Peter
Four Colossal Holes in the Theory of Man-Made Global Warming
John Hawkins
Tuesday, December 08, 2009 (source)
Repeating the words "scientific consensus" over and over and telling sad stories about polar bears does not qualify as "science." So, why is it that the people who insist that Man-made global warming is based on science, not politics, always get shaky and defensive when people want to actually talk about the reasoning behind it?
When was the last time you heard a scientist get hysterical when you asked him to explain Einstein's theory of relativity? If you ask a scientist why nothing can move faster than the speed of light, he doesn't tell you a terrible story about how koala bears will die if you don't believe the theory is right, does he? Scientists who are confident and in command of the facts don't need to distort data and duck basic questions about the assumptions that are behind scientific theories.
So, why is it that the people who insist that man-made global warming is occurring right now can't come up with coherent answers to many of the most basic problems with the ideas that undergird their theory?
Climate change has been around as long as the earth: If you listen to global warming alarmists, you'd think the climate had been a flat line until mankind started industrializing, after which the temperature rocketed straight upwards. However, the reality is far different, as even the New York Times has been willing to admit:
In October, Dr. (Don) Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this" threatened change.Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."
So, the planet has had bigger temperature shifts than the one we're experiencing now. It has also been warmer than it is today:
The...warming before our last ice age was much warmer than anything we've had since. We had a warming that peaked 9000 years ago, another warming that peaked 5000 years ago. Both were warmer than today. Probably the Roman warming and the medieval warming were both warmer than today -- and we've had 8 warmings of the earth since the last Ice Age.
So how can we, given our limited knowledge of how the climate works, attribute the extremely limited amount of warming we experienced over the last century to mankind? The honest answer is: We can't.
The earth was cooling from roughly 1940-1976: Despite the fact that widespread industrialization was occurring during that 30 year time period, temperatures dropped so much that there were claims we were going into a dangerous period of "global cooling." If global temperatures are tightly bound to man-made greenhouse gasses and those gasses were being rapidly introduced to the atmosphere, then the earth should have been warming, not cooling during that period. The obvious conclusion is that global temperatures are not nearly as closely associated with man-made greenhouse gasses as some people would have us believe.
So, if it's global warming, why isn't there any warming occurring now? One of the many revelations from Climategate is that behind-the-scenes, scientists who buy into man-made global warming are admitting what skeptics have been saying publicly for years now: The globe has been cooling since 1998. Again, if global warming has its bootlaces hitched to the amount of man-made greenhouse gasses that are being produced and those numbers are increasing, why hasn't the temperature gone up as well? There's a simple answer: Man-made greenhouse gasses are not a decisive factor in raising or lowering the temperature of the earth.
Climate models can't accurately project the weather 100 years in the future: The truth is that we don't fully understand how our planet's climate works and thus, our climate models don't work very well. Since the climate models can't explain the climate over the last 25 years and they can't explain the leveling off of temperature since 1998, why would anyone believe they can predict conditions in 100 years? As computer programmers say, "garbage in, garbage out."
The Doomsday predictions from global warming alarmists are absolutely meaningless because they're based on climate models that don't work very well in the first place. As Dennis Avery, co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years has said:
I think they pull their predictions out of their hats and I don't think they have any validity whatsoever.
What the global warming alarmists are asking of people is no small thing. They want us to spend trillions of dollars, dramatically impact our economies, and change the way people across the world live for the worse. Those are not trivial changes and simply having scientists -- who've been put under enormous political pressure and make a living off global warming grants – say, "Trust us, it's real," isn't going to cut it for proof. If global warming alarmists can't even deliver plausible answers to the most obvious problems with their theory, then no one should take them seriously.
43 comments:
"So, why is it that the people who insist that Man-made global warming is based on science, not politics, always get shaky and defensive when people want to actually talk about the reasoning behind it?"
Do you think it might have something to do with the people asking the questions? Are you, Pete, a reasonable, rational person who could ask a climate scientist an honest question? Or do you aggressively insult them at every opportunity? And, if I remember correctly, you get a little "shaky and defensive" and even obstructionist when I ask you questions about your very scientific blog.
And are the anti-warmists any better? Didn't Dr. Tim Ball, for instance, sue a university professor and then immediately drop the lawsuit when the professor called him on his lack of credentials?
"If you ask a scientist why nothing can move faster than the speed of light, he doesn't tell you a terrible story about how koala bears will die if you don't believe the theory is right, does he?"
Well, if the speed of light killed koalas they might. But it doesn't, so they don't.
Now, AGW might be killing polar bears...which might account for why scientists talk about AGW possibly killing polar bears.
"Scientists who are confident and in command of the facts don't need to distort data and duck basic questions about the assumptions that are behind scientific theories."
I'm sure that everyone agrees with this. Congrats!
So, do you hold the anti-warmist scientists up to this same credo? Do you post things that, oh I don't know, exaggerate a bit and duck basic questions?
"So, why is it that the people who insist that man-made global warming is occurring right now can't come up with coherent answers to many of the most basic problems with the ideas that undergird their theory?"
Well, I'm pretty sure they do, it's just that some people (no names mentioned) simply refuse to even look at these theories. One doesn't see a lot with one's head stuck in the ground.
Anonymous,
Where in the hell did you come from? You march lock step into the truth and still can't figure out how you hit your nose. Don't you recognize the propaganda that has been Anthropogenic Global Warming?
You spew the same ignorance as every other AGW zealot. "Duh, yeah so science shows it was warmer nearly a dozen times in the past 15,000 years before man industrialized anything than it has been for the past 100 years, it's still mankind's fault! The models just look at the models! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Those emails don't mean what they say, it's secret scientific code that only the enlightened can understand! We have to ignore all science that shows global warming isn't caused by mankind, the only good science is the science that blames humans!" or "Duh, okay so it isn't warming and it might be cooling, it isn't global warming now, it's, duh uh, climate change! Yeah that's it climate change caused by CO2, yeah that's bad stuff, even though everything that breathes emits it, and nature emits about 2,000 times more CO2 into the atmosphere than all human activity, yeah, climate change and it's all the Americans fault! Manmade CO2 is different than natural CO2, yeah that's right!"
Anonymous, you don't even have the integrity to check out the multiple frauds on polar bears which have in fact increased in population. The latest fraud on polar bears is the photo of a male polar bear "canabalising" another polar bear "because of global warming". If you had a grain of inquiry in your skull, you would inquire of a wildlife biologist and find that polar bear males kill the cubs of other males, sometimes even kill their own cubs to maintain dominance.
I see why you post as "Anonymous", it would be quite an embarrassment to attach your name to your ignorant comments. I think if someone else was writing the captions in your picture books you'd could be persuaded that winter is when corn grows. In the name of intellectual honesty, please change your name to Fool.
Pete, trying to point this guy to facts where he can draw his own conclusions based on honest science is a waste of time, he's already been told what to believe and couldn't form an independent thought if his life depended on it.
Anonymous, never in history has science been based on consensus, never in history has science been based on belief. It is based on quantitative analysis of data, proving or disproving a theory. In the case of AGW, the data does not substantiate the theory. When real scientists dispute the consensus they are not refuted with the data, and corrected in their analysis through substantial debate, they are disparaged, impugned and attacked for pointing out disparity. A non-propaganized, thinking person would recognize this as something less than good science.
So Pete, here I've wasted bandwidth to do just what I told you is a waste of time. At least I didn't have to use toxic ink to do it.
Good luck Anonymous, don't forget to put on your coat, it's not that warm out there.
"Don't you recognize the propaganda that has been Anthropogenic Global Warming?"
Yup. I sure do. And I don't disagree: the whole AGW debate on both sides is an exercise in distortion.
Thus I also recognize an equally zealous response from people like you, brave anonymous who I will name "Braveheart" because you are so darn forceful (interesting to see the various personalities of Pete's minions).
So be as Chuck Norrisy as you want on the net but recognize that you are exactly the same thing that you despise only on the opposite end of the spectrum. There is lots'o science which indicates AGW is a fact, but you will do exactly what you charge me with doing, sticking your head in the sand.
As for the cannibalistic polar bear you refer to - I have no idea what you are talking about.
"Duh, yeah so science shows it was warmer nearly a dozen times in the past 15,000 years before man industrialized anything than it has been for the past 100 years, it's still mankind's fault! The models just look at the models! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Those emails don't mean what they say, it's secret scientific code that only the enlightened can understand! We have to ignore all science that shows global warming isn't caused by mankind, the only good science is the science that blames humans!" or "Duh, okay so it isn't warming and it might be cooling, it isn't global warming now, it's, duh uh, climate change! Yeah that's it climate change caused by CO2, yeah that's bad stuff, even though everything that breathes emits it, and nature emits about 2,000 times more CO2 into the atmosphere than all human activity, yeah, climate change and it's all the Americans fault! Manmade CO2 is different than natural CO2, yeah that's right!"
But Braveheart, I never said that. Duh.
Now the scientists who actually study the atmosphere, many of them say that. Actually what they say is far more complicated than your little dramatic monologues there (a simplicity which is typical of the deniers, by the way) but I doubt that you have taken much time to actually see what the scientific community has written.
So, not being a scientist myself, I don't know if any of this is true or not. But I am far more willing to believe them than I am someone as hysterical as yourself or as limited as Pete's Place.
Your argument, such as it is, only works if I believe in AGW - which I don't know if I do yet...oh but these subtleties will be lost on youse, I'll bet'cha.
"Anonymous, never in history has science been based on consensus, never in history has science been based on belief."
Really? You sure about that? So most scientists believe that the Earth rotates around the sun - that's a consensus on a theory. Do you disagree then? If most scientists agree on a theory, I'm likely to agree with them. When has science not been done by consensus, Braveheart? What are you talking about.
"I see why you post as "Anonymous", it would be quite an embarrassment to attach your name to your ignorant comments."
Well...see, I'm using the prison chaplain's computer, which I'm not supposed to be doing. So I better not put my name on anything.
Why don't you post your personal info, Braveheart?
"he's already been told what to believe and couldn't form an independent thought if his life depended on it."
But this is my favorite comment of yours, Braveheart. I have never run into so many dogmatic generalizations as I have in denier land. Don't kid yourself, you all tow the party line and you all spout propagandist dogma while accusing warmists of doing exactly that - you'd all make good fascists.
It looks to me like there are going to be many lying, cheating global warming alarmists in prison. That is where they belong. Don't drop the soap in the shower guys.....
Hi Pete, haven't heard from you in a while. No, for the most part the people here are more worried about getting shanked. And I don't understand what soap in the shower has to do with anything - could you explain it to me?
Ah Anonymous,
You expose yourself with your classic liberal style attacks
Such as-
I am one of Peter's minions. Oh my, suddenly you discredit me as being incapable of my own thought. How open minded and tolerant of you. That must be why you can recognize propaganda but don't disagree with it. How nuanced.
Call me Chuck Norrisy- was that a backhanded insult? Try calling me a cowboy, that implies the ultimate in stupidity to liberals around the world. Chuck is enlitened by martial arts discipline, I better match the wild west image you want to demean.
The cannabilistic polar bear is the latest propaganda effort in support of the peril of global warming- pay attention, you'll see it soon enough. Want to see how lies are used to create the global warming image? Watch this- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw5WdmuGSfM
Oh yes, call me hysterical, the discredits everything I say. Content means nothing, hysteria the catch all tag of denunciation.
As for your analogy of the Earth revolving around the sun "consensus". My point exactly friend. This is not established by a majority of scientists agreeing to the point. It is established by scientific observation of data that proves this to be the case. A vote toward consensus doesn't change the reality. If only one scientist can discern the reality a consensus of other scientists doesn't persuade the reality. At one time there was a consensus that the world was flat. A consensus that mankind causes global warming doesn't mean anything if it is wrong. Belief has nothing to do with science, never has.
If you are earnest in what you say, answer this question so we can discuss it further. I will not direct you to a website that you may think I have manipulated you, please search to your content that you have found reliable information. No global warming info, just facts please. What percentage of the atmosphere is comprised of CO2?
I await your response.
Google won't let me post my name, so let me clear the air some, my name is Brian. That way you won't have to try to demean me by calling me "Braveheart". Won't it be nice to not have to use code words from Hollywood to belittle someone?
Ah Brian,
You expose yourself with your classic neocon wingnut attacks.
"Oh my, suddenly you discredit me as being incapable of my own thought."
Yup. I wouldn't have put it in those terms, but more or less that's the point.
"How open minded and tolerant of you."
Pleeeease, my friend. Pot meeteth kettle. Let's not pretend that you are any more objective, open-minded or rational than I am. It's not even clear that you actually read my last riposte.
So, for the record, Brian, since you seem to actually want to discuss, please pay attention: I do not believe in AGW. Not yet anyway. I am perfectly willing to believe that we are seeing a climate cycle as several bona fide scientists (on this blog and elsewhere) have theorized.
However, there are many more bona fide scientists who have made the case that we are changing the atmosphere. My contention all along (and perhaps you haven't had the chance to look over the ealier ripostes) is that Pete's Place and blogspots like it are extremely reactionary and use their own type of distortion (posting unqualified critics of climate science, for instance) which makes me wonder about the entire denier community is whacked.
"Call me Chuck Norrisy- was that a backhanded insult?"
I love Chuck Norris. He wouldn't make it in MMA, but he is still a cool guy.
I like cowboys too.
Anon,
You use all of the favorite attack words of the liberal side of the spectrum. Neo con, in case you did not know is a backhanded attack of jewish conservatives. You try to come across as open minded and kind hearted, a lover of cowboys, etc, but you throw out left wing insults quite freely. Perhaps if you didn't lace your dialog with such liberal slurs and code words you would not be misunderstood.
Moving on- The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is listed at 275-350parts per million depending on your source. Excuse my hasty math, but that is approximately 3/100ths of one percent of the atmosphere. How can this be causing such destructive influence over the climate of the earth?
Earthworms alone in tropical rainforests emit more than 20 times the CO2 to the atmosphere than all the activities of mankind (I wanted to give you a link to this info from National Geographic Adventure Travel, but their online archives do not go back to this 2007 issue). Decomposition of vegetative matter on forest floors contributes more CO2 to the atmosphere than all human activity by a factor in excess of 150.
So why do I focus on CO2 and it's sources? CO2 has been tagged by global warming experts as the source of global warming, particularly human generated CO2. This is flawed science even using rudimentary critical analysis. If 3/100th of one percent content (of which less than 1% of this 3/100th % is human generated) of the atmosphere can destroy the climate as we know it, this biosphere is too fragile to sustain life. Of course this is not the case. As a geologist, Pete can tell you much of known science regarding CO2 and temperature levels of millenia past that are clearly delineated in what we affectionately call the geologic record. Refutation of global warming theory is quite literally written in stone.
We can point to coal seams bearing fossilized fern and tropical plants far north in Canada. Contrary to current conditions of artic nature, temperatures were considerably warmer for a very extended series of periods. It takes from 10 to 25 feet of vegetative matter to produce one foot of coal. Some of these seams are as much as 25 feet thick. If I am hysterical to look at this scientific evidence and refute the assertion by climate experts that the climate has never been this warm in the past, then I will accept the re-definition of hysteria. The fact is the earth has been warmer and cooler, what we are experiencing does not vary from the range of normal temperatures variation as recorded unalterably in stone.
If man generated CO2 is the villan, then we are expected to deny science which proves that in warmer climates, vegetation thrives and creates more detritus which decomposes releasing CO2. Separating sources of CO2 rather than analyzing the entire picture defies science. Attribution of a singular, miniscule contributor as the sole source of global warming is careless at the least, and manipulative at worst.
This is overly simplified analysis, but the purported science behind global warming is so shallow and flawed that in less politicized times it would be discarded as juvenile and irrelevant, as it should be. Time will bear out that AWG theory has been nothing less than a grand fraud paraded as science. The damage inflicted by political interests using this false science will be long lasting and setting back progress for the most vulnerable of mankind in third world nations by decades.
I can't condemn my fellow man to a life devoid of of the technological progress that improves life by accepting the premise of AGW theory and rejecting the technology that improves our quality of life because it supposedly generates destructive CO2.
"Neo con, in case you did not know is a backhanded attack of jewish conservatives."
Uh-huh. But in America it means people like you.
"You try to come across as open minded and kind hearted, a lover of cowboys, etc, but you throw out left wing insults quite freely."
Well...I might be open minded but I am not particularly kind-hearted unless you are a small fuzzy animal. If you are a neocon wingnut who spouts propagandist rhetoric then I am not particularly worried about your feelings and thus throw out left wing insults quite freely. The difference between us if that I admit to it.
"As for your analogy of the Earth revolving around the sun "consensus". My point exactly friend. This is not established by a majority of scientists agreeing to the point. It is established by scientific observation of data that proves this to be the case."
My point exactly my friend. What about scientific observation of data that proves AGW is the case?
Do people like, say, Tim Ball or Bob Carter work off "science" or "belief"? You will undoubtedly trot out the same tired rhetoric every time a scientist posits the effect of global warming but will not apply the same standards to denier scientists.
You, like Pete, will simply rattle off "science" (like above) ad nauseum from one side of the debate but become furious (as you appear to be) with anyone who is not totally convinced. You will uncritically quote any "scientist," no matter if he or she has actually done work on the subject, or commentary, no matter unqualified the author, as long as it tells you what you want to hear.
Classic response Anon,
I present a number of scientific facts for your comments and your only comment is that I'm a wing nut. Nice, boy howdy, put me in my place. You are a part of the fraud. Live on in your house of bullshit, as spring comes (the next round of global warming), you'll detect the scent of your ideology. You are a liberal leach. Stop trying to act as if you are honestly seeking the truth, you are not. Okay, your turn, call me some more names since you can't refute real science. The debate is settled, you don't have a clue.
"The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is listed at 275-350parts per million depending on your source. Excuse my hasty math, but that is approximately 3/100ths of one percent of the atmosphere. How can this be causing such destructive influence over the climate of the earth?"
Do you really have the qualifications to determine that 3/100ths of one percent will have no effect on the atmosphere? Do you "look" at both sides of the scientific debate or only at one side? Are you sure you're not hysterical?
I don't know how CO2 might affect the atmosphere but I am willing to admit I don't know how and I am willing to listen to those who probably do know how. Unless you yourself are a meteorologist or a climate physicist, I would suggest that you also listen. If you are either, I would suggest you publish your work in a peer-review scientific journal.
But I guarantee you will not. Pete and his minions will simply vent into the blogosphere.
No, I asked you a couple of direct questions.
Then I called you a name or two.
And again, I listen to people like Pielke and Botkin, even Bryson, but I will dismiss a great many more simply because I don't trust them to tell the truth. Like your "scientific fact" above.
And, yeah, I did put you in your place.
But fine. You want to play that way I too can quote science that I don't really understand.
For instance:
"Anthropogenic pressures on the Earth System have reached a scale where abrupt global environmental change can no longer be excluded. We propose a new approach to global sustainability in which we define planetary boundaries within which we expect that humanity can operate safely. Transgressing one or more planetary boundaries may be deleterious or even catastrophic due to the risk of crossing thresholds that will trigger non-linear, abrupt environmental change within continental- to planetary-scale systems. We have identified nine planetary boundaries and, drawing upon current scientific understanding, we propose quantifications for seven of them. These seven are climate change (CO2 concentration in the atmosphere <350 ppm and/or a maximum change of +1 W/m2 in radiative forcing); ocean acidification (mean surface seawater saturation state with respect to aragonite ≥ 80% of pre-industrial levels); stratospheric ozone (<5% reduction in O3 concentration from pre-industrial level of 290 Dobson Units); biogeochemical nitrogen (N) cycle (limit industrial and agricultural fixation of N2 to 35 Tg N/yr) and phosphorus (P) cycle (annual P inflow to oceans not to exceed 10 times the natural background weathering of P); global freshwater use (<4000 km3/yr of consumptive use of runoff resources); land system change (<15% of the ice-free land surface under cropland); and the rate at which biological diversity is lost (annual rate of <10 extinctions per million species). The two additional planetary boundaries for which we have not yet been able to determine a boundary level are chemical pollution and atmospheric aerosol loading. We estimate that humanity has already transgressed three planetary boundaries: for climate change, rate of biodiversity loss, and changes to the global nitrogen cycle. Planetary boundaries are interdependent, because transgressing one may both shift the position of other boundaries or cause them to be transgressed. The social impacts of transgressing boundaries will be a function of the social-ecological resilience of the affected societies. Our proposed boundaries are rough, first estimates only, surrounded by large uncertainties and knowledge gaps. Filling these gaps will require major advancements in Earth System and resilience science. The proposed concept of "planetary boundaries" lays the groundwork for shifting our approach to governance and management, away from the essentially sectoral analyses of limits to growth aimed at minimizing negative externalities, toward the estimation of the safe space for human development. Planetary boundaries define, as it were, the boundaries of the "planetary playing field" for humanity if we want to be sure of avoiding major human-induced environmental change on a global scale."
That's James Hanson et al.
You can find the complete PDF here:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id+ro06010m
Do I believe Hanson? Not necessarily - he has involved himself to an unsightly degree with some reactionary causes, which is simply a bad idea if one is a scientist who asks people to trust and believe him. But he does put it out there for all to see.
Now, go forth and disprove, minions of Pete!! Avaunt! Avaunt!
Anon,
You're willing to listen to people who claim that a gnat can move a freight train. Far be it from me to stand in the way of your ignorance.
Peer review? You haven't read the climate gate emails have you? Why of course not, you prefer to stand on ideology rather than fact in all matters. There is a unique series of emails laying out the strategy necessary to eliminate dissention from the consensus by abusing the peer review process. There is clear collusion to eliminate all threats to the house of cards that is the settled science of global warming. There was never earnest debate because they would allow it.
So from your rhetoric one can assume you support fraud, manipulation, exclusion of contradictory data. Hmmmmm. It is most apparent you have your head deeply inserted in a dark orifice of your body. If you decide to pull your head out, don't forget to retrieve your tin foil hat.
Unlike you, politics do not govern my assessment of global warming, a junior high school science class teaches the scientific method, doesn't take a scientist to see that this is fraudulent maniplation of the ignorant in the population. Why, that would be you!
Okay call me some more names since you are unqualified to discuss science on a rudimentary level. Were you sick when they discussed scientific fundamentals in grade school, too bad it has diminished your ability to function in the modern world.
The real shame is that collectively ignoramus's like you have allowed every tyrant in history to come to power. What a legacy. You are a pitiful waste of oxygen.
Anon,
I have read Hanson, I will not waste my time interpretting his esoteric diatribe to you because you've already confessed it is too far above you. Hanson is discredited as manipulating data to prove his hypothesis. Even after correcting his data he can't prove his hypothesis, in fact the data destroys his argument. Since you plead ignorance- Hanson is one of the many discredited leaders of the AGW movement.
Oops, sorry didn't mean to use concepts above your head, let me come down to your level.
See Dick. See Jane. See Dick and Jane. See Spot. See Spot run. See Dick and Jane run. Run Spot run.
Damn, did it again, went right over your head with simple concepts. Sorry.
"You're willing to listen to people who claim that a gnat can move a freight train. Far be it from me to stand in the way of your ignorance."
Very scientific of you. Naw, you're not hysterical...
"Peer review? You haven't read the climate gate emails have you?"
"you prefer to stand on ideology rather than fact in all matters."
And you and Pete different from this position how?
Yeah, I have and I can't figure out what the big deal is. Sounds like a desperate attempt by flat-earth types to discredit scientists.
"There is a unique series of emails laying out the strategy necessary to eliminate dissention from the consensus by abusing the peer review process. There is clear collusion to eliminate all threats to the house of cards that is the settled science of global warming. There was never earnest debate because they would allow it."
Really? Seems that there is a good deal of earnest debate out there. Some of it valid. And even if there was an instance of this at East Anglica, how does that prove it is rampant? Go to any university database; look up global warming. Go to LexisNexis or Proquest: look up global warming.
"So from your rhetoric one can assume you support fraud, manipulation, exclusion of contradictory data. Hmmmmm. It is most apparent you have your head deeply inserted in a dark orifice of your body. If you decide to pull your head out, don't forget to retrieve your tin foil hat."
Naw - you're not hysterical.
"Unlike you, politics do not govern my assessment of global warming, a junior high school science class teaches the scientific method, doesn't take a scientist to see that this is fraudulent maniplation of the ignorant in the population. Why, that would be you!"
Still need a little more proof of this my droogy. That's what I've been doing on Pete's Place - looking at the sources for the flat-earthers. But I must flatly disagree with one assertion: politics have everything to do with your assessment of AGW. Everything. I guarantee it.
You have three comma-splices there, by the way.
"The real shame is that collectively ignoramus's like you have allowed every tyrant in history to come to power. What a legacy. You are a pitiful waste of oxygen."
Naw - you're not hysterical
"I have read Hanson, I will not waste my time interpretting his esoteric diatribe to you because you've already confessed it is too far above you."
Cop out.
"Hanson is discredited as manipulating data to prove his hypothesis. Even after correcting his data he can't prove his hypothesis, in fact the data destroys his argument. Since you plead ignorance- Hanson is one of the many discredited leaders of the AGW movement."
Nope. Lots still believe him. He's formidable.
You've got another comma-splice too.
Anon,
Permit me to be quite generous as to your mental ability and assume you are not a 13 year old sitting in your room with your underwear on your head.
Look up this term- useful idiot.
Got it? Okay now look in the mirror and say to yourself "That's me!"
Now please make a solemn vow since you appear to be of age, purporting to know what a comma splice is, promise that you will not vote and subject your fellow citizens to the consequence of your utter ignorance and juvenile views.
You are an idiot. Is that simple enough? Now please, post more proof to my hypothesis, not that I need any more data to prove you are as hypothesized.
I hope this has been a useful enhancement of your woefully inadequate education which permits you to publicly display that you are an utter fool, if you truly are this ignorant, or you are a complete ass if you enjoy arguing based on such lame evidence.
Thanks for showing me just how stupid you are capable of being. Quite refreshing. Now I see why you like name calling, you don't have to prove anything. Now please, go off to some insignificant blog and chant in unison with your fellow useful idiots.
Anon,
My assertion that you are a useful idiot has been peer reviewed and there is a scientific consensus that you are indeed an idiot, debate rages on as to whether you are useful. Peer review also concludes that you are sitting in your room with underwear on your head, although it is not conclusive that it is your underwear. The debate as to whether you are 13 is ongoing. The debate is also settled that you are a complete ass. Based on the consensus, the Theory That Anon Is A Complete Ass has now become the Law of Anon Is A Complete Ass, congratultions you have attained the status of the Law of Gravity.
The consensus is also pushing the EPA to take immediate action to regulate the emmision of CO2 from your decaying brain as an immediate threat to the health of mankind. While there is general agreement that the stench can be mitigated, there is relative certainty that the tipping point has been reached beyond which there is no recovery expected for the decomposition of your brain.
All hail peer review!
Pete, is that you in the guise of Sevenheart/"Geopete"? Son, you are close to having a meltdown.
And, yeah, your posts reeeeeeeealy makes the case that you're a "scientist." Very intelligent, very scientific. (Although the image of the 13 year old sitting in his room with his underwear on his head is kind of funny.)
Buzz! You lose. Do not pass "Go!"
I've said it before, I'll bug off if you want me to...
Anonymous,
Keep posting. You're very entertaining. I view you as comic relief. Tell us please, why are you in prison? Hopefully you'll soon have a lot of company with climate "scientist" felons. I'm sure you'll all get along well since you have so much in common.
Thanks Pete, glad you are enjoying.
I'd rather not talk about the nature of my crime if that's okay...
Rather embarrassing...and the food is lousy in here.
But I have made a number of excellent friends!!
By the way, it's interesting that Sevenheart had a breakdown after I asked him/her/it (you) to read Hanson's work. Couldn't do it, could he/she/it (you)? And that really pissed him/her/it (you) off.
Ever see a little kid throw a tantrum when he/she gets caught called on a bluff?
I'll use my imagination about your crime.
You do that, Pete, in the mean time I'm gonna rock all nite and par-tay every day.
Anonymous,
I'm sure you're having fun in prison. You're obviously where you belong. Maybe Al Gore and Jim Hanson will join you.
I still don't know what showering and soap have to do with anything. Does soap produce CO2?
"Earthworms alone in tropical rainforests emit more than 20 times the CO2 to the atmosphere than all the activities of mankind (I wanted to give you a link to this info from National Geographic Adventure Travel, but their online archives do not go back to this 2007 issue)"
Well, being the curious sort, I thought I'd check this out (interesting that Sevenheart couldn't actually find his source...) and I found the following at http://www.redwormcomposting.com/general-commentary/do-earthworms-contribute-to-global-warming/.
Do Earthworms Contribute to Global Warming?
Dr. Clive Edwards.
(Image courtesy of The Ohio State University)
According to Dr. Clive Edwards, the answer is “no” – or at least there simply isn’t enough evidence to suggest that they do.
I can clearly remember back to when I first caught wind of the news stories claiming that vermicomposting was bad for the environment (in summer of 2007). Being the vermicomposting fanatic and advocate that I am, it was like a slap in the face. I immediately felt defensive and angry.
‘How could this possibly be??’
The initial anger gave way to skepticism regarding the validity of the research. All stories pointed back to one source – The Open University, in the UK – and I couldn’t figure out where (if anywhere) the actual research results were published. Surely, with all this media coverage this must have been conducted by eminent scientists and published in a peer-reviewed journal, right?
Despite my feelings of doubt however, I decided to keep a totally open mind (and a closed mouth) until I learned more. I hoped that someone would be able to point me in the direction of the original research, so I made an effort to follow the story (and ensuing dialogue) around the blogosphere but it seemed that everyone was relying solely on the sources found in the popular media.
Well, like all breaking news, the ‘worms are killing the planet’ headlines gradually disappeared, and the entire issue basically slipped off of my radar screen – becoming an unsolved mystery relegated to my mental back burner, where it collected dust with countless other topics that were of interest at one time or another. That is until earlier this week, when I caught a blurb on Twitter containing some VERY intriguing news from vermicomposting professional, Brenda Lotito. It read “Its official! Commentary from Dr. Clive Edwards, Ohio State University..Vermicomposting does NOT harm the environment!”
Needless to say, I immediately contacted Brenda to find out the source of this revelation, and she pointed me in the direction of an article published in the most recent issue (Dec 2008) of BioCycle.
I don’t think I could imagine a more satisfying way to see this ‘mystery’ solved, than to learn that Dr. Edwards (world renowned vermicomposting researcher, email friend and mentor) would be the one to get to the bottom of the issue and come back with such an excellent response.
________________________________________
For those of you unfamiliar with ALL of this – in a nutshell, Dr. Jim Fredrickson from The Open University claimed (in a media interview) that vermicomposting poses a significant global warming threat due to the release of large quantities of nitrous oxide (N2O) gas, which is 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than methane, and almost 300 times as potent as CO2 (the gas that gets most of the attention – understandably, since it is by far the biggest threat).
I found the claim particularly interesting since, aside from being a passionate vermicomposter, I was actually involved in research examining greenhouse emissions from composting during my grad school years, and was in close contact with others studying N2O emissions from other natural and human-influenced sources. This is actually a big part of why I wanted get a hold of the literature that backed up the claim – I was curious to see how exactly the Open University researchers conducted their experiments, how the numbers stacked up against other well-known N20 sources (such as soil), and also just generally, how significant all this was in the grand scheme of things.
As it turns out, there was indeed some research officially reported by Dr. Fredrickson (and his colleagues) back in ‘03 and ‘05, which according to Dr. Edwards had “poor experimental designs, inadequate replication and unsatisfactory control of environmental conditions in the vermicomposting beds” (BioCycle reference listed at end of this post). Apart from the sloppy science involved, Edwards also points out that (according to ‘Trends in Greenhouse Gaseous Emissions’, 2006), ALL forms of composting only contribute 0.5% to the total global greenhouse gas emissions!
One of the major issues with the research, as claimed by Edwards, was the lack consideration given to moisture content, which can be a very important factor affecting N20 emissions.
Another serious flaw came in the form of a claim by Fredrickson (to support his own assertions) that German scientists had discovered that worms were responsible for 1/3 of the N20 released when present in a composting system. As Edwards points out, the studies being referred to were actually examining worms in garden soil systems (small laboratory ones at that) NOT vermicomposting beds!
Edwards finishes the article beautifully by referring to multiple studies that have suggested that worms either do not affect N20 emissions at all, or in fact seem to bring about a decrease in emissions of this greenhouse gas!
Here is a quote from the very end of the article (again, reference to follow) that provides a nice overall assessment of the situation:
“While there will be N20 emissions from all these [composting] sources, there is no justification for suggesting that environmentally-friendly and energy-efficient systems for producing vermicomposts and composts should be restricted because of their potential to produce greenhouse gases. The global production of nitrogenous greenhouse gases in agriculture should be compared from all sources before vermicomposting is publicly condemned in such a sensational way.”
Don't believe the kindly professor from Ohio State? Prove him wrong.
And then get mad when someone doubts your "facts," Sevenheart. I'll look into your other "science" when time permits.
Post a Comment