, an archaeologist, a climatologist, and whatever the hell field encompasses solar radiation. I guarantee 99% of the people screaming about global warming are no where near qualified to do so.

Faith in a scientist is no better than faith in a priest. The title means nothing.

I agree. I'm a scientist by definition, but my opinion on climate change is no better than Joe Q. Public's opinion, because it's not my field of expertise.

So I listen to those who know better than me. And when there's a general consensus, I believe them, unless there's a good reason not to. Conspiracy theories without any evidence, and occasional random experts disagreeing based on facts that aren't true, are not good enough reasons - at least for me.

And for dana too, I wager. Considering he said scientists.

Obviously, one single scientist is just as error-prone as any other human being. And two scientists are probably more error-prone than ten groups of scientists. It would be naive to think otherwise. That's why peer-reviewed scientific reports are the only ones considered legitimate among the scientific community and knowledgeable people. That's why when someone says there is debate among the scientific community, it implies that there are peer-reviewed reports which contradict other peer-reviewed reports.

Maybe they exist for this topic, but they've been pretty elusive so far. :2razz:

 

[jfuh]

You think somehow the moment you wear a white lab coat you become all knowing?

Science isn't some infallible mythical god, it's just a research method. You and I and everyone else are perfectly capable of reading research documents on a topic and developing an opinon which, *gasp*, is the same thing a scientist does. The "scientist" is just someone that claims to be an expert in a given field, a field which may OR MAY NOT encompass what he's commenting about.

Anyone making statements about global warming AT ALL would need to be a marine biologist, a chemist, an archaeologist, a climatologist, and whatever the hell field encompasses solar radiation. I guarantee 99% of the people screaming about global warming are no where near qualified to do so.

Faith in a scientist is no better than faith in a priest. The title means nothing.

Actually far from it. Without the fundamental principles of the scientific back ground required, most non-scientists or those never trained in the field would have a very difficult time understanding what is written in scientific literature. The nomenclature itself would have anyone not trained in the field running around in circles.
No one is using faith, it's plain simple fact.

 

[Sir Loin]

I agree. I'm a scientist by definition, but my opinion on climate change is no better than Joe Q. Public's opinion, because it's not my field of expertise.

So I listen to those who know better than me. And when there's a general consensus, I believe them, unless there's a good reason not to. Conspiracy theories without any evidence, and occasional random experts disagreeing based on facts that aren't true, are not good enough reasons - at least for me.

And for dana too, I wager. Considering he said scientists.

Obviously, one single scientist is just as error-prone as any other human being. And two scientists are probably more error-prone than ten groups of scientists. It would be naive to think otherwise. That's why peer-reviewed scientific reports are the only ones considered legitimate among the scientific community and knowledgeable people. That's why when someone says there is debate among the scientific community, it implies that there are peer-reviewed reports which contradict other peer-reviewed reports.

Maybe they exist for this topic, but they've been pretty elusive so far. :2razz:

I have to say that since sparring with you I have found myself reflecting upon the discussion. I find that while I am still very reluctant to enter any kind of link battle, I would like to discuss the matter of MMGW with you. Links supplied where possible and truly needed of course.

To that end I will start a thread either tonight or tomorrow evening dedicated to the matter. I'm not really looking for a "debate" or fight as much as I am interested in expressing the issues about MMGW that concern me. I also listen to people who know a lot more than me and listen to all of them; not just those who agree with me. Which is why I have some serious issues with MMGW. Not Global Warming mind you, ManMadeGlobalWarming.

I am interested to see what kind of information and ideas might be exchanged as I come at matters from the more litigious side of life. You state you are a scientist in an unrelated field, coming from the opposite. So it should be interesting to see where we can find common ground and of course where we disagree. A couple of ideas already come to mind nes pa?

Initial fencing aside, I am interested in discussing the issues that cause me to doubt the veracity of MMGW. I eschew long winded list linked based arguments because I rarely quote websites or derive my arguments and thoughts based upon them. I read a lot of books and pay a lot of attention to the news. Maybe I’m even a news junkie if you ask my girlfriend. I just don’t have the time in my schedule to spend that many hours on the PC looking up links and websites that agree with things I have read and learned about. Book reviews don't feature transcripts. I steal time away to “link up” in bits and grabs. So if it takes me a while to make a reply sometimes it is because I’m just not able to surf the net when on the road as much as I am. Not because I am not going to respond to you.

So those are the caveats I proffer.

And the grammar troll can come along too.

 

[DeeJayH]

take it to the True Debate Forum or Private Debate Forum at top of forum lists

http://www.debatepolitics.com/contests/

if you would like some one on one time

 

[akyron]

Maybe its just me but that scale seems to directly contradict its own statements. I clearly see spikes where there should be a flatline according to the article.

Anyways continue with your Al Goregasms and prayers.


1998 used to be considered the hottest year in “1000 years”.

NASA Revises Temperature Data; 1998 Now Behind 1934 as Hottest


The Global Warming Myth

"What especially worries me is that if anyone dares to question the dogma of the global warming doomsters who repeatedly tell us that C not only stands for carbon but for climate catastrophe, we are immediately vilified as heretics or worse as deniers. "-David Bellamy June 2007

 

[Voidwar]

The only "scientists" I'm aware of who flatly deny AGW are the ones working for ExxonMobile etc.

If this matters enough to mention, who do you think funds the other side ?

Do you find the same amount of impropriety in the fact that scientists supporting AGW are being funded by people who have ulterior motives and biases of their own ? Environmentalists need for there to be a problem, so they can keep on being environmentalists.

 

[donsutherland1]

In my opinion, Mr. Coleman's blog entry is little more than a character attack on scientists with whom he vehemently disagrees. It is also inappropriate in that his claims are unsubstantiated.

In his blog, Mr. Coleman charges, "Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming." As he makes such assertions, he bears the burden of offering reasonable evidence to support those severe charges. Yet, he provides not a single shred of credible evidence to support his allegation that a number of unethical scientists "manipulated" data to reach their conclusions. He offered no memos, no letters, no oral comments, no witnesses, nothing. The absence of corroborating evidence to support his allegations, leaves the impression of desperation rather than informed scientific thought.​

 

[jfuh]

If this matters enough to mention, who do you think funds the other side ?

The funding that goes to the "other side" would be the same funding panels that decide whom to grant on all other scientific research regardless of; ie the NSF. You have any idea how they decide whom to and whom not to fund?

Do you find the same amount of impropriety in the fact that scientists supporting AGW are being funded by people who have ulterior motives and biases of their own ? Environmentalists need for there to be a problem, so they can keep on being environmentalists.

Have any proof of this?
Not to mention the fact that it's not just the funding panel that'd have to be "dirty" but all through out the ranks including the publishers for the past 30 years.

 

[Voidwar]

Have any proof of this?

One need not prove a tautology.

Environmentalists need for there to be a problem, so they can keep on being environmentalists.

Do you have any proof that ExxonMobil funding a study makes it less valid ?

If so, I reckon it will apply to treehuggers funding enviro-science studies just as much. I reckon it will apply to treehugging grant boards granting funds to studies that agree with them.

 

[jfuh]

One need not prove a tautology.

Ahh I see, so you claim so makes it so, regardless of there being proof of at all.

Do you have any proof that ExxonMobil funding a study makes it less valid ?

#1 It's not my claim that exxon mobil funded studies are invalid, simply that they haven't had a single validated study on AGW. Proof? Sure find me a single scientific publication on AGW that received funding from Exxon mobil.

If so, I reckon it will apply to treehuggers funding enviro-science studies just as much. I reckon it will apply to treehugging grant boards granting funds to studies that agree with them.

NSF is a tree hugging group now? What you've just shown here is how blatantly ignorant you are on this matter.
:fyi: weak editing job

 

[Voidwar]

Ahh I see, so you claim so makes it so, regardless of there being proof of at all.

Do you know what a tautology is ?

Do you recognize this one when you see it ?

Environmentalists need for there to be a problem, so they can keep on being environmentalists.

#1 It's not my claim that exxon mobil funded studies are invalid, simply that they haven't had a single validated study on AGW. Proof? Sure find me a single scientific publication on AGW that received funding from Exxon mobil.

I just noticed that you are jumping into this thread, and I was reponding to the claims made by another poster, specifically . . .

The only "scientists" I'm aware of who flatly deny AGW are the ones working for ExxonMobile etc.

With his quotation marks, he attempts to discredit their work because of who their employer is. The allegation is completely unsupported.

NSF is a tree hugging group now?

The board that decides who gets funded definitely has a slant toward believing MMGW before the tests are even run. Just like the lefty slant in the History and Poli-Sci tenure tracks at our universities these days.

Either way, as the below comment shows, you are making this personal rather than responding to my initial question, which follows it . . .

What you've just shown here is how blatantly ignorant you are on this matter.

If this matters enough to mention, who do you think funds the other side ?

If you can so quickly assume corruption on the part of Exxon, without proving anything, I have just as much basis to assume the same tactics from the other side of the fence, you know, those environmentalists who need for there to be a problem, so they can keep on being environmentalists.

 

[Binary_Digit]

With his quotation marks, he attempts to discredit their work because of who their employer is.

Not true. With my quotation marks, I call into question the legitimacy of their "scientist" title when they publish false reports in order to make a buck. And yes, that works both ways - anyone who knowingly publishes misleading reports which aren't supported by facts is not worthy of being called a scientist, regardless of which side of the debate they're on.