Green Options › Forums › Climate Change › News & Policy › Which skeptic do you find the most and least tolerable?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Which skeptic do you find the most and least tolerable? - Page 2

post #31 of 197
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by quitenormal:

 

Are there any other forums where there is a mix of climate change proponents/contrarians?



 

Green Options has one, but it's essentially dead at this point.  It was mostly dominated by contrarians for a long time.  I heard about it actually on YA where a contrarian mentioned that proponents were getting their butts kicked there.  I joined up and not to toot my own horn, but kicked some contrarian butt with the scientific evidence.  One of the contrarians and I even had a debate where I think I whooped him.

 

That particular forum is rarely used these days.  Our discussion board here is much more active, but as you can see, there aren't really any contrarians here.  Which frankly allows for some much better discussions of serious issues and science.


Edited by dana1981 - Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:52:14 UTC
post #32 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by quitenormal:

Yes dana1981 I am on YA but I'm starting to find it all a bit tedious.

 

The problem is, that people can answer questions however they like, they're never held accountable for their BS. Eric C is a classic example, with his PDO theory, which both you and I have pointed is a total crock, but that doesn't stop him.

 

Are there any other forums where there is a mix of climate change proponents/contrarians?


Edited by quitenormal - Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:46:54 GMT

 

If you want to "debate" some really hardened skeptics, check out the usenet groups alt.global-warming and sci.geo.meteorology.  You can find all manner of skeptics, from those that deny CO2 interacts with infrared radiation, to those who advocate greenhouse gases cool planetary atmospheres (not warm them), to those who don't believe in elementary concepts like conservation of mass and energy. 

 

You won't win debates there, but it's an interesting look into the level of misinformation put out by skeptics. 

post #33 of 197

gcnp58,

 

I remember usenet. What a 24/7 powerhouse that used to be, back in the day!

 

These days though, whenever I use it, I find I spend far more time deleting the spam off of my screen than actually reading posts. Usually when I find an authentic post that isn't spam, it's some off-topic item cross-posted from alt.wrestlers.

 

So much for unfettered, laissez-faire free speech.

post #34 of 197

James E, hands down, though I would hardly classify him as a skeptic.  He is something else entirely.  I blocked him due to his incredibly insulting (and anti-semitic) remarks.  He adds nothing to the conversation. 

post #35 of 197

 

To believe in man made climate change is to surrender your logic for myth. The last volcanic eruption in South America a few months ago released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than what humans have since the dawn of mankind.
 
But yet this FACT seems to get ignored. Now let’s think about all the volcanoes that have erupted since the dawn of time. Wow! Makes your feeble brains hurt doesn’t it?
 
It’s so funny that MMGW fanatics simply pretend this inconvienent truth doesn't exist. Denial is NOT a river in Africa.

Edited by griv - Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:20:13 UTC
post #36 of 197

We might have a new front-runner.....

post #37 of 197
Massive CO2 and a whole lot worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by captaint:

We might have a new front-runner.....


 

Take a look and Google it youself unless you need to check Al Gore's sound bites for what to do when faced with facts.

 

 

post #38 of 197
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by griv:

 

To believe in man made climate change is to surrender your logic for myth. The last volcanic eruption in South America a few months ago released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than what humans have since the dawn of mankind.
 
But yet this FACT seems to get ignored.

 

I'm sorry but before you talk about people ignoring facts, you need to look one up.

 

Greenhouse gases are not visible, so showing a picture of a volcano erupting could not tell you less about their impact on global warming.  In fact, the stuff you can see coming out of volcanoes blocks sunlight and causes short-term global cooling.

 

Here's a fact for you.


"T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 are dwarfed by the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times."


Edited by dana1981 - Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:09:29 GMT
post #39 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by dana1981:
Quote:
Originally Posted by griv:

 

To believe in man made climate change is to surrender your logic for myth. The last volcanic eruption in South America a few months ago released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than what humans have since the dawn of mankind.
 
But yet this FACT seems to get ignored.

 

I'm sorry but before you talk about people ignoring facts, you need to look one up.

 

Greenhouse gases are not visible, so showing a picture of a volcano erupting could not tell you less about their impact on global warming.  In fact, the stuff you can see coming out of volcanoes blocks sunlight and causes short-term global cooling.

 

Here's a fact for you.


"T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 are dwarfed by the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times."


Edited by dana1981 - Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:09:29 GMT


 

Sadly you are bith wrong and right. Sure you can' see them but more CO2 was released by this volcano in ONE day than mankind has since the dawn of time. Also, the greatest greenhouse gas is water vapor. 90+% of it. CO2 is only around 3%. Methane even less.

post #40 of 197

Dana, the quote you posted,

 

"T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 are dwarfed by the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times."

 

is inaccurate due to some grammatical errors.  It gives of the wrong impression.  The paper cited here http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:0ghaeFGG21cJ:www.tfeip-secretariat.org/4TFEIP_WebSite/LinkedDocuments/11.A%2520Volcanoes%2520FD.doc+1991,+American+Geophysical+Union+quote+gerlach&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us provides a clear source.

post #41 of 197
Thread Starter 

Hmm you're right.  There were grammatical errors on the SDSU page so I tried to correct them, but obviously wasn't very careful about it.

 

Regardless, even if my misquote were true, 150 times annually is not even close to 1 volcanic eruption dwarfing all CO2 emissions ever.

post #42 of 197

griv said

 

The last volcanic eruption in South America a few months ago released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than what humans have since the dawn of mankind.

 

Human emissions of CO2 are 7.2E10 tonnes per day.  Recent SO2 fluxes which correlate with CO2 were 8.2E3 tonnes per day and the maximum flux was 14.5E3 tonnes per day. The daily emission from the volcano is a mere factor of 10 million smaller than human emissions.  Making claims that are easily shown to be false is not good for your credibility griv.

 

 

 

post #43 of 197
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteshell001:

Human emissions of CO2 are 7.2E10 tonnes per day.  Recent SO2 fluxes which correlate with CO2 were 8.2E3 tonnes per day and the maximum flux was 14.5E3 tonnes per day. The daily emission from the volcano is a mere factor of 10 million smaller than human emissions.  Making claims that are easily shown to be false is not good for your credibility griv.

 

 

Thanks for that data, whiteshell.  Here's the correct quote from my original SDSU Geology Department link:

 

"T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 are dwarfed the estamated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times."

 

And here is how I intended to correct the grammar:

 

"T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 emissions dwarf the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times."

post #44 of 197

What the science says...

 

Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. However, the CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.

 

The carbon cycle
 

 

Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 Gt. The ocean releases about 330 Gt. In contrast, human emissions are only around 26.4 Gt per year.

Land plants absorb about 440 Gt of carbon per year and the ocean absorbs about 330 Gt. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

 

** edited for content in violation of Terms of Service


Edited by admin - Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:05:31 GMT
post #45 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by griv:

 

To believe in man made climate change is to surrender your logic for myth. The last volcanic eruption in South America a few months ago released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than what humans have since the dawn of mankind.
 
But yet this FACT seems to get ignored. Now let’s think about all the volcanoes that have erupted since the dawn of time. Wow! Makes your feeble brains hurt doesn’t it?
 
It’s so funny that MMGW fanatics simply pretend this inconvienent truth doesn't exist. Denial is NOT a river in Africa.

Edited by griv - Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:20:13 UTC

I can't find anything in your link to back up this assertion.  There are some other quotes from the page, such as:
 

"Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. However, the CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance."


Edited by captaint - Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:51:56 UTC


Edited by captaint - Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:52:14 UTC
post #46 of 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by captaint:
Quote:
Originally Posted by griv:

 

To believe in man made climate change is to surrender your logic for myth. The last volcanic eruption in South America a few months ago released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than what humans have since the dawn of mankind.
 
But yet this FACT seems to get ignored. Now let’s think about all the volcanoes that have erupted since the dawn of time. Wow! Makes your feeble brains hurt doesn’t it?
 
It’s so funny that MMGW fanatics simply pretend this inconvienent truth doesn't exist. Denial is NOT a river in Africa.

Edited by griv - Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:20:13 UTC

I can't find anything in your link to back up this assertion.  There are some other quotes from the page, such as:
 

"Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. However, the CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance."


Edited by captaint - Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:51:56 UTC


Edited by captaint - Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:52:14 UTC

I already stated that I was in error concerning "from the dawn of time", something you probably haven't ever seen someone do. Admit fault. Wow! You might want to sit down.
 

 

The essense is that man made CO2 levels are a joke.

post #47 of 197
Thread Starter 

Myth #7.  

 

And yes, griv is definitely making the list, because at least other deniers keep their political rants off our forum.

post #48 of 197
Thread Starter 

John Terry a.k.a. Randall a.k.a. about a half dozen other names has jumped to the forefront of my list.  He just spams the same few rhetorical questions, looking for fellow deniers to confirm his ignorant preconceived notions, and he gives about two-thirds of his questions' "best answer" (a.k.a. answer full of the most misinformation that told him what he wanted to hear) to Jello.  He had a period today with 15 of the most recent 20 resolved questions, 10 of the "best answers" going to Jello.  Frankly I think he's just trying to get Jello back as 'top answerer'.  Deniers are slightly transparent.  I presume a lack of subtletly correlates well with a lack of intelligence.

 

Plus the guy cannot make an argument without a sports analogy.


Edited by dana1981 - 3/26/2009 at 08:01 pm
post #49 of 197

This is a tough question.  Climate skeptics in general tend to be trollish dishonest ideologues.  Picking the worst one is difficult.  Although I'm tempted to go with Senator Inhofe, I'm more inclined to go with someone who pretends to be objective.  Contrarian Anthony Watts, who runs a denier blog that has a standard populist appeal (Gore and Hansen are evil / global warming is a religion / the elites are out to get us / we are objective climate realists), is a good candidate.

 

Most tolerable?  A pre-requisite for this is strong hard science credentials, which eliminates most so-called skeptics (including Watts).  Roger Pielke Sr. might qualify.  He's not really opposed to the consensus position, but he carries at least some of the traits of a genuine skeptic.  His shortcoming is that he spends very little time challenging the zealots of the contrarian crowd and more time (erroneously or not) trying to find problems with the accepted theory.

 

Regarding Yahoo Answers, I'm relatively new to the Global Warming board.  When I saw that a trollish contrarian was the "Top Answerer", it raised some suspicion.  Now it's clear that the individual has multiple monikers or friends that ask questions to boost his/her "Best Answer"s.  I observed 10 straight "questions" by John Terry, followed by 10 straight Best Answers given to Jello.   Other contrarian regulars are probably getting deterred from answering.  This is symbolic of the denier movement.  They are more about public relations than science.  Meanwhile, Dana's ranking appears to be well-earned.  I don't see any preferrential treatment given to him from other members.  Personally, I give Best Answer to the individual who I think gave the best answer.  Quite often it's not Dana.

post #50 of 197
Thread Starter 

Yeah I've just been on YA for a long time.  Longer than Jello.  He got where he is mainly by cheating the voting system.  He just set up many IDs and voted for himself on every question that went to a vote.  There have been questions where he's gotten 20 best answer votes and nobody else got more than 2.  Which really puzzled me, because it seems like a huge waste of time to vote with 20 different IDs when a half dozen votes is enough to win most voting questions in the global warming section.  It's as though he was flaunting the fact that he'd figured out how to cheat the system. 

 

I don't think he does it as much anymore now.  Now he's got lackeys like Randall/John Terry/Ashley Cole and Scorpio who will give him 'best answer' to 90% of the questions they ask, and they ask a lot solely for the purpose of making sure Jello remains 'top answerer'.  It's really a pretty pathetic group of people if you ask me.  And extremely selfish to clog up the site with dozens of rhetorical non-questions just to make sure Jello remains 'top answerer'.

 

Among scientists, I'm okay with Christy.  He doesn't dispute human-caused warming, he just thinks climate sensitivity isn't as large as most scientists think.  I used to respect Lindzen, but he's become extremely intellectually dishonest.  I don't think too much of Spencer, but at least he seems to be honest, just wrong.

post #51 of 197

Is this funny or dangerous:

 

"The only connection is that co2 causes air to lose heat, not retain it unless the humidity levels are high. Actually the current high co2 levels are helping prevent the runaway warming the alarmists keep predicting because it conducts the heat into space better than low co2 levels do"

 

-James E

post #52 of 197

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by captaint View Post

 

Is this funny or dangerous:

 

"The only connection is that co2 causes air to lose heat, not retain it unless the humidity levels are high. Actually the current high co2 levels are helping prevent the runaway warming the alarmists keep predicting because it conducts the heat into space better than low co2 levels do"

 

-James E

 

It's funny, because he's the only one I've ever seen make the argument that "CO2 causes cooling".

 

It's funnier, because he bases his claim on a home experiment, involving a glass tank, a CO2 cannister from a paintball gun, and a kitchen thermometer.

post #53 of 197


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawei View Post

 

 

 

It's funny, because he's the only one I've ever seen make the argument that "CO2 causes cooling".

 

It's funnier, because he bases his claim on a home experiment, involving a glass tank, a CO2 cannister from a paintball gun, and a kitchen thermometer.

Believe it or not, I've seen the argument made before.  I really don't know if he's just joking to see who he can reel in.  It's bizarre.

post #54 of 197

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by captaint View Post

 


 

Believe it or not, I've seen the argument made before.  I really don't know if he's just joking to see who he can reel in.  It's bizarre.

 

There are a couple of climate skeptics on usenet with the handles "Whatta Fool" and "Deatherage" who believe that GHGs cool planetary atmospheres.  They are unshakeable in this belief.  They even trolled a professor of atmospheric science who has written textbooks on atmospheric radiative transfer patiently explain to them why they were wrong and they still wouldn't accept the basic physics.  It is not clear how they explain Venus, or at least if they try the hypothesis is so bizarre there aren't enough common language references in it for me to remember what it is. 

 

It is impossible to reason with a climate skeptic.  Those that do so are arguing for entertainment purposes only. 

 

post #55 of 197
Thread Starter 

It's truly amazing that guys like James E think that with some exceedingly crude experiment they set up and run themselves, they can disprove fundamental physics.  He made a big deal about this, saying he was going to set up some experiments and announce the results, left YA for a while, came back and proclaimed that he's concluded CO2 causes cooling.

 

It's definitely funny because it would take a total dimwit to take this guy seriously.

post #56 of 197

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dana1981 View Post

 It's definitely funny because it would take a total dimwit to take this guy seriously.

 

Yeah. And the fact that he clearly does not even have a college degree makes it all even funnier. The more educated deniers--jim, BZ--don't even agree with 90% of what he says.

 

I think the fact that he always backs up his scientific claims with the fact that he "learned them in grade school" shows just how high his own education actually went.


Edited by dawei - 4/4/2009 at 04:00 am
post #57 of 197
Thread Starter 

It's true, but sadly the more 'educated' deniers like jim aren't much better.  I posed some questions to see if any of them could even make a semi-intelligent scientific argument.  Here are the questions and jim's answers.

 

The planet has warmed more than a half degree Celsius over the past 30 years.

1) How can the Sun be responsible for this warming when total solar irradiance has not increased in well over 30 years?

 

It has cooled recently. I assume you are including recent data on the sun

 

Strike 1, he completely dodges the question which asks that he explain the 0.5 deg C warming.

 

2) If this warming was caused by a "natural cycle", precisely what cycle was it?


it is the natural cycle, you know the one that man didn't cause.

 

Oh it's "the" natural cycle.  Well, that explains it.  This guy must have really earned that geology degree.

 

3) According the IPCC, by far the largest radiative forcing over the past 2 centuries has been from greenhouse gases. How can they not be responsible for most of the warming over that period?


They don't know what they are talking about. They are educated guesses at best and very bad science at the worst. If they are responsible for 51 per cent, why not 49 (or 4). Most isn't one of those words that makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over that they might actually have a precise idea about how much warming humans have caused.

 

Oh yes, the scientists at the IPCC don't know what they're talking about.  This from the guy who apparently can't even name a natural cycle.

 

4) If you can't answer these scientific questions, how can you oppose taking action to address climate change when this is the recommendation made by climate scientists?

 

Taxing us into oblivion might sound like your path to paradise but it isn't mine.

 

Nice double strategy of deflection (completely failing to answer the question) and strawman (nobody is proposing taxing anyone into oblivion).

 

I mean seriously, this guy claims to have a geology degree, thinks he knows more about climate science than climate scientists, and yet can't even come up with a more informed and intelligent answer to these questions than a grade schooler.  His "it's the natural cycle" is one of my all time favorite denier statements.  This guy claims that natural cycles are his expertise, and he can't do any better than the natural cycle.  Their combination of ignorance and arrogance (Dunning-Kruger effect) would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous.

post #58 of 197

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dana1981 View Post

 Oh it's "the" natural cycle.  Well, that explains it.  This guy must have really earned that geology degree.

Lol. I mean I really don't think a bachelor's in geology really wouldn't educate you that much on the climate system anyway, so maybe he is telling the truth. It is funny though.

 

In fact, here are UF's requirements for a BS in geology:

 

Semester 1:

Precalculus

Composition

Humanities

Foreign language


Semester 2: 

Physical geology

Social sciences

Biological science

Foreign language

 

Semester 3

Historical Geology (evolution of life on earth)

Social and behavioral sciences

Electives

 

Semester 4

Social sciences

Humanities

Elective

Biological science


Semester 5

Humanities

Geology elective

Professional writing

Electives

 

Semester 6

Geology electives

Approved electives

Electives


Semester 7

Geology electives

Approved electives


Semester 8

"Geological field methods"

Electives

Geology elective

 

 

 

...wow. *Clearly* this amounts to more knowledge about the climate system than someone with a PhD in climatology.

 


Edited by dawei - 4/4/2009 at 04:57 am
post #59 of 197
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawei View Post

 

 

Lol. I mean I really don't think a bachelor's in geology really wouldn't educate you that much on the climate system anyway, so maybe he is telling the truth.

 

Oh I agree, but the whole premise to every one of jim's arguments is "I have a BS geology degree so I know all about natural cycles and everything there is to know about climate science."  Which is why "it's the natural cycle" cracks me up so much.

 

Interesting, the closest thing to physics in that curriculum is "physical geography".  That explains a lot.

post #60 of 197

Surely they must do power series expansions and Fourier analysis in precalculus. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: News & Policy
Green Options › Forums › Climate Change › News & Policy › Which skeptic do you find the most and least tolerable?