Climate Change Skeptics, Present arguments here

[Dardedar]

A thread welcoming climate change skeptics to post arguments disagreeing with the IPCC position on climate science.

I (and perhaps others) will respond to your arguments, as time allows.

Suggestion, make your arguments tight, specific and referenced as best you can. Limit yourself to one or two at a time and preferably make it something you have some familiarity with rather than a long list simply copied from somewhere.

[Dardedar]

From an exchange on Facebook. After posting half a dozen comments mostly filled with insults, Tyler has calmed down enough to ask a decent question:

***
TY: "You are stating that the singular reason for climate change is human influence.">>

DAR
No. I have never claimed that and I don't know of anyone who has ever claimed that. When you address something I have supposedly claimed, please be careful to make sure what you are claiming is true. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that humans are a primary driver, if not the primary driver in presently observed increases in warming. But there are other causes in effect as well.

TY: "i have stated my case very clearly">>

DAR
That's not been my experience from reading your posts.

DAR
TY: "you have still failed to answer my question.">>

DAR
I have responded directly to all relevant questions (you have responded to none of mine). If I have missed one, simply point it out (all caps are not necessary please) and I will respond to it directly (again).

DAR
TY: "WHY IF CLIMATE CHANGE IS CAUSED BY SPIKES IN GREENHOUSE GASES, such as emmisions from fossil fuel useage, has climate change happened in the past,...?>>

DAR
Excellent question. Already answered, directly with references.

Page two of the NASA link I already provided above:

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Has the following:

***
"The role of human activity

In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

They said the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is very likely to be unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more. The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... yr_spm.pdf.
***

DAR
Also, we have good reasons, and multiple lines of evidence showing that the present heating has specific anthropological fingerprints. And those fingerprints, are ours. In addition to #59 I already gave above ("it's a natural cycle"), see the response to climate science denier claim: #67 ("It's not us.").

"The human fingerprint in global warming"

"Fundamental physics and global climate models both make testable predictions as to how the global climate should change in response to anthropogenic warming. Almost universally, empirical observations confirm that these 'fingerprints' of anthropogenic global warming are present."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-basic.htm

Notice the settings for basic, intermediate and advanced (that quote is from the advanced).

I will cross post this in our forum in new thread I have created for questions:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6561

Perhaps others will chime in with further response.

D.

[Doug]

"WHY IF CLIMATE CHANGE IS CAUSED BY SPIKES IN GREENHOUSE GASES, such as emmisions from fossil fuel useage, has climate change happened in the past,...?>>

DOUG
Yes, an obvious question, but we shouldn't antecedently be skeptical that climate change could happen because of other causes in the past.

Compare: "WHY IF DEATH IS CAUSED BY EXPLOSIONS, such as nuclear weapons, has death happened in the past,...?"

Greenhouse gas releases have had nonhuman causes in the past, but this does not rule out that they could have human causes now. And climate change could have had other causes in the past, but this does not rule out that it could have greenhouse gas causes now.

[FACTS]

"WHY IF CLIMATE CHANGE IS CAUSED BY SPIKES IN GREENHOUSE GASES, such as emmisions from fossil fuel useage, has climate change happened in the past,...?>>

DOUG
Yes, an obvious question, but we shouldn't antecedently be skeptical that climate change could happen because of other causes in the past.

Compare: "WHY IF DEATH IS CAUSED BY EXPLOSIONS, such as nuclear weapons, has death happened in the past,...?"

Greenhouse gas releases have had nonhuman causes in the past, but this does not rule out that they could have human causes now. And climate change could have had other causes in the past, but this does not rule out that it could have greenhouse gas causes now.

Well that is one way to compare it, a very ignorant, retarded way, but it is a way. It's more like why would you blame a factor for something when the same thing happened before that factor existed. Better question, why would you assume that humans are able to have any impact at all with how low of a percentage our carbon emissions are? You don't figure the volcanoes, the decaying animal/plant life and the oceans all over power us when we put out around .00000001%?? What about the sun? It's effects on our weather dwarf anything that is happening on the planet. So I suppose you can make your pathetic comparisons and try to treat everybody like they are dumb but in reality your argument is really, REALLY weak. The only support you have are reports that are openly misusing data, ask the 1400 IPCC scientists who found in their studies that humans had no impact then the IPCC used their reports to say the opposite, knowing that weak minded fools such as yourself wouldn't actually read more than the headline.

[Dardedar]

Hello spammer from facebook. This one post will remain, since I want to walk you though your errors carefully. The mistakes are extremely elementary.

The other half dozen or so posts, which seem to have a heavy emphasis on homosexual behavior etc. (for some reason southern hillbilly rednecks consider gay to the be worst epithet they can throw), have no redeeming value and will probably not be posted. I like to claim we don't censor comments for content on this site, and we don't. But these posts are so vile and filled with hateful waste product, they cannot be considered in any way to be an attempt to communicate, but rather porn spam. We do delete that because that is not the purpose of the forum (also, I just remembered, our web service agreement also requires that we don't post porn).

[Dardedar]

...why would you blame a factor for something when the same thing happened before that factor existed.

The conditions that humans are engaging in now, dredging up trillions of tons of carbon based fuel and burning it, is not a factor that has happened on this planet before. The earth has had vast climate change before but it is not relevant to what we are observing and directly participating in now, because:

a) those temp swings were typically driven by long term natural trends (such as the 26,000 year Milankovitch cycle)
b) we didn't have a human civilization of 7+ billion people relying upon a stable climate, so these past swings (which were far slower, the fast ones were 10,000 years -with one known exception) didn't matter to us because "we" weren't here.

This is climate denier canard #1 (most popular): Claim: "Climate's changed before"

"Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing." LINK

why would you assume that humans are able to have any impact at all with how low of a percentage our carbon emissions are?

See climate canard #33: Claim: "Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions"

"The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any." LINK

See also #97: Claim: "Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate"

"Humans are small but powerful, and human CO2 emissions are causing global warming." LINK

You don't figure the volcanoes,

We most certainly do, and volcano influence is clearly observable in the record, even over the last 3 decades. They cause a slight cooling effect, for about a year or two. You are peddling a common lie that has been popularized by Rush Limbaugh and fiction writer Michael Crichton: that volcanoes produce many times as much CO2 humans. This is completely false. Humans produce 100-150 times as much CO2, per year, as volcanoes. This is well known, well studied, and not controversial. Note:

"CO2 from land-based volcanoes is below 1% of human contributions."

New Scientist

Also:

"...volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year." - about 0.3% of CO2 from human activities.

Scientific American

Summarized the U.S. Geological Service: "The current anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of some 36,300-million metric tons of CO2 per year is about 100 to 300 times larger than these estimated ranges for global volcanic CO2 emissions." --USGS

Etc. For further reference, see also Denier Canard #72: LINK

the decaying animal/plant life

Animals and planets have an extremely short carbon cycle (as do you), which has a result that is neutral. Think of it like this: a tree grows, absorbs carbon, then dies or gets burned and gives it all back. This typically is over a period of decades (perhaps a century) and is budget neutral. This is completely different from the human activity of dredging up trillions of tons of CO2, from carbon that has stored for 100's of millions of years, and putting it into the atmosphere. One gallon of gas adds 19 pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere. And we know the increased carbon is from use because we can trace the isotope signatures to the mines and wells from which extracted the coal and oil.

and the oceans all over power us...

Again, this is astonishingly, objectively, incorrect. The oceans are a carbon sink, so they don't "over power us" in any way with regard to CO2 input. And note what we are doing is causing a rapid and profound acidification of the oceans:

This rate of acidification is projected through the end of the century to accelerate even further with potentially catastrophic impacts to marine ecosystems. Endorsed by seventy academies of science from around the world, a June 2009 statement from the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) stated the following.
"The current rate of change is much more rapid than during any event over the last 65 million years. These changes in ocean chemistry are irreversible for many thousands of years, and the biological consequences could last much longer." -The InterAcademy Panel, June 1, 2009 LINK

See also denier canard #87: Claim:"CO2 is coming from the ocean"

Answer: "The ocean is absorbing massive amounts of CO2, and is becoming more acidic as a result." LINK

when we put out around .00000001%??

See again climate canard #33:

Claim: "Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions" LINK

Also, the human contribution is about 4% of the natural carbon cycle (see link provided), not ".00000001%" as you claim. So the actually percent is four hundred million times larger than your claim, and thus profoundly incorrect.

What about the sun? It's effects on our weather dwarf anything that is happening on the planet.

The sun is in a cooling cycle. See denier canard #138:

Claim: "The sun is getting hotter"
Answer: "The sun has just had the deepest solar minimum in 100 years." LINK

Also, we know the present heating is not from the sun, because of the signature fingerprints we observe in the atmosphere (heating and cooling at different levels) which show it is from greenhouse gases. Increased heating from solar, has a different fingerprint and heats the earth in a different way.

in reality your argument is really, REALLY weak.

I'll leave it up to the readers to decide who has the really weak argument.

The only support you have are reports that are openly misusing data,

If the misuse of data is open, you shouldn't have any trouble showing this, with specific, referenced, detailed examples.

Note denier canard #23: LINK

Eight independent investigations have found no misuse of data.

ask the 1400 IPCC scientists who found in their studies that humans had no impact...

There are no such "1,400 IPCC scientists" who found this. You are simply passing along another uninformed lie.

then the IPCC used their reports to say the opposite...

Show this.

[Doug]

Well that is one way to compare it, a very ignorant, retarded way, but it is a way. It's more like why would you blame a factor for something when the same thing happened before that factor existed.

Exactly. An effect can have more than one cause. That you overlook this shows that you have committed an elementary fallacy of reasoning.

Better question, why would you assume that humans are able to have any impact at all with how low of a percentage our carbon emissions are?

I wouldn't. Nor do any scientists. No one assumes this, but the informed and educated conclude that humans are causing climate change based on the overwhelming evidence. And the "low percentage" is not so low, as Darrel has already corrected you.

You don't figure the volcanoes, the decaying animal/plant life and the oceans all over power us when we put out around .00000001%??

Another fallacy. Even if nature puts out lots of CO2, this doesn't mean that humans can't contribute to this process and put out even more. Are we supposed to imagine that somehow the incredible increase in CO2 just in the last century is due to natural forces? We can't find a natural cause of this increase, but we can understand the chemistry that shows us that human-made processes, such as using cars, put out a lot of CO2. So where is the mystery? Why should we ignore a well-understood, human-made process and just pretend that the increase in CO2 is not caused by something different that's been happening due to human beings in the last 50-100 years?

What about the sun? It's effects on our weather dwarf anything that is happening on the planet.

The sun contributes almost all the heat for earth, but that is not the issue. What needs to be explained is the difference between what has happened in the past and what is happening now. The sun is cooling. Earth is warming. So the fact that the earth is warming cannot be explained by something different that the sun is doing.

[Dardedar]

A fellow on Facebook, let's call him TI, has some comments on this. I'll respond to them here.

I'm no scientist but i have observed that no one in the debate of warming temperatures has weather modification came into the discussion.
Water vapor plays a largely more important role than c02 in the greenhouse effect.

All considerations of climate take water vapor into consideration. See denier claim #34:

Claim: "Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas"

"Rising CO2 increases atmospheric water vapor, which makes global warming much worse."

Increased water vapor is in fact a powerful feedback which is enhanced by an increase in CO2.

Weather modification and warfare has been happening from the late 1960's.

If you notice, that little project stopped in '72. I am *extremely* skeptical of cloud seeding "rain" programs amounting to more than a hill of beans. Think about it, we have several states under extreme drought conditions, if we could be controlling this, we would. Same with countries in extremely dry areas. We don't do this, because we can't. Weather control claims are almost without exception, filled with quack claims (and have been for a few centuries). Be very skeptical of them.

Where in any scientific debate have you heard anything about making it rain.

You don't hear about it, because it's largely quackery.

less water vapor to absorb heat therefore more heat.

What matters, is heat trapped. More water vapor, more heat trapped. But then, we could always look to what the climatologists say. And what they say on this is, as I have shown, is clear.

it seems like someone would have included this into their science.

Since we have been studying these things for almost 200 years, yes, I think the people who devote their lives to studying this, thought of this.

They are making it rain in the desert

Then why do we have huge areas of drought? The notion that weather can be controlled, on any meaning full scale, is centuries old, quackery. And weather is very different from, climate. See here:

http://skepticalscience.com/weather-for ... ctions.htm

My next argument will involve climate gate. I don't wish to discuss post of question meaning,...

Well, since neither of us have looked at the data, or are in a position to look at the data here (other than little tasty excerpts ripped out of context) we need to look to independent investigations where these things can be studied carefully. There have been eight. They found nothing that effects the science, in any way. So this is not relevant to the science, but rather a media story, hyped by the denial community.

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

"A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident."

http://skepticalscience.com/Climategate ... hacked.htm

climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

The final nail eh? Someone better tell the climatologists. Climategate has nothing to do with the science. And don't get your science from British Dailys. They rarely even have a scientist on staff.

They were obviously doing something they didn't want anyone to know about.

That's why there were extensive investigations to get to the bottom of this. They found nothing that effects the science.

not one true scientist says they are 100% sure.

Of course, all scientific claims are provisional, open to revision and subject to uncertainty. The uncertainties in this area are extremely well studied and accounted for.

you expect people to believe it other wise they are a "denier".

I addressed this in my lecture Saturday. The science here, is extremely well established. Far more so than many other areas of science that everyone accepts (because it isn't politicized). We have more agreement on this than on how gravity works for pity sake. If you deny the holocaust happened, as the standard mainstream historical accounts tell us, then you are "holocaust denier." If you deny that HIV causes AIDS, then you are an "AIDS denier." If you think Obama wasn't born in the US (as 25% of republicans claim even after the release of the birth certificate), you are a birther. If you demand to see the placenta, you are an "After Birther." If you deny that 9/11 was done by Osama and his bunch, and think Bush was involved, you are a "truther."

If you deny the science that shows, overwhelmingly and unequivocally, that the earth has warmed, and with at least 90% certainty, we have significantly caused this, then you deny, overwhelmingly, the science of climate change. Accepting our understanding of climate change, as with any science, also accepts that it may be wrong. This applies to all scientific claims.

Note the 90% refers to human causation. That the earth has warmed and we have cause some of it, is higher than 90%.

"Many different lines of inquiry all converged on the IPCC’s 2007 conclusion that it is more than 90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing most of the observed global warming.

Some aspects of the science of AGW are known with near 100% certainty. The greenhouse effect itself is as established a phenomenon as any: it was discovered in the 1820s and the basic physics was essentially understood by the 1950s. There is no reasonable doubt that the global climate is warming. And there is also a clear trail of evidence leading to the conclusion that it’s caused by our greenhouse gas emissions. Some aspects are less certain; for example, the net effect of aerosol pollution is known to be negative, but the exact value needs to be better constrained."

http://skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm

One can only be a denier if they deny the truth and if it's not fact then i'm not a denier."

Important: Science doesn't do facts, but rather degrees of certainty. Want proof, see mathematics. We have a very high degree of certainty on this issue, but could be wrong of course. Those that deny the standard position need to come up with an alternative that explains our currently observed, rapid warming. They can't do it and we have dozens of lines of evidence showing why they can't. It's us.

If fact as Brian pointed out to me the IPCC fourth assessment had nothing in the entire document that was anything about p is greater to .9 . There was not one probability over 90%.

He's wrong, but close enough. If we have a 90% certainty of something, that makes it rather likely doesn't it? For 40 years big tobacco played this game of organized denial, where they tried to pretend cigs weren't addictive or associated with cancer. This is similar:

In 1998, Exxon devised a plan to hold off action on global warming. The strategy was outlined in an internal memo, titled: “Climate Science Communications Action Plan.”

"Victory will be achieved when uncertainties in climate science become part of the conventional wisdom" for "average citizens" and "the media.” LINK

If you go to 100 doctors and 97 of them tell you you have cancer, and need a certainty surgery, what would a wise person do? And what if those other three doctors said either, you weren't sick, or you should use some alternative remedy, that they just happened to be invested in politically or financially. What would a wise person do?

So if they can admit there not 100% about being right how come you can't.

Science doesn't do 100%. That's religion. The uncertainties are out in the open and have been stated from the beginning. I am not 100% sure that if I let go of a pencil it will drop to the floor, but I think it is very very very likely.

Oen last question, where is the 97 or 98% coming from?

Have you not read the posts? From my lecture notes:

***
4) Study: 97-98% Of The Most Active Climate Researchers Support Tenets Of Human-Caused Climate Change.
Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

“Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show:
(i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the IPCC, and
(ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. ”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... l.pdf+html

5) (Doran and Zimmerman 2009) contacted 10,200 scientists listed in [the…] Directory of Geoscience Departments and received 3,146 responses to their two questions:
"have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?" and
"Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?" 
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html

(90% had Ph.D.s). Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. Note responses to level of expertise in climate science:
-- Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes.

-- 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes.

I have more.

It's not the one article that says they took the top 50 peer reviewed experts in the field and took the ones who agreed by the ones who didn't because there were many flaws in the calculation.

No.

Because there are many shortcoming in our current peer reviewed system.

Show this.

Edited by Savonarola, 20010530 1415: fixed URL tag

[Dardedar]

More of the above exchange continued...

***
BR: "My field of reserach does not generally accept anything less than 95%">>

Well, your field of research doesn't involve climatology or the safety of the earth. Again, we are treated to organized denial in the same manner Big Tobacco engaged in for 40 years. When that finally died, the PR groups moved to climate denial. Same people, same groups, exact same strategies.

Note this PR firm's memo outlining how they plan to take the astroturf attack on science model they developed for big tobacco and sell it to big oil and coal, then export the model to Europe:

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233595-3602.html

The 1998 API memo showing how big oil's trade association sells the very same model to its stakeholders:

http://tinyurl.com/4c2u3yc

The 2002 memo from Frank Luntz showing how he sells it to the GOP:

http://tinyurl.com/3pzb38a

George Monbiot's discovery of how PR uses online operatives to spread their memes and disrupt honest discourse:

http://tinyurl.com/323xvum

Etc.

BR: "You would expect it [certain or virtually certain] to show up at least a little.">>

Your 90% claim refers to humans causing most of the warming. That the earth has warmed, and humans have influenced this, is above 90%.

BR: "but i'm uncomfortable with dictating policy on 90% confidence.">>

When it runs counter to your politics. At our meeting Saturday, the climatologist went into how we should deal with levels of certainty. He had a quote from Cheney which goes:

"In November 2001, Dick Cheney formulated his 1% Doctrine – if there is just a 1 percent chance of the unimaginable coming due, act as if it is a certainty." --Whose Counting: Cheney’s One Percent Doctrine,
by John Allen Paulos, ABC News, July 2, 2006

It seems that a 90% level of certainty, with regard to something as important as the planets health and well being, calls for erring on the side of caution. Especially since much can be done that would only involve increase in efficiency. But look how conservatives freak out about this. Drew mentioned, in this thread, we should "lessen driving." I mentioned I had bought a Prius and cut my usage in half, and observe all of the screaming in this thread, and then the over flow to our forum with a dozen posts filled with anti-gay rants filled with hostile comments about... a Prius.

BR: [IPCC] "They said the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is very likely (p>90%) to be unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more.">>

It's not clear that the 90% confidence level refers to that specific claim, but if so, that is still rather confident.

BR: "to dictate policy we should be shooting for 95 or 99% not 90%">>

So at 90%, do nothing, 95% oops, waited to long! Who made this rule? This is the gamble we do with our only planet?

BR: "with all the research and replications it should have been easy by now to get it up to 95% confidence">>

Well since you have already told us that you don't "come anywhere near grasping climate science." I don't find you to be a credible person to make such a judgement.

BR: "I expected entirely to see 95% confidence and was surprised to see otherwise.">>

Sure you were. The next report will be out soon. Trends are strongly for warming and that previous reports have been too conservative.

D.
**
TIC: What do you mean a hill of beans?">>

You don't know what this phrase means?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hill+of+beans

TIC: "isn't real because you haven't seen it used to stop droughts?">>

Basically.

TIC: "Or it just doesn't work how i imagine?">>

Yep. How is this relevant anyway?

TIC: "Here is a company that offer weather modification to the general public.
http://www.weathermodification.com/cloud-seeding.php

Did you read that site carefully? I did. Fluff when it's not vapid.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

TIC: "They not real?">>

Not real beyond a hill of beans. Relevance?


TIC: "China using cloud seeding to remove smog before the olympics, not real as well?">>

Did you read your own source? I gave it a skim. Took about ten seconds to find:

"Clouds were seeded during the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing using rockets,[7] so that there would be no rain during the opening and closing ceremonies.[8] although others dispute their claims of success.[9]"

And:

"By the 1960s the dreams of weather making had faded only to be re-ignited post-corporatisation of the Snowy Mountains Scheme in order to achieve "above target" water."

"The amount of precipitation due to seeding is difficult to quantify. Cloud seeding may also suppress precipitation."

A key challenge is in discerning how much precipitation would have occurred had clouds not been seeded... There is statistical evidence for seasonal precipitation increases of about 10% with winter seeding.[6]

--Your source.

As I said, I am *extremely* skeptical of cloud seeding amounting to anything beyond a hill of beans. You could almost call me a "denier."

TIC: "Or just not important because you haven't heard about it?">>

I knew about the China seeding "attempts."

TIC: "Any yes i know wikipedia is the worst source ever">>

It isn't at all. I use it all the time. Just have to watch the references.

TIC: "So global warming real, cloud seeding not real, got it!">>

Not quite. Global warming real, cloud seeding is of no significance or relevance. Climate and weather are very different things. I already gave you a link for this.

[Dardedar]

TIC sent along this site on "cloud seeding."

http://www.weathermodification.com/index.php

It looks really suspicious. Extremely generic. Might be a "send money for more info" sort of thing. Very little trained expertise in the field they are supposedly advising on (on Bachelor of Science, several business degrees). Zero reference to peer reviewed science.

I did a little checking on "cloud seeding" and found the standard science considers it very dubious at best. Smells like complete rubbish to me.

***
"Should anyone believe the propaganda put out by these cloud seeding firms who, after all, are profiting from their operations? The tobacco companies put out a similar smokescreen (pun intended, again) of propaganda regarding those researchers who wanted to call attention to the health hazards of smoking. All they needed to do was instill some doubt in the minds of the public about the validity of the health hazards and most smokers would keep on smoking. These cloud seeding companies have everything to gain by maintaining the illusion that their operations produce results without any negative consequences, but would lose everything if the paying citizens lost confidence in their ability to make rain (or reduce hailfall), or if someone became concerned about possible negative consequences.

Why would anyone believe the arguments advanced by someone with such an obvious self-interest? I think it's because some people desperately want to believe that cloud seeding works, especially the customers of these cloud seeders. Our culture has instilled in many of us the idea that if our environment creates problems for us, those problems can be solved through the application of technology. Unfortunately, cloud seeding to enhance rainfall and reduce hailfall without any bad impacts sounds too good to be true ... because it almost certainly is!

In effect, these companies are profiting from the misfortunes of those who suffer from the vagaries of the weather. They raise hopes without any substantive evidence in favor of those hopes. People want to believe that the money they invested in cloud seeding is paying off. If there were clear evidence that cloud seeding truly worked as claimed, it might be a different story .... although my questions (above) still need consideration. However, since there is no such convincing (scientifically credible) evidence in support of these operations, I think at least the customers should be made aware of the fact that most atmospheric scientists (including many, like myself, who have nothing either to gain or to lose should cloud seeding be discredited) do not believe in the efficacy of weather modification by cloud seeding ... as evidenced by the AMS Policy Statement (above). If most atmospheric scientists don't buy this, then should citizens prefer to believe the cloud seeders?"

http://www.flame.org/~cdoswell/wxmod/wxmod.html
***

[Dardedar]

TIC has more comments/questions on climate change.

TIC
The AGW crew wants to dictate world policy and laws around their claims.

Mere assertion. But does sound like a good plot for a James Bond movie. If you want support the notion that climate science, as we presently understand it, is being manipulated by a worldwide conspiracy of 10's of thousands of scientists, the National Academies of 32 nations, every single scientific organization of national or international standing with expertise pertinent to the field, then you will need some really good evidence. There isn't any.

There is huge money in AGW.

And there is a trillion dollars of profit in just five oil companies in just the last decade. You can buy a lot of scientists with that kind of dough. Most of them are more honest than that. If you think someone devotes their life to getting doctorate in climatology, because of the money, then you probably don't know many scientists.

People or scientist who disagree are targeted and labeled denier or skeptic.

If you deny that climate change is happening, or happening as the overwhelming mainstream science has shown it has been happening, then you deny that position. Why is this word inappropriate? I deny there is anything beyond simply trickery to dowsing, palmistry, astrology, rumpology, channeling, astral travel, telekinesis, ESP, levitation and remote viewing and quite a few other things. This means I am a denier, of those things. No, big, deal.

AGW says that big oil uses their money to pollute the science and try to confuse the overwhelming condenses."

It doesn't just say it, it shows it. For instance, let's just look at the spending of one single oily company:

"A survey carried out by the UK's Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".[60]

On July 1, 2009, The Guardian newspaper revealed that ExxonMobil has continued to fund organizations including the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) along with the Heritage Foundation, despite a public pledge to cut support of lobby groups who deny climate change.[61]"

Also: "a list of 41 other climate skeptic groups which are still receiving ExxonMobil funds.[57]" --ibid
Heartland Institute received $676,500 from ExxonMobile since 1998.
George C. Marshall Institute received $630,00 ExxonMobile since 1998.
"Science and Public Policy Institute" received $1,272,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
etc.
"Funding of global warming skeptics"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil

And as I have shown with reference, they have hired these exact same PR groups to sell the exact same denial package that the Big Tobacco bought and paid for, for 40 years. It took that long to put the knife through the big tobacco lie.

But this is all aside from the science. Let's talk about the science.

I say it is the opposite, that powerful...

Not interested in what you "say," but rather what you can "show," with reference.

However, the burden doesn't rest on me because I want to do nothing.

If you want to knock down the established science, you need better science. Let's see that.

You or the AGW crew want to resort resources, change laws, and add taxes.

Please cite where I have advocated for this. I argue the science. Do you want to talk about the science, or just smear the scientists based upon what you've heard from the scientifically illiterate media, based upon politics.

If you want to do all that you need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that AGW is real and deadly.

The best science tells us, with 90% certainty, that the earth is rapidly warming (along with all that entails), and we are causing most of it. The best science tells us that your position has about a 10% chance of being right (something we don't know is causing the warming). Which is more likely Tic? Something that is 90% likely, or something that is 10% likely?

If big oil is against AGW then how come i don't see commercials all the time about how it's not real?

Because that would be too obvious. Instead, they fund denial think tanks (see 39 referenced above) to sow seeds of doubt in the right circles (Senator Inhofe, republican party, etc.) And besides, they have run lots of ads. See this for instance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExISHlp2k0o

Let me know if you want many more. This is politics, irrelevant to the science. Let's talk about the science. You aren't going to refute the science, with politics.

Commercials about the AGW, all the time!

That's called Greenwashing. Don't pay much attention to PR campaigns, pay attention to the science. These companies will say whatever in order to improve their image. They know they are viewed as "dirty oil companies" so of course, they run Greenwash ads all the time. It's image rehab.

If fact they are the types of commercials i hate, emotional rags. Let evaluate a few of them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jCUI-sYRmU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghUVT_Z5 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-_LBXWM ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMNu68gs ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxis7Y1ikIQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PMtD9z4Eoo (So far this one is my new favorite, animal suicide hehe)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK5v8AtM ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5THtEq2 ... re=related
I could probably keep going and going.

You probably could but, this has nothing to do with research, and nothing to do with the science. This issue will be decided by the science, not what right wing or left wing groups do with silly ads.

How come some commercials show the murdering of "deniers"?

Comedic value, free speech I suppose. Don't care.

Also i called the "scam" company Weather Modification, it's pretty elaborate scam to have a secretary answering the phones,

Where did you get the idea that simply having a phone makes something an "elaborate" scam. Scam is probably too harsh of a word. These are probably sincere capitalists looking to make a buck off of an unestablished science. On the scam list, this put them pretty far down the list.

Also, official government documents about how weather modification was used in warfare are fake or they just aren't important?

Very old, propaganda. It's best if the enemy thinks you can control the weather. Notice that those programs were dropped many decades ago. If they worked, they would definitely be using them. Also notice, that if you want to do a rain test, perhaps not best to get a good objective outcome by doing your test in a... rainforest, like Vietnam. AGAIN, what is the relevance of this "cloud seeding" canard?

when i simply search on YouTube i find a ton more videos about the grave dangers of AGW.

Please don't get your science information, from youtube. Not until you get better skeptical skills.

I see a video disagree and it's jumped on as propaganda.

Please ignore the chatter in youtube comment sections. It's meaningless.

Have you watched these videos i have posted.

I don't do argument by "seen it on youtube" very much. Too slow. I read 3-4x faster than people talk in videos, and most of the videos on this topic, on youtube, are going to be unscientific crapola. Denier Crock of the Week is quite good though. He backs up his claims with references.

It is mostly interviews and exerts from documentaries that disagree.

Then you shouldn't have any trouble finding an assertion or two from them that you can defend or put forward for examination.

My last comment/question is about the 1 degree figure. I have heard from a few sources...

I'll see your unreferenced "I've heard from a few sources," and raise you with, actual scientific references.

See the ten lines of evidence at denier claim #41 ('it's not happening"):

http://skepticalscience.com/evidence-fo ... arming.htm

And also #5: http://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

And again, NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

And NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/faqs/climfaq14.html

Etc. Warming is unequivocal.

the scientist that calculated the one degree refuses to release his data. Do you know if this is true?

Some unreferenced scientist, makes some unreferenced claim, and I am supposed to have an opinion on this? Please Tic, can we raise the quality bar here just a little bit?

i have also read that there are 4 different reputable sources of world temperatures and in some of the years they have varied as much as .4 deg Celsius.

Then show this. There are slight differences to different methods (it would be suspicious if there wasn't), but they all show, unequivocal, warming, as predicted 35 years ago.

Given that there is this much range in the four sources, would you support that is acceptable for a scientist to refuse to release his raw data to support his conclusion.

Safe to say, from my understanding and readings, your unreferenced claim, is entirely false.

[Dardedar]

I see one I missed from another post above.

TIC: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... t=0&page=1

Again, if you have a specific assertion you would like to put forward, I'll be glad to look at it. Passing along a link to an article written by a British Daily that is notorious for trafficking in unscientific, rightwing claptrap, is not were you should be looking for good science. There isn't anything there that is likely to stand up.

Here's why:

"Yet none of this appears to embarrass the Sunday Telegraph, which championed his findings this week in a leading article. I think I know what the problem is. At a meeting of 150 senior journalists last year, who had gathered to discuss climate change, the chairman asked how many people in the audience had a science degree. Three of us raised our hands. Readers cannot expect a newspaper editor to possess a detailed understanding of atmospheric physics, but there should at least be someone who knows what science looks like whom the editor consults before running a piece.

A scientific paper is one published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This means it has been subject to scrutiny by other experts in the field. This doesn't suggest that it's the last word on the subject, but it does mean it is worth discussing. For newspapers such as the Sunday Telegraph the test seems to be much simpler. If they don't understand it, it must be science."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ce.comment

Regarding the notion that we can't afford to keep on doing what we are doing, see: #104

http://skepticalscience.com/renewable-e ... ensive.htm

And #64: http://skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-poor-poverty.htm

[Savonarola]

the scientist that calculated the one degree refuses to release his data. Do you know if this is true?

Some unreferenced scientist, makes some unreferenced claim, and I am supposed to have an opinion on this? Please Tic, can we raise the quality bar here just a little bit?

I'll add a bit here.

Sure, in a perfect world, scientists should release all data so that anyone can analyze them. But in this perfect world, "anyone" understands science, statistics, and climatology. It's quite clear that the vast majority of deniers (and people in general) do not understand these things. What is the point in "releasing" the data that has already been seen by the only people who understand it anyway? Releasing the data just provides deniers the opportunity to comb over the numbers and scream about whatever strange something they think helps their point, when the bottom line is that these people couldn't correctly interpret the data if their lives depended upon it.

Withholding public release of the data makes you paranoid conspiracy theorists cry foul, and that's it. But that's what you're going to do no matter what -- just look at what you're already doing; you've got a complaint about damn near every other aspect (even though none of those complaints have merit, either). Releasing the data would result in eighty billion questions from scientifically illiterate morons who not only wouldn't understand the answers but actually don't care to hear them anyway. Climatologists do climatology, not climatological education of the uneducated masses with no desire to learn.

[Dardedar]

Further exchange with Tic.

TIC: "All it comes down to is the truth ...">>

I agree. And what we use to discern between likely truth, and likely untruth, is skeptical scrutiny. It's how we separate deep knowledge from deep nonsense.

TIC: "you can scream science all day long but that doesn't make it real">>

Science doesn't scream or need to scream. It walks quietly but carries a very big Truth Stick of No Mercy.

TIC: "eugenics was once a leading scientific campaign as well ...">>

With the Nazi's. They were wrong about a few other things too. And note, the problems with eugenics have nothing to do with something being scientifically true or not. The problem with eugenics are moral. That's a different kettle of fish.

TIC: "i have no wish to argue science with you">>

If you change your mind, or would like skeptical scrutiny of a climate science dissenter claim, you know where to find me.

TIC: "i just want the fear eco-terriosm propaganda to stop,">>

You have not demonstrated "terrorism propaganda." But as even your comment shows, there is lots of hyperbole to go around.

This is noise and irrelevant to the science.

Note, in my very first comment I said: "Pointing to weather events is not my first choice of evidence because what matters is the long term trends, not singular events,..."

D.

[Dardedar]

Further exchange with Tic:

Eugenics was pretty popular in the United States and as far as i know new DNA evidence completely debunks all of it's "science".
The video you posted as "right" side propaganda was saying that trees breath co2 to live, we exhale co2 in the process of living and that they don't support labeling co2 as a pollutant to be regulated by the government. How can that be called propaganda? Would you say that having a child is creating pollution? Or breathing makes pollution.
Simple analysis of the different "sides" commercials shows a clear trend of threats by the left . Everyone of those videos plays off fear and sadness. Where is the fear in the video you posted? You might just want to argue science, but you have to admit that the tactics from the left are kind of hard to swallow.

Response:

***
TIC: "Eugenics was pretty popular in the United States.">>

So? What on earth does that have to do with anything? Going on about eugenics is a favorite canard creationists like to use to bash science. Is that what you are trying to do? If so, it completely misses the point. The word eugenics, which has several definitions, and a wide variety of interpretations, is basically what we have done with all domesticated animals. For moral reasons we find it unacceptable to do with humans. This has nothing to do with whether eugenics (roughly meaning: "selective breeding") actually, works. It does.

TIC: "The video you posted as "right" side propaganda was saying that trees breath co2 to live, we exhale co2 in the process of living and that they don't support labeling co2 as a pollutant to be regulated by the government. Would you say the having a child is creating pollution? Or breathing makes pollution.">>

This is just semantic. A popular word game. Something is a "pollution" if there is too much of it and it causes us problems. If I have a foot of water in my yard, it is water pollution. It's an entirely useless and silly semantic word game to pretend it matters whether CO2 is a pollution, or not. In some contexts, it is (see Venus). When it doesn't cause temperature problems for our civilization, it isn't.

Also, tree use, and human use, is short term carbon cycle and irrelevant to the problems asserted by AGW (one caveat: massive deforestation, is not irrelevant).

TIC: "analysis of... commercials shows a clear trend of threats by the left.">>

100% irrelevant to the issue. You are stuck on silly politics, just like the denial industry wants. You will learn nothing substantive about this issue by looking to the PR campaigns splashed on youtube.

Did you read the Scientific American article I gave you?

***
TIC: "as far as i know new DNA evidence completely debunks all of it's [eugenics] "science".">>

Then you don't know what the word eugenics means.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eugenics

Are you getting your information about this from creationists? Perhaps "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?" It's all rubbish.

All of the food, all of the domesticated animals you see around you have been (essentially) created by the methods of, a few thousand years of [human caused] selective breeding (eugenics).

You are confusing a moral issue, with a factual issue. Eugenics works, but we don't consider it moral. Eugenics is a favorite hobby horse creationists use to bash science.

Science works. Sometimes it can be used to do things that aren't moral (obviously). Creationists aren't smart enough to know this distinction. Don't fall for it.

D.

[Dardedar]

Further exchange with Tic. First, his latest post, full quote (all cited below in my response):

***

I can look up dictionary terms too. Terrorism - the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. Those commercials say that unless we do something the worst will happen. It uses fear and the threat of death to coerce public opinion.
You might be trying to argue just the "science" but its clear from the sources you produce that its not the end game. First you must convince everyone so then we can do something about it. You just have to look at the last sentence of the Scientific American article you provided and i in fact read. "But then again, responsible action on climate change is what the contrarians seem most interest in denying." This article is obviously calling for action. Also claim 6's counter argument was weak. They only looked at federal spending, private spending and funding was not included. And then they ended with a conspiracy joke, which was in poor taste. Is it that hard to believe that rich people conspire to fuck people and steal their shit? Operation CoIntelPro documented the assassination of US citizens in their homes by police officers in coordination with the FBI. (Prolly fake according to you).
You didn't get my eugenics point at all. Probably because you have already made up your mind about what is real there too. Eugenics said they had scientific evidence to show that the Arian race was superior to others and even devised test to find out what race people were. Then used these guidelines to tell certain people they shouldn't reproduce because it's not in the best interest of the country.
You can say that PR campaigns are irrelevant but they are not. Anyone who knows anything about public opinion would know they are not irrelevant. You can say that their not terrorism but i'm pretty sure it is by definition.
I've offered to discuss topics in person and you were uninterested and now I'm done wasting my time with you. One day you will wake up and I hope see the truth.

My response, line by line:

***

I can look up dictionary terms too.

Then you ought to do that before you use terms in argument that you clearly don't understand. Your comment about DNA disproving eugenics reveals you don't know what eugenics, don't know what DNA is, or very possibly, both.

And what in the name of all that is precious and holy, does eugenics have to do with climatology? Nothing. You are foolishly regurgitating an idiotic, creationist complaint about science, based upon a moral issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with science. But you don't even understand this argument that you can't even begin to get off of the ground.

Terrorism - the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. Those commercials say that unless we do something the worst will happen. It uses fear and the threat of death to coerce public opinion.

Why should anyone give a flip what some political interest hired an ad agency to put in a commercial? Who did it? We don't know. Was it aired? We don't know. Where was it aired? We don't know. Does it have anything to do with our understanding of climatology? No. You don't want to talk about the science, because the science KICKS YOUR ASS.

You might be trying to argue just the "science" but its clear from the sources you produce that its not the end game.

My sources, refer to the science. Your unsupported and irrelevant charge of an "end game" is entirely irrelevant to the science. You don't want to talk about the science, because all of it is against you. What politicians and ad agencies do, has nothing to do with the science of climatology and what is, or is not happening to our climate.

First you must convince everyone so then we can do something about it.

Mere assertion, pulled from your ass. Refer to the science, or admit you cannot. Oh, my mistake, you've already done that. And I quote: "i(sic) have no wish to argue science with you."

Science is the tool we use to make observations about the world around us. Assertions regarding climate, and observations about climate, are necessarily scientific in nature. That you are reduced to running from discussing the science (while tapping away on your scientific computer), means you forfeit anything of substance on this issue regarding climatology. Now we are just mining the depth of your ignorance on these other issues. Continue.

You just have to look at the last sentence of the Scientific American article you provided and i in fact read. "But then again, responsible action on climate change is what the contrarians seem most interest in denying." This article is obviously calling for action."

That's nice. I refer you to an article that covers seven of the main crackpot assertions on your side of the debate, and you are reduced to complaining that, after the fellow makes his case, he adds his opinion with the one sentence above (which is obviously true anyway). Is that the best you've got?

Also claim 6's counter argument was weak.

Excellent. Finally a charge of substance! Let's see you provide cogent rebuttal and make your case that claim #6 is in fact weak.

They only looked at federal spending, private spending and funding was not included.

Show this. Private spending on what? WTF are you talking about? And note, this objection you raise, without support, has nothing to do with science. It's politics.

And then they ended with a conspiracy joke, which was in poor taste.

No joke aimed at conspiracy dolts, can be too lacking in taste. Conspiracy theorists deserve every bit of derision and ridicule they receive, and a whole lot more.

Case in point...

Is it that hard to believe that rich people conspire to fuck people and steal their shit? Operation CoIntelPro documented the assassination of US citizens in their homes by police officers in coordination with the FBI. (Prolly fake according to you).

No. Not "probably."

You didn't get my eugenics point at all.

No, I got it bigtime. You don't even grasp the questions you regurgitate from the idiotic sources you get them from. Eugenics obviously has nothing to do with climate science. You bring up this canard because you have swallowed some stupid (in this case creationist) fallacy that goes like this:

a) Eugenics is scientific
b) Eugenics can be used (and was by the Nazis specifically) to do immoral things we don't approve of

c) therefore: science is bad.

It's a breathtakingly stupefying and idiotic non-sequiter popularized by the completely dishonest flick "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" and you fell for it hook line and sinker. You did this because you didn't do your intellectual homework and see if the claim makes any sense whatsoever. It doesn't. Now this would be fine and dandy of you were a youngster who was just inquiring, and asking questions. Glad to help. But no, you have that unfortunate combination of ignorance and arrogance that goes with one who gets their science from youtube, PR commercials and rightwing talking air heads on cable news. You ape the confidence and swagger from them and then regurgitate it like a parrot, In doing so you reveal you don't have the skill set, knowledge base, or intellectual horsepower to even understand the questions you raise.

Probably because you have already made up your mind about what is real there too. Eugenics said they had scientific evidence to show that the Arian race was superior to others and even devised test to find out what race people were. Then used these guidelines to tell certain people they shouldn't reproduce because it's not in the best interest of the country.

Again, grasshopper, the problems with eugenics are moral in nature. Selective breeding has been practiced by humans, successfully for thousands of years. You are surrounded by lifeforms that have been profoundly modified by using this process of selective breeding. We don't approve of doing it with humans, not because it doesn't work, but because it is morally repugnant.

You may be able to pass along these silly arguments you don't understand with your friends and fool them. But you aren't fooling me. I don't know how old you are but your reasoning skills are at about the level mine were at age 15. That was 1981, 30 years ago. It's fine to not know things, but not fine to pretend you do, when you don't.

You can say that PR campaigns are irrelevant but they are not. Anyone who knows anything about public opinion would know they are not irrelevant. You can say that their not terrorism but i'm pretty sure it is by definition.

Completely, 100% irrelevant to the science. And on the objective statements of fact regarding climatology, the science is all that matters. Since you can't speak rationally about this climate issue, let me use a different example to demonstrate this:

In the 1980's, the science, via direct observation and measurement, told us we had an acid rain problem. You can read about this here. Our coal plants were putting out vast amounts of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, and it was killing thousands of lakes and of course, the life they contained. Of course industry didn't want further regulation on this matter, and the whore politicians on the wingnut right were pleased to abide them, for as long as they could. So we had the same bullshit, unscientific PR campaigns we have seen with tobacco health issues, and now climate change. And surely at the time, we had extremists on the left that were exaggerating the problem. That is completely irrelevant to the science, which showed we had a problem and needed to address the problem (if we like to fish in those lakes). The science deniers lost, again, as in the past and as they will in the future. Science doesn't care about the whore politicians or the ninnies running PR campaigns or the stupid canards you learned on youtube or Fox News. The reality of the situtation, as best understood by the most powerful tool of discernment we've ever had, said this was the reality. After much delay, we then went on to fix the problem through regulation, pollution control, and science. We regulated the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions more strictly, reduced the pollution output, banned leaded gas, improved automobile pollution control, and fixed the problem. And we did this with the greed based, rightwing, anti-science shitheads being dragged kicking and screaming along the way.

We have a similar situation today, with the same greed driven, rightwing, anti-science shit-heads peddling their ignorant science denial. Except this time it isn't just the lakes and the quality of our air in question, it is the climate of the entire planet.

I've offered to discuss topics in person and you were uninterested and now I'm done wasting my time with you.

Look, grasshopper, I don't know what your skill set lets you charge per hour, but each of my hours are worth $100. Every hour of every business day that I choose to work, that's what I charge. And I turn at least 20% of my business away. If you were an inquisitive young person interested in learning something, I think I have shown, via several hours invested, both in one on one private messages on Facebook, and on posts both here and on your thread, that I am quite accommodating to teach you how to begin on these issues, to the degree you have an interest to learn. If I am going to take time to give you private instruction on these basics, you need to show enough interest, with a dash of humility, to make it worth my time. You have not shown this. In addition to what I have stated above, you rarely answer questions, you don't respond to points, your responses are almost completely non-responsive to points made. You just ignore your errors and move on to making more of them.

Instead, it has been a nonstop parade of canards and stupidity from you, and, Brian excluded, your associates. It may be that someone has been wasting their time, but it hasn't been you.

All of the learning in these exchanges has been one way. I have not learned one thing from you, because as you have shown from the beginning, you don't know your bum from your elbow on this issue. And worse, you don't have the basic critical thinking skills to even know how to begin the search for those body parts. And that would be perfectly fine. You're young and inexperienced, you don't know much. But your ignorance, as you have learned to parrot from the usual sources, includes a good dose of arrogance and stupidity on top. This is why you don't learn new things. You think you know things, and you pretend to know things, that you clearly don't know. And then to further compound the problem, you look to sources like commercials on youtube, to learn more about an issue.

This is why I am taking the time to make an example out of you.

One day you will wake up and I hope see the truth.

In the processes of determining what is "the truth" versus, not "the truth," it is best to follow the evidence, as objectively as possible and then have the courage to accept what that evidence tells us. You don't want to talk about the science, because all of the science is against your opinion. That you are reduced to not talking about the science, on an issue that is entirely scientific in nature, reveals that you are an intellectual coward, afraid to accept what the evidence reveals.

I hate intellectual cowardice, but it's very common. You have lots of company.

PS. Speaking of intellectual cowardice and stupidity,... I will be posting below, unabridged, in a separate post, the 13 spam comments posted by your Facebook friends between 10:03 and 11:11 last Saturday morning. This is so readers can see in it's full banjo playing glory, what southern redneck hillbilly idiocy looks like when it rears it's ignorant head. Now we know why the south shall indeed not "rise again." Too many idiots.

[Dardedar]

Below are the thirteen spam comments posted to this forum last Saturday morning. I post them here to reiterate something that all of the adults in the room already knew: when you have good arguments for your beliefs, you don't act like this.

***
Re: Facebook debates, political
by [D...] » 28 May 2011 10:03 am

You are a complete tool faggot huh?

***

Re: PORN in this section
by Bl0ckt » 28 May 2011 10:15 am

That's right, Darrel doesn't approve of anybody doing anything that he doesn't get to. Fun, nope, not allowed. Intelligent conversation, absolutely forbidden. Sex, forget about it, no way in hell he's letting that get through. Sad, some porn might make you guys actually be able to get users, when the most EVER online is 53 you should realize that nobody gives a shit about you or your pathetic opinions. Try to go out and get laid sometime. Do you have a wife? Probably not but if so just forget that she looks like a sea otter and try it anyway. "Medical problems" keeping things down? They have pills for that now

***

Re: Your Story: How I Became a Freethinker
by Every1sTale » 28 May 2011 10:22 am

This is the tale of every person posting on here. See they found an article online that said something that scared them, global warming, doomsday, whatever it is. A bunch of pathetic conspiracy losers. They cling to this, refusing all evidence of how retarded they are, even denying the most basic of scientific principles to further their ignorance. Retardation fully sets in at this point and they become "active", as to say they don't actually try to accomplish anything more than bitching and crying about it online. This leads them to feel a sense of satisfaction, the craving of attention they needed is quelled by simple text. Real human interaction becomes irrelevant. Penis floods their mind, spewing it's idiot gravy all over what doctors struggle to call a brain. After months of this, their life becomes so devoid of thought and real insight that they simply cling to whatever idiotic nothing they've come up with. Global warming, regardless of the fact that the sun obviously has more of an effect on our weather/climate than ANYTHING humans will ever do. They throw out stupid studies on CO2 and act like volcanoes, decaying animals/plants and the oceans don't put out millions of times more than us percentage wise. Their life becomes so pathetically obsessed with trying to prove their bullshit that they don't even realize that 30-40 years ago people used the same "science" to say the world would be in another ice age before the 70s were over. Retardation has taken control of their life and they begin spamming internet forums with other retards and even posting pages and pages of text where they fail at trying to argue their stupidity even to small children.

***

Re: Video Clips
by BestOfClips » 28 May 2011 10:28 am

1 m a n 1 j a r . c o m
This site has the absolute best evidence on climate change. The argument is very compelling and should be examined very closely.

***

Re: Post Your Prius Stats
by MikeySchmidt » 28 May 2011 10:32 am

Does the Prius save you a lot of gas Darrel? My car sucks about as much gas as you do dick so you can tell I need to minimize my fuel intake. For every dick you suck I spend about 2 dollars on gas and I spent like 40 dollars in the last week and a half so that's a lot of dicks, I mean gas. Anyway, you know that STDs can be spread through oral sex and that AIDs is very serious and problematic throughout the "alternative" communities these days so just be careful out there in your Prius. Dick sucking Prius drivers unite! (Note: all Prius drivers don't suck dick, this union is for the ones like Darrel who do both)

***

Re: May 2011 Freethinker Meeting - Climate
by AlGoresVajayjay » 28 May 2011 10:35 am

It's not "freethinking" to take every study that supports your ignorant "science" (see the scientific method for why what you call science is really just chasing grant funds) as fact and disregard/ignore everything that proves you wrong. Anyone who can watch the Great Global Warming Swindle AND the founder of the Weather Channel's discussion on the issue, as well as reading the reports from over 1,000 of the scientists on the initial IPCC panel claiming falsified data, anyone who can see all these things and still be so closed minded should be utterly ashamed to use the word free thinker to describe themselves. Blind, retarded sheep would be fine, or political, fake-environmentalist douche bag would too. Although I'm sure you're one of the useless piles of shit who says "give me a link to prove me wrong" because you're too lazy/stupid/brainwashed to actually go to google and research BOTH sides yourself. If you wanted the link, you would have found it so
why ask somebody to send you something that you wouldn't even consider looking at? Fucking morons these days. The picture has to be fake right? You're like 10 and have developmental/anger problems or you are the biggest fucking loser I've seen online in a LONG time.

***

Re: Who is Savonarola?
by Questions » 28 May 2011 10:37 am

Do you like to act like a 5 year old who just discovered the internet like Darrel does? He was sending me links of gay porn because I told him that he should look into researching other material than what supports what he already believes. He then tried attacking my mother, saying he was going to rape her tonight. He didn't know she's been dead for 3 years, or maybe he did who knows. Either way I hope that you find more productive things to do than bitching and crying on an internet forum.

***

Re: Climate Change Skeptics, Present arguments here
by FACTS » 28 May 2011 10:44 am

Doug wrote: [snip...]
Well that is one way to compare it, a very ignorant, retarded way, but it is a way. It's more like why would you blame a factor for something when the same thing happened before that factor existed. Better question, why would you assume that humans are able to have any impact at all with how low of a percentage our carbon emissions are? You don't figure the volcanoes, the decaying animal/plant life and the oceans all over power us when we put out around .00000001%?? What about the sun? It's effects on our weather dwarf anything that is happening on the planet. So I suppose you can make your pathetic comparisons and try to treat everybody like they are dumb but in reality your argument is really, REALLY weak. The only support you have are reports that are openly misusing data, ask the 1400 IPCC scientists who found in their studies that humans had no impact then the IPCC used their reports to say the opposite, knowing that weak minded fools such as
yourself wouldn't actually read more than the headline.
***

Re: Your Story: How I Became a Freethinker
by DidIgetBanned? » 28 May 2011 10:58 am

Savonarola wrote: [snip...]
Damn, people get banned for pointing out how utterly retarded you are for not being able to read 2 sides of a story and actually think for yourself? How hypocritical to ban someone for disagreeing in a forum called free thinkers. Sadness surrounds your virginity, Darrel can not suck your penis enough to quell the rage of emotions sweeping your body right now.

***

Re: Hogeye returns [split from Creator...
by CaughtRedHanded » 28 May 2011 11:02 am

My complaint is that I caught Darrel and another man in a very compromising position while I was walking by a park one night. They were by the slides but that wasn't the thing that was sliding.

***
Re: May 2011 Freethinker Meeting - Climate
by BrainDeadMoron » 28 May 2011 11:06 am

My mom and my dad are brother and sister so of course I'd love to come to this meeting!1 I drive a prius and all that good stuff. Me class in special educatio adult classes with Darrel so we friend already and make happy fun at meet with like thinkers!111!! Go free mind, lets all agree to agree about the articles that agree with us, that wahat thinking for yourself means!!!!!1!!!!! Ill bring the KoolAid

***

Re: User Names
by [D...]. » 28 May 2011 11:08 am

Why do posts about me keep getting deleted?? I can handle it, so I was in the park with that guy at night. Did you actually see his mouth around anything? No? Then don't judge me. I'll be at the drag show tonight in a bright red dress.
***

Re: Your Story: How I Became a Freethinker
by TheTruthSoFuckOff » 28 May 2011 11:11 am

Unless you sit on this forum 24/7 you can't delete all the messages about the truth. You can't handle the truth!! My penis is the truth.

DAR
Incidentally, there are some juicy climate science denial canards buried in some of the idiocy above. I already responded to about ten of them brought up by "FACTS" here. But if any of the fellows above, think that in between comments about their penises, that they actually stumbled upon a good point regarding climate denial. Simply point it out and I'll be glad to put it over the knee and give it a good spanking.

D.

[Dardedar]

The barbarians are at the gate. I post this story here because it resembles the attack this forum received from a similar bunch of likeminded, weak minded, troglodytes a little over a week ago (posted directly above).

***
Climate of fear: scientists face death threats

BY ROSSLYN BEEBY SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT REPORTER
04 Jun, 2011 12:00 AM
Australia's leading climate change scientists are being targeted by a vicious, unrelenting email campaign that has resulted in police investigations of death threats.
The Australian National University has confirmed it moved several high-profile climate scientists, economists and policy researchers into more secure buildings, following explicit threats to their personal safety.

Scientists at universities in NSW and Queensland have told of being moved to high security buildings, where their names do not appear on staff directory lists or on their office door.

''If you want to find me, it's impossible unless you make an appointment, sign in with some form of photo identification, and are personally escorted to my door,'' one scientist said.

''That's directly as a result of threats made against me.''

More than 30 researchers across Australia ranging from ecologists and environmental policy experts to meteorologists and atmospheric physicists told The Canberra Times they are receiving a stream of abusive emails threatening violence, sexual assault, public smear campaigns and attacks on family members.

Among the scientists being targeted is Australian National University climate institute director Professor Will Steffen.

Others include University of NSW climate change research co-director Professor Andy Pitman and University of Melbourne meteorology professor and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author Professor David Karoly.

Many scientists spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they feared the email attacks would escalate if they were identified.

Several scientists have installed upgraded home security systems and switched to unlisted phone numbers after receiving threats that their homes and cars would be damaged.

One scientist said he was advised by police to install a ''panic button'' security alarm in his university office after receiving death threats. Others have removed all contact numbers from their work websites, and deleted social media sites after these were defaced with abusive comments and obscene photographs. One researcher told of receiving threats of sexual assault and violence against her children after her photograph appeared in a newspaper article promoting a community tree-planting day as a local action to mitigate climate change.

Australia's new chief scientist, former ANU vice-chancellor Professor Ian Chubb has condemned these email threats as ''an outrageous attack'' on open and public debate.

''These hurtful attacks are intended to intimidate scientists, to scare them off and stop them from participating in public discussions on climate change. They are the antithesis of democratic debate,'' Professor Chubb said....

Australian Greens deputy leader Christine Milne said the emails were ''an orchestrated, extremist anti-science campaign attempting to threaten and intimidate people into silence.''

Outspoken climate science critic, Queensland Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce also condemned the attacks as malicious and counter-productive.

''No one deserves that kind of behaviour,'' Senator Joyce said.

University of NSW senior psychology lecturer Jason Mazanov said the emails were indicative of a ''closed room'' mentality where people have lost all sense of what is normal.

''They send a threatening email with no thought of the social cost or consequences,'' he said..."

Canberra Times

[linda]

I am an elderly lady who faithfully reads this blog because it was recommended to me by the smartest people I know. I have only three main comments to make about this latest thread on global climate disruption, a topic which I have been studying seriously for four years:
1. The comments made by the global climate change deniers are vile, moronic, purposeless and indicate a thorough lack of knowledge on the subject. They also show a total lack of class.
2. I would be willing to bet the farm that these crude respondents are quick to call themselves "Christians" or "Patriots." They are neither and are an insult to both the former and the latter.
3. One can only hope that none of these individuals has children or grandchildren, primarily because they have no compunction whatsoever about leaving a dying planet to their families. They are also a major threat to the intellectual component of the human gene pool so their over-breeding would be ill-advised.

The average 4th grader in Europe knows far more about what is needed to save this planet for future generations than these global climate deniers. A nation that remains ignorant does so at it's own peril. This is one case when being at the end of one's life has a distinct advantage.

[Savonarola]

Below are the thirteen spam comments posted to this forum last Saturday morning.

For the record, even more were stopped in the moderation queue.

I got an email from one of the ban "victims." I've posted my response below.

An abusive spammer wrote,
> Hi, I was recently banned from your god awful forum
If it's so god awful, why are you complaining about being banned?

> for posting nothing more than that I disagreed with somebody's attempt at
> arguing lies and propoganda
It was "nothing more" than disagreement just as your email is civil and apologetic, huh?

Here is a list of the submissions that were posted:
viewtopic.php?p=24026#p24026
Which one was yours?

> against real, actual science.
I'm a real, actual scientist. No kidding. Do you think that I don't know the difference between real, actual science and propaganda?

> ... or if you're just too big of a pussy to handle somebody who
> disagrees?
There are hundreds of posts on our forums written by people who disagree with us on climate change alone. There are hundreds of posts by people who disagree with us on all sorts of other topics, too. Heck, many regular members disagree with other members on certain topics, and those discussions are allowed, too. We don't have a problem with disagreement, and our record shows that. Our record also shows that we don't tolerate breaking forum rules, which can be found in the "General Information about this Discussion Board" forum (which you're asked to read before posting).

> You know, the ones that talk about reports you never read because you
> didn't understand the big words?
Do you really want to have a pissing match over who has a bigger vocabulary? Do you think that -- even if you were to prevail in such a contest -- it would prove anything? Any moron can talk a big game (and you do), but you can't seem to make good and factual arguments.

> Anyhoo just wanted to let you know that you need to unban me
I don't *need* to do a single thing you tell me, and the fact that your attempt to get unbanned is as insulting, slanderous, and disrespectful as it is tells me there is no reason for me to believe that you'd follow the forum rules a second time, either.

> or else you aren't much of a free thinker,
Your assessment of a label for me is entirely inconsequential to me. It is, however, funny that you think that your misinformed opinion would have some effect on my ego.

> plus I'll just get back on with a different IP.
Go ahead. You'll waste even more time trying to post than I'll spend laughing at your futile attempts.

> ... then I'd just get on a different IP and make like 40 accounts with
> these email addresses.
You may think that you're being clever by not using a real, personal email address, but all this does is confirm that you have no honest intent.

> I'd hate to have to make multiple accounts and ruin the forum with
> arguments with myself on 9 different accounts
Oh, I'm just sure you'd hate that. If it makes you feel better, you can pretend that that's why you won't do it.

> because you guys can't handle a little bit of the truth.
You're right. A little truth isn't ideal. We want the whole truth. Are there climatic cycles? Yes, that's a little truth. Does the sun have an effect? Yes, that's another little truth. Here's another little truth: the little truths you argue for do not constitute the whole truth. Milankovitch cycles and sunspots do not account for the observations. No amount of hand-wringing, ignorant argumentation, crying foul, false accusations, or name-calling will change that.

> By the way, the truth is the nick name for my penis.
And as shown by your posts here and elsewhere, you can't find the truth with both hands and a magnifying glass. If "the truth" means "[your] penis"...

Cheers,
Savonarola, Mod@Large