[Advance The Man]

No idea what Enron site you are referring to. I've never quoted Enron, ever in this forum.

I have provided multiple websites providing a point of view that makes a hell of a lot more sense than other quotes and theories provided.

Instead of ripping the legitimate websites with a different point-of-view, I challenge you to actually read it. I certainly read many of the drab websites you googled up. I am convinced that man is not the cause of Global Warming. If there was not a living soul here on earth, Global Warming would still occur.

Last time you quoted an Enron site, now an article written not by a journalist, but by a professional spin doctor, Tom Harris from High Park Group. Harris "has worked with private companies and trade associations to successfully position these entities and their interests with media and before government committees and regulatory bodies." - pathetic, but apparently all you have got.

Gray, one of the people quoted, is part of the Lavoisier Group:


Besides, you still could not find an answer to my questions in my previous post. Telling.

[clulup]

I am convinced that man is not the cause of Global Warming. If there was not a living soul here on earth, Global Warming would still occur.

Your inability to substantiate your claim that global warming is not caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions is all too obvious. If you had anything to present apart from an article by a professional spin doctor, you would quote it.

Too many people base their views not on well established facts, but on their private fantasies or on a political agenda, and it seems fair to say (in my view) that you are one of them.

However, I have confidence that in the end, reality and facts will prevail, if only because reality doesn't go away just because you claim it is not there. Some people have to learn the hard way, which is OK as long as it hits those who cause the problem, and not e.g. Bangladeshi who drown because of floods and an increase in sea level, without having contributed to global warming substantially.

However, just for the fun of it:
- Please post a link to the Nature article you mentioned, since you claim to know it.
- Please quote where it says in the article that the global warming of the past decades is due to natural cycles.

[Micael]

Too many people base their views not on well established facts, but on their private fantasies or on a political agenda, and it seems fair to say (in my view) that you are one of them.

It's pretty clear, based on your posts, that you are one of them as well.

[clulup]

It's pretty clear, based on your posts, that you are one of them as well.

I always quote my sources, and they are not professional spin doctors or lobbying organizations of the energy industry (as in the case of ATM), but scientific publications such as Nature or Science, or other media quoting current scientific results.

I'm sure you could tell the difference if you wanted to.

[Micael]

...and they are not professional spin doctors or lobbying organizations....

With all respect, so says you. Did you actually read Advance's article? They took great pains to quote both sides of non-spin, non-lobbying, independant relevant references. Actually seeking out independant climatologists seemed a credible approach.

[clulup]

With all respect, so says you. Did you actually read Advance's article? They took great pains to quote both sides of non-spin, non-lobbying, independant relevant references. Actually seeking out independant climatologists seemed a credible approach.

Yes, I did read it. It is a guest column on some "free press" site written by Tom Harris who is a "mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company". Spin doctors are not exactly know for balanced, fair views, but for propagating what their clients pay them for. The article is a collection of the typical lone voices, many of them retired professors, who have a dissenting view. They do not reflect the common view among climatologists. When trying to find a more balanced view, I turn to renowned scientific journals such as Science, not to something a spin doctor collected. This should be obvious, should it not?

Here's what Science says:

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

But what does the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) count, when ATM disagrees based on thin air, or a spin doctor manages to collect a few dissenting voices?

[Micael]

Yes, I did read it. It is a guest column on some "free press" site written by Tom Harris who is a "mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company". Spin doctors are not exactly know for balanced, fair views, but for propagating what their clients pay them for. The article is a collection of the typical lone voices, many of them retired professors, who have a dissenting view. They do not reflect the common view among climatologists. When trying to find a more balanced view, I turn to renowned scientific journals such as Science, not to something a spin doctor collected. This should be obvious, should it not?

So you attack the publication and the writer of the piece, and completely pass on the content and quotes by the experts. Spin Doctoring 101, clulup. Try again please. This time, please comment on the content, not your assessment of the packaging.

[clulup]

So you attack the publication and the writer of the piece, and completely pass on the content and quotes by the experts. Spin Doctoring 101, clulup. Try again please. This time, please comment on the content, not your assessment of the packaging.

I am not a climatologist so I cannot evaluate in all detail what Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher, or Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, find important for the discussion or not.

But I can distinguish between the weight of the consensus view presented in the leading scientific journal Science (see above - did you read the article?), and an internet article presented on "canadafreepress.com", written by a professional spin doctor, quoting the typical lone dissenting voices. If both views carry the same weight for you, then... well, then never mind.

[Micael]

I am not a climatologist so I cannot evaluate in all detail what Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher, or Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, find important for the discussion or not.

But I can distinguish between the weight of the consensus view presented in the leading scientific journal Science (see above - did you read the article?), and an internet article presented on "canadafreepress.com", written by a professional spin doctor, quoting the typical lone dissenting voices. If both views carry the same weight for you, then... well, then never mind.

Again, classic non sequitur nonsense.

You want to compare the holder of the documents against other holders, and not the content of the documents. If you load up the trunk of a Lexus with horse ****, its *still* a load of ****.

[clulup]

You want to compare the holder of the documents against other holders, and not the content of the documents.

Nobody can be an expert in many fields. For most topics, there is no other way than to qualify sources and then rely on those who are the most trustworthy and competent in a given field.

The "consensus" article I posted, the quotes therein and the views of the main American and international scientific bodies presented carry much, much more weight than the the spin doctor's article quoting some lone scientists, some active, many retired. That is more than obvious in an unbiased assessment.

[Micael]

Nobody can be an expert in many fields. For most topics, there is no other way than to qualify sources and then rely on those who are the most trustworthy and competent in a given field.

The "consensus" article I posted, the quotes therein and the views of the main American and international scientific bodies presented carry much, much more weight than the the spin doctor's article quoting some lone scientists, some active, many retired. That is more than obvious in an unbiased assessment.

Again, your strategy has nothing to do with the content of the argument. You've dressed it nicer this time, but you still don't seem to be able to get it. Only elite hyper-educated liberals have the answers. The Blue (coastal) States have more degreed people than people in the Red (fly-over) States, so they're smarter..... right?

The fact that your 'scientific bodies' hold conferences and give each other accolades and awards doesn't mean they hold anything even close to the answers. The "weight" problem they have is likely from too many Double Mint Mocha Frappacino's.

Lone scientists? Retired? Where did you get your information that they were lone or retired?

Thus far, only one certain thing is certain about global warming; we don't fully understand what causes it. And there's certainly no conclusive proof that it is caused by us.

Are you still eating egg-beaters?

[clulup]

Thus far, only one certain thing is certain about global warming; we don't fully understand what causes it.

We don't fully understand gravity, how HIV works, what causes cancer, etc. Some people are intelligent enough to take into consideration what is known so far and act accordingly.

The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...l/306/5702/1686

You should shut down the science faculties of your universities and make more room for intelligent design, young earth, and similar stuff. Surely, e.g. the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science must be groups of idiots (in their majority). How could they be made so stupid to believe that there is compelling evidence for human modification of the climate?

Fair enough, the AAAS is the largest and most renowned scientific organisation the US have to offer, and the others are the leading scientific organizations in the field of climatology, but what do these people know about science or climate anyway? They must be idiots and ignorants all together and should be fired, at least the majority of them who disseminate such nonsense. Thank you, Micael, for setting things straight.

[hoovs]

Saying something is "compelling" is not the same as saying it is factual.

[theBlaze74]

Only if Exxon is the one saying it.

[scaryhumor]

Only if Exxon is the one saying it.

Yeah right.

[clulup]

Saying something is "compelling" is not the same as saying it is factual.

"Compelling evidence" means the same as "convincing evidence", according to Merriam Webster.

Do you know the story of the man who didn't find the scientific evidence against jumping out of the 73rd flood compelling? When flying past 5th floor, he said to himself: "I knew it, this is no problem. Those silly experts...".

[hoovs]

"Compelling evidence" means the same as "convincing evidence", according to Merriam Webster.

Do you know the story of the man who didn't find the scientific evidence against jumping out of the 73rd flood compelling? When flying past 5th floor, he said to himself: "I knew it, this is no problem. Those silly experts...".

I see. So human cause of global warming is as clear as the laws of gravity?

[theBlaze74]

I see. So human cause of global warming is as clear as the laws of gravity?

Weren't the laws of gravity re-defined in the 1950s?

[geatches]

Political discussion, please close.

[clulup]

I see. So human cause of global warming is as clear as the laws of gravity?

There is compelling evidence for both, according to the leading scientific organisations. Newton's law of gravity is accurate enough for practical purposes, as is the human influence on global warming.