Search This Blog

Monday, January 29, 2007

Loboinok 1, Global Warming 0

Lobo's comments were so good I am giving him the head of this column:

Loboinok's thoughts!!!

If someone denies something that's generally accepted, on the basis of deeply flawed or long-discredited arguments, then I think we have to question whether they really understand their field. (from a commenter)

1960’s: Paul Ehrlich warned the US that a coming disaster was going to happen in 1980. The global population boom would leave 60 million US citizens to starve to death. Did not happen. The UN actually has reduced their population every decade since 1970.

1970’s: Scientist proclaim “change in climate” points to coming ice age. Did not happen.

1980’s: Scientist claim power lines cause cancer. Wrong.

1990’s cell phones cause cancer. All because of electro magnetic currents. Not true…today people wear magnetic bracelets and sleep on magnetic pads for the benefits of the current.

Eggs were good for us, then bad, now good,again.

Beer and wine was good for us, then bad, now good, again.

So, is global warming happening as "scientists" claim it is?

Global Warming is Real
And It’s Happening on Mars! (

Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find

M.I.T. Edu.

Global Warming on Jupiter: Hubble Telescope

Science Astronomy

Neptune’s Moon Getting Warmer: Hubble Telescope

Looks as though SUVs are messing up the whole Solar system.

That's 4 planets out of 9...oops 8. Scientists can't even make up their minds as to what constitutes a planet.


Thanks, Lobo. You know, it seems that the Weather Channel's Meteorological spokesperson (Dr. Heidi Cullen, "Climate Expert") has a degree in Eastern Religion from Juniata college and doesn't even understand the Coriolis Effect - She didn't know that Cyclones in the Southern Hemisphere rotate the opposite direction from Hurricanes in the Northern Hemisphere! That is akin to presenting oneself and a basketball coach and not knowing the NBA has a 24 second shot clock! Yet, all sorts of commenters place her on the side of "science."

For instance, this comment after I revealed that all sorts of Meteorologists were angry that she was suggesting witholding certification from anyone who didn't agree with Global Warming:

1. not that I'm defending al gore or anything, but he didn't just jump on the global warming bandwagon last year. I forgot the exact time frame, but to accuse the man of that is wrong.

I don't much care about Al Gore, but I am pretty sure he isn't a scientist and why anyone would see him as such is puzzling to me.

2. Oh no! People changed their minds about global warming! How dare they! What you think is what you think, right? How could anyone actually take more data over 20 years, realize their original opinion was wrong, and revise their stance on an issue????? Liars.

Ah, derision! My favorite argument.

3. I still don't see the reasons liberals would lie about Global Warming.

I could speculate endlessly, but who cares? Whether some lie and some are simply wrong, the evidence is not strong at all according to meterologists in general. Cyclical changes in weather patterns would be the Occam's Razor answer and not a general pattern of warming.

On a humorous note, though, I would love to see someone Photoshop Al Gore as Chicken Little! Hmm, or maybe the Little Boy Who Cried, "Warmth"! Hahahahaha! Any Photoshoppers out there?

Postscript courtesy of DayByDay


loboinok said...

Sorry radar, I neglected to credit the author of the 60's to 90's quotes as belonging to 'Sonnabend', a commentor on the Wide Awakes.

I was updating the STOP the ACLU blogroll and come across it immediately after reading your post here.

It's as I said a long time ago, I don't know diddly about science but the crevo debates have always fascinated me.

I do learn much, but evos can be a nasty, arrogant bunch.

I will say this... you have the most decent evo commentors than any other site I frequent.

Mazement said...

Wow, lots of different fallacies in this one! Let's see what I can do...

The Population Boom: Starting in the late 60's, the birth rate in the US started dropping. There were a lot of different reasons for this, but one of them was concern about overpopulation. Starvation continues to be a problem in the 3rd World. So this wasn't really a "failed prediction". It was a warning about a potential danger that the US successfully avoided. Yay scientists!

The Coming Ice Age: This was a controversial view at the time. Climate modeling was still in its infancy and there was no scientific consensus on how valid the results. Global Warming, on the other hand, does have a consensus.

Cancer scares: Again, there's no scientific consensus on most of these. What happened was that someone would do a study that seemed to show a risk, and then the press would hype it all out of proportion. Then other scientists would do an second study with a larger sample size and find out that the first study was flawed.

Sometimes the press would get confused and misrepresent the results. Beer and wine are good for you in small amounts, and bad for you in larger amounts.

Magnetic bracelets and sleeping pads are a scam. They won't hurt you, but you really shouldn't waste money on them.

Scientists can't decide how many planets there are: This one's a good example of the religious mindset. There's an implication that God has an objective definition of what a "planet" is, and that the goal of human scientists is to find it.

But actually "planet" is just a word, subjectively defined by humans for their own convenience. When lots of Kuiper Belt Objects started to be discovered, scientists decided that it was convenient to consider them as something other than planets. Once that decision was made, Pluto had to be reclassified as a Kuiper Belt Object.

Global warming on other planets: Remember that things can have more than one cause. Yes, we're in a period of increased solar activity, this is beyond our control, and there's some evidence that it's contributing to global warming. But that doesn't change the fact that there are other factors that aren't beyond our control. (One big factor is the sudden release of carbon from the burning of fossil fuels.)

cranky old fart said...

"On a humorous note, though, I would love to see someone Photoshop Al Gore as Chicken Little!"

I'm sure someone has already. Such a photo would probably cited as sound argument on many fundy websites, just as you cite the many anecdotes cited by lobo citing "Sonnabend" on some fundy blog as some "proof" of something...

lava said...

"1. not that I'm defending al gore or anything, but he didn't just jump on the global warming bandwagon last year. I forgot the exact time frame, but to accuse the man of that is wrong.

I don't much care about Al Gore, but I am pretty sure he isn't a scientist and why anyone would see him as such is puzzling to me."

Don't try and spin this as me calling gore a scientist. That comment was in response to you saying "As to their possible agenda, it is possible Al Gore was just looking for another fifteen minutes of fame and perhaps another way in to the White House". In no way was I calling Gore a scientist. I was just responding to your guesses about the liberal motive behind promoting global warming.

Still I am waiting for a possible motive behind liberals promoting global warming. I can almost buy the evolution promotes atheism argument- that does make some logical sense. But Global Warming? Where is the link?

Radar- I liked your response to my argument about the agnostic scientist. But, personally as an agnostic(and as a non-scientist), I think the only discussion of God or the supernatural when talking science belongs in the origins of the universe(which I believe to be much older then you). Unless time is something that I cannot comprehend, it does seem like there must have been a beginning. (Or not- I really have no idea)

loboinok said...

Global Warming, on the other hand, does have a consensus.

Scientific or Political?

As for the "cancer scares", looks to me like alot of excuses.

Bottom line is flawed science.

I agree that the media is culpable.

Magnetic bracelets and sleeping pads are a scam.

No kidding!

(One big factor is the sudden release of carbon from the burning of fossil fuels.)

To what measurable extent has science determined that the burning of FF is contributing to GW?


...on some fundy blog as some "proof" of something...

Your slip is showing!


Still I am waiting for a possible motive behind liberals promoting global warming.

Follow the money! See stem cell research.

It is anti-Capitalistic.

I'd be willing to bet that if all Government monies were to dry up, science would immediately find the flaw in GW.

In my opinion, science has been so politically corrupted that it's credibility is no better than our media.

Mazement said...

To what measurable end has science determined that the burning of FF is contributing to GW?

I'm not an expert on the science; I've just looked at overviews of the research and done some basic filtering to separate the crackpot ideological stuff from the stuff that sounds sensible.

NOAA has a FAQ page that might answer some of your questions.

It is anti-Capitalistic.

I don't see tne anti-capitalism. Certainly it's well known that some manufacturing processes create pollution, and the government does enforce regulations to limit the damage.

But these regulations haven't destroyed capitalism. Capitalists still control the means of production and they can buy and sell stuff on the open market.

In fact, you could make a good case that these regulations strengthen capitalism. If I'm allowed to make cheap products by dumping toxic waste in the river, then I'm shifting some of my costs onto my downstream neighbors.

Certainly we'll need some more regulations to deal with global warming, but I don't think they'll harm capitalism as a system.

Am I right in guessing that you've decided that global warming is a hoax because it contradicts your ideology?

Have you considered that your ideology might be leading you in the wrong direction? I mean, I'm fairly liberal but I do part ways with my fellow liberals when they start pushing crackpot science. (I support nuclear power, for example, and I snicker at crystals and new-agey stuff.) I know following a strict ideology makes life simpler, but sometimes you've gotta find your own way!

loboinok said...

In fact, you could make a good case that these regulations strengthen capitalism. If I'm allowed to make cheap products by dumping toxic waste in the river, then I'm shifting some of my costs onto my downstream neighbors.

Do you know of any US company dumping toxic waste in the river?

Aside from that, China is not down stream.

My neighbor is an executive at La-Z-Boy (Arkansas)and tells me that La-Z-Boy is getting hurt badly by China, who incidentally, is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol,but as a developing country, China is exempt, for now, from the limits on greenhouse emissions that wealthy countries are supposed to abide by.

The same leather couch produced here at $2700, China is producing for $600.

If we spend billions to bring our companies into compliance with Kyoto, guess how much that $2700 couch will cost and guess where La-Z-Boy will be making their couches.

Humans have only been trying to measure the temperature fairly consistently since about 1880, during which time we think the world may have warmed by about +0.6 °C ± 0.2 °C. As we’ve already pointed out, the estimate of warming is less than the error margin on our ability to take the Earth’s temperature, generally given as 14 °C ± 0.7 °C for the average 1961-1990 while the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) suggest 13.9 °C for their average 1880-2004. We are pretty sure it was cold before the 1880 commencement of record and we would probably not handle the situation too well if such conditions returned but there has been no demonstrable catastrophic warming while people have been trying to measure the planet’s temperature. If we have really been measuring a warming episode as we think we have, then setting new records for “hottest ever in recorded history” should happen just about every year — although half a degree over a century is hardly something to write home about — so there’s really nothing exciting about scoring the highest number when looking at such a short history.

Oops…looks like the Democrats didnt like Kyoto either

Fortunately, the Senate has refused to ratify the Kyoto treaty, one that would subject U.S. energy production to the whims of third-world dictators (TEA, January, 1998). The reason for the refusal has more to do with economics than with the inept science behind the screams of global warmers, but it is a refusal nonetheless

As companies flee high fuel prices in the Northeastern states, employment in the rest of the United States would increase by more than 117,000 in 2010 and by an additional 59,000 in 2020. However, over time the Northeast’s economic decline would have a modest though significant negative impact on the nation as a whole. For instance, by 2020, even those states not party to the CCAP would see their GSP decline by 0.2 percent and their citizens would see their household consumption spending fall $98.00 annually.

All Pain, No Gain: Greenhouse Gases Continue to Rise. Neither S.139 nor the CCAP would have any appreciable effect on human caused global warming. Indeed, according to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, even if all of the signatories to the more stringent Kyoto protocol met their greenhouse gas reduction targets, the earth would be only .07 to 0.19 degrees Celsius cooler than it would be absent Kyoto. Greenhouse gas concentrations would continue to increase because fast growing countries that are exempt from emissions cuts — such as China, India, South Korea, Brazil and Indonesia — will account for as much as 85 percent of the projected increase in the next two decades.

Conclusion. The Kyoto Protocol will be costly and do nothing to prevent global warming — even if humans are causing it. Proposed domestic actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would cost only less than Kyoto and would do even less to prevent global warming. Therefore, they merit even less consideration.

Some of this is supported here.

Have you considered that your ideology might be leading you in the wrong direction?

Y'all even insult nicely!

Come on mazement! I live in Oklahoma.
If the NWS issues a tornado warning, we head for the storm celler.

My ideology led me in the wrong direction the first 27 years of my life.

If you knew me, then and now, you'd understand.

lava said...

I still don't buy the whole "global warming is a liberal anti-capitalist movement" theory.

First- define what you mean exactly by capitalism. This really frames the whole argument.

Second- using that definition of capitalism, show that the theory global warming is human made is anti-capitalist.

Third- show that liberals, in general, and the scientists supporting this theory are anti-capitalist and using the theory to support their anti-capitalist agenda.

As a non-scientist, I understand that I am semi-forced into believing widely accepted scientific theories. Yet, I have not problem with that. Let's throw out occam's razor, as radar likes to do. What is the simplest solution? Scientists support an idea/theory because the evidence directs them to that? Or there is a world-wide, super expansive anti-god propaganda machine being steered by atheist liberals who reduce funding and oppress dissenting voices and whose only goal is to take god out of society? Hmmmmm....

One of the main problems I have with these arguments about science being anti-god is this view supposes that the scientific community as a whole has no integrity. The scientific community is made up of millions of INDIVIDUALS. For the majority of them to have colluded and decided to take god out of's just absurd to me. Centuries ago- yes, maybe this sort of thing could have happened, I have no idea really. But now, it just seems ridiculous.

Middle_America said...

As always, good post.

loboinok said...

I still don't buy the whole "global warming is a liberal anti-capitalist movement" theory.


National Center

Socialist Party

Socialist Review

Lew Rockwell

Worker's World

World Socialist Web Site

Quotes on Global Warming;

"In a decade, America's mighty rivers will have reached the boiling point."
- Edwin Newman, Earth Day 1970

"Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple."
- Kary Mullis, Winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry

"'Protecting the Environment' is a ruse. The goal is the political and economic subjugation of most men by the few, under the guise of preserving nature."
- J. H. Robbins

"The only people who would be hurt by abandoning the Kyoto Protocol would be several thousand people who make a living attending conferences on global warming."
- Professor Kirill Kondratyev, Russian Academy of Sciences

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken

". . . Perhaps of even greater significance is the continuous and profound distrust of science and technology that the environmental movement displays. The environmental movement maintains that science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe atomic power plant, to produce a pesticide that is safe, or even bake a loaf of bread that is safe, if that loaf of bread contains chemical preservatives. When it comes to global warming, however, it turns out that there is one area in which the environmental movement displays the most breathtaking confidence in the reliability of science and technology, an area in which, until recently, no one — even the staunchest supporters of science and technology — had ever thought to assert very much confidence at all. The one thing, the environmental movement holds, that science and technology can do so well that we are entitled to have unlimited confidence in them, is FORECAST THE WEATHER! — for the next one hundred years...."
- George Reisman, The Toxicity of Environmentalism

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."
- Richard Benedict, State Dept. employee working on assignment from the Conservation Foundation

"Most meteorological research is funded by the federal government. And boy, if you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the chance of not getting funded."
- William Gray, Sept. 12, 2005

"None of the global warming discussions mention the word ‘nanotechnology’. Yet nanotechnology will eliminate the need for fossil fuels within 20 years. If we captured 1% of 1% of the sunlight (1 part in 10,000) we could meet 100% of our energy needs without ANY fossil fuels. We can’t do that today because the solar panels are too heavy, expensive, and inefficient. But there are new nanoengineered designs that are much more effective.

“Within five to six years, this technology will make a significant contribution. Within 20 years, it can provide all of our energy needs. The discussions talk about current trends continuing for the next century as if nothing is going to change. I think global warming is real but it has been modest thus far - 1 degree f. in 100 years. It would be concern if that continued or accelerated for a long period of time, but that’s not going to happen.

“And it’s not just environmental concern that will drive this, the $2 trillion we spend on energy is providing plenty of economic incentive. I don’t see any disasters occuring in the next 10 years from this. However, I AM concerned about other environment issues. There are other reasons to want to move quickly away from fossil fuels including environmental pollution at every step and the geopolitical instability it causes."
- Ray Kurzweil

"The majority of humankind does not accept this system, despite claims of worldwide support. Even with Russia's ratification, 75% of the world's CO2 is emitted by, 68% of the world's GDP is produced in, and 89% of the world's population live in countries that are not handcuffed by Kyoto's restrictions. Like fascism and communism, Kyotoism is an attack on basic human freedoms behind a smokescreen of propaganda. Like those ideologies of human hatred, it will be exposed and defeated."
- Andrey Illarionov, Financial Times

"With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it."
- James M. Inhofe, speech in U.S. Senate, July 28, 2003

"Ideology on which the Kyoto Protocol is based, is a new form of totalitarian ideology, along with Marxism, Communism and socialism. We had doubts about the Kyoto Protocol, we wanted reasoning from our partners in the European Union, in the IPCC. Formal requests had been sent to these organizations. But we have not received responses yet, which suggests that no coherent answers can be offered. What we hear is ‘it is not comprehensive responses that matter, we will not give them anyway; what is important is whether you believe us or not’.”

“We have received no single argument in favour of this document except political pressure. No link has been established between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. No other objective facts have been presented in recent time. The IPCC's reports in 1990 and 1995 show it clearly.”

“We are close to a consensus that the Kyoto Protocol does huge economic, political, social and ecological damage to the Russian Federation. In addition, it certainly violates the rights and freedoms of Russian citizens, and well as the rights and freedoms of citizens in those countries which signed and ratified it."
- Andrey Illarionov, Economic Adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin

"Global warming -- at least the modern nightmare vision -- is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy makers are not."
- David Bellamy, Daily Mail, July 9, 2004

"The problem we are faced with is that the meteorological establishment and the global warming lobby research bodies which receive large funding are now apparently so corrupted by the largesse they receive that the scientists in them have sold their integrity."
- Piers Corbyn, Weather Action bulletin, December 2000

"There is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming of the past century. We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science."
- Statement of Principle, signed by 55 of the world's leading atmospheric scientists, issued prior to the Rio Summit 1992

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister
Note: Hey, Christine, justice and equality for who? Isn’t enacting change based on phony science fraudulent?

"… those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork."
- Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Centre

"Montreal — tens of thousands of people ignored frigid temperatures Saturday to lead a worldwide day of protest against global warming."
- Canadian Press, December 2005

"The whole (global warming) thing is created to destroy America's free enterprise system and our economic stability."
- Jerry Falwell

"There is a significant minority of genuine experts in the field who believe that the Armageddon scenario is grossly oversold, especially by climatologists in pursuit of government funding and research grants. Such dissidents are treated as if they were heretics within an established religion."
- Dominic Lawson, The Independent

"I consider the concept of a global mean temperature to be somewhat dubious. A single number cannot adequately capture climate change. This number, as I see it, is aimed mostly at politicians and journalists."
- Craig Bohren, Professor Emeritus, Pennsylvania State University

"Not only is the Kyoto approach to global warming wrong-headed, the climate change establishment's suppression of dissent and criticism is little short of a scandal. The IPCC should be shut down… In Europe, where climate change absolutism is at its strongest, the quasi-religion of greenery in general and the climate change issue in particular have filled the vacuum of organised religion, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as a form of blasphemy."
- Nigel Lawson, Prospect Magazine, November 2005

"The Earth's climate has always shown natural variation … There is nothing to suggest that any warming we are seeing now is not part of that natural cycle. Every generation has had an apocalyptic myth. The language of climate change is becoming … religious."
- Professor Richard Lindzen, Sunday Times

"The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now."
- Louis Proyect, Columbia University

"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
- Chris Landsea, on resigning from the IPCC

" We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic socialism and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

"Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that 'liberals' will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly."
- John Ray, Greenie Watch

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."
- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970

Third- show that liberals, in general, and the scientists supporting this theory are anti-capitalist and using the theory to support their anti-capitalist agenda.

Together, with the above...

"There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere or disruption of the Earth's climate."
- Oregon Petition, from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, signed by over 17,000 international scientists including more than 2000 of the world's leading climatologists, meteorologists and planetary / atmospheric scientists

lava said...

did you bole the oregon petition because you thought it was important?

Thanks wiki.

* The petitioners could submit responses only by physical mail, not electronic mail. But older signatures submitted via the web were not removed.
* Signatories to the petition were requested to list an academic degree; 86% did list a degree; petitioners claimed that approximately two thirds held higher degrees, but never provided evidence confirming this claim.
* Petitioners were also requested to list their academic discipline; the petition sponsors claimed that 13% were trained in physical or environmental sciences (physics, geophysics, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, or environmental science) while 25% were trained in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, or other life sciences, but never provided evidence to support this claim.
* The Petition Project claimed that it avoided any funding or association with the energy industries, but many of the scientists who signed the petition are closely affiliated with organizations funded by Exxon and others to discredit legitimate climate science, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Myron Ebell and the Cooler Heads Coalition's Patrick Michaels.

The term "scientists" is often used in describing signatories, but the petition [7] did not require signatories to have a degree, or a degree in a scientific field, or to be working in the field in which the signatory had received a degree. The signatory was not asked to provide the name of his/her current or last employer or job. The distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled: those receiving the petition could check a line that said "send more petition cards for me to distribute".

In 2005, Scientific American reported: [8]

Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

One newspaper reporter said, in 2005:[9]

In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?

loboinok said...

did you bole the oregon petition because you thought it was important?

No. The info I provided is diverse.

Thanks wiki.