[Breakable]

Also I would love to ask exactly what are you skeptical of msmith?

[Breakable]

I also wonder where would the cosmic rays be on this chart?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

[Breakable]

“Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame of Physics,” International Journal of Modern Physics B, v23, n03, January 6, 2009, pp. 275-364. Free download at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf.

http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S021797921005555X.html
In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.1 Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed. Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption. This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s other errors and misunderstandings.

What to do next:
1)Post the next paper which claims to have fully refuted the GW (silver bullet mentality);
2)Try some FUD instead by attacking the uncertainties of GW process (muddling the waters);
3)Plaster the current refuted paper all over the forums yet again and again. and again (persistence wins in the end);
4)Have some doubts (The ILLUMINATES will win!!!)

PS:If you are claiming some credentials (a degree in Physics), you might want to prove them, otherwise its empty claim, because we cant verify.

[Breakable]

I don’t mind any alternative explanations as long as they conform to science. Still co2 forcing is well established where cosmic rays are not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark#Debate_and_controversy

[Breakable]

msmith wrote: http://www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news.org/ClimateConference4

About the sun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Do7TZWV1g

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#Funding
Oil companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute.[9] ExxonMobil contributed a total of $560,000 between 1998 and 2005.[10] This included $119,000 in 2005, ExxonMobil’s largest gift to Heartland in that period. Nearly 40% of funds from ExxonMobil were specifically designated for climate change projects.[11] Greenpeace research showed that the Heartland Institute had received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute#Tobacco
The Institute has been actively involved in debate over tobacco policy, opposing restrictions on smoking and criticizing science which documents the harms of secondhand smoke.[23] Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights reported that there is a the close financial and organizational relationship between the tobacco industry and the Heartland Institute, and described the Heartland Institute as “an active partner of the tobacco industry”.[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute#Global_warming
Heartland’s publications make the following assertions about climate change:
* “Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.”[17]
* “The most reliable temperature data show no global warming trend.”[17]
* “A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.”[17]
* “The best strategy to pursue is one of ‘no regrets’.”[17]

If you want some actual information, instead of lies have been debunked long time ago and are repeated over and over again, watch uploads from:
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

[Breakable]

Phil’s Dad wrote: …
Worse still, people only go looking for such “suspect” associations, or “character flaws” if they disagree with the conclusions of the work and are less rigorous if it supports their predetermined views. Human nature.

I agree this is not the best approach, still I wonder what is the false positive/false negative turnout in this situation.
Hopefully the singularity that will start after FF will free enough resources, so that we can achieve an intellectual golden age.

[Breakable]

Phil’s Dad wrote:
Pure logic would say the two things are unrelated but I would agree with the spirit of what is implied by the question. You would certainly be justified in checking their work very carefully. However, many scientists have been attacked simply for being associated with a body that has an apparent vested interest in the outcome of the research. The problem then arises that everyone in the field of climate research has a vested interest in the field of climate research maintaining its high profile – and funding. What is source for the goose…

There should be a difference in personal integrity if you are being paid to investigate something or to distort, obfuscate and form an opinion about something.
Everyone in any field of research can be pressured to produce fake results, and there is history of it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science
But what happens when the truth comes out… Would you believe every scientist in a field would risk such an outcome?

[Breakable]

Phil’s Dad wrote: … http://liberalpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Conservapedia) …

Just to be clear, this is link is in the Humor section of wikia, same as
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/
where the
http://www.conservapedia.com
is serious.

[Breakable]

Phil’s Dad wrote:
This is probably true (try this for example http://liberalpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Conservapedia) which makes argumentum ad hominem all the more pointless.
As Wiki says (so it must be true) “The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.”
Perhaps we can avoid it on this site, have faith in their motives and concentrate on discussing their work(s) instead.

Pointing out potential bias or character flaws that are related to issue should not be “Ad hominem”.
If somebody is caught lying about their credentials, could you believe their research is valid?

It would probably be nice to avoid all the logical fallacies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
as well as cognitive biases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
in any intelligent discussion.

Some people have a really strong opinion
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/
and nothing can persuade them.

Other people are pretending to care about something, while really just jerking around:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

There are huge amounts of lies, misinformation and propaganda on the internet about every controversial issue and people don’t learn in school how to evaluate the information critically or how to keep an open mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

So the result is most of population is contaminated with nonsense, which reaps its toll:
http://coolrain44.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/this-sign-has-sharp-edges1.jpg

[Breakable]

Actually aluminum foil is pretty transparent by itself, put it against a lamp and you will see.

[Breakable]

Rezwan wrote: Breakable! Cypress? Random. What’s it like?

Also, for all you travelers out there, http://www.couchsurfing.org/ will take you off the hotel grid.

Actually I am originally from Lithuania. The people are pretty friendly in Cyprus (much friendlier than Lithuania 😀 ),
the climate is too hot in the summer, some interesting old structures can be found in the Country.

[Breakable]

Co2 effect discovered, GW theory produced much earlier than the effect was seen so in the beginning progressive.
Modeling started at a similar time when co2 forcing came in effect so it is hard to say.

[Breakable]

Phil’s Dad wrote:
There must be very little that is non-refuted in the GW Skeptics vs Scientific Concensus space

Shish – he probably does not know… 😉

Phil’s Dad wrote:
Try http://shillwatch.wordpress.com/. They examine left-leaning as well as right-leaning set ups. (They have a nice exposure of Sourcewatch for example)

Everyone probably has an exposure of everybody else (or will), so you have to go on faith sooner or later.
I really cant dedicate my life to analyze all of
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

[Breakable]

Phil’s Dad wrote: Then you must have faith in the decision makers.

Is faith enough or some praying should be included ? 🙄

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote:
Such “aid” has a proven and totally predictable history of ending up mostly monetized in the pockets of the local Big Man and Friends. Further, it takes many years for such initiatives to reach any sizable portion of the population. Meanwhile, they start dying. Theoretically, at some point the declining surviving population curve meets the slowly rising “delivered aid” curve and things stabilize.

But even such a Machiavellian approach misses the point. The “harm” that was predicted to be done by the CO2 generation prevented was minuscule by comparison with the death its prevention causes.

Not to mention that the “harm” is not just theoretical, but imaginary. Warm periods of recorded and paleo-history have been boom times. Ask the Ice Man, Romans, Vikings, and Medieval Warm Period (and Renaissance) inhabitants.

I don’t actually care which approach or principles Africa wants to use – they are small pocket change compared to developed countries.
Still probably distributing portable devices such as wind-turbines, solar panels or wind-belts should be faster than building a coal powered plant with a distribution, measuring and billing network.

Brian H wrote:
Not to mention that the “harm” is not just theoretical, but imaginary. Warm periods of recorded and paleo-history have been boom times. Ask the Ice Man, Romans, Vikings, and Medieval Warm Period (and Renaissance) inhabitants.

If there is no such thing as global warming there is no need to disprove its effects.
If the historic data is unreliable how do we know what was the climate for Ice Man or others?
Still it is pretty interesting as there a only rainbows and flowers sticking from every statement that is supporting GW.
From my point of view a Cyprus summer is pretty hot ~40c. If you were living here, you might change your mind about wanting a warmer climate.
And btw green-illuminates have faked up some models that predict warming will not be so beneficial for plants, so probably Africa will get more rocky than green if we wont submit our freedoms immediately.

[Author]

Posts