March 4, 2007

Globaloney and Globalarmism: Consensus, Conschmensus

Filed under: Economy,Environment,Scams,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 12:37 pm

In light of the growing intimidation of skeptics by financially conflicted globaloney globalarmists (HT Anchoress), it seems quite timely — indeed, important — to post this quaint little reminder:

….. over 17,000 scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever.

The global warming hypothesis has failed every relevant experimental test. It lives on only in the dreams of anti-technologists and population reduction advocates. The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This (Kyoto) treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

If your mind isn’t closed and you’ve got the time, there’s a great 52-minute lecture here that busts the globaloney wide open. The lecturer isn’t Mr. Excitement, but that’s not the point.


SPECIAL UPDATE, March 8: Especially in response to Comment 2 below and other disinfo, this description (HT Eye Hacker) of the signers and the nature of the project is worthy of note –

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences ….. make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth’s plant and animal life.

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified.

The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition’s organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.

The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.

I must officially “call BS” on Comment 2 and the source referred to (though of course not the commenter, who appears to be unfortunately duped, although I must add that I found no evidence of any podiatrists).


UPDATE: More on how unhinged the “debate” (which of course globalarmists want to say is “settled” and therefore should be shut down) has become from the underlying data.

UPDATE 2: Anchoress (a)weighs in, and also via Kim at Wizbang, points to a British Channel 4 documentary on March 8 that promises to blast “The Great Global Warming Swindle.”

UPDATE 3: An unncessary (see comment 2 below) but “what the heck, I’ll do it anyway” challenge has in effect been issued to show climatologists and climate researchers who don’t buy into globaloney. Okey-dokey; in only 10 minutes or so the following names were found:

  • David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma and an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).
  • Timothy Ball, PhD in Climatology — “Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist.”

Thomas Sowell identified a half dozen a few weeks ago without working up much of a sweat:

  • Dr. S. Fred Singer, who set up the American weather satellite system, and who published some years ago a book titled “Hot Talk, Cold Science.”
  • A professor of meteorology at MIT, Richard S. Lindzen
  • A professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Patrick J. Michaels
  • A professor of climatology at the University of Delaware, David R. Legates
  • Skeptical experts in other countries around the world include Duncan Wingham, a professor of climate physics at the University College, London, and Nigel Weiss of Cambridge University.

Obviously all lightweights (/sarcasm).

UPDATE 3A, March 5: I know it’s not football season any more, but let’s just pile it on anyway (courtesy POS 51) from the NRSP (National Resources Stewardship Project) –

  • Dr. Ian Clark, Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
  • Dr. Tim Patterson, Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
  • Dr. Vincent Gray, Expert Reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001′, Wellington, New Zealand
  • Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Massachusetts
  • Dr. Fred Michel, Director, Institute of Environmental Science and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
  • Dr. R.M. Carter, Australia, Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia)

UPDATE 4: A bonus — A Perspective on what 90% Certainty Means in Science

UPDATE 5: Second Bonus (HT The Other Club) — “Fire and Ice — Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming.” That goes for scientists, too.

UPDATE 6, March 5: Here’s an interesting parallel, considering the comments in this post — Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics (HT NixGuy) skewers the “Jesus Tomb” claim and does it on this basis –

Scientific method demands a careful, systematic weighing of all the evidence, for and against. The documentarians have not done this. They have systematically ignored the unfavorable evidence: (1) they ignored those who should not be in the tomb, (2) they did not properly consider those who should be in the tomb; (3) they ignored the strong likelihood that Jesus could not be buried in the tomb. Their method is essentially, “Evidence that favors the theory is included. The rest is excluded.”

This is how a freak accident becomes a sure thing.

Let’s analogize, shall we?

Scientific method demands a careful, systematic weighing of all the evidence, for and against. Globalarmists have not done this. They have systematically ignored the unfavorable evidence (examples abound, including the Medieval Warm Period, the bogusness of the hockey stick, etc., etc. — Ed.). Their method is essentially, “Evidence that favors the theory is included. The rest is excluded.”

Now, back to Jay Cost for a paragraph that fits both scams to a T:

What they offer here is not science, but pseudo-science — polemic dressed in scientific language. Numbers and “tests” are trotted out, but only for the sake of appearance. The hypothesis is never actually in danger because the falsifying evidence is excised before the evaluation begins. In other words, the rules of the game are: heads they win, tails you lose. The game was rigged from the start.

This is how a possibly interesting theory becomes a sure thing.

UPDATE 7, March 5: The Canada Free Press site is being weighed down by a Drudge link that says “Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming – Now a Skeptic…” UPDATE 7A: Okay now that the link is accessible

(Dr. Claude Allegre’s) break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” in l’ Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro’s retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. “The cause of this climate change is unknown,” he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the “science is settled.”

Dr. Allegre’s skepticism is noteworthy in several respects. For one, he is an exalted member of France’s political establishment, a friend of former Socialist president Lionel Jospin, and, from 1997 to 2000, his minister of education, research and technology, charged with improving the quality of government research through closer co-operation with France’s educational institutions. For another, Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution. His break with scientific dogma over global warming came at a personal cost: Colleagues in both the governmental and environmental spheres were aghast that he could publicly question the science behind climate change.

But Dr. Allegre had allegiances to more than his socialist and environmental colleagues. He is, above all, a scientist of the first order, the architect of isotope geodynamics, which showed that the atmosphere was primarily formed early in the history of the Earth, and the geochemical modeller of the early solar system. Because of his path-breaking cosmochemical research, NASA asked Dr. Allegre to participate in the Apollo lunar program, where he helped determine the age of the Moon. Matching his scientific accomplishments in the cosmos are his accomplishments at home: Dr. Allegre is perhaps best known for his research on the structural and geochemical evolution of the Earth’s crust and the creation of its mountains, explaining both the title of his article in l’ Express and his revulsion at the nihilistic nature of the climate research debate.

UPDATE 8, March 5: Last Thursday, Don Luskin (Smart Money, Blog) assigned partial blame for the early-week stock market decline to (with a bit of humor) …. Al Gore.

UPDATE 9, March 5: The National Post has a 13-part (at this point) series on “The Deniers,” of which the Allegre piece cited in Update 7A above is the latest.

UPDATE 10, March 6: A number of links that I have received from this Climate Audit post from last year remind me that much of the “science” supposedly backing up global warming has gone through an inadequate “peer review” process that, as noted in late 2005, is grievously deficient in fact-checking and disclosure, and therefore way, way short of being reliable.

UPDATE 11, March 6: There is a timely book, by Christopher C. Horner at the Competitive Enterprise Institute — “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism.” The publisher says that “This latest installment in the Politically Incorrect Guide series provides a provocative, entertaining, and well-documented expose of some of the most shamelessly politicized pseudo-science we are likely to see in our relatively cool lifetimes.”

UPDATE 12, March 7: Don Surber (HT Instapundit) detects globaloney affecting routine reports about weather extremes. If it’s very cold, even record-breaking cold, it doesn’t get attention outside the immediate area. If it’s warm, it’s tied to …. you know.

UPDATE 13, March 11: The Empire (Attempts to) Strike Back — by going stone-cold crazy with the predictions from “a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.” I believe the word “draft” will become important. We’ll see.

UPDATE 14, March 11: This was inevitable, given the hysteria — “Scientists threatened for ‘climate denial’.” Wait a minute: Why is this happening if there is “consensus”? Oh, and the only reason that outfits like the IPCC have “consensus” is that they expel those who don’t agree with the “consensus.”

UPDATE 15, March 12: And the “consensus”-busting goes on — this is from Philip Stott, an Emeritus Professor from the University of London, UK, who for the last 18 years was the editor of the Journal of Biogeography. In an opinion piece at ABC News, he makes huge points about concentrating on what’s important — and it’s not globaloney (bolds are mine):

Herein lies the moral danger behind global warming hysteria. Each day, 20,000 people in the world die of waterborne diseases. Half a billion people go hungry. A child is orphaned by AIDS every seven seconds. This does not have to happen. We allow it while fretting about “saving the planet.” What is wrong with us that we downplay this human misery before our eyes and focus on events that will probably not happen even a hundred years hence? We know that the greatest cause of environmental degradation is poverty; on this, we can and must act.

The global warming “crisis” is misguided. In hubristically seeking to “control” climate, we foolishly abandon age-old adaptations to inexorable change. There is no way we can predictably manage this most complex of coupled, nonlinear chaotic systems. The inconvenient truth is that “doing something” (emitting gases) at the margins and “not doing something” (not emitting gases) are equally unpredictable.

Climate change is a norm, not an exception. It is both an opportunity and a challenge. The real crises for 4 billion people in the world remain poverty, dirty water and the lack of a modern energy supply. By contrast, global warming represents an ecochondria of the pampered rich.



  1. [...] Via BizzyBlog, who writes: [...]

    Pingback by The Anchoress » 17,000 scientists dissent; no consensus on global warming — March 4, 2007 @ 1:37 pm

  2. Might wanna do a bit more reading:

    “When questioned in 1998, OISM’s Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, “and of those the greatest number are physicists.” This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science – such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology – and almost none were climate specialists.”

    Wonder how many of the 17,000 are podiatrists?

    Comment by Eric — March 4, 2007 @ 5:27 pm

  3. #2, that is a “you so don’t get it” straw man argument.

    “Scientists” (I never said “climatologists,” did I? [/straw]) who signed the declaration are quite familiar with the “scientific method,” and are thus in a position to understand that global warming, human causation of it, and its deleterious effects even if it exists are totally, completely, and utterly unproven hypotheses.


    See Update 3 for climatologists found in 10 minutes or less.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 4, 2007 @ 5:45 pm

  4. #3, It’s not a straw man. It blows your 17,000 claim out of the water. There is much more and I’ll feature in a full post tomorrow. Have a godo night.

    Comment by Eric — March 4, 2007 @ 6:06 pm

  5. Just because someone has a PHD or is an MD does not make them qualified in understanding global warming. If they have not spent time researching the issue, they are no more qualified to determine its validity than anyone else. Understanding the “scientific method” does not make someone more qualified to determine how valid a theory is if they have little or no knowledge of the subject the theory pertains to.

    In your update 3, you listed “climatologists and climate researchers” who disagree with global warming. One of the people you listed is Timothy Ball. According to the following article, Timothy Ball is not a climate scientist:

    His Ph.D is in geography, not Climatology. According to the article, “His work does not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere and the few papers he has published concern other matters.”

    Comment by Brian — March 5, 2007 @ 3:54 am

  6. #5, the article about Ball’s the nature of Ball’s PhD is wrong:

    Climatologist Timothy Ball sends PhD to Canada Free Press

    “That’s absolute rubbish. I have a PhD in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology from the University of London (England), Queen Mary College,” Dr. Ball told Canada Free Press (CFP) yesterday in a telephone interview.

    Even if you’re right, that’s one down, Deming, all of Williams’, and heaven knows how many others to go.

    IMO, you could not be more wrong about scientists’ ability to see when the scientific method isn’t being followed. The global warming crowd has been largely about finding evidence that supports desired conclusions and ignoring that which doesn’t almost since the inception of the switch from global cooling hysteria, and it shows.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 5, 2007 @ 5:56 am

  7. Of the 17,000 “scientists” who signed the petition, there is no evidence or any way of knowing, if even a single one of them has reviewed any of the evidence that the global warming theory is based on. As I said before, just because someone has a PHD, it doesn’t make him any more qualified than someone else to determine the validity of global warming. The ones who fail to follow the scientific method are the global warming skeptics. All they do is keep repeating global warming is hoax. They do not provide any facts or evidence to support their claims.

    Computer models predicting temperature anomalies under different scenerios were developed by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Models were developed for predictions based on anomalies caused by natural forces only, man-made causes (greenhouse gases, aerosols, etc.) only, and both natural and man-made forces.

    The models were than compared to the actual temperature anomalies over the time period from 1866 to 2000. Of the three models, the model based on anomalies caused by natural forces and man-made causes most accurately predicted the climate changes over the time period. This would show man-made causes are affecting the climate. The following page documents these models:

    If you look at the third chart, you will see the computer model based on natural and man-made causes of temperature anomalies very accurately predicts the temperature anomalies from 1866 to 2000.

    These models do follow the scientific method. If you are going to claim that global warming skeptics do follow the scientific model, please provide facts and evidence supporting their claims. Just listing a few scientists who dispute global warming does nothing to show the theory is not valid. Providing a petition of 17,000 “scientists” who dispute this does not show the theory is invalid either. If you dispute the global warming theory is valid, please provide facts and evidence showing this.

    Comment by Brian — March 6, 2007 @ 1:35 am

  8. You just demonstrated the lack of scientific rigor better than I ever could. Correlation, to the extent that it exists, doesn’t prove causation.

    The evidence is at the 52-minute presentation. Current temps are nowhere near the Medieval Warming period. They appear to be going up, but have a long way to go. There were no human sources of global warming of any influence in medieval times, but “somehow” the temps got up there. QED.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 6, 2007 @ 1:45 am

  9. Brian,

    Look very closely at the figure 1 in the link you posted. You can right click to pull up some options to see a larger version. What you should notice is that temperature leads the increase in CO2.

    The 3rd chart does not predict anything. You cannot predict something that has already happened. What the models do is curve fit to the historic surface record. Do a web search for ‘curve fit’ to understand why they can make the models fit the record. The following link is a model.
    You can get any prediction you want with a climate model. Just cherry pick the result that fits your world view.

    I would suggest you go over to climateaudit and start reading. You might find Dr. Gerald Browning’s post of interest since he is a scientist that has published numerous articles on the serious flaws in climate models.

    To put it bluntly, climate models are very primitive. They are filled with adjustments to keep them from flying out of control. They are never accompanied by error bars which is standard in all other branches of science and engineering. They have never been validated. IOW, they have never been tested against reality. They are nice toys but are not capable of predicting future climate.

    Comment by Greg F — March 6, 2007 @ 7:08 pm

  10. TBlumer,

    You don’t seem to understand that scientists do not dispute natural causes can cause climate change. Just because there were warm periods in the past does not disprove man-made causes are affecting the climate today. I doubt very much you have closely studied this issue as the scientists that have determined global warming is real have. Your views are based on your ideology, not the facts and evidence. It is part of conservative ideology to deny global warming is real because conservatives are opposed to environmental regulations.


    Climate models have not only closed matched actual climate results in the past, they have also successfully predicted climate changes in the future. Los Alamos computer model accurately predicted global climate effects of the Pinatubo eruption in 1991.

    Comment by Brian — March 7, 2007 @ 2:22 am

  11. #11, the post is about whether or not there is consenus. There isn’t consensus — not, even, close.

    Your statement presupposes current human causation (“does not disprove man-made causes are affecting the climate today”). It’s up to globablonists to first, prove serious, earth-threatening warming is occurring; second, prove that it’s human-caused, and third, prove that what is being prescribed will cure the problem if the first two are true. They have done none of those three things. The “facts” and the “evidence” simply aren’t there.

    I don’t consider myself conservative as much as a person who sees what works and what doesn’t. It happens that most of the time what works falls into the category of what people call “conservative.” I can’t help that; there are times when I wish it weren’t so (life would be so much easier), but unlike others, I’m not going to pretend to see what I don’t see.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 7, 2007 @ 8:38 am

  12. There is a consensus among scientists about global warming. If you dispute this, please provide some examples of peer reviewed research papers disputing this. Just because someone with PHD next to his name signs a petition has no bearing on what the scientific consensus is. All of the major scientific organizations that deal with the subject are in agreement on the issue. When analysis was done on 928 peer reviewed articles that were randomly brought up in a search for the key word “climate change”, not a single one of them disagreed with the consensus position:

    It seems that none of these “scientists” disputing global warming are willing to put any of their claims up to scrutiny. They cannot provide evidence to support their claims.

    You have not studied the subject. You do not know what the facts and evidence are. You are a conservative. Your views are based on ideology, not what does and doesn’t work. Conservatives are oblivious to that. There have been many environmental laws and regulations passed over the past 40 years. These laws and regulations have greatly improved the environment and have not harmed the economy. In other words environment laws and regulations do work. This does not matter to conservatives. Regulations go against their ideology so they are going to always fight them regardless of whatever benefits result from them.

    Comment by Brian — March 8, 2007 @ 1:46 am

  13. Brian:

    Peer Review, ha — It essentially means “unaudited”:

    Peer Review, Schmeer Review

    I have “studied” plenty, and I get daily e-mails on the subject — Too many globaloney modelers have been notorious for resisting detailed scrutiny and for deciding what they want the result to be and making the evidence fit.

    On econ and regs: Just for starters — To the extent that construction and new development has been prevented by bogus endangered species claims, the economy has been held back. Dozens of other similar examples abound.

    Regulations can be great, but do a cost/benefit analysis to prove they are worth it. Reg supporters usually resist mightily. You would be well advised to put away the broad brushes.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 8, 2007 @ 2:01 am

  14. Included in daily e-mail info for March 8:


    I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society. In all regular engineering professions, there exists a licensing authority. If such an authority existed in climate research, I contend, the vast majority of climate modelers would vainly attempt certification. Also, they would be unable to obtain insurance against professional liability.
    –Hendrik Tennekes, Climate Science, 28 February 2007

    Comment by TBlumer — March 8, 2007 @ 8:01 am

  15. #12, also see the special update. I am really tired of the arguments that go after the signers and not what they\’re saying. That is a tactic I have generally seen used when the core scientific arguments fail to stand up.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 8, 2007 @ 11:26 am

  16. Brian,

    The modeling of Pinatubo eruption in 1991 was done after the fact. The results were published in Feb. of 97. The abstract is here:…102.3617Z

    Either way the example you provided is a non sequitur as they did not model the earths climate, they only modeled a limited subset over a relatively short time period. In any model errors accumulate over time which is evident in the model results from a link I posted previously.

    The paper by Naomi Oreskes that supposedly proved the consensus was seriously flawed. See the following links:

    Consensus is not science, it is politics. There are numerous historical examples where the “consensus” was wrong. Thomas Gold has a nice piece on science:

    It should be noted that the example on hearing in Dr. Gold’s essay is just one example where the “consensus” was wrong.

    Being published in a peer review journal it doesn’t make it true. Replication is essential to good science. Do you remember cold fusion?

    What is clear from your posting is that you have not studied the subject at all nor do you seem to understand the scientific method.

    Comment by Greg F — March 8, 2007 @ 7:22 pm

  17. Al Gore’s Inconvenient Fiction: $250 Billion Scam?…

    Wanton profiteering appears to be at the very heart of “carbon offsets.” Put simply, a wide range of respected scientists, environmentalists, researchers, agriculturalists, and activists believe that carbon offsets are a “scam”, “fantasy”, “fict…

    Trackback by Doug Ross @ Journal — March 10, 2007 @ 2:03 pm

  18. I love Brian’s argument about Blumer not being being able to come to some reasonable conclusion about climate change because “you are a conservative.” Typical liberal elitist remark. Does Al Gore have some kind of degree that makes him particularly authoratative on the issue of global warming? Of course not but Brian has no problem drinking the kool-aid that Gore offers. Recall that there was concensus about global cooling about 30 years ago from all those in the scientific know.

    Go figure.

    Comment by rich — March 10, 2007 @ 4:30 pm

  19. #18, that was choice.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 10, 2007 @ 4:49 pm

  20. Tblumer,

    Your special update shows that most of the “scientists” who signed the petition do not have a background in fields related to climate science. Of the more than 19,000 signers, 2,660 were physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists. Of these 2,660, it is not known how many of them have an expertise in climate science. Most physicists and oceanographers would not. The 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences would not have expertise in climate science from their study or their work in their field. The issue is how carbon dioxide affects the climate, not plant and animal life. There is no evidence that any of these people has ever studied the issue in detail. Of the more than 19,000 people who signed this petition, it is conceivable that over 90 percent of them have no more knowledge of climate science than any other average person. As I said before, just because someone has a PHD, it does not mean they have any special knowledge on climate change.

    Your statement referring to global warming as “globaloney” shows your willful ignorance on the issue. Referring to global warming as “globaloney” shows you are not even willing to take one side of the issue seriously. You have already made up your mind before hand that one side is wrong. As I said before, your views are most likely based on conservative ideology rather than any facts or evidence. It has never been proven that man-made causes are not contributing to global warming. There are many scientists who understand the subject much better than you do and are convinced that man-made causes are contributing to global warming. You have already decided that you are going to dispute this not matter what evidence is found.


    Al Gore is not the only proponent of man made causes are contributing to global warming. Every major scientific organization that deals with the subject of climate science is in agreement that this is true. You’re the one drinking the Kool-Aid from the conservative ideologues that global warming isn’t real.

    Comment by Brian — March 11, 2007 @ 5:42 pm

  21. Greg F,

    The modeling of the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 was done before any data on its effect of the climate was collected. The results were published in 1997 but the model was built right after the eruption.

    Comment by Brian — March 11, 2007 @ 5:44 pm

  22. #20, It\’s been asked and answered. You need to come up with new arguments, or there\’s no point in taking any more of your comments. There are some good arguments to be made that some of those who you believe to be insufficiently expert might be MORE expert in some aspects of the issue, but it\’s clear that you aren\’t interested in recognizing the legitimacy of anything that doesn\’t fit the template.

    And please can the crap about \”conservative ideology.\” It\’s very tired. If anyone comes up with compelling evidence, I\’m open to it. I\’d be more open to it if proponents weren\’t playing the \”it\’s over\” game, and attempted to show even a modicum of respect to those who have scientifically based disagreeing views. But that\’s not happening.

    The \”Globaloney\” and \”globalarmism\” terms in general are references to proponents\’ ideas that \”it\’s all been proven, the debate is over, and the earth is going to suffer dire consequences if we don\’t take draconian action.\” Bullcrap.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 11, 2007 @ 6:12 pm

  23. #22, I’m not a climate scientist so I couldn’t give a definite answer for sure whether or not what many scientists are stating is true. What I’m disputing are, those who are saying that global warming proponents are wrong and there is no link between man-made causes and global warming. While I’m not knowledgeable of the subject to know for sure whether the scientists supporting the global warming theory are absolutely correct, I have not seen those denying it is true provide absolute evidence that it isn’t.

    If there is a possibility that it true what many scientists are saying, wouldn’t it make sense to take action now, to reduce emissions which may be causing global warming, than wait until something bad happens (if it is true)?

    The ones who I see as being alarmists are the ones who say that passing regulations to reduce emissions will destroy the economy. There is a lot we can do to reduce our use of electricity and reduce emissions without impacting the economy. It would actually help our economy if everyone used more fuel-efficient automobiles and were able to spend less money on gasoline and more money on other things.

    Comment by Brian — March 11, 2007 @ 8:32 pm

  24. Your second paragraph’s argument is the equivalent of saying I should not cross the street unless I’m encased in bulletproof, shatterpoof, impact-proof container, because I might get hit by a car. When that’s the argument you’re down to, you’ve lost.

    And don’t put words in my mouth. My position has been that it may be happening (though there are strong signs that it isn’t), that if it is happening we probably haven’t contributed significantly to it, and that even if it is happening and we are contributing to it, it’s not anything resembling a danger or anything we haven’t seen before (see “Medieval Warm Period”).

    As to the economic argument, people will tend to do what makes sense. Prices are a signal to people to do things that make sense. Taken globally, a rise in the price of fossil-fuel commodities will, and to an extent already has, encouraged looking at other alternatives. What I object to strenuously is the top-down state-dictated nature of the “solutions,” which (surprise – NOT) inevitably involve higher levels of taxation and more government command-control interference with our lives.

    Fortunately, some people are catching on to the pervasive enviro BS. Even the ShowTime comedians (Penn and Teller, I think), who do the program “B***sh**, were able to skewer the nonsense behind almost all of the mandatory recycling that is being foisted upon so many people today. The relevance to globaloney and globalarmism is that it turns out that the tactics that succeeded in imposing the b***sh** of recycling appear to have been a dry run for the same strategies that are being used to impose global controls and taxation on industry and production.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 11, 2007 @ 9:50 pm

  25. You are distorting my position. My position is not the equivalent of saying I should not cross the street unless I’m encased in bulletproof, shatterpoof, impact-proof container, because I might get hit by a car.

    You are not a climate scientist. You do not understand the issue as well as the scientists that specialize in this field, do. The scientists who have studied the science and understand it have determined global warming is a serious threat. You have not studied the issue and do not understand it and you are not interested in studying it. You are only interested in finding support for your pre-conceived notions.

    Your statements show that you are a conservative ideologue and cannot be reasoned with. For you, ideology will always take precedence over facts and evidence. You are always going to oppose the idea that man-made causes are contributing to global warming because it goes against your ideology. It has nothing to do with the facts and evidence. It is pointless trying to reason with you because you can’t be reasoned with. Discussing this with you is like discussing this with a pre-programmed robot. You are incapable of anything other than repeating conservative ideology: Regulation bad. The market must decide. Regulation bad. The market must decide. Regulation bad. The market must decide.

    You are always going to take this view no matter what the facts and evidence show. Your last post proves this. It doesn’t matter to you that you’ve been proven wrong. You are still going to ignore the evidence and repeat the same thing. It is government regulation, not market forces that is responsible for greatly improving the quality of the air and water over the last forty years and the economy still grew significantly. The regulations did not collapse the economy like conseralarmists insist it will. If we had your way, the pollution level today would be much higher than it was fifty year ago instead of much lower. This is meaningless to you since it doesn’t go along with your ideological beliefs.

    There is far more evidence that man-made causes are contributing to global warming than there is that any of the claims made about Jesus in the New Testament are true (of which there is no evidence at all). Of course you’ll accept that what is written about Jesus is true without question, since it’s part of your ideology but no matter how much evidence is shown in support of global warming, you’re always going to insist it isn’t true. You are incapable of understanding logic and reason. You are only capable of blindly following your ideology. All you can do is repeat your ideology and come up with childish names like “globaloney” and “globalarmist”. That’s just so funny. Maybe you should be a comedian instead of a blogger.

    Comment by Brian — March 11, 2007 @ 11:45 pm

  26. Y’know, I was thinking of canning this last comment of yours, but the humor value is too good.

    I just KNEW that if we went long enough you’d drag traditional religion into it — and ridicule it.
    I just KNEW you’d just keep beating the tired “conservative ideologue” drum and stereotype my views on enviros and regulations, even though they have been carefully explained, and even though globaloney skeptics are not even close to being exclusively on the right, or even the center.

    I just KNEW you’d question whether or not I’m open to evidence. Soooo predictable.

    Why should I take up comedy when you’re providing here at no charge?

    Comment by TBlumer — March 11, 2007 @ 11:51 pm

  27. The scientists who have studied the science and understand it have determined global warming is a serious threat.

    Please provide the survey of climate scientist that shows this to be true.

    Comment by Greg F — March 12, 2007 @ 12:08 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.