PDA

View Full Version : Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites



Gingersnap
07-29-2009, 12:41 PM
Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites

Geologist Ian Plimer takes a contrary view, arguing that man-made climate change is a con trick perpetuated by environmentalists

By Jonathan Manthorpe, Vancouver SunJuly 29, 2009 9:37 AM

Ian Plimer has outraged the ayatollahs of purist environmentalism, the Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming, and he seems to relish the damnation they heap on him.

Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic.

Plimer, you see, is an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" -- man-made climate change to you and me -- and the current environmental orthodoxy that if we change our polluting ways, global warming can be reversed.

It is, of course, not new to have a highly qualified scientist saying that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history. Many have made the argument, too, that it is rubbish to contend human behaviour is causing the current climate change. And it has often been well argued that it is totally ridiculous to suppose that changes in human behaviour -- cleaning up our act through expensive slight-of-hand taxation tricks -- can reverse the trend.

But most of these scientific and academic voices have fallen silent in the face of environmental Jacobinism. Purging humankind of its supposed sins of environmental degradation has become a religion with a fanatical and often intolerant priesthood, especially among the First World urban elites.

But Plimer shows no sign of giving way to this orthodoxy and has just published the latest of his six books and 60 academic papers on the subject of global warming. This book, Heaven and Earth -- Global Warming: The Missing Science, draws together much of his previous work. It springs especially from A Short History of Plant Earth, which was based on a decade of radio broadcasts in Australia.

That book, published in 2001, was a best-seller and won several prizes. But Plimer found it hard to find anyone willing to publish this latest book, so intimidating has the environmental lobby become.

But he did eventually find a small publishing house willing to take the gamble and the book has already sold about 30,000 copies in Australia. It seems also to be doing well in Britain and the United States in the first days of publication.

Plimer presents the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is little more than a con trick on the public perpetrated by fundamentalist environmentalists and callously adopted by politicians and government officials who love nothing more than an issue that causes public anxiety.

While environmentalists for the most part draw their conclusions based on climate information gathered in the last few hundred years, geologists, Plimer says, have a time frame stretching back many thousands of millions of years.

More at the link.

Vancouver Sun (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Global+warming+religion+First+World+urban+elites/1835847/story.html)

PoliCon
07-29-2009, 02:48 PM
I am always amazed at the people who buy into global warming.

wilbur
07-29-2009, 06:16 PM
It is interesting isnt it...

On one hand, any time a scientist goes against the consensus and disputes global warming - especially when his criticisms are wrapped with the much loved "its a religion!" template - the scientist will invariably be hailed as a wondrous free-thinking maverick, sticking it to the left, who we should all trust without question.

On the other hand, any utterances from any scientist in the majority - no matter how well qualified - that might be sympathetic to AGW are met with an impenetrable wall, or accusations that he must be a quack or corrupt, and a 'roided up and perverse form of irrational skepticism - and near as I can tell nothing can shake it, especially not facts.

It really is amazing how skepticism just vanishes, utterly and completely, when someone makes a statement against AGW theory. Any and all claims just slide right on by with a cheer. Then comically they say, "Its the other guys who make it like religion!"... yea, riiiight. As if intellectual honesty is just oozing from the anti-agw'ers...

I encourage you all to be more skeptical of your own beliefs, especially in regards to the small handful of scientists who dispute AGW... the double standard couldn't be any more extreme.

Lars1701a
07-29-2009, 06:39 PM
It is interesting isnt it...

On one hand, any time a scientist goes against the consensus and disputes global warming - especially when his criticisms are wrapped with the much loved "its a religion!" template - the scientist will invariably be hailed as a wondrous free-thinking maverick, sticking it to the left, who we should all trust without question.

On the other hand, any utterances from any scientist in the majority - no matter how well qualified - that might be sympathetic to AGW are met with an impenetrable wall, or accusations that he must be a quack or corrupt, and a 'roided up and perverse form of irrational skepticism - and near as I can tell nothing can shake it, especially not facts.

It really is amazing how skepticism just vanishes, utterly and completely, when someone makes a statement against AGW theory. Any and all claims just slide right on by with a cheer. Then comically they say, "Its the other guys who make it like religion!"... yea, riiiight. As if intellectual honesty is just oozing from the anti-agw'ers...

I encourage you all to be more skeptical of your own beliefs, especially in regards to the small handful of scientists who dispute AGW... the double standard couldn't be any more extreme.


There comes a time when you have to make a stand, do you want to get gouged for a faulty premiss? or go along with the GW zombies?

wilbur
07-29-2009, 06:59 PM
There comes a time when you have to make a stand, do you want to get gouged for a faulty premiss? or go along with the GW zombies?

Well that would be the problem there wouldnt it... most consider the premise (I presume you mean the AGW theory) faulty because they are overtly biased towards accepting testimony from the select few scientists who buck trends and align more closely with their predispositions or political goals.

Science is based on a very rigorous methodology, and epistemology. One - especially a layperson - better have really good, well supported reasons for taking the position that the prevailing consensus is a sham.

But it all stinks to high heaven when we see that the testimony of a few handfuls of contrarians never gets treated with equal skepticism. It all stinks... you refer to GW zombies... Take a more critical eye to the "anti-GW zombies".

Jfor
07-29-2009, 07:29 PM
Well that would be the problem there wouldnt it... most consider the premise (I presume you mean the AGW theory) faulty because they are overtly biased towards accepting testimony from the select few scientists who buck trends and align more closely with their predispositions or political goals.

Science is based on a very rigorous methodology, and epistemology. One - especially a layperson - better have really good, well supported reasons for taking the position that the prevailing consensus is a sham.

But it all stinks to high heaven when we see that the testimony of a few handfuls of contrarians never gets treated with equal skepticism. It all stinks... you refer to GW zombies... Take a more critical eye to the "anti-GW zombies".

Science may be but AGW supporters science is wrapped in faulty computer models.

wilbur
07-29-2009, 08:05 PM
Science may be but AGW supporters science is wrapped in faulty computer models.

Scientists certainly know the models are limited. They also recognize that the data the models output is also not wholly trustworthy because of those limitations. But they also recognize that those models can output useful information, if the limitations are kept in mind.

And how do you know they are faulty? You "know" this because you accept the testimony of the small contingent who says they are completely untrustworthy - which happens to mesh nicely with the typical conservative predisposition/party line on GW - while not noticing, or ignoring, or not trusting the testimonies of the greater body of climate scientists who would say that models can output some useful information.

Rockntractor
07-29-2009, 08:10 PM
Scientists certainly know the models are limited. They also recognize that the data the models output is also not wholly trustworthy because of those limitations. But they also recognize that those models can output useful information, if the limitations are kept in mind.

And how do you know they are faulty? You "know" this because you accept the testimony of the small contingent who says they are completely untrustworthy - which happens to mesh nicely with the typical conservative predisposition/party line on GW - while not noticing, or ignoring, or not trusting the testimonies of the greater body of climate scientists who would say that models can output some useful information.

Hi Wilbur.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-29-2009, 08:12 PM
Well that would be the problem there wouldnt it... most consider the premise (I presume you mean the AGW theory) faulty because they are overtly biased towards accepting testimony from the select few scientists who buck trends and align more closely with their predispositions or political goals.

Science is based on a very rigorous methodology, and epistemology. One - especially a layperson - better have really good, well supported reasons for taking the position that the prevailing consensus is a sham.

But it all stinks to high heaven when we see that the testimony of a few handfuls of contrarians never gets treated with equal skepticism. It all stinks... you refer to GW zombies... Take a more critical eye to the "anti-GW zombies".


I don't have to rely on ANY OTHER scientist to KNOW that the whole basis for AGW is a fraud.

Anyone with a modicum of statistics in their background can tell you that the hockey stick itself is pure baloney.

Jfor
07-29-2009, 08:21 PM
Scientists certainly know the models are limited. They also recognize that the data the models output is also not wholly trustworthy because of those limitations. But they also recognize that those models can output useful information, if the limitations are kept in mind.

And how do you know they are faulty? You "know" this because you accept the testimony of the small contingent who says they are completely untrustworthy - which happens to mesh nicely with the typical conservative predisposition/party line on GW - while not noticing, or ignoring, or not trusting the testimonies of the greater body of climate scientists who would say that models can output some useful information.

How do I know? It is a computer. Garbage in, garbage out. All AGW freaks preach is the computer models. They don't know the facts of how different things interact when dealing with weather and climate and make assumptions that they put into the programming of the computer models. Hence why I say, faulty.

PoliCon
07-29-2009, 10:30 PM
blah blah blah blah blah

speaking of urban elitists . . . .

PoliCon
07-29-2009, 10:32 PM
I don't have to rely on ANY OTHER scientist to KNOW that the whole basis for AGW is a fraud.

Anyone with a modicum of statistics in their background can tell you that the hockey stick itself is pure baloney.

anyone with a passing knowledge of western history knows that the doom predictions of the AGW crowd are pure BUNK.

Nubs
07-29-2009, 11:13 PM
AGW fails from even a simple CO2 mass balance.

wiegenlied
07-29-2009, 11:45 PM
There comes a time when you have to make a stand...

There comes a time when we heed a certain call - lionel ritchie :p:D

wilbur
07-29-2009, 11:49 PM
anyone with a passing knowledge of western history knows that the doom predictions of the AGW crowd are pure BUNK.

Care to explain?

PoliCon
07-29-2009, 11:54 PM
Care to explain?

ever heard of the Medieval warm period? Climate was such that they were growing wine grapes in Scotland. NOT MODERN cold weather grapes like they grow there now - old world grapes. You wanna talk climate change - Scotland had a Mediterranean climate! The Vikings were sailing to the new world - and were impressed with how LUSH one place they landed was. Called it GREENLAND. Go figure. :rolleyes:

wilbur
07-30-2009, 12:19 AM
ever heard of the Medieval warm period? Climate was such that they were growing wine grapes in Scotland. NOT MODERN cold weather grapes like they grow there now - old world grapes. You wanna talk climate change - Scotland had a Mediterranean climate! The Vikings were sailing to the new world - and were impressed with how LUSH one place they landed was. Called it GREENLAND. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Yep... but do explain what the drivers were behind the MWP (believed to be a regional anomaly, btw), and your evidence that suggests current climate changes are being driven by the same causes? Your appeal to "western history" doesnt cut it.

Also note, of utmost concern in the AGW debate is rate of change, not simply what the temperature plateau might be.

BTW - We're warmer today:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU&feature=player_profilepage

PoliCon
07-30-2009, 12:23 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png



Oh look - you grabbed a wikichart and are going to pretend like that proves your case! :rolleyes:

PoliCon
07-30-2009, 12:25 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU&feature=player_profilepage OH and since someone made a youtube video claiming Global warming is real it MUST be real!!111!1!!11!11!

Rockntractor
07-30-2009, 12:26 AM
Oh look - you grabbed a wikichart and are going to pretend like that proves your case! :rolleyes:

Also it looks like a .4 degree rise in temperature. How will we adjust poli?

PoliCon
07-30-2009, 12:27 AM
Also it looks like a .4 degree rise in temperature. How will we adjust poli?

Gee I just don't know!:eek:

wilbur
07-30-2009, 12:31 AM
Oh look - you grabbed a wikichart and are going to pretend like that proves your case! :rolleyes:

No, but its a step up from "anybody who knows western history, blah blah blah" - I think you are proving my point.

You accept any drivel uncritically as long as it agrees with what you want to believe.

If the wikichart made the case for you, you can bet you would have posted it already, claiming it was clear cut proof of your position. But since it doesnt, you just act snarky about it, and dismiss it - you ignore it because it doesn't agree with you.

Rockntractor
07-30-2009, 12:35 AM
No, but its a step up from "anybody who knows western history, blah blah blah" - I think you are proving my point.

You accept any drivel uncritically as long as it agrees with what you want to believe.

If the wikichart made the case for you, you can bet you would have posted it already, claiming it was clear cut proof of your position.

Usually you do better than this wilbur. Come on drive your point home with your razer sharp wit!

PoliCon
07-30-2009, 12:36 AM
elitist blather

History my friend. Records from around the world from that time period show a warming trend that lasted hundreds of years. INCIDENTALLY it also coincides with high levels sunspot activity JUST LIKE the sun spot activity we experienced in the 80s and 90s.

Rockntractor
07-30-2009, 12:40 AM
History my friend. Records from around the world from that time period show a warming trend that lasted hundreds of years. INCIDENTALLY it also coincides with high levels sunspot activity JUST LIKE the sun spot activity we experienced in the 80s and 90s.

What the hell does a huge fiery ball have to do with temperatures. This is settled science!

wilbur
07-30-2009, 12:44 AM
History my friend. Records from around the world from that time period show a warming trend that lasted hundreds of years. INCIDENTALLY it also coincides with high levels sunspot activity JUST LIKE the sun spot activity we experienced in the 80s and 90s.

Actually, the warming trend in the WMP, was localized.... notice in the video when more samples were taken that were more representative of global temperatures during the time, the WMP essentially disappeared... and the modern "hockey stick" came about.

And you got your facts backwards on sun activity... which markedly decreased in the 80's while temperature increased.

Do you not see what is going on here? You are cherry picking one specific piece of data from history, claiming it trumps all comprehensive work that scientists have done to reconstruct the climate from that period, and on that basis, declaring AGW as false or problematic. Error!

wilbur
07-30-2009, 12:46 AM
What the hell does a huge fiery ball have to do with temperatures. This is settled science!

Well do give a moments pause to consider the reasons why the planet Venus is actually warmer (I should say more *fucking hot*) than the Sun's closest buddy... Mercury.

PoliCon
07-30-2009, 12:47 AM
Actually, the warming trend in the WMP, was localized.... notice in the video when more samples were taken that were more representative of global temperatures during the time, the WMP essentially disappeared... and the modern "hockey stick" came about.

And you got your facts backwards on sun activity... which markedly decreased in the 80's while temperature increased.

The video? the Peter "I'm as nutty as al gore when it comes to global warming alarmism and as reliable as Micahael Moore" Sinclair video?

PoliCon
07-30-2009, 12:48 AM
Well do give a moments pause to consider the reasons why the planet Venus is actually warmer (I should say more *fucking hot*) than the Sun's closest buddy... Mercury.

duh! That would be because Mercury's atmosphere boiled away:rolleyes:

wilbur
07-30-2009, 12:51 AM
duh! That would be because Mercury's atmosphere boiled away:rolleyes:

C'mon now... I know you can connect the dots in there somewhere.

PoliCon
07-30-2009, 12:57 AM
C'mon now... I know you can connect the dots in there somewhere.

.000001% more CO2 in the atmosphere is not going to cause ours to boil off dumbass - especially considering that the earth has experienced eras with MUCH MUCH more CO2 and life THRIVE during those periods.

Rockntractor
07-30-2009, 12:57 AM
Global warming is our freind!:):):)

Constitutionally Speaking
07-30-2009, 06:25 AM
Yep... but do explain what the drivers were behind the MWP (believed to be a regional anomaly, btw), and your evidence that suggests current climate changes are being driven by the same causes? Your appeal to "western history" doesnt cut it.

Also note, of utmost concern in the AGW debate is rate of change, not simply what the temperature plateau might be.

BTW - We're warmer today:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU&feature=player_profilepage


Wilbur,

Your little hockey stick graph here. It is phony. Both the data entered AND the statistical method used to get this result are fatally flawed.


And BTW we are not warmer today than we were in the 1930's!!!!

FlaGator
07-30-2009, 07:38 AM
.000001% more CO2 in the atmosphere is not going to cause ours to boil off dumbass - especially considering that the earth has experienced eras with MUCH MUCH more CO2 and life THRIVE during those periods.

wilbur drank the man made global warming kool-aid long ago and I'm pretty certain he has a glass or two everyday. He buys in to any little anticdote that he feels props ups his view while accusing those of us who don't see evidence of his claims as doing the same thing. He ignores the fact that many reputable climatologists are abandoning the sinking ship that is man made global warming but would have happily held them up as experts not to be doubted had they validated his opinion.

Gingersnap
07-30-2009, 10:00 AM
Excerpt:


But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress into a short technical discussion of how this incredible error took place.

Story continues below

In PCA and similar techniques, each of the (in this case, typically 70) different data sets have their averages subtracted (so they have a mean of zero), and then are multiplied by a number to make their average variation around that mean to be equal to one; in technical jargon, we say that each data set is normalized to zero mean and unit variance. In standard PCA, each data set is normalized over its complete data period; for key climate data sets that Mann used to create his hockey stick graph, this was the interval 1400-1980. But the computer program Mann used did not do that. Instead, it forced each data set to have zero mean for the time period 1902-1980, and to match the historical records for this interval. This is the time when the historical temperature is well known, so this procedure does guarantee the most accurate temperature scale. But it completely screws up PCA. PCA is mostly concerned with the data sets that have high variance, and the Mann normalization procedure tends to give very high variance to any data set with a hockey stick shape. (Such data sets have zero mean only over the 1902-1980 period, not over the longer 1400-1980 period.)

The net result: the principal component will have a hockey stick shape even if most of the data do not.

This is a discussion from 2004. It's pretty balanced and the author certainly isn't a skeptic about global warming - he's just critical of the poster child math for the theory.

Read the whole thing.

Tech Review (http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/)

Generally, bad math and bad data make for bad conclusions.

Jfor
07-30-2009, 11:20 AM
I seem to recall reading a story about silver mines high up in the Swiss Alps over in Europe that have recently been found due to the snow and ice melting. The mines were from back during the medieval time period.

This is not the article I remember reading but it talks about the same thing. Wilbur, you wonder why people are skeptics about AGW?

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=434