"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"anorton" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"anorton" wrote in message
m...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
The "settled science" of Global Warming has become unsettled.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000...07774168722660
2.html

The Wall Street Journal, 22 February 2010.

Joe Gwinn

Think a bit about what this means. Everyone knows the UN is a political
not a scientific organization. The compiled UN report of several
thousand pages has been subjected to most intense scrutiny that could
be bought by OPEC and the coal, oil, gas industries, yet they have
found less than a handful of errors or exaggerations. They have found
nothing wrong with the hundreds of other remaining conclusions. The
few errors have to do with specific effects of climate change in
certain areas. None have to do with the fundamental conclusion that CO2
from fossil fuel is significantly warming the Earth.

Of course their have been many thousands of invalid, easily-rebutted
criticisms spread by all sorts of bloggers and paid lobbyists. The
lack of weight in these argurments becomes apparent by contrast when
you see the effect in the media of a single valid criticism. As I have
mentioned before, we are seeing the results of an organized F.U.D.
marketing campaign. F.U.D. (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) is a well-worn
negative marketing technique used when your product is inferior in
nearly every way to your competitors. The idea is to spread so much
negative innuendo, rumors, half truths and lies about the competing
product along with the few true weaknesses that your competitor has to
spend all his energy and time defending himself, but still it is
impossible to remove doubt in the mind of the customer after such an
onslaught. Of course the truth becomes plainly obvious eventually, but
this strategy allows the perpetrators to extract the maximum profit
from their current product. Most scientists (even the technocrats at
the UN) are not professional lobbyists and do not know how to respond
to such an organized attack.

The Wall Street Journal used to be a responsible voice of conservatism
until it was bought by Rupert Murdoch (with a Saudi prince as second
largest share holder).


But, there is not one shred of proof that CO2 from fossil fuel is
significantly warming the Earth, just theory and conjecture by those
that will profit immensely from it. Yet you condemn the energy
producers and don't hold the alarmists to the same standards. And,
there's been no warming in 15 years, according to your scientists. So,
everything that you say is so obviously biased and jaded that you can't
be taken seriously.


This is just the sort of F.U.D. garbage I was talking about. "not one
shred of proof"? Do you really believe if that were true there would be
all this bru-ha-ha? There is proof from isotope measurements that most
of the increase in CO2 this century has been from fossil fuel. Forget
about what the models predict, it is possible if you know physics to
calculate from first principles the general amount of heating (see
http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf p.10 to 52). Not one of the
AGW deniers have shown why the models and calculations are completely
wrong.

Suppose astronomers tell you they observed the position and velocity of
an asteroid, and they used Newton's laws to predict the asteriod will hit
earth. No one has shown that calculation to be incorrect, and more than
90% of astronomers agree. Would you think something should be done or
would you say forget about it, its a big conspiracy to get grant money?
Accusing an entire scientific field of conspiracy demands some solid
scientific evidence which should be easy to obtain if it were true.

As for the lack of recent temperature increase, here is the graph in
question:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Do you believe the slight flattening of the curve in recent years is
statistically significant?



As I said, but let me amend, not one shred of CREDIBLE proof. You
alarmists have been caught in so many lies and destroyed so much data that
you have no credibility.

More myths of the FUD attack. The only true exagerrations have been in the
UN report. No raw data was destroyed, just intermediate compilations of the
raw data years after the papers were reviewed and published. The famous
leaked emails have been shown to be far more innocent than you believe.
http://mediamatters.org/iphone/research/200912010030
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/sc...04climate.html
How many lies do "skeptics" have to spread before you doubt their
credibility?

My opinion means nothing, the rest of the world has rejected your theories
and there are plenty of scientists that don't agree with you.

Your opinion matters only in that it is an indication of the success of this
FUD attack in making the public believe there is no consensus on the
fundamental issues. The vast majority of climate scientists understand what
is certain about CO2 and climate and what is still under contention. The
scientists you say do not agree, are they the ones paid by lobbying firms or
are they the ones who signed the global warming petition project after they
were dead? Or, like my father (a retired biochemist), are they the ones
whose names are on the petition but who never signed it? Or are they the
ones who are actually TV weather people? Or are they the reputable
climatologists who are repeatedly mis-quoted and mis-paraphrased?


I say take all the money put into the AGW fantasy and put it into asteroid
defense, a much, much wiser use of the money as big asteroids WILL hit the
Earth and are in fact overdue. Let's not mention the upcoming magnetic
pole shift that is WAY overdue...have you figured out how to profit from
that too?