Annie!…

Its very nice, i love it….

I’m tired of pointing out ‘Regular’s’ multiple lies, so I’ll just post the link to where I easily proved another one of his lies about me.

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/07/open-thread-712-2/#comment-382804

Once again, the “cosmos is not a scientist” argument is irrelevant as long as he is accurately representing the state of the science as represented by those who are indeed qaulified. That is the question, not cosmos’ personal qualifications, not to mention my own, Franklin’s, or yours. Cosmos backs up what he says. He does not argue it from his personal authority. The charge is specious, and I strongly suspect that you already know that.
————————
That’s the problem.

cosmos uses quotes from non-peer reviewed blogs.

He doesn’t use actual data from science journals that are peer reviewed.

I’ve read a lot of these journals and no where do scientists make the claims or put in terms of absolute certainty that something is happening.

Scientist deal in uncertainty and they use probabilities. A probability is not a guarantee of anything. It is merely a best guess on what could happen under narrowly defined circumstance. It is not a general sweeping statement on an entire scientific discipline such as climate science.

When cosmos learns to know the difference between hypothetical probability and blog opinion, then I’ll listen.

cosmos does not know the difference, he is a political activist with an agenda.

There is no science backing up his claims, he uses blogs and hyperlinks to opinion statements.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

[FE]Must be a bunch of Global Warming religious fanatics worshipping at the alter of the Goracle.[/FE]

cosmos is not a scientist and has admitted not being a scientist.

He is not qualified to speak with authority on climate science.

He can speak as a rank amateur like the rest of us, but he has no expertise in climate science as a scientist.

cosmos has no right to belittle professional scientists or economists in other fields if cosmos will not give his identity and profession.

cosmos takes the coward’s way out and hides behind his computer.

Why would you say that? That’s like saying that a CPA who audits hospitals is far more qualified than some poster on discussing the efficacy of a cancer treatment.

Still a bullsh*tting shill.

“Cosmos
Any agricultural economist is FAR more qualified than you, on the climate issue.”
————–

Really? Prove it?

Did you notice this in your 7:11 pm post?

“September 12, 2007 – 300 Scientists Refute Global Warming
…
“Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery…”
————–

How MANY of the 300 would “describe themselves as global warming skeptics”? One? Zero?

Another bogus list from Avery,
‘Outrage in the Climate Science Community Continues Over the “500 Scientist” List’
http://www.desmogblog.com/outrage-in-the-climate-science-community-continues-over-the-500-scientist-list
“Earlier today we broke the story about dozens of scientists outraged at the use of their good names in an article by Heartland Institute’s “Senior Fellow” Dennis Avery (pictured above) posted on their website entitled 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares.”

More at link.

econ’s “qualified”(sic) source re AGW climate science LIES about climate scientists.

I am sure that if an agricultural economist came out in support of the Global Warming religion, you would never bash that person or question his or her credentials.

The only way that you can “claim” a scientist is on a case by case, issue by issue question and answer process that has not happened.

There are scientists that, yes, agree that we are going through a warming trend. Many of those scientists HOTLY contest the reasons for that warming. Many of those scientists contest the harm that any such warming might cause.

It is perfectly acceptable to show that, even among scientists who agree that warming is happening, there is MUCH disagreement on details and on cause.
—–
By the way libs, see if you can get this done for me, ok?

Prepair a list of every person in the world who is educated enough, trained enough, to have a valid opinion on this matter.

Don’t cherry pick.

I expect a test such as, “What is your college degree”?

If you allow geologists on your side, fine, we can have geologists on our side.

If you allow Physics experts, on your side, we can have the same people on our side.

Actually, agricultural and travel industries have hired climate scientists for years.

Anyway, you tell us what DEGREE is required, or what fields of work, currently, qualify someone to have a valid “expert opinion” on the subject of climate.
—–
Then, we can survey those people.
Over the last 100 years, based on what you have studied and what you believe, would you say any of the following postions fits your view?

1.) The Earth is getting colder, and man is causing it, so man must spend money to stop global cooling.
2.) The Earth is getting colder, and man has something to do with it, but we can not afford to stop any such cooling.
3.) The Earth is getting colder, but man has nothing to do with it.
4.) I am not sure if the Earth is getting colder.
5.) The Earth’s temperature is pretty much constant, over the past 100 years.
6.) I am not sure if the Earth is getting warmer.
7.) The Earth is getting warmer, but man has nothing to do with that warming.
8.) The Earth is getting warmer, but this is nothing to worry about, no matter what the cause.
9.) The Earth is getting warmer. Man might contribute to this warming, but the cost of stopping man’s contribution might well be more expensive than any warming, and we might not be able to stop any warming, anyway. Any policy changes must be considered carefully, and balanced with a good cost/benefit analysis.
10.) The Earth is getting warmer, and man is causing it, man can fix it, and we must spend money and pass laws to change it, because this is a dire emergency. We can spare no cost to address this issue.
—-
Now, the libs on this Blog would have you believe that nearly every Phd in the world, with any study in the area of “climate” would check box #10.

The truth is, most scientists would find each answer a bit simplistic, and would resist being pushed into any of the 10 answers.

However, I sincerely doubt that answer #10 would rate very well, in any such poll or survey.

Again, only the liberal political hacks are really sure of themselves, on this issue.

The scientists, themselves, are much more reserved, restrained and reasonable.

Science is not based on “faith”. Understanding AGW science does not require “fatih”

But believing what you people believe, like the lies from the agricultural ECONOMIST Dennis Avery, requires a “leap of massive stupidity”.

WHY do you prefer to believe lies, econ?

We call it that because, like “religion”, it requires a leap of faith. A leap that cannot be proved, right or wrong.

If someone says there is a Supreme Being, they say so without any “real” proof. The beauty of it is it cannot be disproved, either.

Just like the GW crap.

Dennis Avery (your 7:11 pm post) is a lying agricultural ECONOMIST. The scientists in his list AGREE with AGW science.

SPM, page 10,
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.12 This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns (see Figure SPM.4 and Table SPM.2). {9.4, 9.5}”

“Very likely” equals > 90%

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance. “This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850,” said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. “Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”

The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers’ specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.

“We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events,” said co-author Singer. “On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted.”

http://www.look-to-the-skies.com/global_warming.htm

http://www.look-to-the-skies.com/global_warming.htm

Do you know why you people have to call global warming science a “religion”?

It’s because you people can’t find any credible science to refute it. You can’t refute that human-added CO2 and other GHG’s have increased radiative forcing.
You can’t refute that aerosols cause cooling, masking the warming from the GHG’s You can’t refute that the oceans thermal inertia delays the warming, and the ocean heat content has been increasing.

You people can’t find any science to refute AGW, because there is not any science to refute AGW.

The big fossil-energy companies can’t refute it — all they can do is fund misinformation campaigns.

The bribe of a $10,000 award can’t refute it.

So you people have to lie about AGW science, and call it a “religion”.

YOU are NOT a scientist.

No credible scientist would make the statements that you have made about global warming.

Even the scientists that think it might be happening hedge their bets far more than you.

Even the scientists that think man is causing even a small part of any warming hedge their bets, more than you.

You are a political hack and a political opportunist, trying to use the “global warming” hype to advance your political cause.

OF COURSE taxes on coal and oil will HURT the economy. Of course that means people will suffer.

Your Religion of Global Warming demands human sacrifice, so you don’t care about the cost of your beliefs!

Who are WE, in the USA, to tell China and India to let their people starve? Who are WE, in the USA, to tell China and India to cut back on “green house gases” so that our liberals, in America, can feel good about themselves?

Who are YOU, Agnatha, to tell the auto worker, the coal worker, the oil field worker to give up THEIR jobs, for the hopeless cause of fighting “Global Warming”?

Admit it! If the Kyoto treaty had been signed by every country, and every country followed the Kyoto treaty, to the letter, the experts all admit that it would have virtually NO effect, at all, on temperature or climate or “greenhouse gas” production.

The reality is that poor countries will not be bound by any stupid treaty on global warming.

They will sign up, perhaps, for any goodies that they can get. They will make promises, perhaps.

Then they will go about the business of feeding their people. That will take energy.

We can not get countries to live up to arms agreements.

We could not get Saddam to honor a cease fire agreement.

Wars happen when countries do not follow treaties.

Does anyone really want to go to war over “global warming”??

If you are not willing to go to war over this issue, it will NEVER, EVER be regulated by any international body.

“You wiggle out of the obvious fact that no precise temperature readings, over any useful lenght of time, are really available.”

Just plain false. Temperatures have been measured since the 18th century. Again, multiple temperature measurements during a period of time, regardless of the level of technology, still provide information that, because of replication, can be considered high confidence.

“Then you shift to ‘climate’ rather than
‘temperature’ — but how in the world do you measure ‘climate’ without the imput of ‘temperature’?”

1) The topic at hand is climate change.

2) Climate is measured by more than temperature, but by its effects.

3) The “climate” RATHER THAN “temperature” claim just indicates that you really don’t bother to know what you are talking about.

“And, with the very, very small increase in ‘global temperature’ that the global warming religion wants us to believe in, these measurements matter a great deal.”

And there are lots of measurements, despite your nonsense implying otherwise.

“At least a portion of that change is likely due to the method of measurement, and the changes in the method of measurement. Show me a measuring device which has been in the same place, for 100 years or longer.”

You really think that the professional people who are in the field are not taking that into account? No, probably not. You really don’t seem to know how scientists work. Equipment effects, like other variables, are accounted for in good research.

“Now, even if you do ‘prove’ that global warming is, in fact, happening, so what?”

See, classic pre-determined conclusion bullsh*t. This is basically an announcement of “no amount of information will change my position”.

“You have not proven that man CAN slow or change any such warming, even if we try.”

The fact is, I suspect Franklin would say this regardless of whether someone had “proven”, or even provided strong evidence, that “man” could slow or change such warming. And people much more knowledgable on the topic than either of us differ strongly with this pronouncement. Furthermore, here is one thing that we are looking at. China and India are on the verge of truly explosive growth in their automotive industries. If global climate change is driven at least in part by anthropogenic factors, then it stands to obvious reason that we can have control over the extent, since by definition anthrpopogenic factors arise from our behavior.

“You have not proven that it is WORTH IT, for us to change our way of life, as an offering to your Global Warming false god.”

Just pretty much an empty assertion here, with a stupid rhetorical flourish about a “false god”.

Here is something people should realize.

The unsupported claim here is the bullsh*t assertion that dealing with climate change, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation, will have a catastrophic effect on our economy.

That is the unsupported assertion.