Global Warming Flaks Reduced to a Strategy of Denial

The American Spectator ^ | 3.4.10 | Tom Bethell

[astyanax]

Recently, the Washington Post published an editorial, "Climate Insurance," insisting that "the Earth is warming," and that humans have been partly responsible. There are "few reputable scientists who would disagree," the paper said.

The Post was displaying its continued fealty to the official story. Nothing had changed, the paper was telling us. It would be ignoring the accumulating snowball of reports from news media around the world that have cast more and more doubt on the official theory.

A few days earlier, on a National Public Radio program in Washington, John Broder, who covers global warming for the New York Times, metaphorically raised his right hand and proclaimed his own loyalty to the warmist faith. When Diane Rehm asked him directly Broder said: "I believe there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate is warming, and that humans are responsible."

After the Post editorial appeared. I sent a letter to the paper, asking them to identify a few scientists who believe in man-made global warming and who are neither employed by government agencies, nor are members of university departments that receive climate-change grants from government agencies.

[astyanax]

And here’s a hint for you:
An “analysis” is not a fact.

[astyanax]

"You are nothing but a shill..."
I think it was the "flak" in the title that got to him.
:)

[astyanax]

"If what I know to be true and accurate..."

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so." -Ronald Reagan

[ohioman]

Good point my friend!

[cogitator]

Give me a fact in favor of AGW.
Just one.

The stratosphere is cooling. There are two main reasons for that. One of them is ozone depletion. The links below will help you figure out what the other reason is. Take your time; I'm in no rush.

Stratospheric cooling

Global warming causes stratospheric cooling

The sky is falling

Impact of Greenhouse Gases (see the section on stratospheric cooling at the bottom)

[cogitator]

The problem is that hardly anything you say about AGW is “true or accurate”.

I'd sure like some examples of something I've said that isn't. I have occasionally made a mistake, and I usually acknowledge them when they're pointed out.

You are nothing but a shill for those who would tax all of us for an outright lie.

I'm not a shill for "them" because I don't agree with that approach, but it is not a lie. I just replied to astyanax:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2464081/posts?page=25#25

If it's an "outright lie", then what is the correct explanation (that would be the accurate and truthful explanation, rather than the "outright lie") for observed stratospheric cooling?

[cogitator]

And here’s a hint for you:
An “analysis” is not a fact.

"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." -- Stephen J. Gould

[astyanax]

That’s nice.
Still can’t provide a fact, huh?

[ohioman]

It’s also a great thing that no one on FR falls for your global warming propaganda.

[cogitator]

Data may be what you think of as "facts".

Stratospheric Temperature Trends

(Warning: PDF): An update of observed stratospheric temperature trends

March satellite measured temperatures

Decadal stratospheric temperature trends

So what explains these data?

Explanations require analysis.

Science February 24, 2006;
Volume 311, Number 5764, pages 1138 - 1141;
DOI: 10.1126/science.1122587;
Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling
V. Ramaswamy, M. D. Schwarzkopf, W. J. Randel, B. D. Santer, B. J. Soden, G. L. Stenchikov

Abstract: Observations reveal that the substantial cooling of the global lower stratosphere over 1979–2003 occurred in two pronounced steplike transitions. These arose in the aftermath of two major volcanic eruptions, with each cooling transition being followed by a period of relatively steady temperatures. Climate model simulations indicate that the space-time structure of the observed cooling is largely attributable to the combined effect of changes in both anthropogenic factors (ozone depletion and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases) and natural factors (solar irradiance variation and volcanic aerosols). The anthropogenic factors drove the overall cooling during the period, and the natural ones modulated the evolution of the cooling.

The amount of time that it took for you to reply to me indicates either the level of effort you devoted to examining the information I provided or the level of intellectual capability that you are capable of achieving. If you either can't understand or don't want to understand, then any attempt at a rational discourse with you is a waste of my time. If your only purpose was to waste my time, you succeeded. If you actually wanted to expand your knowledge, you apparently failed.

But it was not an entire waste of time, because now I know how solid this particular fact is.

Thank you for the refreshing exchange of views.

[cogitator]

It’s also a great thing that no one on FR falls for your global warming propaganda.

I've never provided propaganda here. I also have no concern for how what I've provided is received. I'm well aware of how strongly-held political biases make unbiased intellectual reasoning more difficult. Your own experience with me does not cover the entire breadth of topics that I have engaged in here, and it does not consider the number of positive responses that I have received, publically or privately, including actual expressions of gratitude for clarifying certain subjects.

Best regards.

[ohioman]

Hey. You wrong on AGW, but I like your volcano posts. Nothing political in those.

[astyanax]

That's great, and once again you are missing the big picture.
30 years of data. So what?!
Greenhouse gasses? So what?!
What decimal point percentage of the decimal point percentage that makes up greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere was impacted by man?
You want to mention "the level of effort" and "intellectual capability" and "rational discourse" while all you've accomplished is to cherry pick insignificant and irrelevant pieces of information that reaffirm your preconceived notions.
I read through all your links.
But it was not an entire waste of time...
You are incorrect.
It was a complete waste of my time.
The only thing I learned is that you like pretty pictures.

[astyanax]

One last point.
I'm sure you've noticed (or maybe not, as your choice of material seems rather limited) that all the “flaws” (i.e. errors, fraud and manipulation) seem to happen only on one side of the argument.
Common sense dictates that if the AGW’ers had ANY “analysis” that could withstand scrutiny they would be shouting it from the rooftops.
The silence speaks volumes.

[astyanax]

And one (final) last point. ;)
"I'm well aware of how strongly-held political biases make unbiased intellectual reasoning more difficult."
That's good. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.
I'll ask again. How did the last ice age end?
You seem to be under the impression that CO2, the ozone layer, warming, etc. are somehow limited to the post-industrial age.
You may want to consider this.
And since you like pretty pictures, explain Historical Temperatures and Modern Temperatures.
"Take your time." LOL

[cogitator]

That's great, and once again you are missing the big picture. 30 years of data. So what?!

It is sufficient to provide a point strongly supporting AGW, as you requested.

What decimal point percentage of the decimal point percentage that makes up greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere was impacted by man?

Anthropogenic activities are primarily responsible for the approximate +3 ppm per year increase in atmospheric CO2. I can provide a diagram if you need this point detailed further.

You want to mention "the level of effort" and "intellectual capability" and "rational discourse" while all you've accomplished is to cherry pick insignificant and irrelevant pieces of information that reaffirm your preconceived notions.

Stratospheric cooling is a well-defined observation that is explained by increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2, due primarily to anthropogenic activities. It is not insignificant or irrelevant, and I chose it carefully to respond to your request.

The only thing I learned is that you like pretty pictures.

If you only considered them as pictures, and not as plots of the relevant data illustrating the point I presented, then you either didn't comprehend them or didn't try.

[cogitator]

Common sense dictates that if the AGW’ers had ANY “analysis” that could withstand scrutiny they would be shouting it from the rooftops.

As far as I can interpret, most scientists are distressed by the misconceptions that are being repeatedly promoted by climate skeptics, but they, perhaps unfortunately, are only now becoming aware of the need to inform the general public about the scientific reality of this issue.

But there are several sites that debunk popular skeptical misconceptions. This is one of the best:

Skeptical Science

[cogitator]

I'll ask again. How did the last ice age end?

When did you ask me this previously? While noting that you're changing the subject (and I will take that as a tacit admission that I responded to your initial request adequately), the last glacial era officially ended when the oceanic circulation pattern that was disrupted by the flood of glacial water released from the North American continental glaciation (an event which initiated the Younger Dryas period) was reestablished via deepwater formation in the North Atlantic.

You seem to be under the impression that CO2, the ozone layer, warming, etc. are somehow limited to the post-industrial age.

That's a very mistaken impression. You might check my profile.

Regarding your other links, I've considered them (for many years, actually). Do yon need anything explained?

[astyanax]

That's a very mistaken impression. You might check my profile.
I'm not concerned with your profile. My comments are in regard to this thread.
Regarding your other links, I've considered them (for many years, actually). Do yon need anything explained?
LOL! Thanks, but I hardly think you're the one to do it. If you were capable, you would notice that the last 30 years of data, that you need to rely for having any chance of justifying your beliefs, are not outside the historical norm. So you choose to ignore everything else.
A 30 year graph is hardly "sufficient to provide a point strongly supporting AGW."
As the article so clearly stated, "With so much volatility in the graphs, anyone could play “pick a trend” and depending on which dot you start from, you can get any trend you want."
I'm glad you're impressed with yourself (a lot of purple marker as a kid?) but your reasoning is hardly impressive (a lot of KoolAid as an adult?)
"...most scientists are distressed by the misconceptions that are being repeatedly promoted by climate skeptics.
LOL! WAY too much KoolAid...

[astyanax]

Martian ice caps receding every year for 6 years.
Pluto warming, even though it’s moving away from the sun and should be cooling.
The moons around Saturn warming.
But go ahead and ignore the correlation between variations in solar output and planetary temperatures and concentrate on the Earth’s stratosphere in the last 30 years.
Yea, that will convince people.
Good luck with that!