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

"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).

"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.

"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?

"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. 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.

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?

In article ,
"anorton" wrote:

"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.

I would submit that you are misreading the politics. The issue is that
people were asked to trust the experts, to the tune of trillions of
dollars.

Then it was discovered that one group of experts (Climate Research Unit)
were withholding and manipulating evidence, and another made a howler of
a conclusion (that glaciers would soon melt away) by being careless of
validating sources (UN).

These are the thirteenth strikes of the clock, which cast doubt not only
on themselves, but on all prior strikes. (Paraphrased from a famous
quotation, so famous that I don't recall the source.)

The good news is that now the evidence will get the wire-brush
treatment, and we will soon know what did and did not survive.


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).

Ad hominem.


Joe Gwinn

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:14:16 -0800, the infamous "anorton"
scrawled the following:


"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.

Man, where'd you find -that- tanker truckful of Koolaid?


They have found nothing wrong with the hundreds of
other remaining conclusions.

How does one refute all those "may"s, "might"s, or "could lead to"s,
hmmm? The UN pols weren't even sure enough to say "WILL".


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.

Except the proof. Nothing anywhere proves it, and most of that source
data was tainted by CRU. Even their old leader admitted that. Where
have you been, Norty?


--snip--

Of course the truth becomes plainly obvious eventually,

Then why the hell haven't -you- stumbled across it yet? Keeriste!


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).

Back to the old "the oil company owns it" ploy, are you? sigh

It still isn't too late to BAFC, idiot.

--
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
-- Clarence Darrow

"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?

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

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"anorton" wrote:

"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.

I would submit that you are misreading the politics. The issue is that
people were asked to trust the experts, to the tune of trillions of
dollars.

Then it was discovered that one group of experts (Climate Research Unit)
were withholding and manipulating evidence, and another made a howler of
a conclusion (that glaciers would soon melt away) by being careless of
validating sources (UN).

These are precisely the sort of myths that are being propagated by the FUD
attack. Only the UN report exagerrations are valid criticisms.
http://mediamatters.org/iphone/research/200912010030
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/sc...04climate.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ve-assessment/


These are the thirteenth strikes of the clock, which cast doubt not only
on themselves, but on all prior strikes. (Paraphrased from a famous
quotation, so famous that I don't recall the source.)

Exactly. This is the desired effect of a FUD attack. Make everything
uncertain even if there is no evidence against it. In front of a good
prosecutor on a witness stand, anyone, no matter how innocent, can be made
to look like an evil villian if they have no defense attorney. It
unfortunately plays well to the sensationalist media. Here are some
examples of what has been falsely spread in the press.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../daily-mangle/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../whatevergate/


The good news is that now the evidence will get the wire-brush
treatment, and we will soon know what did and did not survive.


That is good, but you see from the above it does not much matter that
something is reviewed and found valid. If there is an eager machine to
recirculate the initial accusations, they tend to stick around.


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).

Ad hominem.


Joe Gwinn

On Feb 22, 8:02*pm, "Buerste" wrote:
"anorton" wrote in message

...







"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"anorton" wrote in message
news:msCdnWnZ6ZUyeB_WnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@earthlink. com...

"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. *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.

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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Or maybe you are just too stupid to understand the science.

You can't even find a job for Gunner.

Laugh..laugh...laugh...

TMT

On Feb 22, 5:21*pm, "Buerste" wrote:
"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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure there is...didn't you get the memo?

Oh that's right...it only went to the smart ones.

TMT

In article ,
"anorton" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"anorton" wrote:

"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.

I would submit that you are misreading the politics. The issue is that
people were asked to trust the experts, to the tune of trillions of
dollars.

Then it was discovered that one group of experts (Climate Research Unit)
were withholding and manipulating evidence, and another made a howler of
a conclusion (that glaciers would soon melt away) by being careless of
validating sources (UN).

These are precisely the sort of myths that are being propagated by the FUD
attack. Only the UN report exagerrations are valid criticisms.
http://mediamatters.org/iphone/research/200912010030
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/sc...04climate.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...u-data-suspect
-an-objective-assessment/


These are the thirteenth strikes of the clock, which cast doubt not only
on themselves, but on all prior strikes. (Paraphrased from a famous
quotation, so famous that I don't recall the source.)

Exactly. This is the desired effect of a FUD attack. Make everything
uncertain even if there is no evidence against it. In front of a good
prosecutor on a witness stand, anyone, no matter how innocent, can be made
to look like an evil villian if they have no defense attorney. It
unfortunately plays well to the sensationalist media. Here are some
examples of what has been falsely spread in the press.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../daily-mangle/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../whatevergate/

Well, while I agree that people have seized upon these events to push
various agendas, I think that there is far more to it than that, given
for instance the reaction of the scientific community, which has started
various investigations, and forced the head of the Climate Research Unit
to step aside, and so on. The UN has had its share of egg-on-face as
well. This has all been detailed in a trail of WSJ articles I have
posted.


The good news is that now the evidence will get the wire-brush
treatment, and we will soon know what did and did not survive.

That is good, but you see from the above it does not much matter that
something is reviewed and found valid. If there is an eager machine to
recirculate the initial accusations, they tend to stick around.

All true, but one does not get to give policy advice with
trillion-dollar impact in the real world without a whole lot of "help".
Nor can it be avoided in a democracy. Nor can the process be sped up.

The wire-brush treatment *is* at the core of the scientific method, of
how science decides what is and is not truly known.

Give it a few years. Whatever survives will be effectively unassailable.

Joe Gwinn

"anorton" wrote in message
m...

"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?




REAL science isn't settled by a vote. Your scientists are on the hook for
grants and funding, their livelihood depends on the results that the funders
want. Face it, the AGW alarmists' credibility is long gone, too many lies,
destroyed data and bullying of dissenting opinions. You guys got caught!

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

All true, but one does not get to give policy advice with
trillion-dollar impact in the real world without a whole lot of "help".
Nor can it be avoided in a democracy. Nor can the process be sped up.

The wire-brush treatment *is* at the core of the scientific method, of
how science decides what is and is not truly known.


AGW is ready for the cadaver brushes.


Give it a few years. Whatever survives will be effectively unassailable.



--
Greed is the root of all eBay.