War on life

[Subduction Zone]

Just because you disagree with their view does not make them or the source dishonest.
Are you saying that of those 1107 signatories none of those scientists are qualified to speak on climate?
What about Richard Lindzen, Emeritus Professor Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, MIT? I thought he was one of the world’s foremost climate scientists.

Wrong. You should not say that about others. When you make such foolish and ignorant assumptions it is highly likely that you will be in error. It is not that I do not like their view. It is because if they are not liars they are idiots. The people that signed that worthless petition were for the most part not climate scientists. What your source used was a false appeal to authority fallacy.

Lindzen was never one of the "most foremost" climate scientists. He was a climate scientist. You have one expert that disagrees with over 97% of the others. Worse yet he now appears to be getting money from the Cato Institute. In other words he may have been bought off. Where is his peer reviewed work refuting the works of others?

 

[wellwisher]

Do you know what a black-and-white fallacy is?

When, in the past, did the temperature change by 1.5° C globally in just 120 years?

If you follow the link below there is a geological Q &A discussion about glacial cycles.
Glad You Asked: Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them? – Utah Geological Survey

At the very end of this article is this paragraph;

On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more. For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?

The earth is a dynamic system and can change all by itself and it has done so 24 times in the past 100,000 years alone. The author of this article does not address man made global warming, but offers references for those who wish to know more that. This article is about geological evidence of the glacial periods of the earth which can go back over a billion years. If you look at the graphs earlier in the article, the earth goes through glacial and interglacial cycles, with the average global temperature over the past 500 million years about 20 F warmer than today.

The interglacial periods is where all the glaciers melt. The glacial periods is where glaciers form. Another similar analysis from NOAA, discusses a glacial period where even sea level at the equator had glaciers. The interglacial periods where the earth was about 20 F warmer has had tropical plants growing close to the Arctic Circle.

Natural CO2 is important to the natural warming cycles of the earth. Most of the CO2 is connected to movement in the earth's crust; plate tectonic and volcanoes. The cyclic decline of the CO2 is typically due to silicates in the soil and rain. This combination can scrub out the CO2 to make minerals like limestone. This has happened many times. This is easy to see with layering in the soil and ledges.

One cool geological change was the formation of the land bridge at Panama. Before this land bridge formed the ocean currents of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans were connected. Once the land bridge formed the world oceans current changed leading to major climate changes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you follow the link below there is a geological Q &A discussion about glacial cycles.
Glad You Asked: Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them? – Utah Geological Survey

At the very end of this article is this paragraph;

On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more. For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?

The earth is a dynamic system and can change all by itself and it has done so 24 times in the past 100,000 years alone. The author of this article does not address man made global warming, but offers references for those who wish to know more that. This article is about geological evidence of the glacial periods of the earth which can go back over a billion years. If you look at the graphs earlier in the article, the earth goes through glacial and interglacial cycles, with the average global temperature over the past 500 million years about 20 F warmer than today.

The interglacial periods is where all the glaciers melt. The glacial periods is where glaciers form. Another similar analysis from NOAA, discusses a glacial period where even sea level at the equator had glaciers. The interglacial periods where the earth was about 20 F warmer has had tropical plants growing close to the Arctic Circle.

Natural CO2 is important to the natural warming cycles of the earth. Most of the CO2 is connected to movement in the earth's crust; plate tectonic and volcanoes. The cyclic decline of the CO2 is typically due to silicates in the soil and rain. This combination can scrub out the CO2 to make minerals like limestone. This has happened many times. This is easy to see with layering in the soil and ledges.

One cool geological change was the formation of the land bridge at Panama. Before this land bridge formed the ocean currents of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans were connected. Once the land bridge formed the world oceans current changed leading to major climate changes.

That does not support your claim.

 

[wellwisher]

Let me give more evidence so we can compare the earth to the manmade claims.

What's the hottest Earth's ever been?

If you click the link it will bring you to NOAA ; National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, which knows about weather and climate all the way back to the early earth. It is not easy to find articles using Google search, since it tends to show man made climate change links first. You need to be creative to get past the veil of partial truth and evidence.

From the link:

Temperature records from thermometers and weather stations exist only for a tiny portion of our planet's 4.54-billion-year-long life. By studying indirect clues—the chemical and structural signatures of rocks, fossils, and crystals, ocean sediments, fossilized reefs, tree rings, and ice cores—however, scientists can infer past temperatures.

I like this graph in the Q&A article. It based on one from the Smithsonian Institute.

Humans began the trimmings of civilization about 10,000 years. Humans benefitted by the relatively cool temperature compared to even the average global temperature over the past 100 million years. But don't expect this cool and stable period to last forever with or without man. It is unfortunate that the global alarmist do not teach all of earth science, instead of just the drop in the bucket of time covered by the official record.

 

[wellwisher]

Richard Lindzen, Emeritus Professor Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, MIT

Lindzen is/was an expert at modeling the water within the atmosphere; clouds, rain and weather. Water is fundamental to weather on earth, with modeling water; cloud cover, as a function of climate change, very complex. It is so complex it is not part of any manmade climate change model. There was political pressure to get Lindzen to cave, but he had tenure and stood his ground. His conflicting water expertise is not part of the models.

Water vapor has a high heat capacity like CO2. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, since water like CO2 has many ways to absorb and retain energy; degrees of freedom. The wild card is the ability of water to change from gas/vapor to liquid/droplets; clouds. This changes the game.

Clouds of liquid and vapor water can act as a reflectors of solar energy, as well as insulators like CO2. CO2 will always remain a gas on earth, but water can exist as gas, liquid and solid at any given time. It adds a wild card. Depending on the ratios of water vapor, water liquid and water ice at any given time, water can tweak the CO2 impact up or down.

When glaciers form, the ice phase of water reflects solar energy. This reflection off the ice cools the earth and help cause the glaciers to grow. There was a time when the earth was so cold, due to the self advancing water/ice, that glaciers reached the equator at sea level.

Rain or liquid water can help fix CO2 into minerals like limestone, based on a reaction of liquid water, CO2 and silicates in the soil. In the case of extreme ice ages, there is little liquid water; snow but no rain, these reactions become minimal, allowing the background CO2 to stay higher, countering the ice age with a heating affect.

When water goes from gas to liquid there is about a 1000 fold reduction in volume. Within clouds this phase change pulls a vacuum; low pressure system. When a thundercloud forms warm moist air rises and condenses upward in the colder upper atmosphere, pulling a vacuum upward. This can spawn tornadoes. It can also cause water to reach high into the atmosphere cooling the water before it falls to the earth. Global warming means more water in the atmosphere, and more phase change for vacuum affects, such as for making cooling water.

 

[Heyo]

If you follow the link below there is a geological Q &A discussion about glacial cycles.
Glad You Asked: Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them? – Utah Geological Survey

It seems the link is broken.

But it seems you are not defending the more ... unorthodox opinion of the OP, are you?
As we have stumbled into this debate, I think it would be helpful to first explore what it is we agree upon and then what we disagree upon so that we don't talk past each other, as so often happens.
I think we both acknowledge the raw data:

• CO2 is a climate gas that causes entrapment of heat.
• Humans burn fossil fuels which creates CO2 at a rate of about 35 billion tons per anno.
• CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm since the begin of the industrial revolution.

From that it is clear that human influence does provide to global warming.

 

[InChrist]

Wrong. You should not say that about others. When you make such foolish and ignorant assumptions it is highly likely that you will be in error. It is not that I do not like their view. It is because if they are not liars they are idiots. The people that signed that worthless petition were for the most part not climate scientists. What your source used was a false appeal to authority fallacy.

Lindzen was never one of the "most foremost" climate scientists. He was a climate scientist. You have one expert that disagrees with over 97% of the others. Worse yet he now appears to be getting money from the Cato Institute. In other words he may have been bought off. Where is his peer reviewed work refuting the works of others?

I have noticed how often you call others liars and idiots, but especially liars. It seems to be a pattern and favorite accusation of yours which makes me wonder.

As to the 97% figure that is used so frequently to shut down conversation or questioning the so-called settled science in regard to climate change; I question the accuracy of that 97%. And since when is science settled? Especially science about something like the changing climate or future implications? Science is not decided by the majority is it? Even if only a few scientists raise questions or present different perspectives and/or research and information, then aren’t those questions, information, and perspectives to be looked at and considered? Isn’t that what science does?

What’s wrong with the Cato Institute anyway?
A group that...

“...advocates a limited role for government in domestic and foreign affairs as well as a strong protection of civil liberties.”
Cato Institute - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have noticed how often you call others liars and idiots, but especially liars. It seems to be a pattern and favorite accusation of yours which makes me wonder.

As to the 97% figure that is used so frequently to shut down conversation or questioning the so-called settled science in regard to climate change; I question the accuracy of that 97%. And since when is science settled? Especially science about something like the changing climate or future implications? Science is not decided by the majority is it? Even if only a few scientists raise questions or present different perspectives and/or research and information, then aren’t those questions, information, and perspectives to be looked at and considered? Isn’t that what science does?

What’s wrong with the Cato Institute anyway?
A group that...

“...advocates a limited role for government in domestic and foreign affairs as well as a strong protection of civil liberties.”
Cato Institute - Wikipedia

That is because I can almost always support my case. I especially despise dishonesty. And science deniers tend to be very dishonest.

As to the 97% figure, which is if anything a slight undercount, it has been confirmed again and again and it should tell you something. The second question, which you seemed to have ignored is 'Where are his peer reviewed papers?" That is how scientists show that they are serious. In peer review one has to show all of one's work. One has to show one's reasoning and evidence. It is very hard to hide false claims when one submits one's work for peer review in the sciences. That is how pseudoscience is explosed.

Why hasn't he published?

As to your Wiki article you should have read more of it and seen what their actual policies are. It is amazing how often they are on the wrong side of an issue.

 

[InChrist]

That is because I can almost always support my case. I especially despise dishonesty. And science deniers tend to be very dishonest.

As to the 97% figure, which is if anything a slight undercount, it has been confirmed again and again and it should tell you something. The second question, which you seemed to have ignored is 'Where are his peer reviewed papers?" That is how scientists show that they are serious. In peer review one has to show all of one's work. One has to show one's reasoning and evidence. It is very hard to hide false claims when one submits one's work for peer review in the sciences. That is how pseudoscience is explosed.

Why hasn't he published?

As to your Wiki article you should have read more of it and seen what their actual policies are. It is amazing how often they are on the wrong side of an issue.

That is because I can almost always support my case. I especially despise dishonesty. And science deniers tend to be very dishonest.

As to the 97% figure, which is if anything a slight undercount, it has been confirmed again and again and it should tell you something. The second question, which you seemed to have ignored is 'Where are his peer reviewed papers?" That is how scientists show that they are serious. In peer review one has to show all of one's work. One has to show one's reasoning and evidence. It is very hard to hide false claims when one submits one's work for peer review in the sciences. That is how pseudoscience is explosed.

Why hasn't he published?

As to your Wiki article you should have read more of it and seen what their actual policies are. It is amazing how often they are on the wrong side of an issue.

Richard Lindzen has published peer reviewed papers, so he certainly has as much legitimacy to his perspective as the so - called 97%.

“Richard is an atmospheric physicist, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Emeritus, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and formerly the Burden Professor of Meteorology at Harvard. He was a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Third Assessment Report on the science of climate change. An author of more than 230 peer-reviewed papers, he holds degrees in physics and applied mathematics from Harvard...”

Richard Lindzen – CLIMATE CHANGE THE FACTS

I don’t think peer review is any longer a guarantee of necessarily legitimate or accurate science. At one time it may have been, but now the process has been corrupted like everything else by money and power. So that 97% figure is very questionable. Awhile ago I read some information to the effect that the way that 97% figure was reached was through manipulating statistics and polls. Maybe I can find that information again.

The Effects of Corrupted Peer Reviews on Scientific Credibility - Enago Academy



Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science | David Colquhoun

 

[Subduction Zone]

Richard Lindzen has published peer reviewed papers, so he certainly has as much legitimacy to his perspective as the so - called 97%.

“Richard is an atmospheric physicist, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Emeritus, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and formerly the Burden Professor of Meteorology at Harvard. He was a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Third Assessment Report on the science of climate change. An author of more than 230 peer-reviewed papers, he holds degrees in physics and applied mathematics from Harvard...”

Richard Lindzen – CLIMATE CHANGE THE FACTS

I don’t think peer review is any longer a guarantee of necessarily legitimate or accurate science. At one time it may have been, but now the process has been corrupted like everything else by money and power. So that 97% figure is very questionable. Awhile ago I read some information to the effect that the way that 97% figure was reached was through manipulating statistics and polls. Maybe I can find that information again.

The Effects of Corrupted Peer Reviews on Scientific Credibility - Enago Academy



Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science | David Colquhoun

That is not what I asked for.

Worse yet, now you are not being just a science denier, now you have gone off the deep end into conspiracy theory.

 

[metis]

Richard Lindzen has published peer reviewed papers, so he certainly has as much legitimacy to his perspective as the so - called 97%.

Maybe read this:
An April 30, 2012 article in The New York Times included the comments of several other experts. Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it's wrong science. I don't think it's intellectually honest at all." Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist, said of Lindzen's views "Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, 'We're sure it's not a problem.' It's a special kind of risk, because it's a risk to the collective civilization."[71]

A 1996 article in The New York Times included the comments of several other experts. Jerry D. Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound." Mahlman did, however, admit that Lindzen was a "formidable opponent". William Gray of Colorado State University basically agreed with Lindzen, describing him as "courageous". He said, "A lot of my older colleagues are very skeptical on the global warming thing". He added that while he regarded some of Lindzen's views as flawed, he said that, "across the board he's generally very good". John Wallace of the University of Washington agreed with Lindzen that progress in climate change science had been exaggerated, but said there are "relatively few scientists who are as skeptical of the whole thing as Dick [Lindzen] is".[3]

The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now".[80] However, on June 8, 2005 they reported that Lindzen insisted that he had been misquoted, after James Annan contacted Lindzen to make the bet but claimed that "Lindzen would take only 50 to 1 odds".[81]

The Guardian reported in June 2016 that Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company that has funded multiple groups contesting the climate consensus.[82]

Lindzen has been called a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues.[83][84][85] Lindzen's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak."[86]

The characterization of Lindzen as a contrarian has been reinforced by reports that he claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking.[87][88] When asked about this during an interview as part of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Lindzen said that while "the case for second-hand tobacco is not very good ... the World Health Organization also said that” (referencing a 1998 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)[89]), on the other hand "With first-hand smoke it's a more interesting issue ... The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there are differences in people's susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have pointed to."[90] Again, when asked to clarify his position Lindzen wrote "there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order ... the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke [is] also being treated as dogma."[91] -- Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe read this:
An April 30, 2012 article in The New York Times included the comments of several other experts. Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington, said Lindzen is "feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it's wrong science. I don't think it's intellectually honest at all." Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist, said of Lindzen's views "Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, 'We're sure it's not a problem.' It's a special kind of risk, because it's a risk to the collective civilization."[71]

A 1996 article in The New York Times included the comments of several other experts. Jerry D. Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, did not accept Lindzen's assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound." Mahlman did, however, admit that Lindzen was a "formidable opponent". William Gray of Colorado State University basically agreed with Lindzen, describing him as "courageous". He said, "A lot of my older colleagues are very skeptical on the global warming thing". He added that while he regarded some of Lindzen's views as flawed, he said that, "across the board he's generally very good". John Wallace of the University of Washington agreed with Lindzen that progress in climate change science had been exaggerated, but said there are "relatively few scientists who are as skeptical of the whole thing as Dick [Lindzen] is".[3]

The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now".[80] However, on June 8, 2005 they reported that Lindzen insisted that he had been misquoted, after James Annan contacted Lindzen to make the bet but claimed that "Lindzen would take only 50 to 1 odds".[81]

The Guardian reported in June 2016 that Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company that has funded multiple groups contesting the climate consensus.[82]

Lindzen has been called a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues.[83][84][85] Lindzen's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak."[86]

The characterization of Lindzen as a contrarian has been reinforced by reports that he claims that lung cancer has only been weakly linked to smoking.[87][88] When asked about this during an interview as part of an Australian Broadcasting Corporation documentary, Lindzen said that while "the case for second-hand tobacco is not very good ... the World Health Organization also said that” (referencing a 1998 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)[89]), on the other hand "With first-hand smoke it's a more interesting issue ... The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there are differences in people's susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have pointed to."[90] Again, when asked to clarify his position Lindzen wrote "there was a reasonable case for the role of cigarette smoking in lung cancer, but that the case was not so strong that one should rule that any questions were out of order ... the much, much weaker case against second hand smoke [is] also being treated as dogma."[91] -- Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia

Excellent points. And please note. That was roughly twenty five years ago. Guess what? The climate scientists of that time have been shown to be right. Their predictions were correct not those of deniers. There may have been some doubt at that tike. There is none today.

 

[Revoltingest]

But they do have it and welcome it

We have socialists here.
Is this a socialist web site?

 

[ChristineM]

We have socialists here.
Is this a socialist web site?

Hmmm, not sure if you've downed too much haggis, we were talking of bit chute, as far from socialist as right wing fascism can get, maybe right up your street

 

[Revoltingest]

Hmmm, not sure if you've downed too much haggis, we were talking of bit chute, as far from socialist as right wing fascism can get, maybe right up your street

The point...
Web sites can be more than just the segment that offends.

 

[ChristineM]

The point...
Web sites can be more than just the segment that offends.

Of course, look deep enough into any offensive website and you are likely to find the page telling you how moderate they are

 

[Heyo]

Of course, look deep enough into any offensive website and you are likely to find the page telling you how moderate they are

It's not a question of how moderate a site is, it's a question of how moderated it is.