🚀 go-pugleaf

On 6 Oct 2004 19:13:02 -0700, AJFeeney48@yahoo.com (JohnAndrew) wrote:

>We seem to be occupying parallel and mutually contradictory
>universes, William J.  
>
>Or at least one of us is in deep denial,
>and I don't think it's me.  I'm tempted to be angry at you,
>because you seem to me to be doing the equivalent of saying
>the earth is flat, and that the sun revolves around it,
>and refusing to look through Galileo's telescope to see
>evidence to the contrary.
>
>I'm also tempted to pity you, because you must have large
>amounts of money, job security or intellectual ego invested
>in the perpetuation of the fossil fuel business to keep
>refusing to consider the evidence in this way.  
>
>But anger and pity aside, I'm getting tired of arguing with
>a brick wall.  The brick doesn't seem to listen much. However,
>there are brief replies to some of your main points below:
>**********

A brick wall doesn't demand evidence before following the path it's
thrown.  I do.  Why is demanding evidence considered such a threat by
you and the rest of the scam peddlers?

>Wm James <wrjames.remove@spamreaper.com> wrote in message news:<efr6m0pheff5t9ub9kjuahfbemjb16u603@4ax.com>...
>> On 5 Oct 2004 09:52:23 -0700, AJFeeney48@yahoo.com (JohnAndrew) wrote:
>> 
>> >Wm James <wrjames.remove@spamreaper.com> wrote in message news:<hns3m05jt0cvolbi17s3nvlsmt8jnqasgp@4ax.com>...
>> >> On 2 Oct 2004 08:58:17 -0700, AJFeeney48@yahoo.com (JohnAndrew) wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >William James, no offense, but your reasoning
>> >> >below fails to pass the "laugh test."  
>> >> >
>> >> >A couple of reasons, at least:  (1) You and other greenhouse denialists
>> >> >keep insisting that the scientists and/or public policy people who
>> >> >are pointing to global climate change have some vested financial
>> >> >interest in doing so -- they're doing it to justify more research
>> >> >money for themselves, etc.
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, maybe so; we're all human and we're all self-interested in
>> >> >the end.  But you fail to mention the "elephant in the room," the
>> >> >obvious, which is that the global oil industry, the global coal
>> >> >and natural gas industries, and the global auto industry all have
>> >> >an enormous self-interest in denying that global climate change
>> >> >is occurring because they want to sell more fossil fuels.  
>> >> 
>> >> They also live on this planet, they also have families, and none want
>> >> to live where the temperature doesn't support their ability to live.
>> >> To even suggest that large numbers of people would conspire to destroy
>> >> the planet because they expect to make a quick buck, is a bit silly,
>> >> don't you think?  
>> >
>> >It might be silly to think they would "conspire" to destroy the planet
>> >for a quick buck.  To think that they would blind themselves to the
>> >risks of global suicide because they have billions of dollars at stake
>> >is not silly.  It's what psychologists call the "principle of
>> >cognitive
>> >dissonance" at work.  
>> 
>> OK, so apply the same logic to those who are paid tax dollars to fond
>> bad news without any evidence.
>
>You're the one who raised the question of people getting tax dollars
>to find bad news, I believe.  And my reply was that you're ignoring
>the
>elephant in the room if you ignore the likelihood that many greenhouse
>denialists are getting paid money by the fossil fuel and/or auto
>and/or
>electric utility industry to deny the reality of climate change when 
>it exists.

You say it exists.  Some say space aliens exist at Area 51. Without
evidence to support either, what's the difference?  Why should either
be taken seriously?

>I guess I'm satisfied here if you're willing to admit that all humans
>have a certain tendency to let their economic interests shape their
>ideas, and if you're also willing  to face the fact that will billions
>if not trillions of dollars invested in fossil fuel consumption as it
>now exists, many big corporations have an ENORMOUS potential bias -
>much larger than the bias of the
>government scientists.

The clear difference is accountability.  

>So yeah, we're all potentially biased.  But I think the economic and
>political biases that lead people to deny the reality of climate
>change
>are much larger than whatever biases there may be for
>government-funded
>scientists to say climate change is a problem.  

There are no scientists who claim global warming is a problem. Anyone
making such a claim is violating the scientific method, thus, by
definition, are NOT scientists.

>Maybe the biases that come from intellectual pride and vanity on both
>sides are equal.  I'll grant you that.

Both sides are not equal!  This isn't a discussion comparing
superstitions or to decide what color to pait the house. It's not
subjective.  A claim has been made, that the earth is warming. One
side wants that claim to be taken of blind faith and to treat it as a
valid scientifically determined truth.  The other side is doing real
science and demanding evidence for such an extraordinary claim. One is
science, the other pseudoscience. 

>> >Most of us don't like to believe several contradictory
>> >things at once when we notice the contradictions, and when we care
>> >about
>> >both sides of the paradox involved.  We don't like to think that "our
>> >country"
>> >can do wrong in war -- so mostly, we don't.  We don't like to think
>> >that our religion, whatever it is, can be just as nasty in practice as
>> >the next guy's religion - so mostly, we don't.  We don't like to
>> >believe
>> >that the main way we have of paying our bills is bad for the world -
>> >and
>> >so mostly, we don't.  
>> 
>SNIP SNIP
>
> And so on, and on.  People make excuses for their jobs,
>> >their institutions, their lives -- and fossil fuel investors are no
>> >different from anyone else.
>> 
>> There'sa difference. Those peddling the global warming scam have no
>> evidence to support it, and those who scoff at the BS have no evidence
>> either.
>
>I'm sorry, but I think you're dead wrong here.  I'm not a scientist,
>but
>I have read up on the scientific research on this over the past 3
>decades,
>and there IS some evidence for global warming and global climate
>change.

Where is it then?  Who burried it and refused to allow it ot be
printed or broadcast? All I've seen so far is testimonials and blatent
lies. 

>Whether it's totally definitive is another matter -- I believe most
>scientists are now concluding that it is, after some skepticism about
>this.

No scientist would ever conclude such a thing without evidence.

>Evidence includes data on rising average CO2 levels, which have been
>tracked since the 1959 International Geophysical Year.  Also data on
>rising average global temperatures, as tracked by the US Commerce
>Dept.
>and other meteorological organizations.  Also data on melting glaciers
>around the world, data on the breakup of part of the Antarctic ice
>sheet, data on rising average sea levels around the world (some of
>this
>is tricky to interpret, though, since some "apparent" sea level rise
>can be caused by the sinking of continents, or can be masked by the
>rise
>of continents - I did an article on this some years ago).  

Testimonials do not equate to evidence.  At any time in the last
billion years anyone could make a claim of warming or cooling and wait
a few years for a few events or a couple of odd years to "prove" it. 

>Also data on habitats of birds and insects gradually moving north in
>some parts of the world.  Data on "spring" coming earlier to England,
>as
>reflected by the behavior of British birds.

And human construction and shipping couldn't have anything to do with
that, could it?  There's actual evidence for that, after all.  Global
warming didn't cgreate the problem with rabbits in Australia or the
extinction of the Dodo.

>All this is EVIDENCE for global warming - or rather, data that are
>consistent
>with the hypothesis that the world is warming up and the climate is
>shifting.
>How conclusive the evidence is, whether all other hypotheses can be
>ruled
>out, is another question, and one that some reputable scientists spent
>part of the 1990s arguing about, I believe.  

There is NONE!  If there were, it would be published and every
pseudo-environmentalist groups in the world would be chanting "I told
you so".  Instead, all we see are testimonials, mined data, munged
data, falsified data, and computer models that have repeatedly failed.

>The difference is that someone claiming something as radical
>> as global warming have an obligation to demonstrate it, not merely
>> claim it and demand faith like a faith healer.  Until they do, it's
>> not worthy of consideration.
>
>When I first started covering global climate more or less seriously as
>a journalist, in the 1980s, the environmental lobbyists I talked to
>said that in fact, there wasn't absolute proof at the time of the
>global warming/
>global climate change hypothesis.  However, there was strong evidence
>pointing
>in that direction.  And the problem was, the computer models indicated
>that by the time the climate "signal" became absolutely unmistakable,
>the projected
>climate change by that point would already have become so large as to 
>mean that the Earth was facing climate-related disasters.

Yes, I remember those days. In the 70s they were peddling clobal
cooling, but that didn't get any traction.  It was, however, more
credible as we know we are in a rather unusually warm period on earth
and running late for the next ice age.   But those models failed 100%,
as did the warming models of the 80s and 90s.

>So in the mid to late 1980s, I got the impression that some scientists
>were
>saying that humanity was going to have to go somewhat on faith - to
>gamble
>on addressing the problem before the proof for the problem was 100%
>available, since it was urgent to start working on the problem before
>it
>was too late.

Faith healers used the same non-logic. 

>My sense is that since the 1980s, a lot of prominent scientists have
>come
>to the conclusion that now, we have enough evidence to say global
>climate
>change from CO2 emissions is happening.  

Zero evidence is zero evidence.  That's not enough for me.

>> >But even that's irrelevent. Those industries aren't
>> >> even involved for the most part.  They aren't stupid, they know every
>> >> time they make any claims, the silly ranting starts and unlike those
>> >> groups feeding off tax dollars, the corporations have to keepthe
>> >> consumers happy.
>
>
>You write: "The silly ranting starts ... and the corporations have to
>keep the
>consumers happy."

Yes.

>Is this what's happened with the global tobacco industry over the past
>50 years, William J?  Is this actually what's happened with Microsoft?

Actually, yes!  Do you serously think the tobacco companies started
paying billions to the states out of the goodness of their hearts?
No!  They did it to try and bypass the lawsuits, frivolous ones!
Anyone who smokes since the 1960s knows the danger, and anyone suing
someone else for getting sick is a fraud.  As for Microsoft, why do
you supose they are finally increasing the security of their OS?
Linix isn't a threat to them now, but it's certianly a potential
threat.  If Microsoft were a government org, they'd just ban Linux. 

>The "silly ranting" started - and so Microsoft decided to stop
>bundling its
>own browsers, etc. in with its operating systems, so as to stifle
>criticism
>that it was engaged in monopolistic practices?  

The public wants the browser with it.  I've yet to hear a single
person complain that Windows comes with a browser. 

>No.  The tobacco companies, according to internal documents that have
>been
>uncovered in lawsuits, made a deliberate effort to deny any linkages
>between
>tobacco smoking and cancer.  

Yes, and that was a valid charge. Do what degree it had any affect is
another issue.  I can't imagine anyone since the 60s not being well
aware of the connection without regard to the tobacco companies'
actions. 

>They also found new ways to market
>tobacco to
>kids, when it looked as if their future was in danger.  

That was actually funny.  The ads were never designed to attrack
smokers, it doesn't work and they know it. The ads were and are
designed to promote their brand.  The tobacco companies used to
control a lot of TV shows, game shows regularly required the
celebrities on them to be smoking and their brand, and that perhaps
lead to a few new smokers, but tobacco ads have never been
particularly relevant in doing that. 

>Some of the
>tobacco
>companies funded "consumer" and "public health" groups dedicated to
>publicizing the risks of indoor air pollution ... so as to draw
>attention
>away from cigarette smoke.

There's still no evidence forthe second hand smoke claims. If you want
to see a pretty good exposure of that hoax, pick up a copy of Pennn
and Teller's "Bull Shit".  They aren';t scientists and don't claim to
be, but they are very good at recognizing and exposing scams.  I think
they are picking up James Randi's ball and running with it like Randi
did from Houdini. 

>The industry saw anti-smoking agitation as a threat to its very
>existence,
>in short, and so it fought against negative scientific evidence for as
>long as it could.  Just as Microsoft, as much as possible, has
>generally
>refused to give up sales and engineering practices that many of its
>critics called monopolistic ... because too much was at stake just to
>give in.

Yes, but what does that have to do with science?

>It's the same with most of the big oil, coal, electric utility and
>auto
>companies, isn't it?  If the public decides either because of "junk
>science"
>or good science that CO-2 induced global climate change is a threat,
>and
>if it further decides that the burning of oil and coal is the source
>of
>CO2 emissions that's easiest to fix - the fossil fuel companies are in
>trouble.

That CO2 has increased is science.  That it affects the climate is
junk science.  Public opinion is irrelevant in that regard. Science
isn't about popularity.

>So why wouldn't they fight against the scientific consensus, if it
>means their future profitability - and potentially, their very
>survival?

They would fight when possible if it threatens their profits, of
course. But a dead planet offers no profit potential. 

>Why don't oil and coal companies have exactly the same reasons to
>deny any link between global climate and CO2 emissions that the
>cigarette
>companies had to deny any link between tobacco smoke and cancer?

Because if the science was legit it would be trivially exposed and
likely very quickly in the case of a real threat.  Global warming is a
pretty simple question, eother it's real or it's not, either there is
evidence or there isn't.  For tobacco causing cancer it's not so
simple. The link between smoking and cancer is a statistical one. It's
not quite accurate to say smoking causes cancer, because at the
individuallevel it's never provable. Cancer occurs in populations
without regard to smoking so in any particular case of cancer, you can
never say with any degree of certianty that smoking caused it. You can
point to a population with a number of cases and say that it's likely
that smoking lead to a significant percentage of the cases, but you
cannot know which ones. It would be more accurate to say that smoking
greatly increases the risk for cancer, like motocycle racing without a
helmet increases your risk of brain injury.

>> >This is not true of all corporations.  Depends on how monopolized
>> >their
>> >markets are and how much current demand there is for their products. 
>> 
>> It's ALWAYS true. Even Microsoft is worried about Linux.  Not because
>> Linux has a big marketing plan, but because oin some issues it has
>> proven better.  Linux doesn;t have to be a threat of taking over as
>> the major OS to be that kind of threat.  If only 5% of the users
>> switch to Linux, that costs Microsoft billions of dollars.
>
>William James
>
>
>> >In a world where the past 200 years of industrial development have
>> >made most
>> >people on earth dependent on fossil fuels, and where a handful of huge
>> >companies
>> >control most of the global oil business, corporations like Exxon/Mobil
>> >and
>> >Conoco may NOT "have to keep the consumers happy."  Most people may
>> >hate
>> >Exxon/Mobil, but if most people have SUVs, we're going to buy their
>> >product
>> >anyway.
>> 
>> Actually, the fossil fuels have only been relevant for less than 100
>> years. Even the first cars were designed for alcohol. 
>
>Don't know about the first cars; you may be right here. But the fossil
>fuel
>age began with coal burning, not with petroleum, and was underway 
>long before 100 years ago.

It wasn't significant until the 20th century.

>The petroleum age
>dates from Edwin Drake's first successful oil well at Titusville,
>Pennsylvania
>in 1859 -- about 150 years ago, not 100 years.  Although at first,
>petroleum
>was used mostly to replace whale oil in oil lamps, not as a
>transportation fuel.

True, but the amount burned was meaninless on a global scale.

>Significant coal-burning, however, dates back nearly 300 years, to the
>British iron-smelting industry's shift from charcoal to coke (made
>from coal) in
>its blast furnaces in about 1710.  But even before that, some burning
>of "sea coal" for residential heating, for brick-making, for brewing,
>and I believe for some other industrial uses in England dates back to
>the 1100s or 1200s.

All true.  But until modern factories, cars, electricity production,
and modern mining technology, the amount burned was trivial.

>  But at any
>> time, anyone comming up with a better fuel could have taken a big
>> chunk of the market overnight.  And ANY fuel other than nuclear emits
>> CO2.
>
>All CO2 is not necessarily equal, though, for the purposes of global
>climate.  Life on earth participates in a regular carbon cycle, with
>the
>photosynthetic cells in plants taking in CO2 from the air, mixing it
>with water, and producing sugars in the presence of solar energy.  As
>a waste product, the photosynthetic process gives off oxgyen, which
>goes back into the
>atmosphere.

CO2 is CO2. Some trees are used for lumber, the carbon is not
released.

>The sugars produced by photosynthesis, and the different carbohydrates
>(starch, cellulose, etc.) derived from them, provide plants and
>animals with food.  In metabolizing this food, most living things
>things breathe in oxygen and combine it with various kinds of organic
>carbon to get energy.  As a waste product,
>CO2 is given off - and goes back into the atmosphere.  Where, of
>course, it's
>then available for plants to use in the process of photosynthesis, to
>produce
>more sugars -- more food, more energy for life.

So?

>If you burn a tree, or burn up alcohol made from sugar cane or
>whatever, all
>you're doing is releasing carbon from one phase of the cycle and
>making it
>available to another phase.

So?

>When you extract coal, oil or natural gas from underground, though,
>you're
>basically digging up fossilized carbon that dates from the age of the
>dinosaurs or before.  You're taking carbon that was stored up as the
>result of
>photosynthesis millions of years ago, when the world was much hotter
>and
>the atmosphere was much richer in carbon than it is today, and you're
>letting it out of storage and putting it back into circulation.

So what?  some is used in other things which don't release it.  And
who's claiming that atmosphereic CO2 isn't higher?

>It's mostly this buried carbon, this fossilized carbon from millions
>of years
>in the past that's believed to be producing the global climate change
>today.  And it won't mean the end of all life on earth - but it might
>mean
>the climate moving back in the direction of what it was T. Rex and
>the stegosauruses, etc. were roaming the earth.  A change that won't
>necessarily be very friendly to human civilization as it now exists.  

Then you better cap off the oceans and build some giant dehumidifiers.
Water, not CO2, controls the earth's temperature. 

Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED) Based on
concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics 
 
        % of All Greenhouse Gases   % Natural   % Man-made 
 Water vapor           95.000%        94.999%     0.001%  
 Carbon Dioxide (CO2)   3.618%         3.502%     0.117%  
 Methane (CH4)          0.360%         0.294%     0.066%  
 Nitrous Oxide (N2O)    0.950%         0.903%     0.047%  
 Misc. gases            0.072%         0.025%     0.047%  
 Total                100.000%         99.72%     0.28%  

And that doesn't even begin to cover the state change effects on the
temperature.


>> >Of course, Exxon/Mobil and other companies do spend millions of
>> >dollars on
>> >advertising, and on sponsoring "Masterpiece Theater" on the public
>> >broadcasting
>> >networks, in order to win favor with the public.  And they pay for
>> >public
>> >relations flacks to deny that problems such as global climate change
>> >actually exist -- as you're denying it now.
>> 
>> Oh, be serious!  First of all, the number of people who watch PBS is
>> meaningless. And I happen to be one of them.  Secondly, there are no
>> ads promoting science over the global warming scam during, before, or
>> after "Masterpiece Theater".
>
>Hmm.  I used to see Mobil oil ads debunking environmental thinking
>quite
>regularly when I followed the Wall Street Journal every day.

I've seen them challanges pseudoscience.

>The point of both the WSJ ads and the Mobil Masterpiece Theater on
>PBS,
>I think, is to influence elite opinion - to get people with wealth,
>education
>and professional credentials to think kindly about the oil industry,
>and
>about Exxon/Mobil in particular.  If you want to influence non-elite
>opinion, of course, you probably spend your ad dollars on Rush
>Limbaugh
>or someone like him.  I imagine they do that, too, although I haven't
>researched it.

Mostly the 'ads' on PBS are just PR notes. The companies want a plug
saying "See, we are nice guys, we sponsored this nice show for you."
That's why you see a lot of 'ads' for comaonies like BASF who really
have no consumer products or services to advertise anyway.

>> >> >Entire governments - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, etc. - have the same
>> >> >self-interested reasons for denying the threat of climate change,
>> >> >and some of the leading greenhouse skeptics - not all, but some --
>> >> >are funded by these fossil fuel interests.  So if self-interest
>> >> >is biasing the science in this controversy, why isn't it biasing
>> >> >it on both sides?  
>> >> 
>> >> It's not an argument between equals any more than a scientific
>> >> argument between evolution and creationism.  One side is practicing
>> >> actual science, and the other is making an extraordinary claim without
>> >> ANY evidence, much less the required extraordinary evidence.
>
>You're not writing the truth here. Well, okay, it's a judgment call,
>maybe,
>as to what is the "required extraordinary science."  But it's simply
>not true
>to say that the global climate change researchers are making claims
>"without ANY evidence."  

I didn't say "required extraordinary science." I said "required
extraordinary evidence."  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence.  Global warming is a VERY extraordiry claim!  Yet those
claiming it, expect it to be taken totally on faith without even
moderate evidence.  Nothing but testamonials, just like the
creationists and faith healers.

>As I noted before, they do have a lot of evidence
>that supports their hypothesis, whether or not it totally nails it
>down.

Where is it then?  You and others keep claiming there's evidence, but
you never post it, you just offer claims of a glacier melting or some
other testimonial.  I can offer similar testimonials to "prove"
cooling, like the fact that it's no longer warm enough in Jackson
Mississippi to support the orange groves which thrived there until the
1930s. Or I could offer real hard data, the satellite data which shows
a slight cooling.  Of course the "corrected" data ("corrected" by the
scam peddlers because it failed to match their preformed conclusions)
is claimed to support warming, but what does that tell you?  What does
it say about their methods when their only explanation for the
"correction" being necesary if such gross incompetence that they
didn't even know what they were measuring until the data didn't match
what they wanted to find? 

>Evidence about average CO2 concentrations, 

That's real!  But it's not evidence of warming.

>evidence about rising
>average
>sea levels, 

None. Just testimonials.

>evidence about Antarctic ice sheet breakups, evidence
>about glaciers retreating around the world, 

Testamonials.  In fact, one of the posters used by the scam org
Greenpeace to peddle the scam shows a before and after photo of a
massive glacier retreat. The  photos were actually taken in the 1920s.
It's a fraud. 

>evidence about birds and
>insects
>celebrating "spring" earlier, evidence about sharply rising
>temperatures
>in the Arctic and in part of the Antarctic ...

Testamonials again.

>  Unless
>> >> and until there is supporting evidence for global warming, it's no
>> >> different from any other wild unsupported claim.
>> >
>> >I'm not a professional scientist, but the professional scientists that
>> >I've interviewed on this issue in my checkered life as a reporter tell
>> >me that you're wrong here.  My professors at the School of Natural
>> >Resources
>> >at the University of Michigan in 1970 said the same thing - that in
>> >fact,
>> >there's a LOT of scientific evidence for "greenhouse" warming.
>> 
>> Do you take the same position regarding the tobacco companies'
>> "scientists" claims regarding tobacco?  If not, why not? 
>
>As I indicated before, it seems to me that the greenhouse denialists
>are a lot like the tobacco industry's scientists who kept denying
>evidence
>for a connection between tobacco smoking and cancer.  I think your
>side
>resembles the tobacco company scientists, William J.  I think my side
>is trying to get at the truth.

The path to the truth is the scientific method. The "greenhouse
denialists" are the same people who deny creationism, faith healing,
physics, space alien abductions, etc.  All have the same demand for
evidence before being taken seriously, and those peddling each of them
can offer appropriate evidence at any time to make the denialists
become advocates.  I will not accept your extraordiry claims without
evidence any more than anyone else's.

>> So far, NO ONE has managed to produce a single piece of evidence to
>> support the global warming scam. Feel free to post it if you have
>> some.
>> 
>> >Wm James, you've got your mind made up on this, and there's no
>> >changing it,
>> >apparently.  But anyone else reading this post, who's curious about
>> >the issues,
>> >should look at US National Academy of Sciences reports on global
>> >climate
>> >dating from the 1980s.
>
>
>
>
>> Follow the money.  Post the data if you have it because they wont!
>
>I don't have the energy right now to chase down the links I need,
>and besides Roger Coppock and David Ball do better at explaining the
>science than I do.

Then let them.

>As for what you write about the satellite data below, I think you're
>wrong, but I know this was an issue up until recently.  I don't
>believe
>it is anymore.  But I'm not an expert on satellite monitoring, so
>I admit I'm taking some of the current explanation for the satellite
>data on faith.

I know something about sattelite data, and about the scientific
method.  And group claiming to be doing anything relating to science
who can't corelate their measurmments to location and account for the
time of day is far too grossley incompentent to be taken seriously.
The fact they they had to come up with something so rediculous and so
exposing their incompetence as the only excuse to alter their data to
make it fit their pre-formed conclusions says enough.

>Judging from the harsh rhetoric you use below, though, I wouldn't
>take anything you said on faith.  Except directions to the nearest
>Exxon/Mobil station or SUV showroom, maybe.  The case
>for global climate change is one which scientists working firmly
>within
>the western tradition have been piecing together since Nobel prize
>winner Svante Arrehnius first hypothesize the "greenhouse" effect more
>tha
>100 years ago.  

I'd never ask anyone to take what I say on faith. Check it, recheck
it, and check it again.  But what I say doesn't even matter. What
matters is the totally blank list of evidence to support the global
warming scam. I'm not claiming evidence to the contrary, the satellite
data shows a slight cooling but too insignificant to be relevant.  My
point is hat the party making the extraordinary claim has to show the
evidence. 

>There have been some respectable, honest, professionally
>qualified researchers - Richard Lindzen from MIT being the most
>prominent,
>probably - who have questioned the case over the past century.  But to
>compare the case for global climate change to the case for psychic
>readings
>and creationism, as you do, is to engage in intellectual gutter talk.
>It's
>to demonstrate that your mind is completely closed, or that you have a
>vested
>interest in skewing the debate over the issue.

There is no debate!  It's not subjective!  Either there is evidence or
there isn't. So far, there isn't.  Is my mind closed to pseudoscience?
Yes!  It certianly is!  But to science, it's wide open.  You can make
a believer of me at any time if you have evidence to support your
claim. 

>I think you're like the Church-affiliated scholars of Galileo's time
>who "knew" that the earth simply couldn't revolve around the sun,
>William J.  But obviously nothing I write here will convince you.
>Let's see what the climatological evidence shows about this evidence
>over the next decade.

Quite the contrary.  It's not me who is demanding faith.  Those
peddling the scam are like Galileo claiming a big juggling clown
standing on top of Jupiter but not letting anyone look through the
telescope to see.

>> But you are right that my mind is made up.  I respect the scientific
>> method. I have my mind made up to ignore testimonials and other
>> non-evidence.  I make the same offer to all scam peddlers, whether
>> they are selling global warming, creationism, physhic readings,
>> scientology, faith healing, holistic medicine, etc.... Show your
>> evidence and I'll take it seriously. Until then, not a chance. 
>> 
>> >There are some apparent anomalies in the scientific record,
>> >admittedly.
>> >During the mid-1900s there was a global cooling trend even as global
>> >CO2
>> >levels were rising, and at one time climate researchers thought this
>> >was
>> >pointing away from the "greenhouse" hypothesis.  
>> 
>> There has been another coling shown by the data in the last 30 years.
>> Not significant, but the satellite data shows a slight cooling, NOT
>> warming.  When I first heard their attempts to explain it away with
>> "orbital degradation", I laughed because the usual degradation of
>> satellites is caused by atmospheric drag, and lower elevations would
>> increase the readings, not drcrease them. Then I read their full
>> explanations and really got a chuckle!  The satellites are in polar
>> orbit, and theu claim is that the satellites drifted in longitude.
>> That means either:
>> A) They are too incompetent to have compensated for that extremely
>> obvious factor affecting EVERY polar orbit.
>> B) They are too incompetent to check their own measurements to see
>> where and what they are measuring.
>> 
>> Either way they are either claiming they are too incompetent to make
>> ANY scientific claims, or that they are frauds.  In neither case are
>> then worthy of serious attention.
>> 
>> >Now many or most climate
>> >researchers believe that several big volcanic eruptions, by putting
>> >countless
>> >fine particles in the upper atmosphere that blocked incoming solar
>> >energy
>> >or reflected it back into space, temporarily masked the bigger process
>> >of
>> >CO2-induced warming that was underway.
>> 
>> They can't seem to recognize the difference between volcanic events
>> and clouds. Any idiot with a shred of credentians should knw the vast
>> difference between the effects of black and white clouds, and between
>> particulates and water condensation.
>> 
>> >There's also been a fair amount of debate, led by Richard Lindzen of
>> >MIT, about the likely impacts of water vapor and cloud formation on
>> >global climate.  Lindzen was arguing at one point that the added cloud
>> >formation likely to result from greenhouse warming would be a negative
>> >feedback mechanism that would cause a cooling effect, effectively
>> >keeping
>> >the global average temperature stabilized, or close to it.
>> 
>> He was right.  But that point has been totally ignored because there's
>> no money or politcal fodder in it.
>> 
>> >But global climate change is no longer a "wild hypothesis," as you
>> >claim.  You're either willfully ignorant here, or -- uh -
>> >"disengenous."
>> 
>> So show some evidence!  Either ther is evidence or it's a wild and
>> goofy BS hypothesis, and belongs in the same catagory with faith
>> healing.
>
>Thoreau wrote somewhere in Walden:  "Sometimes circumstantial evidence
>can be overwhelming, as when you find a trout in the milk."

Thoreau was hardly a scientist.  Had he been, perhaps he would have
discovered something more interesting at Walden than laziness. :)

>I think most scientists, when pressed, would say that it's "only" 
>circumstantial evidence that the hottest years of the past 120 years
>of climate measurement have mostly occurred within the past 15 years.

No, we have had some unusal solar activity in recent years. But the
most plausable explanation for the claim of the hottest years recently
is the fact that human construction has intruded on the sensors. The
satellite data is immune from that and shows no such warming. 

>And that it's "only" circumstantial evidence that the Antarctic ice
>sheet is starting to break up, just as the greenhouse warming
>hypothesis
>says it will.  

In case you hadn't noticed, all glaciers which reach the sea break up.

>And that glaciers around the world are melting and
>retreating.

Smeare, some aren't, nothing unusual.

>And that spring seems to be coming significantly earlier in England
>now,
>and that "anomalous" weather events may be on the increase, from
>Florida
>to Japan, from Australia to Western Europe, from South Africa to
>Alaska.

Testamonials.

>It's only circumstantial evidence, I think.  But increasingly, it's
>looking
>like the trout in the milk.  

Looks more like Greenpeace put a trout in the milk and wants to claim
the world is ending.
 
>> >> >And why aren't the hundreds of billions of dollars
>> >> >that governments and corporations have invested in fossil fuels
>> >> >an even greater incentive for bias than the hundreds of thousands
>> >> >of dollars that the global warming believers are getting for their
>> >> >computer models?
>> >> 
>> >> Even if you assume someone would be biased toward suicide, what if
>> >> they were?  Who cares?  Who's even talking to them about it or
>> >> listening to them? I keep hearing about these "big corporate
>> >> scientists" disputing the global warming scam, but where are they?
>> >> Seems to me the big corporations don't want to get involved because
>> >> it's a hot potato.
>> >
>> >Wrong.
>> 
>> No, right!
>> 
>> >Until recently, anyway, a number of the biggest corporate interests
>> >in the fossil fuel industry and the auto industry were supporting
>> >something
>> >called the "Global Climate Coalition," which was dedicated to refuting
>> >the global climate change hypothesis.  Several of these giant
>> >corporations
>> >have now left the Global Climate Coalition as the evidence for climate
>> >change keeps getting better and better. 
>> 
>> No, as the BS get's thicker and deeper.
>
>The biggest and most powerful corporations in the world are afraid
>of "BS," so afraid of it that they're abandoning a corporate
>information/disinformation campaign - whatever you want to call it --
>that's
>protecting investments worth hundreds of billions of dollars to them?
>
>I don't think so, WJ.

Corporations certianly do fear BS.  They get sued for BS every day.
Look at the massive amount paid out on the silicon implant scam with
not a shred of basis in fact. The tobacco companies are another
example.  Many of John Edward's cases were based entirely on
pseudoscience BS.

>Then there's corporate support for rightwing think tanks in the US,
>think tanks like the Cato Institute (libertarian, anti-regulatory),
>the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. 
>Environmental
>journalists are beginning to uncover ties between these
>greenhouse-denying
>groups and a particular American energy company called Koch
>Industries,
>among other energy companies.  I don't have the details on Koch; other
>people in this talk group would be only too eager to give you details,
>I'm sure.  

So what?  Why are those peddling the scam afraid of simple demands for
evidence?

>But in any case, there continues to be quite a lot of corporate
>involvement in the global climate/greenhouse effect debate. 

Of course!  Like many other pseudoscience scams, it could cost them
billions.  That doesn't make it real!
 
>> >Why would big corporations NOT want to get involved "because it's a
>> >hot
>> >potato,"  William J? 
>> 
>> Because it's bad for business to give those campaigning against you
>> any press.  If Exxon started runing commercials today stating the
>> facts the kooks would be organized and picketing tomorrow. The last
>> thing they want is negite attention, even when they are right.  And
>> what would they gain?  It's not like the kooks are going to get people
>> to buy those mythological water powered cars.
>
>Define "kooks."  Isn't a "kook" simply someone whose ideas you
>dislike, and who you don't want to have any credibility?  So you call
>me a "kook," and I call you a "kook."  And nothing is proven either
>way.

kook
n. Slang
 A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy.
[Possibly from cuckoo.]
Source: The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
 
By definition, anyone peddling pseudoscience is a kook.

>> >It's THEIR hot potato, isn't it?  
>> 
>> No, it's not.
>> 
>> >It's an issue that could cost them
>> >enormous amounts of money if the US government decides to begin
>> >regulating
>> >sources of CO2-induced cliamte change - SUVs, coal-burning electric
>> >utilities, West Virginia and Wyoming coal mines, Texas and Oklahoma
>> >oil companies. 
>> 
>> The US govbernment isn't likely to start regulating based on the BS.
>> The polititians like;ly will continue pandering to the kooks, but only
>> because of the votes and lobbiest cash involved. 
>
>The lobbyist cash?  

Yes.

>I can't imagine that if you combined all of the American environmental
>groups together, they've have a tenth as much lobbyist cash
>as the combined forces of the coal industry, the auto industry, the
>governments of Indonesia, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, the Emirate of
>Kuwait, the coal-fired electric utility industry, and the big Detroit
>automakers who manufacture SUVs.

Do you seriously think Detroit makes cars and then tells the public
what to want?  They make what people are willing to buy, and sometimes
they screw up. They screwed up bad in the 70s and nobody wanted what
they were making.  They make SUVs because people want SUVs.  If people
wanted little two cylinder tin cans, that's what the auto industry
would make.

>Admittedly, all of the environmental "kooks" together might have
>more political credibility, and maybe even more grass-roots support,
>than the lobbyists for the coal, oil, auto and utility industries. 
>But more
>lobbying cash, more potential for campaign contributions?  No.

You miss the point.  The various kook groups do work soemwhat
together, and for the same thing: Government regulations.  They
regulated the family station wagon virtually out of existance. People
who wanted bigger safer cars got stuck buying SUVs which were heavy
enough to be considered trucks because tha auto industry can't make a
station wagon and meet the regs of they sell too many of those and not
enough tin cans. 

>> >The issue of global climate change also could cost many of these
>> >giant corporations consumers, and markets -- markets for coal, oil,
>> >coal-fired electricity, and gas-guzzling automobiles -- over the long
>> >term, if the public gets sufficiently concerned.
>> 
>> In case you didn't notice, neither Ford, GM, or AM is in the oil
>> business. If they could build a car that ran on sewage, they would do
>> it. 
>
>They do have billions of dollars invested in machine tools, production
>lines and advertising campaigns that are oriented towards production
>and
>sales of big gas-guzzling cars like SUVS.  Their engineers and
>designers
>have a lot of professional experience invested in the internal
>combustion
>engine, too.

Oh come one!  They retool every few years.  If there was a ig market
for something new, theid glady retool to make it.

>But they are, reluctantly, beginning to edge towards the production
>of electric hybrid vehicles.

Reluctantly?  The are reluctant to spend billions developing something
people wont buy. If the hybrid does well, they will make more like it.
 
>> >So why would sensible, sane, profit-oriented corporate CEOs avoid
>> >this particular "hot potato," William?  You're not making any sense.
>> 
>> See above. It's bad business.
>
>It isn't bad business so long as there are enough people like you
>around,
>William, to deny that global climate change is a problem and that, if
>it
>is, CO2 emissions by American industry have anything to do with it.

I deny any extraordiary claims absent any evidence. 

>If the fossil fuel industry can keep most of the public and the
>politicians
>from questioning fossil fuels and the machines that depend on them,
>then
>there isn't any problem - not for their profits and their employees
>and their stockholders. Global climate change may end up drowning half
>of Bangladesh
>or destroying the economic viability of Florida .. but if you can
>convince
>50% or 70% of the American public that there's no problem, then it
>ISN'T
>"bad business."

First, evidence to back your claim.  THEN expect it to be taken
seriously. 

>> >> >(2) You also write that the secret agenda of the Kyoto Treaty backers
>> >> >is to weaken the West and help Third World dictatorships.  
>> >> 
>> >> Well...it's hardly a secret. 
>> >
>> >Bullcrap, William James.
>> >
>> >The people who framed the Kyoto Treaty made big concessions to China
>> >because they didn't want the Chinese govt to kill the deal.  
>> 
>> Like I said...  It's hardly a secret.
>> 
>> >Without special concessions for the Third World, the Third World 
>> >governments -- backed, in all likelihood, by many Western energy
>> >and auto companies -- would moan and cry about how any effort to
>> >control fossil fuel use would only keep the poor of the world in
>> >poverty, while rich Europeans and Americans benefited.
>> 
>> No, the third world dictators want US tax dollars. 
>> 
>> >So the treaty backers put in a provision to say, hey, we're not trying
>> >to bankrupt the Third World; we'll let you keep growing while the
>> >West makes the biggest changes first, because the West has
>> >historically
>> >created most of the CO2 problem.  
>> >
>> >Now that the provision is in there,
>> >of course, "greenhouse denialists" like you are claiming it's this
>> >huge anti-Western plot ... The point being that environmentalists
>> >hoping to head off global climate disaster are damned politically
>> >if they go one way, and damned politically if they go another.
>> 
>> The treaty would do squat to reduce CO2 emmissions. It would make US
>> power cmpanies pay the tird world dictators for the "right" to burn
>> fuel.  The dictators aren't emmitting CO2, they don't care if their
>> slaves have power. So they would sell their "credits" to american
>> power companies so they could supply power to US consumers. 
>
>This is a really simplistic picture of what's going on in places
>like China, but it's late and I'm too tired to comment on it right
>now.

Kyoto exempts China.

>However, you're kind of talking in cartoons here.  If you were an evil
>Third World dictator, wouldn't you want your "slaves" to have power,
>so that they could compete in industrial production with the West?
>So that you, the dictator, could keep a grip on potential political
>opponents and get big bucks from taxing your own industry?

No.  Third world dictators rely on hungry, ignorant, and desparate
slaves to prop them up. Well fed and educated populations make poor
slaves. They are a threat to a dictator.  But even if I were such a
third world dictator and wanted my slaves to have power, I'd be exempt
from Kyoto until I reached some level of emmissions (unless I was
communist china) and I'd rake in american cash to fund my
construction. And that would lead to MORE CO2, not less as the Kyoto
scam is supposed to be intended.


>> >> >Why?  What on earth would be the motivation for western
>> >> >(and especially US) environmental lobbyists and writers to try to 
>> >> >do this?
>> >> 
>> >> Politics.  If a democrat were president Kyoto wouldn't be an issue to
>> >> any but the most extreme suckers in the global warming scam.
>> >
>> >I agree that electing a Democrat won't end US resistance to Kyoto. 
>> >Regardless
>> >of what Kerry feels about the issue, there are lots of coal-state and
>> >oil-state Democrats in the Senate, and they're not going to be
>> >enthusiastic
>> >about a treaty that hurts their corporate backers.
>> 
>> Barely relevant if at all.
>> 
>> >But the environmental lobbyists who have to work the halls of the
>> >Republican-dominated Congress, and who have to deal with the coal and
>> >oil
>> >state Democrats when the Dems control Congress, have no motive at all
>> >for handling this particular hot potato.  Except, that is, the
>> >continued health of the planet.
>> 
>> The health of the planet has NOTHING to do with it. It's a scam.
>
>You say it's a scam, William.  Again and again.  And more and
>more, people even in the middle of the spectrum disagree.  

It matters not who or how many agree. The truth is not subject to
opinion.  The truth is the truth even if everyone disagrees. 

>BUSINESS
>WEEK is now talking as if global climate change isn't a scam. Ditto
>the new CEO of British Petroleum.  Ditto many of the large insurance
>companies.  Ditto John McCain.  Ditto the business-backed Conference
>Board.  Ditto top scientists working at laboratories run by the
>US Commerce Department, which is hardly a bastion of "green" and
>kooky environmental thinking.

Actually, it is.  Like any government department, their primary goal
is always next years funding.

>> >Almost any environmental issue you want to name, except maybe
>> >population
>> >growth, would be easier for the US environmental lobby to handle than
>> >this one.  This doesn't PROVE that the Green lobbyists are sincere
>> >and well-informed, of course.  But it does indicate that unless they
>> >have some kind of death wish, they're doing this out of conviction,
>> >because they're sure that it has to be done.
>> 
>> They are "sure" of a lot of BS which don't match reality.
>> 
>> >> >"We're pushing this political
>> >> >issue -- which we know will be unpopular in the US Congress and
>> >> >among all of the oil states in the South, not to mention unpopular
>> >> >with the Saudis, Iranians, Iraqis, Venezuelans, Nigerians, Indonesians,
>> >> >Alaskans, and everyone else involved in oil production -- because we 
>> >> >want to help the Chinese, whom we don't know."  
>> >> >
>> >> >This is stupid politics, isn't it?  I mean, it's the
>> >> >politics that the Kyoto treaty believers are in a sense forced to
>> >> >embrace, because they don't have a lot of alternatives, but it's
>> >> >a very hard sell in Washington DC, which is where the Kyoto Treaty
>> >> >backers have to prevail.  And why would sensible lobbyists, scientists
>> >> >etc. deliberately choose to do something that's as difficult as
>> >> >possible - unless they feel they have to, for scientific and policy
>> >> >reasons?
>> >> 
>> >> Money, politics, and ignorance. It's different from different people
>> >> involved.  There are some peddling it with scientific credentials.
>> >> They obviously know it's not science, therefore they are frauds, not
>> >> scientists, but they live on tax handouts and that's their scam.
>> >
>> >Hmm.  Unlike the scientists who are skeptical about global cliamte
>> >change,
>> >and who are living on corporate handouts.  It's only the scientists
>> >who are hired by the government who can be biased, apparently ...
>> >do you really believe this, William?
>> 
>> I haven't even mentioned the tiny insignificant few corporate paid
>> scientists other than to point out the fact they they aren't even
>> relevant.  My point is that the handfull of scam peddlers pushing the
>> global warming scam are far from anything remotely resenbling the
>> scientific community and are virtualy universally paid with tax
>> dollars to peddle the scam.
>
>A final question from you, WJ, and then I really do need to go get
>some sleep.  IF you're right about the scientists who believe in
>global climate change practicing a "scam," and IF you're right about
>their doing this on "dollars" -- well, why are various governments
>providing them with those tax dollars?

Simple!  The same reason failing schools always want more money, the
same reason the food stamp program runs ads for more bums to come in
and sign up.  Government programs are rarely and barely accountable to
anyone. They lose funding next year if they have anything left over
this year. They justify their existance and their budgets by blowing
whatever they can get.  When have you ever hears of ANY government
agency putting itself out of business, or requesting a lower budget?

>The British government, for example.  They have access to North Sea
>oil.  Oil has been a big money-earner for the British economy, and
>before
>that Britain essentially created the Industrial Revolution on the
>basis of widespread coal production and coal consumption.

Yep.  Before that they used trees and nearly wiped out a lot of
forrests.  The Pilgrims came to the new world to make glass because of
the wood shortage in England.

>The British government ought to have an interest in using tax dollars
>to deny the reality of global climate change, shouldn't it?  Unless
>the
>threat is real, and Tony Blair and Co. are worried about rising sea
>levels wiping out parts of London?

Government falls for scams easier than even a gillible public.  But
end of the world scams are great excuses for governments to incrase
their own power.

>The United States government. Most of the world's largest oil
>companies
>are US owned; the US with 4% of the world's population is now
>consuming
>24% of the petroleum produced each year.  

So?  That 4% also feeds much of the world and protects the free world
with much of that petroleum.

>The current White House
>has strong ties to the oil industry; 

So did the last one.  Al Gore was far more invested in big oil than
Bush ever was. 

>when the Democrats still
>controlled
>the Senate, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee was Sen.
>Robert Byrd of West Virginia - a big coal state.  

Yeah, the only card carrying Klansman in the congress.  He's also
spent his career getting building and streets and everything else
named after himself.  The Robert C. Byrd Highway; the Robert C. Byrd
Locks and Dam; the Robert C. Byrd Institute; the Robert C. Byrd Life
Long Learning Center; the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Program;
the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope; the Robert C. Byrd Institute
for Advanced Flexible Manufacturing; the Robert C. Byrd Federal
Courthouse; the Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center; the Robert C.
Byrd Academic and Technology Center; the Robert C. Byrd United
Technical Center; the Robert C. Byrd Federal Building; the Robert C.
Byrd Drive; the Robert C. Byrd Hilltop Office Complex; the Robert C.
Byrd Library; the Robert C. Byrd Learning Resource Center; the Robert
C. Byrd Rural Health Center.
He's a cartoon character. :)

>The chairman of the
>House Committee on Energy and Commerce was Democratic congressman
>John Dingell of Michigan - a man whose wife used to be a lobbyist for
>General Motors. 

Another congressional scammer. 


>The US government, in short, tends to be strongly influenced by the
>energy industries, under both Republican and Democratic leadership.
>And we're not even talking about President Lyndon Johnson and the oil
>state ties he brought to the White House in the 1960s ...

True, but don't you think it's somewhat appropriate since energy
stocks are perhaps the most heavily invested-in of all the stocks?
Virtually every person in the US with a 401k or any other retirement
fund is an energy stock owner in some capacity.  Of course there's an
influence!

>So what interest does the US government have in financing scientists
>who are spreading doubt about fossil fuels - unless what the
>scientists
>are claiming is plausible?

Political power. Any excuse to regulate is an excuse for every
politicianto grab more power. 

>You write about "tax supported scientists" and "tax dollars" as if
>this were some kind of explanation of anti-oil and anti-coal bias,
>WJ.  But it's not.

No, I simply noted the fact that those living off tax dollars make
their money by finding a need for more tax dollars and they are
generally not accountable. 

>What sense to make of your argument, then?  Well, aren't you really
>assuming that if these wicked scientific scam artists, these "bad"
>green alarmists, were working for private industry in this country, 
>private industry would cut their funding off unless they came up with
>pro-oil, pro-coal, and pro-utility conclusions?

YES!  That's the point! When the tobacco companies' "scientists"
claimed no link between cancer and smoking, the problem with their
credibility was obvious to everyone!  When some org living off tax
dollars makes unfounded claims the public buys it as if it's somehow
different. 

>And that you despise scientists who receive "tax dollars," mostly
>because these tax dollars give the scientists the intellectual
>freedom to speak the truth?

Not at all.  I do not despise scientists.  I desise pseudoscience
peddling scammers. As for the tax dollars, there are some legitmate
science projects which I don't think government should be involved in,
but that's an unrelated issue.  The scammers taking tax dollars and
not doing science are frauds and should be prosecuted and sent to
prison.  

Scientists don't need tax dollars to speak the truth. What are you
talking about?   What does intellectual freedom to speak the truth
have to do with tax dollars?

William R. James