Search This Blog

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Scientists cooling on the idea of global warming

Snow in N.O.

First, I am going to copy a post that you really should read in it's entirety:

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernemntal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. (This entry is a summary of the U. S. Senate Minority Report)

Below is just a small selection of quotes and highlights from the updated 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring over 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears. The 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. Note how many of these scientists have peer reviewed and published studies, are former IPCC members, are long term government scientists, there are even a couple of astronauts with scientific backgrounds. So the next time someone tells you that only crackpots deny that man is causing global warming print this out for them:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical. “The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

Link to the full Senate report - U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008


Within the past year, various organizations and scientists have begun to realize that it is pretty likely we are headed for a time of global cooling, not warming.


On the other hand, there are large numbers of folks who not only hold on tight to the idea of manmade global warming, they will lie to try to support the idea. Here is an article that just came out on the Associated Press:

Obama left with little time to curb global warming

The article begins thusly: WASHINGTON – When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warmingwas a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid.

Since Clinton's inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it.

That first sentence is an unverified opinion. The second is now known to be completely false, and since this is supposedly being authored by a "science writer" it makes the statement a flat-out lie.

"According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is.

Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900."

In recent years, temperature measuring stations have been placed in locations that are more likely to register higher temperatures, as this blog has illustrated convincingly. It is true that temperatures in suburban areas are rising as farmlands and forest are making way for homes and roads and stores and parking lots.

In fact, snowfalls are coming earlier and are larger than usual this year in Europe.

Houston recorded its earliest snowfall this year.

New Orleans is getting snowed on.

Glaciers and antarctic ice are growing, not melting

If you read this following article, you will likely be convinced that some very good scientific research completely debunks the idea that we are in danger of manmade global warming endangering our way of life. There are some technical sections here, but allow me to give you some excerpts:

We're reminded of an earlier story, which happened back in 1912. This was the amazing discovery of a skull and jawbone in which was quickly named the Piltdown Man and which all the world's archaeologists immediately accepted as a hitherto unknown form of early human. It appears no one bothered to examine it closely, assuming that other scientists had thoroughly investigated and vetted it. The hoax wasn't uncovered until 1953, when it was learned that the skull was that of a modern man and the jaw that of an orangutan. Seems no one had ever bothered to take a really close look at the artifact.

Well, folks, it does appear we have a new, 21st Century Piltdown Man, and this time we know his name.

He's called "Anthropogenic Global Warming"

It's hard to nail down exactly when the sky started falling, but certainly the work of Michael Mann provided its first global exposure. Michael Mann, a paleoclimatologist ( one who attempts to interpret the past climate through certain Paleolithic records, such as ice core samples, sea bed sediments, coral heads, and tree ring growth ), submitted a paper to Nature magazine in 1998 which, unfortunately, was not subjected to peer review before publication. In it, he offered what has now become known as the famous "hockey stick" chart, showing the earth's temperature having been relatively constant for the past thousand years before suddenly skyrocketing upward at the dawn of the 20th century. His interpretation was that man's production of CO2 in the modern age was obviously responsible for the sudden increase. It turned out to be one of the biggest scientific blunders of all time.


Man-made CO2 doesn't appear physically capable of absorbing much more than
two-thousandths of the radiated heat (IR) passing upward through the atmosphere.

And, if all of the available heat in that spectrum is indeed being captured by the current CO2 levels before leaving the atmosphere, then adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won't matter a bit.

In short, the laws of physics don't seem to allow CO2 it's currently assumed place as a significant "greenhouse gas" based on present concentrations. The other "greenhouse gases" such as methane, nitrous oxide, tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride, trifluoromethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, and 1,1-difluoroethane exist only in extraordinarily smaller amounts and aren't even up for serious discussion by any segment of the scientific community. And, since the other components of the atmosphere (oxygen, nitrogen, and water vapor) aren't materially affected by human activity, the "greenhouse effect" is essentially a totally natural phenomenon, unaffected by human activity. We could repeat the spectral analysis and calculations for Oxygen, or O2 ( The percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere remains exactly the same at all heights up to about 85 km, and is about 20.9% by volume ) and Nitrogen (N2) which is the whopper at 78.1% - but we won't. We'll leave that as your homework problem now that you know how to do it. Just look up the atomic absorption spectra for both, and do the math. You'll discover that Oxygen and Nitrogen aren't even "greenhouse gases", so that leaves the principal greenhouse gas... you guessed it.... Water Vapor. Curiously enough, the UN IPCC reports don't even mention water vapor, since it is technically not a "gas" in the atmosphere. Dr. Roy W. Spencer has one of the best comments we've read on this subject:

"Al Gore likes to say that mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere every day. What he probably doesn't know is that
mother nature puts 24,000 times that amount of our main greenhouse gas
-- water vapor -- into the atmosphere every day, and removes about the
same amount every day. While this does not 'prove' that global warming
is not manmade, it shows that weather systems have by far the greatest
control over the Earth's greenhouse effect, which is dominated by
water vapor and clouds."

We can safely ballpark water vapor as being responsible for more than 95% of all the greenhouse effect, with oxygen and nitrogen playing no role and carbon dioxide being relatively insignificant... particularly the even smaller human-produced part.

Side note: Both Oxygen and Nitrogen don't like to live alone. They prefer to find another and stick together into a diatomic ( 2 atom ) molecule. Thus the molecular weight of atmospheric oxygen or nitrogen is approximately twice that of one of them alone. We say "approximately", because it takes energy to bind them together, and mass and energy are equivalent stuff, as our good friend Dr. Einstein explained with his famous equation E=MC2.

Now, you can sit back and give yourself a pat on the back, because you now know more pure physics of the atmosphere than a lot of so-called "climate scientists", and likely know more than almost all of the non-scientist Popular Journalists and other writers churning out panic-stricken books and newspaper articles on the subject.

And for sure, you now know a lot more than Al Gore.


Canadian climatologist Tim Patterson says the sun drives the earth's climate changes—and Earth's current global warming is a direct result of a long, moderate 1,500-year cycle in the sun's irradiance.

Patterson says he learned of the 1,500-year climate cycle while studying cycles in fish numbers on Canada's West Coast. Since the Canadian West had no long-term written fishery records, Patterson's research team drilled sediment cores in the deep local fjords to get 5,000-year climate profiles from the mud. The mud showed the past climate conditions: Warm summers left layers thick with one-celled fossils and fish scales. Cold, wet periods showed dark sediments, mostly dirt washed from the surrounding land. Patterson's fishing profiles clearly revealed the sun's 87 and 210-year solar cycles—and the longer, 1500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles found since the 1980s in ice cores, tree rings, and fossil pollen.


Last March, global warming fanatic Al Gore used a picture of two polar bears purportedly stranded on melting ice off the coast of Alaska as a visual aide to support his claim that man-made global warming is doing great harm to Mother Earth. The one he chose, but didn’t offer to pay for right away, turned out to be a photo of a polar bear and her cub out doing what healthy, happy polar bears do on a wave-eroded chunk of ice not all that far from shore in the Beaufort Sea north of Barstow, Alaska.

The picture, wrongly credited to Dan Crosbie, an ice observer specialist for the Canadian Ice Service, was actually taken by Amanda Byrd while she was on a university-related research cruise in August of 2004, a time of year when the fringe of the Arctic ice cap normally melts.

Byrd, a marine biology grad student at the time, was gathering zooplankton for a multi-year study of the Arctic Ocean. Crosbie, who was also on the trip, pilfered the polar bear photo from a shared computer onboard the Canadian icebreaker where Ms. Byrd downloaded her snapshots; he saved it in his personal file. Several months later, Crosbie, who is known as an avid photographer, gave the photo to the Canadian Ice Service, which then allowed Environment Canada to use it as an illustration for an online magazine.

Today that photo, with credit given to photographer Dan Crosbie and the Canadian Ice Service, can be found all over the Internet, generally with the caption “Two polar bears are stranded on a chunk of melting ice”.

It’s a hoax, folks. The bears, which can swim distances of 100 miles and more, weren’t stranded; they were merely taking a break and watching the boat go by when a lady snapped their picture.


Summary - Exactly what have we learned here?

1. The "Greenhouse Effect" is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.

2. Modest Global Warming, at least up until 1998 when a cooling trend began, has been real.

3. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.

4. Man's contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn't cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.

5. Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.

6. CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.

7. CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets. The cart is not pulling the donkey, and the future cannot influence the past.

8. Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.

9. The UN IPCC has corrupted the "reporting process" so badly, it makes the oil-for-food scandal look like someone stole some kid's lunch money. They do not follow the Scientific Method, and modify the science as needed to fit their predetermined conclusions. In empirical science, one does NOT write the conclusion first, then solicit "opinion" on the report, ignoring any opinion which does not fit their predetermined conclusion while falsifying data to support unrealistic models.

10. Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs. The push to list them as endangered is an effort to gain political control of their habitat... particularly the North Slope oil fields.

11. There is no demonstrated causal relationship between hurricanes and/or tornadoes and global warming. This is sheer conjecture totally unsupported by any material science.

12. Observed glacial retreats in certain select areas have been going on for hundreds of years, and show no serious correlation to short-term swings in global temperatures.

13. Greenland is shown to be an island completely surrounded by water, not ice, in maps dating to the 14th century. There is active geothermal activity in the currently "melting" sections of Greenland.

14. The Antarctic Ice cover is currently the largest ever observed by satellite, and periodic ice shelf breakups are normal and correlate well with localized tectonic and geothermal activity along the Antarctic Peninsula.

15. The Global Warming Panic was triggered by an artifact of poor mathematics which has been thoroughly disproved. The panic is being deliberately nurtured by those who stand to gain both financially and politically from perpetuation of the hoax.

16. Scientists who "deny" the hoax are often threatened with loss of funding or even their jobs.

17. The correlation between solar activity and climate is now so strong that solar physicists are now seriously discussing the much greater danger of pending global cooling.

18. Biofuel hysteria is already having a disastrous effect on world food supplies and prices, and current technologies for biofuel production consume more energy than the fuels produce.

19. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.

20. In short, there is no "climate crisis" of any kind at work on our planet.

Sorry, folks, but the science is NOT the same as the spin. Global cooling is here and we have to hope that it won't be bad enough to become another mini-ice age. If it really is possible to warm the earth with emissions, we had better ramp up the emitting and now!


highboy said...

"Scientists cooling on the idea of global warming"

I wish you had a feature on your site that every time you made a lame attempt at humor like this a little drum jingle went off. LOL. Good post.

Anonymous said...

Hi Radar,

it's always amusing when you take a foray into the global warming/cooling debate, since it is so completely at odds with your YEC beliefs. How you manage to maintain both these positions (YEC and just about any position on global warming/cooling that is supposedly based on science) in your head at the same time is truly baffling.

The problem is this:

All climate research*, whether it argues for or against global warming, is based on data that presumes an old Earth, i.e. one that is more than 6,000 years old. All these quotes that you so adoringly cut-and-pasted above... are all based on research using methods that you, Radar, think are completely wrong. Your position on the global warming and cooling should not be on either side, but a huge protest that it's all based on nonsense, i.e. the presumption that the world is far more than 6,000 years old.

As soon as you say that you agree with the validity of either side, you are implicitly acknowledging that dating methods indicating an old Earth are correct.

Since you deny the validity of dating methods that indicate an old Earth, the only plausible conclusion you can draw based on the knowledge that your belief system allows you to accept is that you just don't know - the world could be cooling or it could be warming.

(* I may be wrong - maybe there is a YEC outfit that has somehow found a scientific YEC explanation for, say, ice core data that also yields some kind of useful information regarding global warming/cooling. If so, please point me to it and I'll be happy to stand corrected. But it seems extremely unlikely if not impossible to me.)

Dating methods are particularly problematic for you, not only with regard to this inconsistency re. your global warming/cooling stance, but also with respect to dendrochronology and ice core data. You claim to have answered these questions, but I've shown quite clearly that that wasn't the case - that this is an argument that you are still running away from (even though, IIRC, you once announced that you were going to do a "series" on dendrochronology - but when faced with some critical questions, you abandoned that after the first post; I'll try to find the post for you).

I'll be happy to pick up both of these arguments again, since you fled the scene of the debate both times.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Previous posts where we've been over this:

There's a bunch more, but I'm not going to spend ages pasting the posts here. It's easy enough to google something like dendrochronology

Here is a post on dendrochronology in which you were asked a few questions on the subject that you've never been able to answer:

And here's one where I pointed out in great detail how you did in fact skulk away from a number of these debates:

Here is the relevant part from that post again (italics is you, normal is me):

""First, I completely and totally covered the prison population question question and spent a great deal of time on it, in no way skulking away.”

Far from it, Radar, as you are well aware, or at least should be. You asserted that 11% of the prison population were Christians and claimed that your numbers showed this, but subsequently could only show numbers that showed such data for the general population, not the prison population. It’s clearly a nonsensical stance that is factually wrong: having data that show that something applies to x% of a group does not allow you to conclude that the same thing applies to x% of an arbitrary subset of that group. For example, if you know that 10% of the population of Timbuktu wear fake moustaches, you can simply not conclude from that that 10% of a village somewhere in Timbuktu wear fake moustaches. It is possible that anywhere from zero to 100% of the inhabitants of that village wear fake moustaches.

These facts were pointed out to you. See, about 3 comments from the end. Note that this is the last comment on the subject, to which you did not respond – and so you did actually skulk away without being able to back up your claim.

”You and I posted battling opinions on various aspects of ice cores. I haven't accused you of skulking away because you decided you were right and dropped the subject. That was your decision.”

How was it “my decision” for you not to respond to my most recent comment on the subject? The reason you haven’t accused me of skulking away (because I supposedly decided I was right and dropped the subject) was because you were the one who skulked away and dropped the subject. Again, demonstrably so: here, as far as I can tell, is my last comment on the subject – see at the very end of this discussion: - with plenty of discussion here as well:

I can’t find any response from you to this comment and the arguments therein. If you made one, I’ll be happy to apologize, but until then, you’re the one who skulked away from the argument and dropped the subject. And the argument is kind of a crucial one for someone who believes in a Young Earth. Even more so for someone who actually thinks that science can back up YEC.

Your problem with ice cores was two-fold: one, you want to make use of dating methods to support arguments you make against global warming, even though you think those very dating methods are flawed by orders of magnitude when you argue in the context of YEC, and two, if you want to claim that ice core data that according to mainstream data go back 800,000 years in your view only go back 6,000 years, then you'd have to conclude that an event that according to mainstream interpretations of ice core data took place 1,000 years ago took place a mere 7.5 years ago. Not only that, but you'd have to be able to demonstrate today that 133 ice core layers are deposited every year.

But again, you dropped this subject because it became inconvenient to you. And for good reason: how the heck could you explain away ice cores being formed roughly every 3 days, when we can actually verify that they are formed every year?"

Whenever you feel like trying to respond to these issues from a YEC perspective, by all means let's have it. Your constant evasions truly don't say much for the strength of your position(s).

-- creeper

radar said...


I respect the time and effort you put into these comments and therefore I will submit one entire post to each subject. I give my word on this. Your effort deserves response. I can disagree with you but admire your tenacity and reward your perserverence.

I find it interesting that you cannot refute the information in this particular post. You are going back and looking at what is going on in my logic zone and I will go there with you. But it is obvious that you are not willing to take on the subject at hand. Is it because global warming is about to become a dead issue? I suspect so.

Tomorrow I am heading to the doctor and there may be radical things that need to be done, as my leg is still being recalcitrant. That is why I wish to answer your questions in individual blog posts when I can get to them while lying on my back keeping my leg up. I probably have to leave work early today and miss work altogether tomorrow and, once home, be confined to bed because the leg has gotten very bad. Not good for me or my wallet but optimal time for blog posting.

So I may or may not get to a post tonight but by Friday at least one of these two issues will be specifically and carefully addressed even though I had intended to let them die. Hopefully one more post each will put them in their respective places or send them off in a new direction that continues reasonable discussion.

I thank you for both of your comments!

highboy said...

Radar if your still in that bad a shape why are you even bothering debating global warming on a blog with Creeper? Get better first. I'm sure Creeper would agree. Its not that important you need to obsess about it.

I personally like Patrick Warburton's take on it: "I predicted global warming. I could actually feel it getting hotter".

Now that's science.

highboy said...

I still think all we need to do is build a giant space bucket, fill it with water, and simply toss it on half the sun to cool things down. It would totally work. I heard the idea years ago on the radio and thought it was genius.

Anonymous said...

Of course your health comes first, so take as much time as you need.

"I find it interesting that you cannot refute the information in this particular post. You are going back and looking at what is going on in my logic zone and I will go there with you. But it is obvious that you are not willing to take on the subject at hand. Is it because global warming is about to become a dead issue? I suspect so."

The fact that I supposedly "can not" refute the information would be significant if I had actually made an attempt to refute it. I only have so many hours in the day, and in order to come to any proper conclusions on the topic of global warming/cooling, I would have to spend quite a bit of time on it - for example, a list of expanding glaciers means little to me unless it is accompanied by a list of shrinking/disappearing glaciers so that we can look at the bigger picture. I suspect that underlying some of these links is the idiotic fallacy that global warming means that all temperatures will rise equally and uniformly everywhere, which is the fallacy people use when they say something like "How can there be global warming when it's snowing outside!" Global warming does not mean a uniform rise in temperature. On the contrary, one of its predictions is that such factors as melting ice caps would result in a destablization of the climate system, which would lead to some areas getting warmer, some cooler.

When I do find the time to look at all the arguments, I assure you I'll get into more detail on this subject.

But of course what leaps out at me immediately is on the one hand your insistence on a young Earth and the denial of the accuracy of dating methods that goes with that, and on the other hand your championing of one side of the global warming/cooling debate, and agreeing with scientists who according to you are basing all their work on a complete fraud. You can not hold YEC beliefs and at the same time weigh in on the global warming/cooling debate, both sides of which completely rely on dating methods that do not work unless an old Earth is presumed.

And of course those dating methods work quite well; it's your denial of them and the logical inconsistency of your positions that is the issue here.

Do take your time to get well, and I truly hope that all will turn out okay with your leg - it doesn't sound like an enviable position at all... - but I do hope that at some point you get a chance to wrap some of these arguments up (ice core layers?), or at least that you find the honesty to conclude that your argument was faulty (such as the fallacious prison population argument).

-- creeper

radar said...

AP-LAS VEGAS – Flights resumed in and out of Las Vegas, but schools and highways were closed Thursday after a record-setting snowfall coated marquees on the Strip, weighed down palm trees and blanketed surrounding mountain areas. The city awoke to clear weather after a storm that left 3.6 inches at McCarran International Airport. It was biggest December snowfall on record there, and the worst for any month since a 7 1/2-inch accumulation in January 1979, forecasters said.
The storm Wednesday and early Thursday also dumped snow or rain and snarled travel in other parts of Nevada, much of southern California and parts of northern Arizona.
"It looks like Whoville, all snowy, but with less joy and more extreme misery," said Calen Weiss, 19, who was stuck Wednesday when snow in the Cajon Pass east of Los Angeles disrupted travel on Interstate 15.
Cajon Pass and another leg of Interstate 15 near the Nevada line both reopened by midday Thursday, while Interstate 5, the major route between Northern and Southern California, partially reopened.
In Washington state, Seattle got a rare 4-inch accumulation, and in Spokane, the 17 inches piled up by 4 a.m. Thursday broke a 24-hour record total of 13 inches set in 1984. Spokane declared a "Condition Red" snow emergency, meaning crews will work around the clock until they complete a full city plow.
For Las Vegas, the storm left heavy wet accumulations of snow along the famed Strip. At least one carport toppled under the accumulated weight, authorities said, and motorists in Henderson parked their cars and walked home when tires spun as they tried to navigate slippery uphill climbs.
Thursday was the first snow day for Clark County schools since the 1979 storm, district spokesman Michael Rodriguez said.
Airlines resumed flights Thursday after canceling dozens of them late Wednesday, McCarran airport spokesman Jerry Pascual said.
"Visibility has lifted. The outlook for the day is much better," Pascual said as the sun rose Thursday. Pascual said just one flight had gotten out overnight and stranded travelers were forced to sleep on lounge seats and floors at the nation's sixth-busiest airport.
In Arizona, snow was widespread in the state's higher elevations, with 24-hour accumulations reaching 10 inches in Flagstaff by daybreak. By 10 a.m. Thursday, official weather service measurements had 18 inches of snow on the ground in Flagstaff. Authorities said major highways were open but advised drivers to be careful of packed snow and ice.
In western Washington, the Seattle School District had been mocked by some for closing schools Wednesday with just a threat of snow. The threat became a reality Thursday, and 4 inches of snow by midday left many drivers spinning their wheels on slippery roads.
The National Weather Service said the city even had an episode of "thundersnow" when a storm cell moved across Puget Sound.
Rachel Bjork, 36, waited in vain for a downtown bus at a stop in north Seattle as four outbound buses passed.
"I'm getting a little annoyed. It's cold," Bjork said. "I would suspect there's probably going to be four people at work. Usually there's 30."
In Kitsap County, across Puget Sound from Seattle, authorities said freezing weather may have claimed the life of a 36-year-old man who wandered from his house wearing only light clothing. Deputies said he had been ill and there was no evidence of foul play.
Even Malibu, Calif., got a dusting of snow Wednesday, as the usually balmy city saw a half-inch in the afternoon.
"It's kind of cool if you think about it, said Craig Levy, director of a juvenile detention camp. "It's kind of unusual to see snow in Malibu."
Associated Press writers Robert Jablon in Los Angeles, Elliot Spagat in San Diego and Nicholas K. Geranios in Spokane, Wash., contributed to this report.

Anonymous said...

Radar, did this comment get fired off by accident or something?

1. See my previous remark: "I suspect that underlying some of these links is the idiotic fallacy that global warming means that all temperatures will rise equally and uniformly everywhere, which is the fallacy people use when they say something like "How can there be global warming when it's snowing outside!" Global warming does not mean a uniform rise in temperature. On the contrary, one of its predictions is that such factors as melting ice caps would result in a destablization of the climate system, which would lead to some areas getting warmer, some cooler."

2. And not just that, but the rather obvious distinction between weather and climate. Good grief, Radar, to get this one wrong and still try to say anything at all with regard to global warming/cooling is very, very weak.

Do rest up, hope all turns out well with your leg.

-- creeper

radar said...

Houston, we have a problem. I remember now having read this post why I quit discussing the jail population issue, although the ice cores are another matter. The post above that you listed and the references in that post settled the issue. I explained in detail how I found a guesstimate for the percentages of Christians in prison and admitted that I did so and why I did so...I extrapolated data from the Barna polling site because nobody really had that information.

I have yet to see good data that has nailed down what percentage of the prison population are born-again believers. Do you have that information? Show me and all of us and then we will have something to discuss. Meanwhile, having read the whole thing I cannot find anything I "skulked away from" so you will have to be specific about what you are talking about.

Are you just trying to avoid discussing the points I made in my recent posts so you are dredging up old stuff to take the attention away? In the case of the prison population thing, that must be what it is because I see no issue left to discuss there?

Anonymous said...

"Houston, we have a problem. I remember now having read this post why I quit discussing the jail population issue, although the ice cores are another matter. The post above that you listed and the references in that post settled the issue."

Far from it, as has been explained to you more than once (even in the post you link to)... and will be explained again below.

"I explained in detail how I found a guesstimate for the percentages of Christians in prison and admitted that I did so and why I did so..."

This is completely wrong and, depending on your awareness and understanding, is either a simple error or a brazen lie. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt... but the fact that the error has been pointed out to you multiple times makes that a little difficult. You're either being incredibly obtuse, or you're lying.

"I extrapolated data from the Barna polling site because nobody really had that information."

You extrapolated data about the general population, not the prison population.

"I have yet to see good data that has nailed down what percentage of the prison population are born-again believers. Do you have that information? Show me and all of us and then we will have something to discuss."

From what I recall, the information I had was that something around 70-76% of the prison population were self-identified Christians. You didn't like that number, so you decided to limit the definition of Christian to "true" or "born-again" or something like that. Unfortunately, no data about born-again Christians in prison is available, so you committed a massive error in reasoning to claim that what applies to the general population applies to the prison population in equal measure. Which is of course stunningly wrong.

"Meanwhile, having read the whole thing I cannot find anything I "skulked away from" so you will have to be specific about what you are talking about."

I think I've been quite specific about this on more than one occasion, but here we go again. You claimed that 11% of the prison population were Christian. You were asked to back this up. You stalled for a while. Then you came up with some data from the Barna institute that provided data about the general population, not the prison population. This tells us nothing whatsoever about the prison population.

You then moved on to other subjects, even though the glaring error in logic was clearly pointed out to you on more than one occasion.

That is when you skulked away. Specific enough?

And ever since then, you've claimed that you settled the matter, even right here in this comment section, and even accompanied by a link to a post in which it is clearly shown that you did NOT even come close to backing up your 11% claim - on the contrary, you provided no data - NONE - to back this up, only mentioning that "Trying to find a percentage of evangelicals in jail is hard".

"Are you just trying to avoid discussing the points I made in my recent posts so you are dredging up old stuff to take the attention away?"

Not at all, but I also don't want the issues that you abandoned instead of conceding to be simply swept away by various cut-and-paste posts.

"In the case of the prison population thing, that must be what it is because I see no issue left to discuss there?"

The issue that is left to discuss is for you to recognize and acknowledge that you provided no data whatsoever to back up your 11% of the prison population claim. You came up with a (somewhat creative and questionable, but that's beside the point) calculation to show that 11% of the general population are born-again Christians, and no data to show anything of the kind for the prison population.

It is an elementary lapse in logic to claim that if X% of a group are Y, then X% of any subset of that group are also Y. Do you understand that?

-- creeper

highboy said...

So the whole space bucket idea is a no go?

radar said...

Creeper, in the prison population area you are simply hopeless.

I covered the numbers in detail in this post and they were not simply about the non-prison data. I suggest anyone interested to go back, read this, and then decide for yourselves if Creeper is just bringing up old garbage to deflect attention from my recent posts that shred his worldview to bloody ribbons.

Anonymous said...

Yes, anyone who gives a hoot about this, please go to Radar's link and see if you can figure out where Radar backed up his claim that 11% of the prison population are Christians.

And no, this is not an attempt to deflect attention from Radar's other nonsense; on the contrary, it's to stop him from deflecting attention from examples in which his reasoning is utterly suspect and that for some unknown reason he will simply not concede. It should give you some idea about how he approaches other issues as well.

Actually, I had kind of skimmed over this quote of Radar's earlier, which kind of says it all:

"I have tried to find a percentage of evangelicals in prison and have not succeeded."

Instead he presents some data on the general population and pretends that that's an answer about his claims re. the prison population.

Incredibly obtuse? Or a liar? I'm not really sure at this stage, but neither is all that flattering. Any other options?

Unfortunately, this kind of lapse in logic is problematic in that Radar can't see other enormous lapses in logic, such as thinking that dating methods work fine in one context (climate records), but verge on the fraudulent in another context (indicating a world older than 6,000 years).

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"my recent posts that shred his worldview to bloody ribbons"

Don't flatter yourself. Posting some long-discredited and fallacious nonsense isn't going to shred anyone's worldview.

-- creeper

radar said...

"Don't flatter yourself. Posting some long-discredited and fallacious nonsense isn't going to shred anyone's worldview.

-- creeper"

Then why do you do it?


Anonymous said...

I don't.

-- creeper