From:Canada Free Press
By Dirck T. Hartmann Thursday, July 3, 2008
(Editor’s Note: To many in the know, Dirck T. Hartmann, who worked on the Apollo Space Program and many other significant NASA projects, was a fighter pilot in WWII, flying P38s. So when this gifted scientist/engineer/physicist and 87-year-old hero felt compelled to answer the questions of Man Made Global Warming, not only his son and grandchildren knew he had something to say with factual substance, truth and knowledge. What he has to say is clear and concise and should be read by everyone.)
What is your carbon footprint? That is the wrong question to ask. A more meaningful question is–How much carbon dioxide does it take to grow the wheat required to produce a loaf of bread? Or–How much carbon dioxide does it take to grow the corn for the chicken feed required to produce a dozen eggs?
Far from being a pollutant, man along with every animal on land, fish in the sea, and bird in the air is totally dependent on atmospheric carbon dioxide for his food supply.
Some politicians complain that the United States with only 3% of the world population uses 25% of the energy. But the clean carbon dioxide which we produce is increasing food production everywhere on earth. China, on the other hand, is building new power plants at a record rate using the abundant domestic supply of coal they have and has now passed the United States as the leading producer of carbon dioxide. Although their coal has a high sulfur content, they are building the new plants without any pollution controls. The sulfur dioxide which these power plants are releasing to the atmosphere, besides smelling like rotten eggs is, in sunlight, readily converted to sulfur trioxide, the highly solublegas responsible for most acid rain.
Photosynthesis is the process by which plants, using energy from sunlight, convert carbon dioxide and water into high energy fuels. It is responsible for all the fuel that feeds forest fires, and for the rapid grow-back of fuel after a fire. But even with the hundreds of millions of tons of coal and the billions of barrels of oil and gasoline that are burned annually, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere remains about .04%.
It has been estimated that more than two hundred billion tons of atmospheric carbon are fixed yearly by photosynthesis, 10%to 20% by land plants, and the remaining 80%to 90% by plant plankton and algae in the ocean, which constantly resupply us with oxygen. Atmospheric carbon dioxide acts like a thermostat for plant growth, increases triggering vast blooms of ocean algae, and spurts in the rate of growth of land plants. As long as man burns coal and oil responsibly, that is with pollution controls that minimize the production of acid rain, the earth can never have too much carbon dioxide. The plants will not permit it.
Anyone who has lived in a desert area where the relative humidity is frequently below 5%, knows that dry air is a lousy green house gas. It can be 115 degrees F (46 degrees C) during the day yet cool off so rapidly that a sweater is needed two or three hours after sunset. Despite the heat sink of the ground with rocks hot enough to fry an egg, the heat is radiated rapidly away through the dry air to the clear night sky. Since dry desert air has about the same .04% concentration of carbon dioxide as air everywhere else, it is not credible to conclude that carbon dioxide is causing global warming
Water vapor is the most effective greenhouse gas by far With high humidity, even without cloud cover, the night air cools at a rate so slow as to be nearly imperceptible, particularly if you are trying to sleep without air conditioning.
High humidity is the reason nights are so balmy in the tropics. At 100 degrees F and 100% relative humidity, water vapor accounts for only 2% of the atmosphere. It has a greater effect than all other greenhouse gases combined but, since it cannot be regulated, is rarely mentioned as a greenhouse gas.
If human activity is not the cause, why are the ice sheets on the earth poles receding? They are melting for the same reason that the polar caps on Mars are melting. For the 200 years or so that a record of sun spot activity has been kept, it has been observed that global temperatures on earth correlate closely with sun spot activity,very low activity corresponding to a mini ice age, and high activity to global warming.
Every second the sun converts 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium, consuming its mass at the rate of 4 million tons per second. It has been doing this for 4.5 billion years and has about 4.5 billion years to go before all its hydrogen is used up. At that time it will have consumed less than 1% of its mass. This enormous solar furnace is responsible for climate change as well as all weather on earth.
The U.S. has a domestic supply of coal that is alone sufficient to meet our present power needs and projections for growth for at least 1,000 years, even without building any new nuclear power plants. Burning the coal responsibly and releasing the carbon locked up in it as clean carbon dioxide will benefit crop yields all over the earth. The great atmospheric patterns of air movements ensure a steady supply of carbon dioxide for crop growth, and a steady supply of oxygen for animals and people. To increase the rate at which photosynthesis removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, a respected scientist proposed to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, seeding the ocean to trigger algae blooms. This practical, inexpensive, highly effective means for sequestering carbon dioxide would benefit the food chain in the oceans and increase fish populations. But because it did not impose hardships, require trading carbon credits, punish the U.S. or any other nation, or require increased governmental control, the IPCC rejected it. The IPCC uses the hoax of man made global warming to increase its power and that of a corrupt, anti-American United Nations that has proven itself impotent in combating world wide acts of terrorism, genocide in Sudan, the real threat of nuclear proliferation in the mid-east from Iran and Syria, or human rights violations in China and Africa.
Our mainstream media uses every opportunity to hype the hoax of man made global warming by repeated reporting of data and events that appear to support it, and ignoring those that contradict it. When the NFC championship game In 2007 between the Packers and the New York Giants was played at Green Bay in record low temperatures and blizzard conditions, there was no mention of global cooling; nor was there any in 2007 when below freezing temperatures threatened the vegetable crops in the south and the citrus crops in Florida. The drought in California is the result of colder than normal conditions in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, and the fact that ocean temperatures along the Pacific coast have been falling for the last three years is never mentioned. But after hurricane Katrina we were fed a host of dire predictions which warned of the increasing severity of storms, the melting of the polar ice caps, and the flooding of coastal areas from rising sea level, if we do not drastically reduce the release of greenhouse gasses to combat global warming. Which greenhouse gasses is not specified. We already have pollution controls in the smokestacks of most power plants, steel mills, and factories that minimize the release of sulfur dioxide.
The only completely uncontrolled exhaust gas is carbon dioxide, and photosynthesis automatically controls its atmospheric concentration for us.
Three billion years ago when the earth’s atmosphere was an unbreathable brew of noxious gases with almost no oxygen, a small green algae evolved in the ocean which, using the energy from sunlight over a few million years, completely altered the earth’s atmosphere. This oceanic green algae, the first plant to use photosynthesis to convert carbon dioxide and water into high energy fuel, was of course followed by the evolution of an almost limitless number and variety of carbon dioxide consuming plants.
Fortunately for mankind and all animals, fish,and birds, all of whom are totally dependent on plants, the oceanic green algae continues to perform its magic in the oceans of the earth today. Every three centuries all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and dissolved in the waters of the earth goes through the cycle photosynthesis, decay, photosynthesis, with the cycle constantly renewing the earth’s supply of oxygen.
People on the left claim global warming is real, a threat to the continued existence of mankind, and the debate as to its cause is over! Although none of this is true, it nevertheless is what four of my grandchildren were taught in high school. Most politicians on the left have little respect for truth and no regard for clarity, and apparently many high school teachers reflect their views. My oldest granddaughter just graduated from MITwhere she was spared the political rhetoric of the left on global warming. However Caltech’s Argyros Professor and professor of chemistry, in an article titled “Powering the Planet”states “The carbon dioxide we produce over the next 40 years, and its associated effects will last for a timescale comparable to modern human history. This is why, within the next 20 years we either solve this problem or the world will never be the same.” This is nonsense. It ignores the more than 200 billion tons of carbon that is sequestered yearly through photosynthesis from carbon dioxide In the atmosphere. Since this has been known for 40 years, I can only assume he is politically motivated to make such a statement. Hopefully man made global warming will come to be recognized for the hoax It truly is.
Dirck T.Hartmann is a retired Aerospace Engineer living in Huntington Beach, CA.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Swampie offers evidence supporting my statement that increased CO2 concentrations improve SOME plant growth. Thank you, swampie. Combine that with the study I cited above in my 13:12:31 post and we have support for both parts of my claim.
Bruce Cobb responds to this statement of mine:
Politics should NEVER drive science! Without intellectual integrity, humankind is doomed.
with this non-sequitur:
Precisely, Opie. And that is the crux of the problem with AGW – it is not science, but pseudoscience, propped up by politicians like Gore and pseudoscientists like Hansen, along with the MSM. If you think you have some proof of the AGW hypothesis (I doubt it), then by all means, present it. We’re all ears. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.
If you’d like to see some proof of the AGW hypothesis, I suggest that you read the IPPC report.
Ophiuchus’ posts are an interesting example of how SOME AGW proponets TYPICALLY write.
First, let’s see who is the invective one? Anyone want to guess who made the following comments?
If I had been the one to make those comments I wouldn’t be accusing others of being invective.
and
You actually raised the question, then talked about the negative situation if it were true and didn’t focus on the positive. Why would you only focus on the negative? What’s the point of that? Is the postive more or less important?
Then you SEEM upset over the use of the term ALL. It’s true that you did say “effect on ALL crops”. Then what’s really the point. We will never probably do a test on ALL crops. Do you propose we do a test on ALL crops or just SOME?
And then there is this…
We have patronization, indignation and condescension all in two short sentences. Nice job!
I have a better idea for Opie, assuming he’s brave enough to use his real name.
Put us all to shame, demonstrate your pure crucible of unassailable scientific reasoning and enrich yourself by half a million dollars in the process.
Submit your proof here.
No fair claiming it is “unwinnable”, which is the first easy out chosen by many. The money is there and they will honor the rules. You believe in what you write and the facts behind them, so stand behind them. Show us all, win the prize. Put the question to rest once and for all.
“If you’d like to see some proof of the AGW hypothesis, I suggest that you read the IPPC report.”
Move on citizen. Nothing to see here. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.
DAV (14:35:02) :
I think we’re all learning something about Ophiuchus’ methods.
On the UAH temperature trend, I made this point:
“What we have is sharp warming early in the century (pre-1950), a leveling off in mid-century (perhaps even a drop), and warming again late in the century. As you say, the CO2 increase happened mostly late in the century, but the rate of warming early in the century is not appreciably different from late in the century (compare the slopes from ~1920 to ~1945 and from ~1975 to ~2000). Again, I am focusing on trying to quantitatively evaluate the effect of CO2 and whether warming due to it can reasonably be called “catastrophic”.”
He responded:
“John M. presents the argument that variations in temperatures in the 20th century somehow disprove the AGW hypothesis. ”
As with you, I made no such claim, and he made up a point of view with which to argue.
DAV, I suggest you make a decision as to how you want to spend your time.
Looks like the Greatest Generation is once again saving the world. I loved the desert night cooling example. I’ve experienced the opposite with humid nights that just won’t cool off.
Dav, you’re absolutely right, the original claim was made by Mr. Macdonald, not you. You stepped in and defended Mr. McDonald’s claim and I did not notice the change of authorship. Therefore this statement of mine was incorrect:
I had challenged him to provide evidence to support his claim
I did not challenge Dav, I challenged Mr. McDonald.
However, my subsequent statements were all directed at Dav’s comments and so they did no misattribute anything. Moreever, it remains true that:
1. You did not offer any evidence in support of your position. You offered an analogy.
2. You continued to support Mr. McDonald’s claim.
I did not misquote you because I did not offer my statements as quotes; by not putting them in quotation marks, I made it clear that I was presenting my interpretation of your statements. I claim that you offered no evidence. If you think this is a misrepresentation of your writing, please point out the statement in your post that you believe constitutes evidence.
Your interpretation of the significance of the paper I cited is, shall we say, different from mine. The authors demonstrate that an assumption common to many of the models that formalize the AGW hypothesis is in fact false. They’re saying “This component of AGW is wrong.” And you regard that as supportive of AGW?!?!?!
Anthony challenges me to participate in a well-known scam. There’s a right-wing blog that is offering $500,000 to anybody who can prove the AGW hypothesis. And what constitutes proof? Well, here’s what the contest people have to say about that:
Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.
In other words, you can submit any proof you want, and we’ll interpret it any way we want. Gosh, if faced with a choice between:
a) accepting a submission as proof, admitting they were wrong, and parting with $500,000
and
b) interpreting the submission in such a way as to find that it falls short of proof
which do you think they’ll choose?
This thing is a political stunt and a scam. If these guys were serious they’d use an independent panel of judges comprising the best minds in climatology right now — the kind of minds that you find at, say, the NAS. But the fact that they rely on their sole judgement, and not the judgement of an independent panel of experts, pretty much gives away their political intentions.
Dav, you’re absolutely right, the original claim was made by Mr. Macdonald, not you. You stepped in and defended Mr. McDonald’s claim and I did not notice the change of authorship. Therefore this statement of mine was incorrect:
I had challenged him to provide evidence to support his claim
I did not challenge Dav, I challenged Mr. McDonald.
However, my subsequent statements were all directed at Dav’s comments and so they did no misattribute anything. Moreever, it remains true that:
1. You did not offer any evidence in support of your position. You offered an analogy.
2. You continued to support Mr. McDonald’s claim.
I did not misquote you because I did not offer my statements as quotes; by not putting them in quotation marks, I made it clear that I was presenting my interpretation of your statements. I claim that you offered no evidence. If you think this is a misrepresentation of your writing, please point out the statement in your post that you believe constitutes evidence.
Your interpretation of the significance of the paper I cited is, shall we say, different from mine. The authors demonstrate that an assumption common to many of the models that formalize the AGW hypothesis is in fact false. They’re saying “This component of AGW is wrong.” And you regard that as supportive of AGW?!?!?!
Anthony challenges me to participate in a well-known scam. There’s a right-wing blog that is offering $500,000 to anybody who can prove the AGW hypothesis. And what constitutes proof? Well, here’s what the contest people have to say about that:
Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.
In other words, you can submit any proof you want, and we’ll interpret it any way we want. Gosh, if faced with a choice between:
a) accepting a submission as proof, admitting they were wrong, and parting with $500,000
and
b) interpreting the submission in such a way as to find that it falls short of proof
which do you think they’ll choose?
This thing is a political stunt and a scam. If these guys were serious they’d use an independent panel of judges comprising the best minds in climatology right now — the kind of minds that you find at, say, the NAS. But the fact that they rely on their sole judgement, and not the judgement of an independent panel of experts, pretty much gives away their political intentions.
mcates gets personal with some gotcha games. What mcates was unable to discern in that long list is that not one of my deprecating remarks was made about an individual commenting here. I have been civil to all with whom I interact. Yet an enormous amount of invective has been directed at me personally.
At this point, I’m going to issue a request to Anthony: will you PLEASE MODERATE this board? There’s a lot of pointless invective here. It’s your board, and you have a clear choice: do you want this to be a political board or a scientific board? Do you want it to be a place of discussion or a mudpit? It will be very easy to get rid of me: all you have to do is declare that you have no intention of maintaining any standards of civility or relevance.
John M. takes me to task for misinterpreting his statement. Very well, John, if I have misinterpreted your statement, what was it that you were trying to say? I now know that you weren’t offering an argument based on correlations between temperature variations and CO2 in the 20th century — you’ve made that clear. So what is the point you were making in that paragraph?
Woops! Sorry for the semi-double post. It was due to a hiccup in my browser.
One had more content than the other so I left both.
John M (14:52:37)
Yeah, John, I saw that and thanks! I didn’t mention it there because my posts are getting too long as it is. I’m pretty much done with Ophie. I’m beginning to doubt his sincerity. Even if he is entirely serious, he isn’t open to reasonable discussion because he can’t seem to understand what’s being said to him.
The Greek “Ophiuchus” roughly translates to snake-holder. I think the name belongs more to us considering Ophie’s wriggling.
Opie, why not write it up anyway? We’d all be interested in seeing what you have to say about it.
Either JS added that clause after they upped it to $500k or I missed it because I don’t recall seeing it when was at $150k. It may have been a requirement of the money backer. But, still it doesn’t prove the contest is unwinnable, it means you think it is though.
What has been missing mostly is proof of the effect of a doubling of CO2 and climate sensitivity. The “proof” of AGW is subjective interpretation of model output that in my view is too simplistic since it ignores the role of clouds and focuses mostly on positive feedbacks.
IMHO, if somebody came up with a solid proof that is derived more from first principles than model speculation, I’d be more likely to accept it than the models we are running now that have a great deal of missing elements. It’s not about computing power, it’s more about the inability to understand and mathematically describe a complex system with chaos involved.
You should be able to improve upon what has been done so far.
Opie writes:
Sir, you are making an assumption that I haven’t been moderating. I’ve given you free reign to say anything you want. I’ve also snipped and left comments unpublished that were out of line. [from others] But you wouldn’t know that would you? The comments not published aren’t there. It’s easier to simply declare me as “ineffective”.
Your tendency to talk down to people, and your starting off on the wrong foot by using the label “deniers” hasn’t helped either. I don’t blame you though, lots of people in academia act the same way. James Hansen labeled me a “court jester” after my surfacestations project helped McIntyre uncover a data error in his GISS database. I think there is a tendency, which you’ve demonstrated here, to treat laymen and citizen scientists with disdain.
Most of all your choice of handle hasn’t helped, it appears, um, how show I say this delicately? “Above all” – probably in reference to the heavens from which it is taken. Notice that most everyone has stopped addressing you as Ophiuchus.
This is why I encourage use of real names. Anonymity, especially from a “man of science” at a major university, doesn’t set well with many, including me. If you believe in what you profess, put your name behind it, otherwise it’s just noise.
The Internet is full of noise, you learn to live with it. Create your own personal filter. Personally, I blame Al Gore.
Stay if you like, but if you want “bliss with no diss”, go play at Real Climate where your writings will not be challenged. If challenge suits you, play here.
In defense of Ophi, he must feel like Custer. I don’t agree with most of what he says, but he does make a few good points, e.g. NAS. What’s that all about?
REPLY: “National Academy of Sciences” – Anthony
Anna V: “Have you heard about Lysenko and the thousands of biologists etc following his dicta in the USSR?”
Yes. I would regard Lysenkoism as cognitive error, aided and abetted by a dictatorial regime. As deluded as he was, Lysenko probably sincerely believed in his own theory. A hoax is an invention by people who cynically exploit it for their own nefarious, or often jokester, purposes. A different order altogether.
Phillip B: “It doesn’t matter if it’s fraud…”
But you and others are claiming fraud. So is global warming simply mass hysteria caused by junk science, or is it a fraud and hoax maliciously perpetrated by people with sinister intent?
“As I said, most climate science is junk.”
So you say, but most climate scientists say otherwise. Who should I believe, and why?
Pofarmer: “You are describing a conspiracy, not a hoax.”
A large-scale hoax such as AGW is purported to be requires a conspiracy, at least at the top levels. There are thousands of people involved, so a large-scale hoax of this type requires organisation on a correspondingly large and secretive scale.
“Just because a lot of people beleive something, doesn’t mean it isn’t a hoax.”
I am aware of that, which is why I queried the preference for ‘hoax’ over ‘cognitive errors’.
Gravy Train Crash: “A hoax does not require the collusion of all of its proponents.”
No, but as above, the top levels must be in on the hoax, and the perpetration of large-scale hoaxes requires large-scale organisation. The important point is that the hoax claim relies on the purported existence of a malevolent group of people who peddle the hoax in order to further their sinister designs upon humanity.
Mike Bentley: “Please note that Brendon’s argument against Mr Hartmann’s stance is a logical one…”
That’s “Brendan” with an “a”. Yes, my argument is a logical one, but logic provides a good test of arguments. That’s its purpose, and it’s valuable for someone like me who is not a climate scientist. I like to flatter myself that I am an ‘intelligent layman’, but when it comes to climate science I am a novice. That means that while I can understand the basics, I am in no position to judge the finer detail. In that case, when sizing up the options, I must rely on other means to enable me to judge the merits or demerits of the case. One of these means is to look at the methods of argument used.
On the subject of “proof”: there ain’t no such thing in science. Nobody has ever proven anything. You think there’s a scientific law that has been proven? OK, let’s take Newton’s Third Law. How do we know that somewhere in the universe, or at some time in the distant past or distant future, there will be an action that does not have an opposite and equal reaction? We simply can’t know these things. This is not just a matter of obscurantism. There are always extreme physical conditions that require revision of our laws. Newton’s Laws have already had to undergo revision twice, once for Special Relativity and once for QM.
It is impossible to prove AGW. It *is* possible to disprove it, but never to prove it. Therefore, the final decision is ultimately a matter of scientific judgement. You look over all the arguments and you weigh all the factors and you make a judgement call. That’s why we rely on groups of scientists, not individual scientists. That’s also why some people will never be convinced. They’ll insist on the impossible standard of proof and, not having it, they’ll feel righteous in their rejection of AGW. There are still people who believe that the earth is flat. There are still people who believe that the Apollo landings were a hoax. There are still people who reject Darwinian evolution. And 50 years from now, there will still be people who reject AGW regardless of the climate at that time. (There will also be people who insist that AGW is true regardless of the climate at that time.) These people hurt our society because they subordinate rationalism to political preference. “Damn the facts, I’m a conservative/liberal and I know what I believe!” If the experts come to a conclusion that these people reject, then they dismiss the experts as having been bought off or scared off by the Global Conspiracy that they’re sure exists.
I accuse many of the people here of subordinating truth to politics. If you resent that accusation, I’ll ask you to ask yourself “Am I conservative?” If the answer is yes, then perhaps you’ll have the integrity to ask yourself whether there’s any causal relationship between your political beliefs and your attitude towards AGW. (And yes, I’m safe on that question; I’m neither conservative nor liberal.)
The sad thing is, you (I’m speaking in the plural here) do have a case to make. I think that there’s lots of material to explore regarding the various feedback mechanisms. We’re still discovering obscure feedback mechanisms and that, combined with the uncertainties we have about known feedback mechanisms, provides a good angle of attack. However, most of your problem is that you’re chasing a conclusion rather than the truth. You’ve already made up your minds and you are merely seeking to prove your case. That weakens you because it closes your minds to any truths that you find unpalatable. When you attack everywhere, you end up succeeding nowhere. Pick the ground where you have the greatest advantage, and push hard there. You squander your credibility when you go after every jot and tittle of AGW, because you thereby demonstrate that you’re not interested in the truth, but the outcome.
My second recommendation is that you lose the political zealots. This board is full of derogatory comments about the left wing. Every one of those comments establishes more firmly that you are more concerned with politics than with truth. I strongly urge you to develop a community standard that “We don’t do politics here — we do science. Leave your politics at the door.”
Anthony questions my decision to remain anonymous. I need only point to the large number of derogatory comments directed at me by so many commentators here. Obviously, many people here hold ill will towards me personally. Are you, Anthony, willing to accept all financial responsibility if somebody from this board hunts me down and physically assaults me? Are you absolutely certain that there aren’t lurkers who are capable of such a thing? Some years back I had a frightening experience with a left-wing nutcase who, after much labor, managed to penetrate my anonymity and sent me emails telling me that he now knew where I lived. Nothing ever came of it, but I don’t want to repeat that experience. So please respect my security on this matter.
Anthony, I do owe you an apology for failing to take proper note of whatever nasty comments you blocked. I still believe that too much personal derogation got past you, but I do appreciate whatever measures you did take. Based on what got through, what you blocked must have been truly ugly. On my own blog, the rule is that you can’t even refer to any individual; you may refer only to ideas, not people. I have relaxed the rule a bit because so far we haven’t had any arguments — just discussion.
I’ll be moving on now. I enjoy a good discussion with people who disagree with me, but we are now arguing, not discussing. Nobody learns anything from an argument.
I wish you well.
On the subject of ‘political’ allegiance and AGW, it’s probably true that left-leaning or ‘liberal’ types are generally pro-AGW, while right-leaning or ‘conservative’ types are generally anti-AGW. For obvious reasons, these political – and no doubt, ‘cultural’ — leanings say nothing about the science either way.
I think it’s also true that ad hominens, insults, accusations of ulterior motives, intemperate language etc are par for the course in most online AGW debates, just as they are for other subjects. We can deplore this, but neither side can claim the moral high ground. However, the hoax claim seems to be almost exclusively the preserve of the anti-AGW side. I have wondered why this is, and my conclusion is that it’s a reaction to a perception that their case is being ignored, as it is with the creationists and evolution. Hence, the ongoing demands for ‘debate’.
At first sight, this demand for debate is an oddity, since the media, and the online media in particular, are awash with debate over global warming. I suspect that when anti-AGWers demand debate, what they really want is to be heard, by the general populace, and in particular by the powers-that-be.
To be heard means that sceptics want to be accorded the same level of respect as AGW scientists, and their concerns to be officially taken on board by the likes of the IPCC. The fact that this is not happening, or at least believed to be not happening, circles back to the hoax claim: sceptics believe their case is solid, it is not being heard, therefore, gatekeepers are deliberately shutting them out, and they are doing so because they have some nefarious, non-scientific purpose in mind.
I accept that scientists of all stripes have their ideological and personal biases, but an extraordinary claim of hoax requires extraordinary evidence, and I have seen nothing persuasive. Ultimately, for the layperson the AGW issue boils down to: who can I believe? Hoax claims merely dent the credibility of the claimant.
[…] Alleviate world hunger: produce more clean carbon dioxide From:Canada Free Press […]
mcates (14:41:30) :
Concerning your comment to Opie, “We will never probably do a test on ALL crops. Do you propose we do a test on ALL crops or just SOME?”
In the past I’ve had fish tanks as a hobby. Several years ago a guy who works in the local aquarium supply store showed me a new CO2 injection system for aquarium plants that they’d just gotten in. He said he’d already bought one and had just installed it in his fish tank at home [it used those little 12-gram CO2 cartridges that some BB guns use].
I didn’t give it much thought until a few months later, when I saw him in the store again. I asked him about it, and I still recall the first thing he said: “Whoa! You wouldn’t believe what that thing did!”
He went on to tell me how the plant growth in the tank had “exploded.” Now, whenever I hear about the effect that increased carbon dioxide has on plants, I still remember how excited he got over his new CO2 injection system.
Iguess I should have been more specific in my previous comment.
Does NAS support AGW theory and why?
And Opie’s big “proof” of AGW is…. drum roll…..The IPCC Report!
That is Comedy Gold, Opie.
“There have been more posts that require my attention…”
Well, at least we know the Serpent Holder doesn’t lack for ego.
If you want to know more, try this:
http://www.startistics.com/ophiuchus/
Opie said:
“On the subject of “proof”: there ain’t no such thing in science. Nobody has ever proven anything.”
I guess Opie has never met a mathematician.
And the following statement, folks, is a prime example of psychological “projection” [imputing your own faults onto others]:
“I accuse many of the people here of subordinating truth to politics.”
Sorry, Opie, that’s your schtick. We want the real science — not your pop science articles.
Brendan H said:
“At first sight, this demand for debate is an oddity, since the media, and the online media in particular, are awash with debate over global warming.”
You set that strawman up and knocked him right down, didn’t you, you brave strawman killer you! Little bit o’ red herring in that argument, too.
Now, can we get real? Thank you:
The debate issue is a sore point, not an ‘oddity.’ Those putting forth a hypothesis [in this case, anthropogenic global warming resulting from increases in atmospheric CO2, which will lead to global catastrophe] have the burden of proof.
Understand? Skeptical scientists have nothing to prove; the status quo is the status quo. And so far, those hypothesizing AGW/CO2/catastrophe have completely failed.
That is why we demand a debate. Not the free-for-all shouting match in the media, but a genuine, moderated series of debates in a neutral university venue, in which each side is allowed to choose its debate team.
But one side — and one side only — absolutely puts its collective tail between its legs and runs away from any real debate: the scaremongers promoting AGW. Why do they run and hide from a real debate?
The answer is crystal clear: because in the one moderated, public debate held on the question of AGW, the audience was polled going in, and the majority said they agreed with the AGW hypothesis. Following the debate, the audience was again questioned. The result: the majority had changed their minds, and rejected the AGW hypothesis. The skeptics won the debate.
Those pushing the falsified AGW agenda do not want any real debate. They hide out from any genuine debate. Furthermore, James Hansen, Michael Mann, and others who are flogging the AGW pony refuse to publicly archive their data and methodology — which were paid for with taxpayer funds.
There is only one reason that Hansen, the UN’s IPCC and others trumeting AGW refuse to publicly post their research: it is inaccurate and/or fraudulent. And they know it.
AGW has been repeatedly falsified, although we never hear about it in the media. But if there were a series of public debates at a major university, you can bet it would be front page, above the fold news. Those pushing the phony AGW scare can not afford that kind of publicity. There is too much tax money at risk. Not to mention that Hansen’s, Mann’s and the UN/IPCC’s career reputations would be in tatters if the truth about their hidden data and phony methodology were to see the light of day.
So please, Opie and Brendan, tell us just one thing: why do you think Hansen, the UN/IPCC, Mann, etc., refuse to show the public what the public paid for?
After all, these aren’t nuclear secrets. This is just climate data.
I have a feeling that in the future someone will be posting here that reminds us all of Ophi, but he will have a different handle.
Gentlemen!
We should be reasonable with those who disagree with our side of the argument.
A number of us came to scoff and stayed to pray. Many of us were once OC2 AGW-theory supporters once. (Well, not me. I have been skeptical since the getgo, 20 years ago. But I had near-unique advantages.) We should let our, well, arguments do the arguing.
If there is any ignorance going on it is not on account of a badly skewed press, not the readers. It is therefore incumbent on us to maintain our noblesse oblige, overlook the inevitable initial slings and arrows, and attempt to bring out both sides as clearly and fairly as we can. In the end, it is the data which is going to tell the tale. I have a good old IPCC “high confidence” that the skeptics are right, but that is only a 90%+ certainty, and we may yet turn out wrong, or at least partially wrong, in the end. (We are only human.)
We are men of the world and we are here to discuss a serious and complex scientific issue with profound policy implications and many, many human lives at stake.