On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:46:04 -0800, the infamous "anorton"
scrawled the following:
"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.
Well, there's that, and then there are the dozens of scams which have
recently been discovered perpetrated by your fellow alarmists, Norty.
That's the worst damning evidence of all. Your guys ADMITTED to faking
data, preventing "deniers" from peer review, covering up cooling
trends, and a dozen other things. Christ, man. It's OVER. Open your
eyes, take a deep breath, and smell the _decay_ of your "cause"!
(Is that "Taps" I hear out there? I think one of the undrowned polar
bears is playing it.
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.
Hmm, I don't see anything about how the water vapor is affected or
changing due to the CO2 in the air. Why is that, Norty? Is it because
Mother Nature is averaging things out herself?
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?
Oh, now it's a land/ocean temperature index, is it? Is that new since
the CO2 scandals came out? Hmm, that's nearly 0.7 degrees in 130
years.
Golly, do you really believe everything Hansen's GISS says, Norty?
Somebody take their shrooms away, will ya? They're actually starting
to believe themselves.
--
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
-- Clarence Darrow