The Greenfyre strikes back

Greenfyre - the man who "doesn't debate" - does not take criticism as well as he hands it out and has responded to the deconstruction in my previous post. Unlike Greenfyre, I allow people right of criticism so his original comments are welcome and untouched.

Now let's respond. My previous article was long so I'll make this rebuttal as quick as possible.

    GF says.... 

i) In that whole long screed you can't accurately quote & link a single specific [sic] to substantiate any of your claims ... that tells any thinking person all they need to know;

Any "thinking person" would see that I had made several links in the article. Since GF omits to mention what the "specific" is (irony, anyone?) this is a pretty appalling response.

   GF says....

ii) You need to look up "argumentum ad ignorantiam", you clearly do not understand it;

Here is the definition from http://philosophy.lander.edu as I specifically linked to in the article:


*******************

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.
	A. The informal structure has two basic patterns:
		Statement p is unproved. Not-p is true.		Statement not-p is unproved. p is true.

*******************


Let's look at the second basic pattern: "Statement not-p is unproved..." "Santa Claus does not exist" is an unproven statement, because a negative cannot be proven. We can show it's very unlikely that he exists and it would be impossible for him to visit every home in one night, but we cannot categorically prove he doesn't exist.

"The current global warming is not entirely due to anthropogenic activity" is an almost identical premise. The only exception being that basic theories of heat transfer and radiative forcing make it likely that some of the heating is being accelerated and slightly exacerbated due to man's activity. However the premise remains the same, it's impossible to prove that all the heating is not due to us humans.

So when it's pointed out that climate science is a new science, unbelievably complex and not yet understood fully by anyone, so we should be careful about abusing other opinions, then how is the argument ad Ignorantiam an acceptable response? It's not. It's simply saying: "I'm right, because you can't prove me wrong".


There's one more area I should be more clear about. In my article I mentioned:

His comment policy warns us that any "gibberish" will be deleted. His idea of "gibberish" is quite broad of course and includes theories relating to Climate Change papered by highly qualified scientists.

The actual wording of GF's comment policy is:

Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be moved or deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish

In short: "I'll censor anyone who disagrees or disputes with me". Notice what the final words link to;  the index already discussed that features "Skeptic  Vs Science"  arguments. Those "skeptic" arguments very loosely and sloppily cover arguments from sunspots and solar activity as discussed by astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, a dismissal of  the clear growth of Antarctica's sea ice as discussed by Syun-Ichi Akasofu. Perhaps most ludicrously of all it rejects the overwhelming evidence that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than today. The lie to this is given by a plenitude of papers as disseminated by the Idso family, all respected scientists.

That's just three examples. So by describing arguments advanced by such people as "gibberish" seems a bit rich for an NGO. Minority? Maybe. Gibberish? Hardly. And apart from some bluster, we've now dealt with the full extent of GF's response. Perhaps now it's becoming clearer why he "won't debate".

Climate Change - still no evidence it's humans

It was an event so remarkable that it was almost lost on some people. Dr Phil Jones - the professor at the centre of the East Anglia CRU "Climategate" scandal - was allowed to approve which papers were used in evidence during some of the "independent" investigations into the scandal. It's a bizarre decision that seems equivalent to a robber approving which stolen items can be used as evidence in court. Then again, perhaps it's not all that surprising since one of the "independent" investigative bodies had the logo and email address of East Anglia University on their own logo.

But really, who cares? Who will notice? For most people, Climategate is old news. The casual current affairs observer read that some scientists got in trouble, they may have been lying about global warming but then a whole bunch of people checked and said they were fine. As for those already involved in such a fiercely polarised debate, well, they were never going to budge anyway. Sure enough, order was quickly restored as the whitewashing investigations did their job, the media went crawling back to every scientist who assured us climate change is real and the sceptics became the pantomime villains once again. Certainty was restored.

The only problem is, nobody seems to know: what we are supposed to be certain of? Next time you hear someone preaching about climate change, how serious it is and how we need to take action yesterday, ask them a few questions. Start with something easy such as: "What exactly are we certain is happening?". Most of them will mention Earth is getting warmer, the halfway smart ones will remember to mention something about co2 or anthropogenic activity.

Now ask a very slightly more informed questioned that cannot be answered with bluster, something like: "When was the last year that temperatures actually peaked?"(Answer: 1995) , follow that with a few more moderate queries like: "How much of the temperature rise is due to carbon dioxide?" (Nobody knows) "What is the hottest time period on record?" (Answer: The Medieval Warm Period)  and so on. Before long they'll admit they don't know. You might even get called a 'denier' or some other insult for good measure. The reality is that most of us don't really know a great deal behind the science of climate change, but some of us like to pretend we do. In truth, we do as all generations have done and look to our finest minds to guide us in the esoteric ways of science. Therein lies the problem.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are the multimillion dollar taxpayer-funded unit of scientific specialists who are responsible for researching, predicting and advising the rest of the world about global warming. With a huge amount of lobbying influence and a whole wealth of corporate interests flying around, we can surely be forgiven for expecting the unit to provide us with accurate, understandable and specific data about what's happening and what's going to happen. The reality is the exact opposite.

Predictions, warnings and forecasts from the IPCC ever since its inception in 1990 have been vague, wrong and contradictory to the point of resembling a tabloid astrologer's column. We've been warned over and over again of temperature increases that have not happened. We've been told the warming would first appear at the poles. Hot weather spells are due to global warming but snowfall is also a sign of the same thing. There will be more floods or hurricanes.  Certain animals will become extinct, others will multiply by the horde. The extra co2 - required for respiration in plant life - will encroach the rainforest. It will create droughts, but extra rainfall is also a symptom. The surreal list goes on and on. Can we really blame the laymen for being unclear when this is what they are fed on?

The list of doomsday events such as extra natural disasters, melting poles and "unprecedented" (one of the IPCC's favourite and most overused words) heat are not random. They are designed to create fear, for fear is what keeps the taxpayers happy to part with their money for the nice scientists who will protect them.

But if you've lost any sleep about any of these nightmare-like events we've been warned about, go and get some shuteye right now. There is absolutely zero evidence that hurricanes, volcanoes or any other disaster has increased in frequency. In fact, they seem to have declined very slightly.  The decline of the Arctic ice has received (ahem) extended interest from the media and the IPCC, both of whom neglect to mention that decline has been in trend since the end of the last Little Ice Age and is not accelerating. Meanwhile, the Antarctic ice is doing great. Funny, we don't hear about that.

As for "unprecedented" temperatures and the warnings from the likes of Al Gore that several of the last fifteen years have been the hottest on record, well it's just plain false. That's the reason alarmists hate to hear about the Medieval Warm Period.

Of course, none of this proves that AGW is false or a flawed theory, but it must surely prove to any sane person that even our supposed finest minds really don't know what is happening, to what extent it's happening or what will happen in the future. So why is there so much talk of a "consensus"? Could the multi-million dollar business interests of the IPCC have anything to do with it? Don't mistake this as a conspiracy theory. The only "conspiracy" you need to accept here is that powerful people will lie to get themselves rich. WMDs anyone? How about some MPs expenses on the side?

There's more reason to be sceptical. Huge parts of the AGW theory fall flat on their face. The theory clearly states that warming will appear in the troposphere, it isn't. It says that co2 will drive climate, in history the opposite has happened on a large scale. It states the sea levels should rise exponentially, they aren't. There's any number of examples where things simply aren't happening as they should be if the basic theory of increased radiative forcing generated by increased co2 emissions was straightforward and steadfast.

Perhaps the biggest slice of misinformation in this whole debate is the term used to describe scientists who oppose the mainstream opinion, the so-called 'deniers' - a term deliberately chosen for its disgusting undertones - is used to smear knowledgeable, qualified and good-natured people who dare to dissent. Very few scientists I have read from have denied the climate is changing, climate is always changing. What they dispute is the extent to which co2 plays a role in that change.

The theory of heat transference in the atmosphere is well established, but as we've seen, climate is a new and uncertain science with an incredible number of factors to consider; solar output, natural feedbacks, cloud feedback, continental shifts, astrophysics and more. A number of well-qualified scientists question if the increased co2 emissions will have any effect whatsoever. Many more believe that there will be an effect, but it will be far gentler than the IPCC suggest, and the trillions of dollars we will spend trying to cut temperatures by a minuscule percentage may be far better spent on reducing real pollution, researching cleaner energy, building hospitals or any other number of good causes. A layman 'denier' like me is inclined to agree.

The alarmists strike back

One of my local newspapers is the Bangkok Post. Today they ran this article as their front page piece.
The article contained the typical alarmist nonsense from some sections of the government  such as:

Weathermen, geo-hazard experts, forest firefighters, and disaster response officials are on high alert as their initial climate analyses show the high possibility of extreme weather events, triggered by global warming, which will become increasingly unpredictable.

These range from droughts, haze, flash floods, mudslides, sinkholes, coastal and river bank erosion, to forest fires..................

The wildfire forecast is based on the US Climate Prediction Centre's detection of an El Nino episode in the Pacific Ocean in August.

The centre reported that the sea surface temperature was 0.7-1.0C above mean level, indicating the development of a moderate El Nino phenomenon.

"El Nino will cause a higher than usual temperature plus less rainfall in the Kingdom in the first half of 2010, increasing the risk of forest fire," the FFCD reported. The division urged authorities to keep updating weather conditions instead of relying on normal climate patterns because "the unprecedented climate and weather fluctuations, resulting from global warming, make it extremely difficult to make long-term weather and wildfire forecasts." ...................

 "What we are most concerned about is the climate variability which causes sudden torrential rain, flash floods, tropical cyclones, and turbulent seas," he said.

"These weather events can strike a certain area within 24 hours, a week, or a month and people must be prepared for them."

People in all regions, except the South, could face extremely hot weather between April and May when the temperature might hit 40C.....................

High temperatures could be accompanied by tropical storms, hail and lightning strikes.

Regarding flooding, Mr Somchai said next year's precipitation rate is expected to be similar to this year's, and flood problems could be solved simply through good water management.

However, areas with more than two days of continuous rain should be prepared for flash floods, he warned.

The department deputy chief said he would like to see better disaster preparedness and response at the community level.

"Villagers, especially in disaster-risk zones, must be trained to protect themselves from natural hazards," he said. "Advanced weather forecast technology or disaster warning systems will be useless, if the locals don't know how to use them to save their communities."

Adichart Surinkum, director of the Mineral Resources Department's geo-hazard operation centre, monitoring geological-related disasters such as earthquakes, mudslides, land erosion and sinkholes, said preparedness was key.

"As natural disasters are increasing while weather conditions become more unpredictable, people's understanding of natural hazards and good disaster preparedness is key to their survival," Mr Adichart said.

At least the same edition also included this letter about climategate. Still, I was so incensed I had to write a letter to the BP once again. If they publish it, I'll link to it and give my sources. If not, I'll publish it here and source it again.

I'm a heretic

The claim that 'Global Warming has become a religion' is one that we seem to be hearing more and more of recently. I'm quite sceptical of this claim, but I must say that this blog entry tempts us to believe that yes, some people are getting religious about this.

Note the tone of the blog. Everything is aggressive, almost fanatical in tone despite the science involved. Note the non-stop scathing of 'deniers'. See the blogger make reference to a documentary that has not been released yet and already declares it to be full of lies and deception.** And most striking of all, the blogger feels the need to give us a clip of mister Tutu discussing global warming.

I can't help but make the comparison to religious fanatics who attack anyone who threatens their belief system, and bury their heads in the sand when any evidence disproving their beliefs is exposed. They will always shout it down as the work of the devil, of liars and deceivers. The burning hatred or bigotry is borne from insecurity.

I left some comments for the blogger and asked a few questions. His reply contained a series of ad hominem attacks. Is this the scientific way?


**Actually I think the blogger is referring to 'Not Evil, Just Wrong' as he links and plays upon this name in his statement. However, this documentary has already premiered, though he states it is in production.

AGW Simplified

Now that the CRU scandal is in its initial death throes, we can see everyone returning to form. Leftists are attempting to Jedi mind trick the public into believing they hold the moral high ground, as though the multifaceted lies had never taken place, let alone been disclosed. Indeed, it seems there will be no further punishments for those who actively deceived the public with the use of taxpayers money.

For some people, this is just a matter of point scoring. For me, it goes much further than that. I've already explained why I object to so much of the input on the AGW debate, and I've explained why it;s important that we put our faith in people actually qualified to run their mouth on the topic. For those people to betray us, is criminal. The eccentric chap at Devil's Kitchen has a very useful flowchart to explain the climate change psyche.

The truth about global warming

Today’s ‘news’ features the appearance of Paul McCartney at ‘Meat Free Monday’, an event promoting the idea of “going ‘meat free’ one day per week in order slow global warming”. (From now on I’ll use ‘GW’ as an acronym for global warming.) Such nonsense epitomises everything that is wrong with the GW movement.

First of all, can anyone explain in rational, scientific terms exactly what benefits can be gained by not eating meat for one day each week? Do we actually have credible statistics that prove such a reduction in meat consumption will actually reduce emissions to any significant degree? Do we actually believe that Paul McCartney – legend that he is – actually has environmental interests at the top of his priority list when he makes these public appearences? Does he actually have real knowledge of the issues at hand?

As you may have noticed, events like this are one of my pet peeves. I get sick of seeing rock concerts screaming “Stop Global Warming!” at the top of every poster just to sell a few extra tickets. I get fed up of shops promoting fake ‘green’ products, and I wince when I hear people harp on about some ’stop GW’ fundraiser they attended.

Let’s look at this as if The World was a person and global warming were the cigarettes that person smoked. Attending a concert called “Stop Global Warming Now!” would be like the smoker saying: “Yes I really should give up sometime soon” before opening another pack. Not eating meat once a week would be equivalent to saying “OK, today I’ll smoke forty nine cigarettes instead of fifty”.

Heartlessly cynical? Maybe, but I detect a strong theme of self interest running throughout. Most green products sold in shops are simply ‘bandwagon’ advertising. Rock concerts and fundings events are often a form of publicity for celebrities and a cheap way for consumers to say “I’ve done my bit” and continue to live in ignorance. And notably, governments in the west seem only too happy to let us carry on like this. Why?

Perhaps it’s because the truth requires slightly more effort. Let’s start with the so called consensus. Now, I recently saw a documentary featuring an interview with a highly respected professor of oceanography from a top American university. He stated that he could not be sure that GW was anthropogenic but he felt it probably was. Now, let’s remember that this is one of the finest scientific minds in the world speaking here, and he openly states he is not totally sure. If such an expert cannot be sure, how can the rest of us be so fanatically convinced? The answer, of course, is that we have to trust the experts we listen to. But the experts are by no means united in their verdict.

Secondly, recycling carrier bags and eschewing meat once a week, whilst noble in its aims, is basically a spit in the ocean. The only way to make a real difference to GW is to push China and India to live differently and utilise cleaner forms of fuel. Of course,that could mean that China could not continue to produce ultra-cheap consumer goods for us in the west and would perhaps be unable to purchase so many US government bonds. Likewise, India would have to cease providing extra-cheap manpower to European businesses.

Could that reality explain why our governments seem so content to let us switch off our lights for an hour once a year, then carry on as usual?