Inconvenient Questions Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want You to Ask.
Posted by iusbvision on February 18, 2007
Global Warming alarmists like to tell people that the Earth is warming and that man is the primary cause. They point to us, not evidence that has been verified over and over using the scientific method, but instead they show us “computer models” and claim that there is a “consensus” that man is the primary cause of global warming. So below are some of the questions that such alarmists do not want to answer.
If man is the primary cause of global warming please explain what man did to warm us out of the last five known ice ages.
According to NASA, 2004 was the fourth warmest year on records since the 1800’s. If man has caused the Earth to continually warm why were the 1800’s warmer than today, especially considering that the world was far less populated and industrialized than it has been since 1930?
According to the BBC, China’s factories and homes burn 40% more coal than the United States, yet proposed treaties that are alleged to address global warming focus on regulations in the United States and give China a pass. Why?
According to the Illinois State Museum there have been 20 known glacial advances and retreats in the last two million years. So why is this one man’s fault?
Why is Al Gore’s name not on his own movie poster? Take a look. http://media.monstersandcritics.com/movies/aninconvenienttruth_1/images/group1/inconvenientruthonesheet.jpg
Why did Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia say that “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention”
According to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies solar output has been increasing by .05% per decade since the 1970’s. How can you be certain that solar output has an effect that is far less than man? (Update: Solar output noticably started decreasing in the last few years and according to some data sets global warming has leveled off and is now showing a slight reduction)
If man is the primary cause of global warming why is it that NASA has a study on their web site that shows how solar activity increases and decreases actually correlate to North-American temperature changes since 1700? Why did the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, publish a study by Turkish physicist Ali Kilcik that demonstrated a parallel between solar activity change and variations in the Earth’s climate?
Why is it that in the years between 1645-1715, which was the middle of what is called “The Little Ice Age” with the coldest average European temperatures known, coincide with what astronomers call the Maunder Minimum, the lowest period of sun spot and solar activity recorded?
According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology the moons of Neptune and the former planet Pluto are warming. What has man does to cause this global warming?
Why have leading astronomers such as Philip Marcus of the University of California at Berkeley published studies that show that Jupiter is warming?
If consensus creates such a scientific certainty, explain why a study done by the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece and published in the Public Library of Science Medicine, shows that more than 50% of published studies are later proven to be false; saying that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false?
After Hurricane Katrina, the global warming alarmists said that because of global warming the following hurricane seasons would continue to grow more harsh and destructive, only to be followed by one the mildest hurricane seasons on record. Why?
Why did the Senate vote down the Kyoto Treaty unanimously in 1998? Why has Canada also pulled out of the treaty?
According to the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, not only is solar output rising, but the polar ice caps on Mars are melting. Could it be that this is happening because the Mars Rover is an SUV?
How can any causes of global warming be tabulated accurately when, according to the Journal of Science, “A confusing array of new and recent studies reveals that scientists know very little about how much sunlight is absorbed by Earth versus how much the planet reflects, how all this alters temperatures, and why any of it changes from one decade to the next”?
Why has the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia measured global temperatures decreasing from 1998-2005?
Why does Dr. Richard M. Lindzen of the School of Atmospheric Science at MIT say that “Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence”? If Dr. Lindzen is wrong why did global warming alarmists stage a protest calling for the resignation of the heads of the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for saying that Hurricane Katrina was a part of the natural hurricane cycle and had nothing to do with global warming?
Why has the popular U. S. based environmental magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics?
According to the Associated Press, “First-of-its-kind core samples dug up from deep beneath the Arctic Ocean floor show that 55 million years ago an area near the North Pole was practically a subtropical paradise, three new studies show.” So how can man be the primary cause of global warming?
Why did Carleton University paleo-climatologist Professor Tim Patterson testify, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming”?
Why have three studies from universities in Norway and one in Russia shown that the glacial ice sheet in Greenland is growing? One Danish study says that the Greenland Glacial sheet has been shrinking for 100 years so where is the consensus?
Why does a study published in Science Express tell us that “satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003”?
An article from Newsweek, “The Cooling World”, April 28, 1975 told us that if global cooling continues “The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.” Why?
The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, a part of the Department of Energy, has studies that show that global carbon-dioxide levels have spiked every 100,000 years. How can man possibly be the primary cause of increased CO2 in the atmosphere?
Why have the hottest summers on record occurred in the 1930’s?
If the burning of fossil fuels by man is the primary cause of global warming, why did a recent United Nations report tell us that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming; more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together?
Could you explain why from 1940-1970 global temperatures decreased while CO2 increased?
Of all of the possible causes of global warming (if it is indeed happening) please list for me in order of importance, what percentage each is responsible for in order and back it up with verifiable evidence that can be duplicated repeatedly. Fossil fuels, changes in solar activity, animal flatulence, the cyclical changing in the Earths rotational axis, ocean current changes, etc.
Are ethical scientists testing the scientific hypothesis with sound methods and quantifiable observations? The goal of the tests is to DISPROVE the hypothesis. It is the duty of the scientist to try their absolute best to disprove the hypothesis. If it cannot be disproved, it becomes theory, and over time, with more studies, is accepted as fact. To be responsible, don’t you have to look for evidence that disproves the theory and not ridicule or ignore those who publish it (because there is plenty out there)? Why do global warming alarmists do this and attack people so often?
Two new books about global warming have just been released, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder, which is due out in March. Both books say that global warming is a part of a natural cycle and give evidence to support the claim; do you intend to read the books?
Chuck Norton
The IUSB Vision Weblog 
Sam said
There are several ways to respond to an absurdly incorrect and polarized “article” written by Chuck Norton, usually written in the form of long series of factoids (in the 1970s people were also concerned about global cooling), pseudofactoids (hottest summers occurring in the 1930s), irrelevant observations (Al Gore’s photo not being on the cover of his book about global warming) or quotes from someone (a dissenting scientist from Australia, one of two countries that have yet to sign the Kyoto treaty, the U.S. being the other). For now, the easiest would be to direct Chuck Norton to a condensed, well-structured, unbiased source that reviews the facts we know about global warming as well as areas of continued investigation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
That’s all I have time for at the moment in terms of a quick, summaritive response. I hope others will assist me in eventually dismantling the vast majority of claims or comments in this “article” of Chuck’s.
Bret Matrix said
How can a professor recommend using Wikipedia as a source? In the last two years, every professor I have had that has assigned a writing project has specifically pointed out Wikipedia as a source that cannot be trusted. For all we know, Al Gore wrote that entry.
I would like to enter into the debate, but you have to bring something better to the table than Wikipedia.
Sam said
No, sir. Your professors do not want students to CITE Wikipedia because it is not a peer-reviewed article, and I agree with them. Studies have nevertheless been done on the reliability of Wikipedia articles, and they are generally as reliable as those found within Encyclopedia Britannica.
Incidentally, among all peer-reviewed manuscripts on global warming, those arguing in FAVOR of global warming amount to essentially 100%. There’s a little fact that didn’t manage to find itself on Chuck’s “list”.
There’s nothing at all wrong in directing someone to a link such as above in order to learn the basics of a topic, and it would be a good place for someone like Chuck Norton (perhaps you as well) to start, rather than drumming up a nickel/dime list of opinions or disconnected claims as though they amounted to some sort of article.
What prevents you from entering into the debate on your own accord, by the way?
Chuck Norton said
Sam,
The point is that I have an section on global warming press and peer reviewed articles in my archive going back YEARS. The purpose of my column was to demonstrate the fact that the so called consensus on the evidence about global warming is a myth and that as it stands now using the scientific method no serious conclusion can be drawn.
I have peer reviewed articles from multiple university studies that straight up contradict each other and that is just the beginning of it. Not to mention the obvious questions that need to be asked that global warming alarmists don’t want to even think about addressing.
Sam, you are also not fooling anyone. You have shown everyone on this blog that hate anyone who disagrees with your far left ideology and can do it with verifiable facts. I do not believe for an instant that you give the slightest care about the environment, you merely wish to exploit it and use it as a vehicle for your ideal of central control and the satisfaction of your envy issues.
Rashida Vindic said
All I know is that I stood on my backyard deck last week and sprayed about 10 aerosol cans of hairspray into the sky and my snow still hasn’t melted. I am pretty pissed! I thought I could get a nice hole right above my house. Who knows.
Andres Paz said
Chuck Norton:
I’m trying not to sound sarcastic… I’m asking the following questions so that I can better understand other scietific studies that I have never heard about. It is important for me as an education major.
What scientific method was used to disprove that the increase in the use of motor vehicles in China, SUV in the US, and the rest of the world does not affect the atmosphere?
Also, what scientific method was used to disprove that the warmer temperatures cooralate with the Industrial age?
I thought that my college biology textbook explanation of climate change was scientific. It explained that pollution stored in the earth’s atmosphere keep the sun’s rays from bouncing back into space, which causes the heat from the sun rays to return to the earth furface, reculting in warmer temperatures.
I want to know which science proffesor on campus have publications and studies contradicting what I was taught last semester by Doctor Pope.
Again, I am not trying to be sarcastic… although I think that my words sound sarcastic.
Thank you,
Chuck Norton said
Hello Mr. Paz,
Good questions and I will be happy to reply.
I mentioned in the article what several of the studies are. Namely the ones that indicate that the sun was the chief “culprit” for global warming, if it is indeed happening.
As far as your question about the scientific method. Again please read my article more carefully.
In order for a hypothesis to be true you have either have to test it repeatedly, or have a mountain of evidence that supports it and virtually no evidence that opposes it. Yet we have studies that say XXX glacial shelf is growing, yet we have other studies that say that same shelf is shrinking. A great many studies make no attempt to even determine if solar changes are a factor in global warming… they go straight to man is the problem and often imply or state that centralized control of the economy is the solution.
Obviously my column was written with somewhat of a tongue in cheek style, but it is designed to illustrate a wider truth, that the so called consensus is a myth and that a great many of the computer models and studies done are flawed, and that evidence that ends up being inconvenient for global warming alarmists is often ignored or subjected to unscientific ridicule (just like those measurements that you asked about).
Thanks for reading The Vision.
Erkki KochKetola said
And Chuck is just the expert to debunk this myth, being a Communication major; naturally, the Communication degree program gives one a solid understanding of climatology, evolutionary biology, history, political science, jurisprudence, paleontology, epidemiology, etc. Clearly, the IUSB Communication Baccalaureate program qualifies one to be an expert on a number of topics, able to recognize good science from bad at a glance! For his next trick, Chuck will be faster than a speeding bullet; more powerful than a locomotive; and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.
Chuck Norton said
And once again, Erkki KNOWS he cannot defeat me on the substance of any argument I make, and instead either makes it about me, calls me names, or seeks to use some cute rhetorical trick to try and disqualify me from the argument.
One does not even need a degree to be able to read peer reviewed articles and put a data archive going back years together as I have. One only needs to be able to read to find studies that are both peer reviewed and complete contradict each other.
I go through science magazine and some MIT sites and NASA and the Max Planck Institute stuff pretty regularly to update my global warming archive. One does not need a PhD, or even a college degree to do that. In fact, what I have learned in the classroom is but a whisper of what I have learned through self study.
So I am going to do something that I don’t do very often and reveal a little bit about myself.
I am what is called an autodidact Erkki, there is a word for you to go and look up.
Let me give you two examples of what a real autodidact is capable of.
I have debated a member of Clinton’s Social Security Task Force and handily won… on the subject of Social Security.
Dr. Henry J. Abraham, who is the author of the definitive textbook on the Supreme Court, called Justices and Presidents, told me to my face that he was amazed at my level of understanding of the court and of case law. Harvard Law Prof. Lawrence Tribe even plagiarised 51 pages of the first edition of Abraham’s book. That is how definitive Abraham is.
I could go on Erkki, but I wouldn’t want to come off as too cocky. :P
Of course I am not an expert on every topic, no one is.
Andres Paz said
Chuck: You are correct… now that I reread your article I believe I understand what you are trying to say.
I would like to point out a constructive criticism:
– Most of the questions you asked in your article are valid. However, some questions seemed completely irrelevant.
For example:
– “Why is Al Gore’s name not on his own movie poster?”
Also, the following statement made me believe that what you were trying to say is that air pollution does not cause warmer temperatures.
– Why did Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia say that “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention”
I must say that these two statements overshadowed everything else in your article. I thought that the “Gore’s circumstantial arguments” was referring to air pollution, the melting poles, the warming of the oceans, and the loss of land mass all over the world.
I think that what you are saying is that all these that Gore mentioned are happening… all these things are true… but we just don’t know how much of the earth’s warming is due to air pollution…
You are saying that the Sun is sending stronger waves that are not only warming up the earth, but also other planets. This is the first time I heard this theory. So, I can neither be against it nor support it yet.
Lastly, people who care about the environment and reducing energy consumption tend to believe in global warming. I understand that you are trying to state that Al Gore and his documentary are alarmists… but whether it was intentionally or unintentionally, your article is calling everyone who believes that air pollution causes warmer temperatures, an alarmist.
Bret Matrix said
Here is another expert for you Chuck, this ran in the Canada Free Press just a couple weeks ago. You can google it if you like.
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don’t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. “It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,” wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn’t occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, “State of Fear” he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen’s. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology – especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don’t understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: “the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.” Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky’s book “Yes, but is it true?” The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky’s findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky’s students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Erkki KochKetola said
Copying whole articles is a violation of copyright.
Chuck Norton said
On most blogs copying the entire article could be a violation of fair use (as far as I know the Supreme Court has not made a ruling on the blog situation specifically), so that is why its best to just use parts of an article, but since the Vision is a student club I think that educational fair use covers us.
Chuck Norton said
Mr. Paz,
I included the Al Gore thing and the other statements as just additional fuel for the fire, and you have to admit, the Al Gore thing about not having his name on his movie poster, it is funny.
As far as your question about if I am pasting all who maybe concerned about global warming. I am not, that is why my article is titled specifically at global warming alarmists. I think that we should be good stewards of our environment and the best way to do that is to make sure people have a personal or financial stake in keeping the environment reasonably clean and safe as opposed to “unreasonably clean” so as to use environmentalism and a vehicle for an anti-capitalist agenda. The former head of Greenpeace has this same concern in his book, “The Skeptical Environmentalist” by Bjorn Lomborg.
You said “but we just don’t know how much of the earth’s warming is due to air pollution” …
EXACTLY…. and the problem is that most global warming studies make no attempt to determine if its Sun Cycles, Earth Cycles or other things that can be the cause and the ones that have, have determined that the changing solar output of the sun has a significant effect on global temperatures…… but that fact doesn’t lend to the centralized control of the economy so the alarmists try to either ignore it, smear those studies and those who perform them, or just lie about them.
Thanks for reading The Vision.
Bret Matrix said
I got that in an email forward. I looked it up and cited the source. I told you who wrote it, what paper published it, and the date. I did not simply use a link because I am sure most people don’t check out the links.
Justin Hill said
I think the above exchange shows the terrifying and almost religious fervor and fanaticism that Global warming Eco-warriors enjoy when discussing this subject.
Three points:
1 – There are lies and exaggerations on both sides of the argument but those from the pro-warming lobby are far more blatant. And, these are also coupled with a terrifying McCarthyism against scientists who are skeptical about the “evidence” paraded.
Ask yourself why a scientist would dare to risk his reputation? “They’re in the pay of Oil Company’s” is the tedious reply. Well some may be. but many are not.
2 – “The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting because of Global Warming”. Nonsense, they are melting because of post colonial deforestation. This is just one example of the the many blatant lies from the Gore camp.
3 – Scientific theory is not made by consensus. The theory of Relativity did not come about by a vote of scientists. The Global Warming theory is not yet proven by a long shot.
Lastly, witnessing someone trying to use Wikepedia to support an argument is the funniest thing I have heard this week.
anonymous said
Justin,
a) What evidence do you have to support your point #1 (i.e. that the “lies of the pro-warming lobby are far more blatant”)?
You conclude by criticizing a poster for recommending Wikipedia as a source for background reading (it was not used to support an argument), yet your entire post contains nothing other than unfounded statements.
b) Do you not believe that global warming is occurring?
Suppose the most direct cause for the melting at Kilamanjaro is indeed a result of local deforestation (which, by the way, is not well-established, contrary to your assertion). Why could that not be considered evidence for global warming? That is, melting snow most certainly is a symptom of warming, and if on average most areas on the planet are warming, I would say that describing the overall phenomenon as “global warming” is accurate.
I suspect your complaint is intended to be against Gore’s apparent insinuation that the most direct cause at Kilamanjaro is the human-induced rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Perhaps in this case you’re right (i.e. that there’s a plausible local cause). However, I believe it is unreasonable for you to accuse someone of “blatant lies” for making a clear case that, on average, the planet is warming (a fact), and concluding that the dominant cause is rising CO2, because there may be other mechanisms at work that in a few local environments may be more significant.
In other words, no one would deny that mechanisms other than anthropogenic rises in atmospheric CO2 can affect local, or even global, temperatures. However, the consensus view is that, globally, the dominant mechanism producing the observed warming is rising CO2.
c) I don’t understand your point #3, but I get the impression that you are either confused or trying to make a disingenuous argument.
Scientifically, there is no such thing as “Global Warming Theory”. Climate scientists are certainly not trying to make such a claim based on consensus. There are, however, hypotheses and theories within the fields of meteorology, climatology, physics, chemistry, geology, etc that scientists are trying to apply to the observed phenomenon of global warming. This is a very complicated, multidisciplinary task and there will likely be unanswered questions for the foreseeable future.
That said, it is a fact that almost all scientists working on this problem believe that the dominant (i.e. primary, but certainly not exclusive) cause is the fact that there is an anthropogenic rise in atmospheric CO2. This is what is meant by saying there is a consensus view, and it is appropriate and true.
Chuck Norton said
The last time there was a huge spike in CO2 in the atmosphere was during an ice age….
So much for appropriate and true …. lol
anonymous said
Chuck,
I mean this question sincerely, so I would appreciate a serious answer:
Do you really not get the point that climate scientists understand that a rise in CO2 is not the only mechanism capable of producing warming?
Erkki KochKetola said
At the time of the peak Chuck describes in the last ice age, CO2 levels were less than 300 ppmv (parts per million by volume), whereas today they’re reaching 400 ppmv, coincidentally coinciding with a spike in global carbon emissions (over 6000 Mt in 2000 alone) since 1850. You do the math.
(Data courtsey of Wikipedia).
Anonymous said
Chuck is most likely referring to an ice age event hundreds of million years ago when CO2 levels were indeed much higher than they are today.
However, on such a long timescale it is well-known that other climate variables (e.g. position of tectonic plates, orbital parameters, etc) become significant.
Chuck seems to have the peculiar belief that any past or extraterrestrial warming with a cause other than an anthropogenic rise in CO2 levels disproves the consensus view that this is indeed the cause of the current warming trend.
Furthermore, the timing of the event to which Chuck is referring is not well-known, and a recent study determined that the ice age was in full effect millions of years before the CO2 levels actually began to rise (due to volcanism).
Here’s a summary of that report written for a general audience:
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/earlyice.htm
Chuck Norton said
Actually, the number 1 greenhouse “gas” by far is water vapor. The data shows that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming, the global warming cycle causes CO2 to increase.
Oh and I found a web site ran by a scientist that has collected the names of over 17,000 scientists that say that the so called consensus is anything but. I will write a column about that towards the end of the semester.
Also I looked at your link and it proves my point exactly, that there is no consensus, as his study conflicts with NASA studies, Max Planck Institute studies and countless other studies that have set when in time the last 5 ice ages happened. In fact, one could say that there is a consensus on when the ice ages happened and I guess we can say that the guy in your link is just a wacko Ice Age denier right? After all its consensus not science that is so important right?
Don’t you hate it when your own BS is used against you?
Anonymous said
Chuck,
I really don’t even know where to begin…
You’re shifting your arguments, avoiding direct questions and making nonsensical statements. You’ve come to an ideologically based conclusion and support it with ignorance. Your approach to this discussion is to scour the web looking for any nugget of information that you believe will support your predetermined conclusion. Much of what you say isn’t even debatably wrong — it is just plain wrong.
In your shotgun approach you’ve included so much irrelevant, incorrect and misleading information that it would be an onerous task to tackle everything. And, it is clear to me that you will respond to clarifications with even more garbage.
Take your article and follow-up posts on this blog to ANY scientist — feel free to cherry pick one that you think will be sympathetic to your views — and ask him or her to evaluate your position based on what you’ve written. Again, based on what you’ve written is key. I’m not saying that all scientists share the consensus view about the current warming trend and human involvement, but I am confident any scientist will recognize that YOU are full of shit.
Chuck Norton said
Anonymous,
Thanks for proving exactly what I have always said about far left ideologues, when the argument gets too much for you, when you cant refute the evidence, you make it about the messenger, in this case me.
You simply do not have what it takes between the ears to engage me in the arena of facts and ideas and now you post a hateful screed filled with personal attacks….. that are void of true substance.
Take my article to ANY Scientist you say… well I could take them to Dr. Fred Singer, or I could take them to the head of atmospheric studies at MIT…but unfortunately for you they would tend to agree with me. I could also take them to the PhD’s who wrote the two books mentioned in my article, or I could even take them to the former head of Greenpeace… but unfortunately for you, they would tend to agree with me too.
I am getting a modest degree of amusement at seeing your breakdown in the post above. Perhaps it will be nothing like the breakdown you will have when I write the article about the 17,000 scientists who have stated publicly that they don’t agree with your so called consensus.
Perhaps this is why you are hiding behind your keyboard and posting anonymously.
As always, thanks for reading The Vision.
Chuck Norton said
I wanna do more on the “Any Scientist” challenge made by the poster with some serious hate and anger management issues above who hides behind the name “Anonymous”.
So I thought that every once in a while I might come in here and post the bios of real scientists who agree with me or otherwise buck the so called consensus….. remember according to the far left, these people do not exist or should be attacked.
FORMER global warming alarmist Claude Allegre received a PhD in physics in 1962 from the University of Paris. He became the director of the geochemistry and cosmochemistry program at the French National Scientific Research Centre in 1967 and in 1971, he was appointed director of the University of Paris’s Department of Earth Sciences. In 1976, he became director of the Paris Institut de Physique du Globe. He is an author of more than 100 scientific articles, many of them seminal studies on the evolution of the Earth using isotopic evidence, and 11 books. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the French Academy of Science.
——————-
Christopher Landsea received his doctoral degree in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. A research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society’s committee on tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society’s Banner I. Miller Award for the “best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting.” He is a frequent contributor to leading journals, including Science, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Journal of Climate, and Nature.
————————————————-
Henrik Svensmark is director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute (DSRI). Previously, Dr. Svensmark was head of the sunclimate group at DSRI. He has held post doctoral positions in physics at University California Berkeley, Nordic Institute of Theoretical Physics, and the Niels Bohr Institute. In 1997, Dr Svensmark received the Knud Hojgaard Anniversary Research Prize and in 2001 the Energy-E2 Research Prize.
…..I just love being a consensus breaker……
Alex said
Mr. Charles Norton,
The main problem is that you’re a prick.
By “prick”, I mean that you instantly denigrate anyone who disagrees with you (their intelligence, prtesumed knowledge of facts, etc.),. You offer that quite frequently as the sole basis for any disagreement. In other words, incongruence with your typically outlandish opinion can come only from one who is too stupid, too naive, too unprepared, and/or too uninformed with respect to the facts.
You’re a true idiot, and an arrogant as well as terribly ignorant one at that. For example, you like to feel as though you can close cases, or even question them ligitimately, in areas you know essentially nothing about, such as the scientific field of global warming or, perhaps, the recent ecomomy of Ireland or, perhaps, how Clinton could have prevented 9/11 or, perhaps, your faulty notion that the rich have lately been paying more taxes and that’s what’s helped our economy – you know, bullshit as stupid as that.
You know, Mr. Norton, pretty much everything you have dared place into print has been total bullshit. By that I mean COMPLETELY at odds with what presidents say, what major newspapers say, what the majority of Republicans say, etc. You’re so weirdly out there, man. You like to somehow criss-cross betwen outlier factoids (or falsehoods) here and and there and somehow paint them into a bloody, storybook ending of yours at complete odds with all of reality – in EVERY which way.
Go for it, man.
Anonymous said
Chuck,
Do you really not understand that someone could share your beliefs about global warming, yet not agree that the arguments you’ve used to reach that conclusion are valid? As I stated, “Again, based on what you’ve written is key. I’m not saying that all scientists share the consensus view about the current warming trend and human involvement”
Just because you reference Lindzen, for example, does not mean that he would give you a pass on your manifest confusion about what is known about past climate. Personally, I respect Lindzen because he supports what he says with relevant facts and presents a reasonable interpretation of them. That is, his conclusion is largely supported by the arguments he uses to reach it.
You, on the other hand, have collected a laundry list of just about everything that anyone has ever used to support your preconceived conclusion. And, much of your article really is garbage; as I stated, “In your shotgun approach you’ve included so much irrelevant, incorrect and misleading information that it would be an onerous task to tackle everything”.
I’m not even trying to argue the validity of your conclusion, but I am very frustrated by your approach. That is, you start with a conclusion, search for anything you can find to support it, and completely ignore contradictory data. Just for the record, I have no negative feelings towards you personally, but I do indeed hate your writing style.
Chuck Norton said
Alex and Anonymous,
Hate is not a family value.
The big problem that you two have with what I say is that I back it up with facts that you, or anyone else for that matter, is unable to refute.
Alex you say I ignore the facts, yet every fact I have posted has gone unrefuted, and almost every fact I have posted has gone unchallenged in the arena of facts and ideas. While at the same time when moonbats like you and Anonymous post your assertions, I post evidence and reason to show them to be incorrect.
When I do that you than abandon the arena of ideas and attack me, at this point you have lost the entire argument, and since you simply refuse to stick with the issue and the facts you leave me with little choice but to continue to post facts and mock you at the same time for your ineptitude.
When I point this out, people like yourself just continue to post more and more hate.
At least Anonymous was honest enough to state that I say things that go against the grain of most newspapers (hey you are on to something there Anon but its time for a paradigm shift and to ask….what is wrong with most newspapers)and say that my approach frustrates him.
Of course my approach frustrates you Anon and the other leftists and I am glad that you said this (seriously that was unusually inciteful so no mocking there). Go and examine each article I have written and the comments…. you will see one thing in common with all of them and that is that every time a far left moonbat posts a “fact” or assertion against my article I show their assertion to be simply incorrect with both reason and evidence.
Look at when a far left moonbat said that there is not one real study that shows that there is left wing bias in the antique media, so I posted a bunch of peer reviewed studies that show that there is, including some from Indiana University. Or how about the time when I talked about how former FOB Mansoor Ijaz negotiated with Sudan to get Bin-Laden handed over to us and Bill Clinton would not take him, so the moonbats posted “facts” from blogs saying that the incident never happened…… till I posted an audio recording of Bill Clinton talking about the incident.
Now did these incontravertable facts and evidence change one mind in the far left? No way, not a chance, because the far left does not live in a world of truth, they live in a world of ideology. Facts to me means verifiable evidence in context, facts to you mean anything that supports your ideology. That is why no matter how much verifiable evidence I post, you will say that I post no facts at all.
Quite simply, you have taken your normative values and grafted them into your perception of reality, hence your frustration when I post evidence that cannot be refuted. Such evidence attacks the foundation of your entire reality, so I understand how frustrating and unsettling such a thing can be.
So instead of hating me, I challenge you to consider, even for just a short time, what if I am right. Remember, any good philosophy teacher will tell you, that one of the toughest and smartest things that anyone can do, is to challenge your own assumptions.
Think about it.
Chuck Norton said
Case in point –
Alex said that “(your)faulty notion that the rich have lately been paying more taxes and that’s what’s helped our economy – you know, bullshit as stupid as that” – End Quote
Ok lets us tackle that right off the bat. Now I posted incontravertable proof that the rich have paid more taxes in real dollars and have paid a larger share of the federal tax burden since the tax cuts….but since this goes against Alex’s ideological perception of reality the facts just cannot compute.
So I will post some more incontravertable evidence for Alex to ignore.
– QUOTE New York Times Jan. 8 2007
The budget office offered little commentary on its new estimates, but many of its numbers spoke for themselves.
The report shows that a comparatively small number of very wealthy households account for a very big share of total tax payments, and their share increased in the first four years after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts.
The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7 percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all federal taxes in 2004. The top 20 percent of income earners paid 67.1 percent of all federal taxes, up from 66.1 percent in 2000, according to the budget office. – End Quote
And here is more proof from the IRS
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in06tr.xls
And here is the Effective Federal Tax Rates report from the Congressional Budget Office.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-EffectiveFedTaxRates.pdf
Dont worry Alex, I still expect you to go around telling people that this evidence doesnt exist.
A Student said
Dear Mr. Norton,
Given the fact that your evidence is always “incontrovertable” and you always succeed in “refuting” your opponents, it’s hard to believe that you only work at a small school newspaper whose biggest claim to fame is a plagiarism scandal. I mean if your arguments are so good, to put it bluntly, why aren’t you more successful? Of course, one could draw from this fact that your arguments really aren’t incontrovertable, and that you really don’t refute anyone, but I take it you probably probably think you can “refute” this point as well.
Alex said
A. Student,
Chuck’s first response will be (essentially):
“Hate is not a family value.”
He shall then follow nicely with (essentially):
“You simply do not have what it takes between the ears to engage me in the arena of facts and ideas…”
Segueing into something like, oh let’s say: “no one has ever refuted a single fact or idea that I have presented on this blog – ever – because people are either lazy (don’t do their homework or research every factoid I manage to cull), hyerpartisan, left-wing ideologues or, once again, lack what it takes between the ears…”
Leading to a nice finish, as such:
“Thank you for reading the Vision.”
As most people understand by now, one should noi question Chuck’s wisdom or logic on ANY topic (such as anthropogenic facilitation of global warming) or lack thereof) because quite frankly, he knows a lot more about the subject than you do and secondly, he can identify individuals who concur with him.
The best context within which to inhale any of his so-called “news analysis” is as follows: Chuck Norton exists for the purpose of entertainment, and for that I giveth him credit. Be thankful there is no cover charge :)
Alex
A Student said
Alex,
I think you have to take Chuck with a grain of salt. Anyone can present arguments and say that they are irrefutable. You don’t need any Ph.D for this. All you need is a newspaper column. And I take it after these plagiarism incidents, a column is not too difficult to procure at the Vision. The test for Chuck’s arguments is not whether Chuck believes them (he obviously does if he presents them), but whether they are convincing to other people. Until Chuck’s arguments become convincing to others, he might as well be that guy standing on the corner yelling that the world is flat, and daring people to prove him wrong. That is, you can engage him, but you’re probably better off throwing a quarter in his cup and walking away. The extent to which Chuck has been successful in the past is important here. I would suggest looking at his past columns on the rationality of the Iraq war. If the guy’s analysis has been so misleading for so long, why should anyone believe anything he says?
A Student said
By the way, this is a good example of one of Mr. Norton’s failed analyses. It’s from the July 18, 2006 South Bend Tribune:
http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060718/Opinion05/607180452/-1/OPINION/CAT=Opinion05
The following can be regarded by rational people as nothing other than utterly false:
“I take issue with Herr’s statement that Iraqi freedom is not materializing. The Baathists and al-Qaida have failed to stop every election so far, they have failed to stop the ratification of the new Iraqi constitution, they have failed to start a civil war, they have failed to stop Iraq from settling on its first unified government and they have failed to stop Iraqi’s from signing up to the security forces. In fact, captured correspondence from al-Qaida indicates that their resistance is nearly broken.”
Ok. Chuck Norton claims on July, 18, 2006 that al-Qaida resistance is nearly broken. I’ll let you decide whether he was right.
Coming back two years later – Chuck was correct, al-Qaida was on the way down and in 2008 they are all but destroyed in Iraq. – iusbvision
Chuck Norton said
A student, who also has posted as “Chuck’s Ego” etc etc… your rhetorical style and the way that you tell lies is very telling.
Everything I said in my tribune article is completely accurate, you, however, have lied about what I said.
I said , “captured correspondence from al-Qaeda indicates that their resistance is nearly broken.” And this is true, after we killed Zarqawi we captured their computers and documents and they say it in their own words. If you like I can post the links to where the letters are posted.
You said that I claimed that Al-Qaeda’s resistance is nearly broken…. you lied. They claimed it. I was merely quoting them.
You come in here and you tell lie after lie after lie after lie, you attack me, but you never honestly take on my argument, you shuck, you jive, you duck, you hide….. anything but actually engage me in the arena of facts and ideas where you know every bit as well as I do that you have no chance……
As far as the plagiarism issue of late, that was with the leftist writer and not me, how nice of you to try to smear me with that brush.
And as far as convincing others, there are people who send me email or stop me every day thanking me for my column and for The Vision, including many alumni. You are so ego narcissistic as to think that I am here to convince you?? To you the truth is anything that supports your ideology. You and people like Sam/Alex etc etc serve a simple purpose, and that is to get your arguments crushed every day by the facts I present which provides entertainment for the thousands of people who come here…. and I must admit that I get a residue of amusement by posting facts that make moonbats (unhinged leftists) go crazy.
For all those who are just readers and not posters, take a look who has posted real evidence here and backed it up with honest arguments, it says it all.
Oh and as always “A Student/Chuck’s Ego” …. a word of wisdom …. hate is not a family value.
Does a leftist exist that will address the evidence I post directly and honestly or are you all as chicken as these people who post here?
As always thanks for reading The Vision :-)
Chuck Norton said
I would like to add on to my statement that to the far left, it is ideology that matters above all else and that little things like facts do not enter in to it.
I was listening to a Ronald Reagan speech and he reminded me something that Lenin said in 1920…
Quote –
I point out that, as good Marxist-Leninists, the Soviet leaders have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further their cause, which is world revolution. I think I should point out I was only quoting Lenin, their guiding spirit, who said in 1920 that they repudiate all morality that proceeds from supernatural ideas – that’s their name for religion – or ideas that are outside class conceptions. Morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of class war. And everything is moral that is necessary for the annihilation of the old, exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.
…..They have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is what will further their cause, meaning they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat, in order to attain that, and that is moral, not immoral, and we operate on a different set of standards….
Ronald Reagan
– End Quote
You moonbats think that you are so smart and innovative….. the truth is that intellectually we have had you under the tip of our finger since 1920.
A Student said
Dear All,
Apparently my comments are now being moderated due to the fact that I have systematically refuted Mr. Norton.
A Student said
Chuck,
I hope you’re sitting down, because by the end of this post, you will have been completely refuted, and probably also have spontaneously combusted from the force of my arguments. I block quoted you, and you say I lie. You say that everything you said in your tribune article is completely accurate. On the contrary, it is you who are the liar, as every single sentence in the block quote from you that I used is demonstrably false. Allow me to refute you sentence by sentence. I will kindly refrain from tattooing “Q.E.D.” on your forehead, after I’m finished, out of common courtesy for a dying man. As for posting under multiple names, I must have missed the fine print saying this was illegal. Irregardless, you can rest assured that “Chuck’s Ego” was too big for only one name. And now for the point-by-point refutation. You wrote:
“I take issue with Herr’s statement that Iraqi freedom is not materializing. The Baathists and al-Qaida have failed to stop every election so far, they have failed to stop the ratification of the new Iraqi constitution, they have failed to start a civil war, they have failed to stop Iraq from settling on its first unified government and they have failed to stop Iraqi’s from signing up to the security forces. In fact, captured correspondence from al-Qaida indicates that their resistance is nearly broken.”
Refutation 1: “I take issue with Herr’s statement that Iraqi freedom is not materializing.”
No doubt it is correct that you take issue with Herr’s statement. Yet the content of your statement is demonstrably false. The content of your statement is that “Iraqi freedom is materializing.” What you mean by “materializing” is spelled out in your next sentence, and this has five aspects:
1.The Baathists and al-Qaida have failed to stop every election so far.
2.The Baathists and al-Qaida have failed to stop the ratification of the new Iraqi constitution.
3.The Baathists and al-Qaida have failed to start a civil war.
4.The Baathists and al-Qaida have failed to stop Iraq from settling on its first unified government
5.The Baathists and al-Qaida have failed to stop Iraqi’s from signing up to the security forces.
I’m certain that you have never taken a logic class before, but 1-5 are, under logical analysis, connected by conjunctions (that is, by “and’s”). Therefore, if any single proposition in 1-5 is false, then the entire sentence is false. But, both 3 and 5 are demonstrably false. 5 would be too easy for me to prove, so I’ll take a challenge and deal with 3. Iraq is in civil war. See the conservative Forbes magazine:
http://www.forbes.com/leadership/managing/2007/03/07/international-civil-war-biz-cx_0308oxford.html
See former prime minister of Iraq Allawi (March 19, 2006):
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070308-0302-iraq-war-quotes.html
See US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) (It actually says that Iraq is worse than a civil war):
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20070202-040443-5048r
See Colin Powell:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/29/powell.iraq/index.html
I’ve got literally millions of articles more in my own private archive for you.
As for your logic-chopping on your final sentence. You say “captured correspondence from al-Qaida indicates that their resistance is nearly broken,” and then try to insist, against all common-sense, that this statement does not imply that you believe that al-Qaida’s resistance is nearly broken. That is, the content of this statement is not merely that correspondence indicates that al-Qaida resistance is nearly broken, but also that al-Qaida resistance REALLY IS broken. Perhaps in your mind, you believe that you are somehow able to transgress the laws of semantics that the rest of us must follow. But I assure you that the rules of our language apply just as much to you as they do to the rest of us. Therefore, your final sentence is false. Q.E.D. And thank YOU for reading the Vision.
iusbvision said
A student, when you post too many links, wordpress automatically puts you on moderation, try masking your links with a few spaces to get by it.
iusbvision said
I am going in to post your post now.
A Student said
Thanks for the tip.
Sheepishly,
A Student
Rachel Custer said
Oh goodness. We now have two Chuck Nortons arguing with each other. I must say, it is amusing.
Chuck Norton said
Ok your post now shows. And now I will blow it out of the water.
I said in my old article that…
1.The Baathists and al-Qaida have failed to stop every election so far.
2.The Baathists and al-Qaida have failed to stop the ratification of the new Iraqi constitution.
3.The Baathists and al-Qaida have failed to start a civil war.
4.The Baathists and al-Qaida have failed to stop Iraq from settling on its first unified government
5.The Baathists and al-Qaida have failed to stop Iraqi’s from signing up to the security forces.
Has even 1 election been stopped because of Al-Qeada or Baathists – Answer NO
Has the ratification of the new Iraqi Constitution been stopped – Answer NO
Have Baathists and Al-Qeada started a Civil War? – Answer No – And I will post more evidence to show this is a moment.
Have said Baathista nd Al-Qeada stopped people from signing up for the security forces?? – Answer no because they are growing in number every day.
Iraq has settled on its unified government so I was right about that too.
So lets handle your Civil War Argument –
Your Forbes link is an article from a think tank from Oxford and it defines Civil War as “intra-societal conflicts in which at least 1,000 people died.”
The problem with this definition is that it is a ridiculously low standard. We lose 44,000 people on our highways every year and that is 120.5 people per day. The simple truth is that Iraq has had sectarian violence since the end of the Ottoman Empire. The Sunni have been used to control the Shiite population in Iraq going back long before Saddam was even in power.
Also a simple review of the human rights reports of Saddam’s Iraq shows that the number of Iraqi’s that died under his rule is measured in the millions.
So by the definition you have given in this Oxford article Iraq has been in civil war for decades since Saddam took power.
———-
Ok so lets skewer your next link
Your next link goes to a UPI article that mischaracterizes the NIE Report of Feb 2007. The article claims that the NIE conforms that Iraq is in a civil war…. when in fact it says that while there is civil war like activity in regards to the sectarian violence, the outlook is hopeful.
Here is what the NIE says in Context…
– QUOTE –
Click to access Iraq_NIE.pdf
The Intelligence Community judges that the term “civil war” does not adequately
capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia
violence, al-Qa’ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread
criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term “civil war” accurately
describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethnosectarian
identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian
mobilization, and population displacements.
Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an
essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during
the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant
increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to
the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.
– End Quote
So it says you will have real civil war if we pull out too soon, well no duh.
In fact, Sourcewatch agrees with me as well…
– QUOTE –
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Intelligence_Estimate
“In a discussion of whether Iraq has reached a state of civil war, the 90-page classified NIE comes to no conclusion and holds out prospects of improvement. But it couches glimmers of optimism in deep uncertainty about whether the Iraqi leaders will be able to transcend sectarian interests and fight against extremists, establish effective national institutions and end rampant corruption,” DeYoung and Pincus wrote.
– end quote –
Ohh my, so you mean that UPI would dare to mischaracterize the NIE to meet their own editorial point of view…. should I be shocked???
————
Ok lets skewer your next link……
Your next link quotes former interim PM Allawi in Iraq from last year.
– quote –
March 19, 2006 – ‘We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is.’ – former interim prime minister Allawi.
– end quote –
Well by that definition Iraq has been in civil war for decades because many more died in Iraq due to Saddam and sectarian violence. Hmmm in the United States how many people die by acts of violence every day, not to mention the 43,443 that died on US highways in 2005. So by Allawi’s off the cuff comment (which what it really was) the USA is at civil war. Allawi has been wrong about several things so this is no surprise.
The simple truth is that in a REAL civil war a whole lot more people die than are dying in Iraq. We lost 620,000 in the American Civil War, that was a real civil war.
———————-
And now the final smackdown……
– Quote –
Reuters Feb 19 2007 –
BAGHDAD — On any given day in Baghdad, Iraqi police will report finding up to 50 bodies shot, tortured and dumped in the streets of the capital, but on Saturday just five were found, police said on Sunday.
Despite a double car-bombing in eastern Baghdad that killed at least five people, it was a dramatic sign that a stepped-up military offensive by more than 110,000 Iraqi and U.S security forces is, at least for now, curbing the violence that has turned the city’s streets into killing fields.
– quote –
– Quote –
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq28aug28,0,5085663.story?track=tothtml
BAGHDAD — An ambitious military sweep appears to be dramatically reducing Baghdad’s homicide rate, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Sunday — even as violence nationwide killed at least 80 people, including six U.S. soldiers in and around the capital.
Last month, the Baghdad morgue received more than 1,800 bodies, a record high. This month, the morgue is on track to receive less than a quarter of that.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki seized on the drop in slayings during a CNN interview.
“The violence is not increasing…. No, we’re not in a civil war,” Maliki said. “In Iraq, we’ll never be in civil war. What you see is an atmosphere of reconciliation.”
– End Quote –
Hmm Look Moonbats, the PM of Iraq says there isn’t a civil war…..
Here is a report from just a few days into “the surge” that the moonbats are having a cow about
– Quote –
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2113500920070221?src=022207_0714_TOPSTORY_chemical_bombs_in_iraq_stoke_fears
Since the security plan was formally launched, the U.S. and the Iraqi military say there has been a big drop in sectarian bloodshed overall.
….Before the operation, 40-50 bodies were found every day on Baghdad’s streets. That dropped to around five a day but rose to 25 on Tuesday, police said.
End quote –
Ok so I have made my point, when there is adequate security the violence goes WAY down. Hmm that is a novel idea. Violence happens in a power vacuum, especially when there is regime change…. in the history of warfare that is nothing new.
The simple truth is, that violence around the country of Iraq overall is going down…. EXCEPT in Baghdad and now that is starting to change with the increased security there. It seems that most of the terrorists are making a stand in Baghdad. This is not unusual as the light is always brightest before it goes out, and considering that the 2 months before the end of WWII were the most costly on average for WWII, I expect the remaining terror groups to make a hell of a stink before they are either eliminated or choose to cooperate.
Chuck Norton said
But all this stuff above is just peripheral to the real issue at hand. That the far left wants to break the political will of the United States. The far left wants to see the USA pull out before the job is done to ensure a “loss”. The far left hates President Bush so much, that they would gladly have the United States lose if it meant embarrassing him.
This is why every victory is either downplayed, ignored, or spun as a defeat and every homicide bombing in a market is played over and over and over again.
“liberals screamed for years about U.S. support for the region’s dictators, writes the opinion editor of the Lebanon Daily Star. Then Bush came along and knocked off Saddam, and what happened? They screamed about imperialism.”
Chuck Norton said
And the far left has not been able to put a dent in my global warming article and associated evidence I have posted above, but that is nothing new.
A Student said
Chuck,
Your post would be laughable, if it weren’t for the fact that it’s such a sad demonstration of how our universities are failing to provide basic critical thinking skills to its students. First, I’m going to teach you how to read. Along the way, I will destroy your post with the hammer of my intellect. Then, I will feed the shattered pieces of your post back to you with a spoon, as you sit rocking back and forth in your chair traumatized by what you have just seen. I choose to spoon-feed you back to life because I hope that maybe, just maybe, you might learn along the way that hate is not a family value.
First, the reading lesson. I really ought to start with phonics here, if I were to be totally thorough. But your grasp of logic is wholly insufficient for a college-level student. When you say, “The Baathists and al-Qaida have failed to stop every election so far, they have failed to stop the ratification of the new Iraqi constitution, they have failed to start a civil war, they have failed to stop Iraq from settling on its first unified government and they have failed to stop Iraqi’s from signing up to the security forces,” in order for this sentence to be true, ALL of its clauses must be true, since the sentence, under logical analysis, is a conjunction of multiple claims. That is, what you are saying is: “The Baathists and al-Qaida X, AND the Baathists and al-Qaida Y, AND the Baathists and al-Qaida X…” So, if I say, “Grass is green, snow is white, and the president of the united states is a Martian,” my statement is false because the one clause is false. Now that I’ve taught you how to read sentences, you can see that the first half of your post is utterly incoherent and must be destroyed, preferably with dynamite. You could be right about 4/5 of your claims (though you are not) and your sentence would still be false. So, why you try to defend the claims that I didn’t argue against with your knock-down argument, and I quote, “Answer NO,” which is such a feeble justification that you would have been better off just moving your hand randomly across your keyboard, and having the letters turn out as they may, is beyond me.
Now, let me teach you how to read quotations. The Forbes article says, “By one influential measure, between 1945 and 2004, there were 128 “civil wars”–roughly defined as intra-societal conflicts in which at least 1,000 people died.” Now , how you can move from this sentence, which gives a vague, rough outline of what a civil war is, to your assessment, “Your Forbes link is an article from a think tank from Oxford and it defines Civil War as ‘intra-societal conflicts in which at least 1,000 people died,’” can only be explainable through the fact that you are unable to read a sentence in the English language, or to decipher simple syntax. I take it that what you’ve quoted as a definition, is likely a “necessary” and not a “sufficient” condition for civil war. Do these words mean anything to you, or are they just scrawls on a page?
What I am suggesting for your post is for you to rewrite it and resubmit it, perhaps with the aid of one of your professors, taking into account what we’ve learned in this session about the English language. Please be swift about it. I’m anxious to refute the second half of your post after that. And thank YOU for reading the Vision.
Chuck Norton said
LOL,
Student, I have news for you, simply repeating what I have already proven wrong isn’t refutation.
(Ok all now examine Student’s post carefully, see how he ignores all of the evidence I posted in my previous post and he instead just keeps trying to make it about me? This is very indicative of the far left. They KNOW that they cannot win on the evidence, so they seek to try and disqualify those who beat them in arguments from the argument in the first place. So instead of him saying “your evidence is flawed because of XXXX” his argument consists of personal attacks and some tortured logic stating that my syntax is bad, which ultimately, has nothing to do with the evidence.)
So for your sake, even though I know you will not listen because you live in a world of ideology and not facts, I will reduce my answer to the kindergarten level just for you.
Let us just take your assertion 1 at a time.
1.The Baathists and al-Qaeda have failed to stop every election so far.
You say that I am incorrect, therefor it is incumbent upon YOU to show us what national election they stopped.
2.The Baathists and al-Qaeda have failed to stop the ratification of the new Iraqi constitution.
You say that I am wrong with some tortured logic, how about this. If I am wrong please demonstrate to us that the new Iraqi Constitution was not ratified and we have all been tricked.
(Silly isn’t it, well this is the world that moonbats live in folks)
4.The Baathists and al-Qaeda have failed to stop Iraq from settling on its first unified government.
Ok if I am wrong, it is incumbent upon YOU to show that the Iraqi Parliament has not settled on a coalition government as parliaments do, which you cant.
5.The Baathists and al-Qaeda have failed to stop Iraqi’s from signing up to the security forces.
So far I have seen zero evidence that you have posted that says that Iraqi’s have stopped signing up.
3.The Baathists and al-Qaeda have failed to start a civil war.
Now I have posted evidence and reason to back that statement up, evidence which you have avoided. You chose to avoid the evidence I posted and play a game of semantics, that amounts to nothing of evidentiary value.
I on the other hand, addressed the heart of each of your pieces of evidence and proven them to be flawed or out and out misrepresentations.
Here is a novel idea Student, if a statement I make is wrong, take it point by point and prove it incorrect with verifiable evidence that cannot be refuted. Instead, you are shucking, you are jiving, and your trying to hide behind cute semantics and why? Because you just don’t have the evidence to support your position…. not that evidence means anything to you anyway.
Of course, Studnet was unable to land a glove on my global warming article and associated evidence, so now he is trying this game. Should we all wish him luck? :-)
As always, thanks for reading The Vision.
A Student said
That’s all you have? Are you just conceding victory to me? This is pathetic. I’ve clearly won:
1) You have been totally refuted.
2) You haven’t responded to any of my refutations.
Game. Set. Match.
Frankly, I’m a bit disappointed. This was way too easy.
Chuck Norton said
Like I said all, they live in a world of ideology and not facts. Examine my last post and his. I asked him for varifiable refutation in several points, there is none to be found so instead he declares victory and runs away. ….. of course that is a tactic that we have seen before as well (it is one of Erkki’s favorites).
Ok new question lefties; is there a single one of you that does not march in lock step with the other? As far as the moonbats are concerned, it is the same tactics over and over and over again. I would love to see something really new from you guys.
As always, thanks for reading The Vision.
A Student said
I encourage everyone to look at all of the posts and ask who has refuted who. Frankly, members of the far, far right like Mr. Norton don’t stand a chance against my cool, moderate rationality. It doesn’t matter whether they’re wingnuts on the far, far right, like Mr. Norton, or wingnuts on the far, far left. The moderate voice always wins, as I’ve demonstrated here. Mr. Norton has seen my refutation and hasn’t responded to any of my points. Keep this in mind next time, Chuck: never underestimate the power of cold, hard, logic. It cuts like a knife through your world of opinions and delusions
Q.E.D.
Anonymous said
Chuck, This is right up your alley:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
;)
Chuck Norton said
A Student, I am glad that you have such confidence in your debate ability. Now can you please post some refutation that addresses the evidence I posted and answers the questions you dodged?
Thanks
Chuck Norton said
Anonymous,
Of course I do not think that the world is flat. The Bible says that the Earth is round… eg “He who stands on the circle of the Earth”
Aristotle concluded that the Earth was round by observing a ship go out into the horizon. Others observed that the earth was round by measuring the angle of shadows cast by obelisks hundreds of miles apart.
Those who think that the Earth is flat are making a rather silly faith based judgement.
Oh By the way Anon,
Aside from these 3 – That you previously stated could not exist… :
FORMER global warming alarmist Claude Allegre received a PhD in physics in 1962 from the University of Paris. He became the director of the geochemistry and cosmochemistry program at the French National Scientific Research Centre in 1967 and in 1971, he was appointed director of the University of Paris’s Department of Earth Sciences. In 1976, he became director of the Paris Institut de Physique du Globe. He is an author of more than 100 scientific articles, many of them seminal studies on the evolution of the Earth using isotopic evidence, and 11 books. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the French Academy of Science.
——————-
Christopher Landsea received his doctoral degree in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. A research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society’s committee on tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society’s Banner I. Miller Award for the “best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting.” He is a frequent contributor to leading journals, including Science, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Journal of Climate, and Nature.
————————————————-
Henrik Svensmark is director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute (DSRI). Previously, Dr. Svensmark was head of the sunclimate group at DSRI. He has held post doctoral positions in physics at University California Berkeley, Nordic Institute of Theoretical Physics, and the Niels Bohr Institute. In 1997, Dr Svensmark received the Knud Hojgaard Anniversary Research Prize and in 2001 the Energy-E2 Research Prize.
————————
Here is the Biograpghy of another scientist who doesnt exist who bucks your so called (read lie, myth take your pick) consensus:
Dr. Fred Singer is a Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. He is a fellow of a number of scientific bodies, including the American Physical Society.
In the 1940s and 50s Singer was involved in designing instruments used in satellites to measure cosmic radiation and ozone.
Previous government and academic positions:
Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62)
Special advisor to President Eisenhower on space developments (1960)
First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64)
Founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67)
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70)
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71)
Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1971-94)
Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89)
Singer holds a degree in Electrical engineering from Ohio State University and a PhD in Physics from Princeton University.
In 1959 he was selected as one of “Ten Outstanding Young Men of the Nation” by the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce.
Chuck Norton said
Alex/Sam
After all the hate, and name calling and venom and neo-marxist ranting on this blog you have done, do you really expect anyone to take your word as anything but ideologically driven?
Of course, after the number of intellectual and rhetorical spankings I have served you on this blog, it is no surprise that you started posting under an alternate name.
But as always, thanks for reading The Vision.
Anonymous said
Chuck,
1) Please point me to where I said that no dissenters exist regarding the consensus view. The following is a quote from you (post #54), that I believe to be an intentional lie: “That you previously stated could not exist…”
I have repeatedly used language which explicitly acknowledges that there are dissenters.
You frequently, yet incorrectly, accuse others of making a straw-man argument. For future reference, your current tactic is an excellent example.
Chuck Norton said
Anon,
You admit that there are those who have another view, of course to label them as deniers or dissenters has certain connotations that comes with it. This admission was a big step for you. I am so proud. :-)
Scroll up to your own post Anon. You challenged me to find a scientist who questioned the global warming orthodoxy. I have been posting names of eminently qualified scientists ever since.
Anonymous said
1) I have never suggested otherwise. You falsely stated that I did, and I believe that you did it intentionally in order to unfairly weaken my comments (i.e. you attempted to make a straw-man argument).
2) I do not recall ever using the term “denier”; however, I have seen it used elsewhere. I agree with you that such language has an unfair connotation due to the implied reference to Holocaust Deniers. That said, I do not believe that there is any such connotation with the term dissenter. I believe that “dissenter” very clearly denotes what I intend to convey, and I will continue to use it.
Rachel said
I only have one point, in regards to all the posts from both sides about the other side being completely rooted in ideology instead of facts.
We are ALL living in ideology. The issue is not which side or person is living in the midst of ideology; if it is anything, it is which side is living in the midst of the RIGHT ideology. Everybody, from far left “moonbats” to far-right “moonbats” (and there are many of both), operates all their lives within some sort of ideology. It is impossible to completely step outside of ideology, so accusing a person or side of “living in ideology” or “living in a world of opinions” is useless. We are all guilty of this.
A Student said
Rachel,
Moonbats on the far, far-right like you and Chuck don’t even realize that there is indeed a realm of facts. I know there is such a realm, because I live there. My cold, hard, moderate logic helps me to see right through Chuck’s far, far-right spin. Wingnuts on the far, far-right like you and Chuck, and those on the far, far-left are all the same. You guys are so blinded by your ideology, you can’t even see that there even is a place free from spin. It’s my realm, the realm of facts and logic.
anonymous said
I’ve numbered Chuck’s “inconvenient questions” and interspersed responses (in capital letters) below. My intention was to consider the scientific value of his points in terms of the mainstream consensus viewpoint. None of his questions are scientifically “inconvenient”, but are instead either an attempt to build a straw-man, misleading, based on a false premise or irrelevant.
1) If man is the primary cause of global warming please explain what man did to warm us out of the last five known ice ages.
STRAW-MAN ARGUMENT: NO ONE CLAIMS THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY IS THE ONLY MECHANISM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING WARMING.
2) According to NASA, 2004 was the fourth warmest year on records since the 1800’s. If man has caused the Earth to continually warm why were the 1800’s warmer than today, especially considering that the world was far less populated and industrialized than it has been since 1930?
FALSE PREMISE: THE 1800’S WERE NOT WARMER THAN TODAY.
3) According to the BBC, China’s factories and homes burn 40% more coal than the United States, yet proposed treaties that are alleged to address global warming focus on regulations in the United States and give China a pass. Why?
POLITICAL: THIS HAS NO BEARING ON THE SCIENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING.
4) According to the Illinois State Museum there have been 20 known glacial advances and retreats in the last two million years. So why is this one man’s fault?
STRAW-MAN ARGUMENT: NO ONE CLAIMS THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY IS THE ONLY MECHANISM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING WARMING.
5) Why is Al Gore’s name not on his own movie poster? Take a look. media.monstersandcritics.com/movies/aninconvenienttruth_1/images/group1/inconvenientruthonesheet.jpg
IRRELEVANT
6) Why did Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia say that “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention”
DISSENTING OPINION: NO ONE WOULD ARGUE THAT DISSENTERS DO NOT EXIST. HOWEVER, MOST SCIENTISTS AND PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OF SCIENTISTS DO NOT AGREE WITH BOB CARTER.
7) According to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies solar output has been increasing by .05% per decade since the 1970’s. How can you be certain that solar output has an effect that is far less than man?
THIS IS INDEED AN ADDITIONAL MECHANISM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING WARMING. IT IS STILL BEING STUDIED. HOWEVER, THE CURRENT CONSENSUS OPINION IS THAT THIS MECHANISM IS LESS SIGNIFICANT THAN ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 FOR THE CURRENT WARMING TREND. NO ONE CLAIMS THAT ANY ONE MECHANISM OPERATES EXCLUSIVELY.
8) If man is the primary cause of global warming why is it that NASA has a study on their web site that shows how solar activity increases and decreases actually correlate to North-American temperature changes since 1700? Why did the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, publish a study by Turkish physicist Ali Kilcik that demonstrated a parallel between solar activity change and variations in the Earth’s climate?
THIS IS INDEED AN ADDITIONAL MECHANISM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING WARMING. IT IS STILL BEING STUDIED. HOWEVER, THE CURRENT CONSENSUS OPINION IS THAT THIS MECHANISM IS LESS SIGNIFICANT THAN ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 FOR THE CURRENT WARMING TREND. NO ONE CLAIMS THAT ANY ONE MECHANISM OPERATES EXCLUSIVELY.
9) Why is it that in the years between 1645-1715, which was the middle of what is called “The Little Ice Age” with the coldest average European temperatures known, coincide with what astronomers call the Maunder Minimum, the lowest period of sun spot and solar activity recorded?
STRAW-MAN ARGUMENT: NO ONE CLAIMS THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY IS THE ONLY MECHANISM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING WARMING OR COOLING. ALTHOUGH THE TIMING AND CAUSE OF “THE LITTLE ICE AGE” ARE NOT WELL-KNOWN, CORRELATION OF A PAST COOLING EVENT WITH SOLAR ACTIVITY CERTAINLY DOES NOT PRECLUDE OTHER MECHANISMS FOR THE CURRENT WARMING.
10) According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology the moons of Neptune and the former planet Pluto are warming. What has man does to cause this global warming?
STRAW-MAN ARGUMENT: NO ONE CLAIMS THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY IS THE ONLY MECHANISM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING WARMING.
11) Why have leading astronomers such as Philip Marcus of the University of California at Berkeley published studies that show that Jupiter is warming?
STRAW-MAN ARGUMENT: NO ONE CLAIMS THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY IS THE ONLY MECHANISM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING WARMING.
12) If consensus creates such a scientific certainty, explain why a study done by the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece and published in the Public Library of Science Medicine, shows that more than 50% of published studies are later proven to be false; saying that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false?
NO ONE CLAIMS THAT CONSENSUS CREATES SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY. THE ISSUE OF CONSENSUS ONLY COMES INTO PLAY DURING THE DISSEMINATION OF SCIENCE TO GOVERNMENT (FOR POLICY DECISIONS) AND THE PUBLIC.
13) After Hurricane Katrina, the global warming alarmists said that because of global warming the following hurricane seasons would continue to grow more harsh and destructive, only to be followed by one the mildest hurricane seasons on record. Why?
FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS RELEVANT TO THE WELL-ACCEPTED FACT OF GLOBAL WARMING, NOT THE CAUSE OF THE WARMING. SECONDLY, NO ONE CLAIMS A HIGH DEGREE OF PRECISION REGARDING HURRICANE ACTIVITY FOR A GIVEN YEAR. THE PREDICTION IS THAT, ON AVERAGE, HURRICANES WILL INCREASE BOTH IN NUMBER AND INTENSITY. HOWEVER, THE MAGNITUDE, AS A FUNCTION OF AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE, OF THESE CHANGES IS NOT WELL KNOWN.
14) Why did the Senate vote down the Kyoto Treaty unanimously in 1998? Why has Canada also pulled out of the treaty?
POLITICAL: THIS HAS NO BEARING ON THE SCIENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING.
15) According to the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, not only is solar output rising, but the polar ice caps on Mars are melting. Could it be that this is happening because the Mars Rover is an SUV?
STRAW-MAN ARGUMENT: NO ONE CLAIMS THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY IS THE ONLY MECHANISM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING WARMING. (GRANTED, THIS WAS AMUSING)
16) How can any causes of global warming be tabulated accurately when, according to the Journal of Science, “A confusing array of new and recent studies reveals that scientists know very little about how much sunlight is absorbed by Earth versus how much the planet reflects, how all this alters temperatures, and why any of it changes from one decade to the next”?
NO ONE CLAIMS ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY IN ANY SCIENTIFIC ENDEAVOR. CLIMATE CHANGE IS INDEED AN EXTREMELY COMPLICATED PHENOMENON WITH MANY DIFFICULT-TO-UNDERSTAND VARIABLES—MANY OF WHICH ARE POORLY UNDERSTOOD. HOWEVER, THE EXISTENCE OF UNCERTAINTIES DOES NOT PRECLUDE SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY.
17) Why has the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia measured global temperatures decreasing from 1998-2005?
A) THIS IS MISLEADING AT BEST, AND AS FAR AS I KNOW, HAS ONLY BEEN CLAIMED BY BOB CARTER (DISSENTING OPINION, SEE ABOVE). IT IS WELL-KNOWN THAT 1998 WAS A SEVERE EL NINO YEAR (I.E. A KNOWN MECHANISM FOR RELATIVELY SHORT TERM CLIMATE VARIATION), AND THAT 2005, WITHOUT EL NINO, WAS EVEN WARMER. SEE:
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
B) NOTABLY, THE CRU AT UEA HAS PUBLISHED ARTICLES STATING THAT THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL WARMING HAS BEEN UNDERESTIMATED. SEE:
comm.uea.ac.uk/press/release.asp?id=548
18) Why does Dr. Richard M. Lindzen of the School of Atmospheric Science at MIT say that “Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence”? If Dr. Lindzen is wrong why did global warming alarmists stage a protest calling for the resignation of the heads of the National Hurricane Center (NHC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for saying that Hurricane Katrina was a part of the natural hurricane cycle and had nothing to do with global warming?
A) THE RESIGNATIONS WERE CALLED FOR BY THE CLIMATE EMERGENCY COUNCIL, “A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION DEDICATED TO RIGOROUS GRASSROOTS ACTION IN THE FIGHT TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING AND PROMOTE A CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE”.
B) IT IS UNREASONABLE TO SUGGEST THAT THE ACTIONS OF A GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION REFLECT THE STATE OF AFFAIRS WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.
19) Why has the popular U. S. based environmental magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics?
A) FROM GRIST’S OWN WEBSITE: “AND WHILE WE TAKE OUR WORK SERIOUSLY, WE DON’T TAKE OURSELVES SERIOUSLY, BECAUSE OF THE MANY THINGS THIS PLANET IS RUNNING OUT OF, SANCTIMONIOUS TREE-HUGGERS AIN’T ONE OF THEM”. SEE:
grist.org/about/
B) IT IS UNREASONABLE TO SUGGEST THAT THE STATEMENTS OF A MEANT-TO-BE-FUNNY ENVIRONMENTAL MAGAZINE REFLECT THE STATE OF AFFAIRS WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.
20) According to the Associated Press, “First-of-its-kind core samples dug up from deep beneath the Arctic Ocean floor show that 55 million years ago an area near the North Pole was practically a subtropical paradise, three new studies show.” So how can man be the primary cause of global warming?
STRAW-MAN ARGUMENT: NO ONE CLAIMS THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY IS THE ONLY MECHANISM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING WARMING.
21) Why did Carleton University paleo-climatologist Professor Tim Patterson testify, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming”?
A) STRAW-MAN ARGUMENT: NO ONE CLAIMS THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY IS THE ONLY MECHANISM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING WARMING.
B) THIS PARTICULAR EVENT WAS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO, AND THE EXACT TIMING AND RESULTING CORRELATION WITH CO2 HAS RECENTLY BEEN REINTERPRETED TO SHOW THAT THE COOLING BEGAN ~10 MILLION YEARS BEFORE CO2 LEVELS INCREASED. NOTE: THE CORRELATION OVER THE LAST ~400,000 YEARS (INCLUDING MANY EPISODES OF GLACIAL ADVANCE/RETREAT) IS WELL-ESTABLISHED.
22) Why have three studies from universities in Norway and one in Russia shown that the glacial ice sheet in Greenland is growing? One Danish study says that the Greenland Glacial sheet has been shrinking for 100 years so where is the consensus?
THERE ARE INDEED OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS REGARDING GLACIAL DYNAMICS. HOWEVER, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS ESSENTIALLY NO DISSENT AMONG SCIENTISTS THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS OCCURRING.
23) Why does a study published in Science Express tell us that “satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003”?
THE ARE INDEED OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS REGARDING GLACIAL DYNAMICS. HOWEVER, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS ESSENTIALLY NO DISSENT AMONG SCIENTISTS THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS OCCURRING.
24) An article from Newsweek, “The Cooling World”, April 28, 1975 told us that if global cooling continues “The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.” Why?
AN ARTICLE IN A POPULAR NEWS MAGAZINE SUCH AS NEWSWEEK DOES NOT NECESSARILY PRESENT AN ACCURATE PORTRAYAL OF THE STATE OF SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. THERE CERTAINLY WAS NOT A SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS SUPPORTING THE NOTION OF IMMINENT COOLING IN THE 1970’S.
25) The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, a part of the Department of Energy, has studies that show that global carbon-dioxide levels have spiked every 100,000 years. How can man possibly be the primary cause of increased CO2 in the atmosphere?
STRAW-MAN ARGUMENT: NO ONE CLAIMS THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY IS THE ONLY MECHANISM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING ATMOSPHERIC CO2.
26) Why have the hottest summers on record occurred in the 1930’s?
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WEATHER AND CLIMATE. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS ESSENTIALLY NO DISSENT AMONG SCIENTISTS THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS OCCURRING.
27) If the burning of fossil fuels by man is the primary cause of global warming, why did a recent United Nations report tell us that “livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together”?
PERHAPS LIVESTOCK ARE SIGNIFICANT, BUT THERE IS A LOT OF SCATTER IN VALUES SPECIFYING THEIR RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION. REGARDLESS, IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT TRANSPORTATION IS NOT THE ONLY USAGE OF FOSSIL FUELS, AND THE UN REPORT CERTAINLY DID NOT CLAIM THAT LIVESTOCK CONTRIBUTIONS SURPASS ALL FOSSIL FUEL USAGE.
28) Could you explain why from 1940-1970 global temperatures decreased while CO2 increased?
A COOLING EVENT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT CO2 DID NOT ACT AS A POSITIVE WARMING AGENT DURING THAT TIME; IT IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED THAT THIS PERIOD OF COOLING WAS THE RESULT OF AEROSOLS (SMALL, SUSPENDED, PARTICLES) IN THE ATMOSPHERE. WITH TIME, HOWEVER, THE WARMING EFFECT OF CO2 HAS SURPASSED THE COOLING EFFECT OF THESE AEROSOLS. THERE ARE STILL OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE ROLE OF AEROSOLS.
29) Of all of the possible causes of global warming (if it is indeed happening) please list for me in order of importance, what percentage each is responsible for in order and back it up with verifiable evidence that can be duplicated repeatedly. Fossil fuels, changes in solar activity, animal flatulence, the cyclical changing in the Earths rotational axis, etc.
THIS IS AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST. CLIMATE SCIENTISTS QUANTIFY THEIR PREDICTIONS WITH BROAD ERROR BARS DUE TO KNOWN UNCERTAINTIES. HE IS ASKING FOR DATA MUCH MORE SPECIFIC THAN WHAT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS CLAIM TO KNOW.
30) Are ethical scientists testing the scientific hypothesis with sound methods and quantifiable observations? The goal of the tests is to DISPROVE the hypothesis. It is the duty of the scientist to try their absolute best to disprove the hypothesis. If it cannot be disproved, it becomes theory, and over time, with more studies, is accepted as fact. To be responsible, you have to look for evidence that disproves the theory and not ridicule or ignore those who publish it (because there is plenty out there). Why don’t global warming alarmists do this?
YES, THIS IS ONGOING. MORE DATA IS CONTINUOUSLY BEING ANALYZED, YET QUESTIONS REMAIN. HOWEVER, THE CONSENSUS VIEW IS THAT ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 IS MOST LIKELY THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF THE OBSERVED WARMING, AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF PUBLISHED ARTICLES SUPPORT THIS VIEWPOINT. THERE ARE THOSE THAT HOLD DISSENTING OPINIONS, AND THAT IS HEALTHY FOR THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. IT IS NOT CLEAR TO WHOM YOU ARE REFERRING WHEN YOU SAY “GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS” (YOU USE THAT PHRASE ABOVE TO REFER TO GRASSROOTS GROUPS WHICH DO NOT FAIRLY REPRESENT THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY).
31) Two new books about global warming have just been released, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder, which is due out in March. Both say that global warming is a part of a natural cycle and give evidence to support the claim; do you intend to read them?
MAYBE. WILL CHUCK READ THE VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE SUPPORTING THE CONSENSUS VIEW, OR AT LEAST BECOME REASONABLY INFORMED ABOUT THE VIEWPOINT HE ATTACKS?
A Student said
Wow. Does Anonymous get to take over Chuck’s column after totally destroying him? I’m a moderate, I don’t have any ideology, and it’s quite clear that Anonymous has totally refuted Chuck point for point here.
Alex said
One caveat to above (or clarification, perhaps): global warming has been exacerbated by anthropogenic causes only as of late.
Rachel Custer said
A. Student,
Have you even read many posts by me? I don’t even think most of the people who identify as liberals on this blog (for example, Sam and Anonymous, etc.) would identify me as a far, far right moonbat. I honestly don’t even identify myself as a Republican. And do you honestly believe you have NO ideology? You believe in nothing? You have no ideas of your own? The only people who deal in only cold, hard logical facts are not people – they’re computers.
Rachel Custer said
Oh, and interesting how you jumped right to attacking what you assume are my political beliefs when my statement had absolutely nothing to do with politics and was just an observation about how people think. I wasn’t even endorsing one ideology over the other, and still you attacked. Hmmmm….something to think about.
Alex said
What on earth is a “moonbat” anyway (in its presumed derogatory sense), and why does Chuck keep using it to refer to liberals and moderates?
Chuck Norton said
A Student,
Your responses are so silly that they do not merit serious refutation. I know that you have this burning desire (fueled by your hate) to respond with something that sounds good, but really you are making a fool of yourself, which serves my purposes perfectly so please keep it up.
Notice in A student’s big rant above, that his answers do not reflect the context of the statement I made..
For example his response to my question about the little ice age was “NO ONE CLAIMS THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY IS THE ONLY MECHANISM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING ATMOSPHERIC CO2”
How cute, but I never claimed that everyone said that human activity is the only mechanism of global warming (remember cow farts…according to the UN is a much greater cause), so he is responding to a point that I never made. My article criticizes those who say that man made CO2 is THE primary cause of global warming and at the same time almost all of the global warming studies by the alarmists make ZERO attempt to ascertain what changes the Solar Cycles have on our climate. Those who say that Solar Cycles are the primary cause of warming are attacked just as I have been here, which is of course, the entire point, which he is too chicken to address.
So A Student responded to an argument that I never made, and ignored the main point of my argument that he appearently doesn’t have what it takes between the ears to refute. This is an example of a straw man argument that you see typically of the far left. What is ironic is that the moonbats have proven my point while attempting to vilify it. They let themselves get loured into proving my point (that’s ok , I have not met many unhinged leftists who were very bright).
A Student, if name calling and straw man arguments like this are the best you got, than you have nothing at all.
But since the unhinged left is so terrible at posting any serious verifiable refutation, I thought that I would pile on with the following article :-).
……………As always thanks for reading The Vision.
anonymous said
A Student:
Thank you for positive comments regarding my responses to Chuck’s questions, but I would like to come to Rachel’s defense here. Generally, she and I are very opposed politically, but I’ve had very enjoyable conversations with her on this blog. By reading her posts I’ve developed a better appreciation for her point of view, and I believe she has taken my comments seriously and perhaps benefited in a similar fashion. My point is that I don’t think it is fair to characterize her as blinded by ideology.
Alex said
I would also venture to speculate that Mr. Norton’s comment above (#67) was not directed toward A Student. He does quote Anonymous, however, at one point:
“‘For example his response to my question about the little ice age was “NO ONE CLAIMS THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY IS THE ONLY MECHANISM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING ATMOSPHERIC CO2’ How cute, but I never claimed that everyone said that human activity is the only mechanism of global warming…”
Clarification, perhaps?
A Student said
Relax, Rachel. I was just responding to you with a ridiculous post in the fashion that Chuck would have written. Read it again, pretend like it says the exact opposite, and that Chuck wrote it. I think you’ll find it pretty funny, actually. I’m making fun of his ridiculous style:
“Moonbats on the far, far-right like you and Chuck don’t even realize that there is indeed a realm of facts. I know there is such a realm, because I live there. My cold, hard, moderate logic helps me to see right through Chuck’s far, far-right spin. Wingnuts on the far, far-right like you and Chuck, and those on the far, far-left are all the same. You guys are so blinded by your ideology, you can’t even see that there even is a place free from spin. It’s my realm, the realm of facts and logic.”
As for Chuck, he’s so obsessed with my having destroyed him in the last round (see posts 33 to 50) that he devotes an entire post to something that I haven’t even written. I wish I could take credit for “Anonymous'” point by point refutation of Chuck’s junk-science, but I can’t. As for the fact that Chuck read “A Student” when the post said “Anonymous,” I’ll let you guys decide whether it furthers my hypothesis that Chuck is unable to decipher our English language (see post 49). LOL!
Alex said
As far as I can tell, Rachel Custer is a fine and upstanding individual. She means well, she’s smart, and on top of that, she exmplifies emotional intelligence. She’ll go farther than most.
Alex said
And why is that anyone who disagrees with Chuck, no matter how well-thought and knowledge-based their counter-arguments or simple refutations may be, inevitably “lacks what it takes between the ears” by definition?
Is this realistic?
At least MNr. Noiton tidies himself up in the end with the agree-to-disagree, warm over-the-table handshake – truly a compelling heartfelt gesture in this circumstance – one that gave me pause, II must say.
Cheers :)
Alex
Anonymous said
A Student:
Sorry for not getting the tounge-in-cheek nature of your post #60… I recognized what you were doing in previous posts, found it amusing, but somehow missed it this time around.
A Student said
It’s all good, Anonymous. I was just trying to get at how Chuck lumps all views that aren’t his together (just like I lumped his and Rachel’s, for comical effect), and at how he is always associating views that aren’t his with some extreme fringe. Meanwhile, Chuck, who is has very arguably the most extreme political views on this board, if not on this side of the Mason-Dixon line, maintains that he lives in some realm free from ideology, which deals only in “facts.”
Anonymous said
Everyone:
I completely stand by post #61… well, as much as an anoynmous web personality can :). If anyone would sincerely like clarification on any point, I will be happy to oblige.
It is true that I have a very negative opinion of Chuck’s article and subsequent blog posts, but it is because his arguments are pathologically ignorant and demonstrably incorrect. In his response (post #67) to my answers to his “inconvenient questions” he adds additional false information to this discussion. I see no end to this cycle of misinformation and will not engage him further.
Chuck has attempted to depict my posts as little more than rants full of personal attacks; I ask that you please read what I have actually written (he has flagrantly misquoted me at least twice) — not his delusional portrayal.
Chuck Norton said
I do not lump “all view together”, I am targeting YOUR arguments, because clear thinking people reject the silly, hate filled arguments of the unhinged moonbat left. I am however, able to spot arguments based only on ideology or hatred and those of you who do that certainly know who you are.
I love how the left operates, I post evidence, you ignore it and attack me. I make reasoned arguments, you misstate or ignore them and attack me. You state that there isn’t one scientist who agrees with my position, so I started posting the bios of some of those who do…. and you pretend like I never made those posts and go back to making it about me and not an honest engagement of the argument. Clear thinking Americans see you for what you are.
I saw the movie 300 this weekend, and I was most amused when the Queen of Sparta went to the council to make a reasoned argument for the council to vote to send the army to fight the Persians in spite of the fact that the games were on (in ancient Greece it was forbidden to go to war while the games were on, but the Persians didn’t care about that). So the politician who was bribed by the Persians attacked her and tried to disqualify her from addressing the council in the first place, rather than take her argument head on.
I suggest that Alex/Sam and A Student etc go to see 300 so you can see yourselves in action in that character. Of course, I know that you don’t have a residue of serious introspection and it will be a pointless exercise, such is the nature of those who live in a world of ideology.
Chuck Norton said
By the way, here is another scientist that bucks your so called consensus.
Philip Stott is an Emeritus Professor from the University of London, UK. For the last 18 years he was the editor of the Journal of Biogeography.
Rachel Custer said
Wow guys, thanks for all the love!
Anonymous,
I have indeed benefited in the same way from our conversations, and am glad to hear that you have as well.
Alex,
How kind of you to say those nice things about me; thank you.
A. Student,
I apologize for not getting the joke; in my defense, it’s certainly not the first time I’ve failed to get a joke everyone else got. :) I realized what you were doing (and doing well, I might add) in the other posts, but like anonymous, I also missed that point in the last one (maybe because it was about me…lol…my ego came into play).
In answer to the question posed by Alex, I googled “moonbat” and you’ll be interested to know that it is also known as “barking moonbat” and is used as a “political epithet.” The Wikipedia link is below; I found it incredibly amusing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonbat
Anonymous said
Chuck: I see no other way to interpret your continued and flagrant misquoting of what I write as a tactic of intentional lying.
Even if those on this blog who share your political views can’t see that you’re full of shit after reading post #61, I hope they can at least see that you are a willful liar:
From Chuck in Post #76:
“You state that there isn’t one scientist who agrees with my position”
From me in post #56:
“Chuck,
1) Please point me to where I said that no dissenters exist regarding the consensus view. The following is a quote from you (post #54), that I believe to be an intentional lie: “That you previously stated could not exist…”
I have repeatedly used language which explicitly acknowledges that there are dissenters.
You frequently, yet incorrectly, accuse others of making a straw-man argument. For future reference, your current tactic is an excellent example.””
A Student said
Summary of Chuck’s post 76:
1) Chuck claims that he does not lump all opposing positions together.
2) Chuck lumps all opposing positions together.
Nice.
A Student said
By the way, why anyone would watch “300” when they could just read Herodotus instead is beyond me.
Rachel Custer said
A. Student,
As a woman, I can answer that question in four words:
Buff men in loincloths.
:)
Alex said
“Buff men in loincloths.”
Aside from that, Rachel Custer is not one to reckon with.
(Wink)
Chuck Norton said
I had come back too see if anyone was making a real argument yet or had any real evidence to show me, I see that once again the left has remained consistent in avoiding the meat of the argument at all costs.
So I have a new piece of evidence for you moonbats to ignore.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=the+great+swindle
I know that the far left isn’t much into reading evidence so here is a movie.
Alex said
Bunch of idiots you are – those who doubt gloabl warming and the more recent anthropogenic cause for exacerbating it. Live your self-absorbed fantasy, ignore the main thrust of the science, and forever retian your bloody ignorance.
Erkki KochKetola said
Your “argument” has no meat to avoid, Chuck. If you actually had a series of connected propositions supporting your conclusion, there might be something to talk about. As usual, however, you prefer straw men, false premises, leaps of faith, and ad hominem to real argumentation. Reading your column is the visual equivalent of listening to fingernails on a blackboard.
Passing Through said
Dear Mr. Norton,
I am just passing through and I must say that you DO bring up some good points, however, your argument would benefit from a change in tone. The vast majority of accumulated data point strongly to a global warming. There is no doubt that an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere will increase the average global temperature. Also, there is no doubt that an increase in solar radiation will produce the same result. Do you agree with these points? If so, why do you turn a deaf ear to those who wish to argue for a greater anthropogenic source of CO2 than you suggest? Isn’t it possible that you are wrong? Before you answer… I would like to gently remind you that you are a columnist for a local newspaper and NOT a world-class scientist with years of training and experience in climate studies. You constantly rip the “left” for not listening to those with opposing points of view, and yet, you refuse to engage anyone on this board in a reasoned discussion (perhaps you have tried in other forums, but that is not the impression I got when reading these posts). If I, as an outsider with no ties to this board and someone who believes that those who say that “we” are 100% at fault for global warming are either ignorant or liars, think that your arguments here are shrill, unreasonable and poorly constructed then you have serious problems with your communicative abilities. I suggest you tone down the rhetoric before EVRYONE stops listening to you.
An Outsider
Rachel Custer said
Passing through and Waitmyturn22,
Always good to see new “faces” on the blog. Thanks for stopping by.
Chuck Norton said
Passing Through,
You are correct in that I am not a world class scientist, however you use that as an effort to disqualify me from the argument, rather than engage me in the meat of my argument.
You use that technique as a dodge.
You see, while I might not be a world class scientist, I am VERY good an analyzing an argument and I have enough education to examine the peer reviewed and other evidence as to understand the arguments made and to ask key questions where those arguments have weak spots. It also just happens that the head of atmospheric studies at MIT and many other world class scientists agree with me and /or ask the same questions.
For example, why are there so many studies out there that state that fossil fuel CO2 is a PRIMARY cause of global warming when those same studies make NO ATTEMPT to ascertain the effect of natural solar cycles on the Earths temperature?
If this is such an alarm, why is it that the warming trend that has been going on for the last 200 years fall well within known hot and cold climate changes from Earth history, why is this important point ignored or de-emphasized?
Why is it that in not ONE of the long climate/temperature changes in Earth history shows CO2 as a primary cause of that warming/cooling?
In Essence, please name me the warming or cooling trend in the history of Earth temperature shifts where CO2 is shown to be a primary cause….. good luck.
Why is it that in the post 1940 global industrial boom we saw a 30 year dip in global temps in the middle of the overall 200 year global temperature rise? If its those fossil fuels, this creates a real problem.
You say that I do not listen to other points of view. I listen to them and when I find the flaws I ask for answers and if the answers are insufficient I just don’t believe them. in fact I listen to the points of view of hyper-partisans on both sides very, very, carefully.
I have learned that when an ideologue of the left or right uses phrases like “all” or “other points of view” as a superlative, they really mean their particular view or argument.
As far as my tone, tone is difficult to ascertain in text based communication like this, but I am aware that when dealing with some far left ideologues that post here I am aware that they are so dishonest that they lie to themselves and expect others to believe their lies, or they are just misinformed, or delusional, or just blinded by their own partisan or ideological hatred….. and at times I treat them as such.
Mostly my tone is just bold and confident and politically incorrect….so to quote a personal hero of mine…
“People in the west, if they are white and they are male, have been groomed to think that they are not supposed to state the obvious.” – Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Here is her story – http://www.amazon.com/Infidel-Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali/dp/0743289684
Passing Through said
Dear Mr. Norton,
You write: “It also just happens that the head of atmospheric studies at MIT and many other world class scientists agree with me and /or ask the same questions.” First off, let’s be honest… These scientists don’t agree with you, you agree with some of their hypotheses. And that is all these ideas are: hypotheses. Scientist can never PROVE anything, we can only disprove, and hence, the nature of science is to allow dissension. However, dissension is not allowed solely for its own sake. I say this because we should keep in mind the totality of the problem and all of the requisite issues. Just as you don’t want people to forget solar input, YOU should not discard the hundreds if not thousands of studies which suggest the anthropogenic CO2 is mostly (no one really knows the percent) responsible for the recent increase in global temperatures.
Now for the meat of this post and with an eye towards education: I have spoken personally with both Fred Singer and Rich Lindzen and I can say with little hesitation that they would NOT agree with your use of their data or the application of their hypotheses. Fred used to present his research ideas of a limited global warming in the context of the urban heat island effect (still a reasonable argument, but he claimed that no warming was occurring which he has since modified), satellite data (these data were derived from satellites HE worked on, but the data have been shown to be inaccurate because of improper calibration), the “little ice age” (a short period of cooling after the industrial revolution; as anonymous has stated, global systems are extremely complex and occurrences, such as large volcanic eruptions, can force global cooling; there are also many other variables so please don’t simply discount them), and uncertainties in ice core and isotopic data. Fred has also stated at a seminar I attended in 2001: Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, increasing CO2 will, of course, increase atmospheric temperatures.” Thus, I don’t think that either Fred or Rich would say that NO global warming is occurring, they would question rather the extent and cause of that warming.
In conclusion, you state: “You see, while I might not be a world class scientist, I am VERY good an analyzing an argument and I have enough education to examine the peer reviewed and other evidence as to understand the arguments made and to ask key questions where those arguments have weak spots.” whereas I do not think you have the background or ability to evaluate any of the peer-reviewed literature and actually understand it. Please don’t be offended by that comment, I would say the same thing about Al Gore.
Ultimately, as a journalist, you have the ability to communicate ideas to a wide audience and educate those willing to listen, but your tone will turn off many and minimize any argument you make. Is it more important to disseminate your ideas or to accuse others of being partisans?
Chuck Norton said
Passing Through,
You are engaging in outright dishonesty and your attempt to claim some moral highground is a rhetorical trick and nothing more.
I have quoted Dr. Lindzen exactly from his letter to the Wall Street Journal. He also appears in a BBC documentary questioning the global warming political orthodoxy (linked above).
Also you lied about my position as I have stated several times on this page that there are many scientists who either agree with me and/or otherwise do not go along with the so called “consensus”. So while not all of the scientists I have mentioned agree with the evidence and data about solar cycles as I do and some scientists do, they still disagree with the global warming political orthodoxy in important ways…… which matches what I have stated above. ….. so once again you are attributing an argument to me that I have never made. …
….and this makes my point that the so called consensus is just that, so called. It is a political movement, not a scientific one.
Also I have not stated that global warming is not occurring as you imply that I stated. In fact I stated above that we are in a 200 year old warming trend that falls well within known global temperature changes in Earth’s past.
So “passing through” it seems that you have engaged in the same tactics that the far out ideologues have, you didn’t tell the truth, you misstated and mischaracterized my statements and arguments, while at the same time dodging the key questions I have asked above.
You state “YOU should not discard the hundreds if not thousands of studies which suggest the anthropogenic CO2 is mostly (no one really knows the percent) responsible for the recent increase in global temperatures”
How nice, except I never ever stated that I did. Once again you misstated my argument with the skill of Goebbels. What I asked was why it is that so many studies quoted by the global warming orthodoxy make no attempt (or serious attempt) to address the solar cycle evidence (and a great many do and are thus fraudulent). Also a great many of those “studies” rely on computer models that are so flawed, that when historical climate data in entered into them they do not return results that are congruent to real life Earth measurements from yesterday, last week, last month or last year.
I really like in your statement that you say that CO2 is mostly responsible for global warming, but than you say that no one knows the percentage. That is a scientific contradiction that cannot stand. If you don’t know what % man made CO2 is responsible for this 200 year long global warming trend, than you cant show me with any scientific credibility that CO2 is mostly responsible.
So how about you do this. How about you start telling the truth. How about you take on my arguments and facts HONESTLY and stop applying statements and arguments to me that I never made.
Chuck Norton said
Dr. Timothy Ball has recieved six death threats because he has helped to debunk the global warming political orthodoxy.
One stated, “You had better stop speaking out or you wont live to see more global warming.”
Here is Dr. Ball’s Bio:
Dr. Ball has a B.A. from the University of Winnipeg, an M.A. from the University of Manitoba and a Ph.D. in Climatology[1] from the University of London, England.
Ball taught at the University of Winnipeg from 1973 to 1996.
Ball is chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee.
Here are some of his publications:
Houston, C. Stuart; T. F. Ball & Mary Houston (2003), Eighteenth-century naturalists of Hudson Bay, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, ISBN 0773522859
Ball, Timothy F. (1995), “Historical and instrumental evidence of climate: Western Hudson Bay, Canada, 1714–1850”, in Bradley, Raymond S. & Philip D. Jones, Climate Since A.D. 1500, Routledge, ISBN 0415075939
Ball, Timothy F. & Roger A. Kingsley (1984), “Instrumental temperature records at two sites in Central Canada: 1768 to 1910”, Climatic Change 6(1): 39-56, DOI:10.1007/BF00141667
Ball, Timothy F. (1983), Climatic change in central Canada : a preliminary analysis of weather information from the Hudson’s Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850, Queen Mary, University of London: Ph.D. Thesis
Ball, Timothy F. (1983), “The migration of geese as an indicator of climate change in the southern Hudson Bay region between 1715 and 1851”, Climatic Change 5(3): 85-93, DOI:10.1007/BF00144682
Catchpole, A.J.W. & Timothy F. Ball (1981), “Analysis of historical evidence of climate change in western and northern Canada”, Syllogeus (no. 33): 48-96
Here are some statements by Dr. Ball.
“There are 2 major problems. First, [it] is not the most important greenhouse gas. Second, evidence now shows that temperatures rise before carbon dioxide increases – not the other way round.”
there is “no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature at any time in the earth’s history.”
“Earth is warming up … but it’s not humans who are doing it. Human-produced carbon-dioxide is but a tiny fraction of the atmosphere’s greenhouse gases, so ripping up the Canadian economy to reduce our emissions is folly.”
“I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.”
Passing Through said
Dear Mr. Norton,
I tried to be nice and discuss this issue with you rationally. Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that you are unable or unwilling to discuss issues with any sense of decorum. Thus, I must conclude that you are very ignorant with no internal drive to better yourself (and you have a huge chip on your shoulder; do you perhaps drive a Camaro?).
I can “prove” how ignorant and predictable you are by writing your response: “You are a hyper-partisan and can’t debate me without sinking to insults! I quote facts and you resort to personal attacks. You should go back to your school and demand a refund! Far left, blah, blah, blah, won’t answer my questions or invalidate (I know you wouldn’t use invalidate, but it really is the best word here) my theories… blah blah blah…” And here is where you would cut and paste from an article or a blog.
In short, you are a lost cause and debating you or trying to educate you is a waste of my time. I recommend STRONGLY that others on this board ignore you.
Rachel Custer said
Ok, now I HAVE to speak up. Using the Camaro, which was a fine piece of machinery during the glory years of the muscle cars, to denigrate somebody, is just plain wrong. If no one else will stand up for hot fast cars which, while they have admittedly gone downhill of late, have had many good years, I will. I cannot just stand by and watch a car with such a rich history be used in such a derogatory way.
Lucky for you you didn’t use the early GTOs or Mustangs, or I might have just attempted to flag you. :)
A Student said
I second “Passing Through’s” sentiments, and I call for a posting-boycott of Mr. Norton’s columns.
Alex said
“Lucky for you you didn’t use the early GTOs or Mustangs, or I might have just attempted to flag you. :)”
This is becoming too erotic for me and perhaps thus it could be moved offline. Sorry… Rachel somehow does it for me…
Alex said
“In short, you are a lost cause and debating you or trying to educate you is a waste of my time. I recommend STRONGLY that others on this board ignore you.”
Can this somehow be construed as just the latest statement that Chuck Norton is no more than a raging ASSHOLE (and an ignorant one at that)?
Fair question.
Chuck Norton said
Anonymous, I simply posted a list of his bio/credentials that are not only on his web site, but are also copied on wikipedia… I never claimed that the titles of HIS papers were my work or invention…. so get a clue.
Passing Through,
You were not trying to “educate” me as you claimed, you started slandering me by attributing arguments to me that I never made. Do you expect me to be really nice to you when I catch you mistating my arguments and than trying to attribute them to me??? …Of course you dont… I caught you and asked you questions that you are ill prepared to answer and now you need an excuse to run away.
The difference between you and me is that I address your arguments directly, you attack me, lie, and than misstate my arguments and when I point out how dishonest you are, you claim that you have to run away because you have been insulted. I have news for you, behave so dishonestly and you can get called out on it.
ECO-McCarthyism… that is what the political radicals are engaging in. By the way all, notice how “passing through” claimed the moral highground and never directly addressed any evidence or questions I posted? No one here has and it speaks volumes.
Alex said
Chuck, you are:
a) dumb
b) arrogant
c) right-wing moonbat
d) excruciatingly bad writer
e) all of the above
Answer: (e) all of the above
Chuck Norton said
Alex/Sam,
You are a professor in Ohio. All you have done here is post hate, and cussing and trolling of all kinds. You have never made a serious attempt to behave as a scholar.
I wonder what the people down in Athens would think if they strolled upon this little web site? Perhaps a student club there would sponsor a debate between you and me? Would you be up for that or would you hide under your desk?
Alex said
“I wonder what the people down in Athens would think if they strolled upon this little web site?”
I wonder the very same thing.
For the moment, why don’t you do them a favor. Send them a link to your latest post.
I don’t admit to being “Sam”, although you are convinced that he and I are the same.
For that matter, why don’t you just go ahead and post the factual link between me and Sam. Go ahead. I look forward to the revelation.
Do it. Right here. State to the public how Alex and Sam are the same person. Be very specific in your explanation.
Let’s assume I am Sam, a professor down in Athens OH. How receptive do you feel the student body would be toward you and this individual “Sam”?
Let me go further. How good do you think you would truly be in a public debate? Given how stupid you appear to be?
Alex said
Chuck Norton:
You’re such a wuss. You aren’t worth the time of day.
Call me Alex, or Sam (if you so prefer).
What on earth would you dare wasting your time debating me about?
Consider your dissenters above. Have you learned NOTHING? Are you not an undergraduate? Is it not your role to “defeat” but mainly to “learn”?
You don’t seem to learn ANYTHING. Yet, you are an undergraduate student. Look at your “articles”. Have you lerned ANYTHING from them?
Don’t look away. Look me in the face. Have you learned ANYTHING from your preposterous posts?
Not a damned thing, as far as I can tell. You’re going to graduate from IUSB (unfortunately) knowing less than you did coming in. How fucking pathetic.
anonymous said
“By the way all, notice how he never directly addressed any evidence or questions I posted? No one here has.” –Chuck, Post #100
Really, Chuck? I answered EVERY ONE of your “Inconvenient Questions” in Post #61, and you dismissed the entirety of my post because you believe I missed your intended point for one question (despite the fact that I answered your questions as written).
Please explain to me, for example, how you still support your contention that the 1800’s were warmer today. From Post #61 (text in lowercase letters is verbatim from your article):
2) According to NASA, 2004 was the fourth warmest year on records since the 1800’s. If man has caused the Earth to continually warm why were the 1800’s warmer than today, especially considering that the world was far less populated and industrialized than it has been since 1930?
FALSE PREMISE: THE 1800′S WERE NOT WARMER THAN TODAY.
Prediction: If Chuck responds to this post at all he will not address the issue that, clearly, he was factually incorrect about the 1800’s being warmer today.
anonymous said
Chuck,
I’d like to restate my earlier challenge: I bet that you cannot find a SINGLE research scientist that would agree that your article and subsequent posts demonstrate anything other than that YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT WHAT YOUR ARE WRITING.
Note: this is about the statements you’ve made, not what you believe your ultimate point to be.
anonymous said
From Chuck, in Post #100:
“.. and not a single one of them has made a valid argument so far.”
Does ANYONE, other than Chuck, agree with this statement?
anonymous said
From Chuck, in Post #100:
“ECO-McCarthyism… that is what the political radicals are engaging in….. and not a single one of them has made a valid argument so far.”
How dare you make this accusation, Chuck. I agreed with you that it was unfair for some to use language like “denier”, yet you’re such a hypocrite that you are using the exact same rhetorical technique.
You’ve written an article for which even those with whom you think you agree would recognize that the majority of your arguments do not support your conclusions (see challenge in Post #107), and it has been REPEATEDLY demonstrated that you do not have even a rudimentary understanding of climate science.
You rudely dismiss your critics, out of hand, and have the audacity to cry foul because folks are calling you on it?
anonymous said
From Chuck’s original article:
“Of all of the possible causes of global warming (if it is indeed happening)…”
From “Passing Through” in Post #91:
“Thus, I don’t think that either Fred or Rich would say that NO global warming is occurring, they would question rather the extent and cause of that warming.”
From Chuck in Post #92:
“Also I have not stated that global warming is not occurring as you imply that I stated”
Who’s misrepresenting whom here? Chuck has made several attempts to suggest that global warming is not occurring. “Passing Through” points out that even two of Chuck’s favorite dissenters most likely accept the fact of global warming, and Chuck has the audacity to accuse him of having “misstated and mischaracterized my statements and arguments”?
Alex said
“2) According to NASA, 2004 was the fourth warmest year on records since the 1800’s. If man has caused the Earth to continually warm why were the 1800’s warmer than today, especially considering that the world was far less populated and industrialized than it has been since 1930?
FALSE PREMISE: THE 1800′S WERE NOT WARMER THAN TODAY.”
___
Chuck Norton, are you going to sit idly by, diddling yourself presumably in the meanwhile, or are you going to ANSWER JUST ONE OF THE MANY REFUTATIONS OF EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT YOU EVER TRIED TO PRESENT ON THIS THREAD???
You are WORSE than pathetic. You have no brainpower whatsoever, as far as I can tell.
Prove me wrong on just this one contention!!!
Chuck Norton said
Alex, you are Sam, we know it and can prove it, so lying about it isnt going to help you.
Chuck Norton said
Anon – I did attribute it, I said that it was his BIO…. duh.
Chuck Norton said
Ok all let’s watch Alex/Sam get defeated once again…..
2) According to NASA, 2004 was the fourth warmest year on records since the 1800’s. If man has caused the Earth to continually warm why were the 1800’s warmer than today, especially considering that the world was far less populated and industrialized than it has been since 1930?
Sam says that this is a “false premise” and he seems to think that I just make this stuff up….
Answer – In the warming trend that has been going on for just over 200 years, most of that warming happened between 1800 and 1930 – so the greatest degree of warming happened in the 1800’s
-QUOTE
NASA — Last year [2004] was the fourth warmest year on average for our planet since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists.
Source – http://www.redorbit.com/news/display/?id=126207
– END QUOTE –
See what happens when you accuse me of just making stuff up….. – Next….
Chuck Norton said
Anonymous –
In response to your post –
I stand by my statement. I never said that global warming is not happening, I think that it is likely that it is, but the problem is that there is so much contradictory evidence out there that as a matter of evidence I am not willing to say with 100% certainty that it is, which is why I stated in parentheses “if it is indeed happening”.
So nice try… once again you take my argument and try to convert it into something that I did not say, nor ever intended to say, and try to attribute it to me and use that to try and slander me.
And now to your second accusation
From “Passing Through” in Post #91:
“Thus, I don’t think that either Fred or Rich would say that NO global warming is occurring, they would question rather the extent and cause of that warming.”
From Chuck in Post #92:
“Also I have not stated that global warming is not occurring as you imply that I stated”
You ask who is misstating who… The answer is he is misstating my argument.
No where did I say that Dr. Singer or Dr. Lindzen are making the case that there is no warming at all, yet he presents it as if I did. That is exactly how he implied that I made that argument, and that is why I called him out for his deception and dishonest tactic.
Come on you eco-McCarthyists… is this the best you’ve got?
anonymous said
Chuck,
You misunderstand the following quote:
“NASA — Last year [2004] was the fourth warmest year on average for our planet since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists.”
It is referring to a data-set that goes from the late 1800’s to the present. It says “since the late 1800s” because THAT DATA-SET HAS NO DATA PRIOR TO 1850!
You don’t even understand press releases, yet you claim to be competent to read peer-reviewed literature?
Chuck Norton said
Anonymous… I know that this is going to come as a shock to you, but 1850 was in the 1800’s.
And there are other data sets besides that one that indicate a warming trend before 1850.
iusbvision said
Dear Vision readers.
If readers want to come here and give a valuable piece of news and post it anonymously we will respect the privacy of those sources.
Those who come here and post under multiple aliases just for the purpose of trolling, name calling, threatening etc are not entitled to the same courtesy.
That also goes for people who come here and post under multiple aliases for the purpose of carrying on a conversation with themselves, it doesn’t mean that we will expose you, but we do reserve that right.
If people continue to use language with various cuss words like has been done above we reserve the right to suspend posting privileges, so please conduct yourself in a civilized manner.
Most boards do not tolerate trolling and we will tolerate it to a degree, but for the benefit of other readers the discourse will not be allowed to fall into the obscene or indecent.
In short, use common sense. Don’t troll, don’t cuss, don’t get indecent, don’t spam.
anonymous said
Chuck,
Please provide something to support this statement:
“why were the 1800’s warmer than today”
ALL available data show that this is not true. Here’s the plot to which the NASA press release referred (notice how it doesn’t start until the late 1800s?):
nasa.gov/images/content/158228main2_warm_trend_sm.jpg
Rachel Custer said
Alex,
It was not my intent to post erotica; however, if you would like, you can check out my profile at rachelc@girlsgonewild.com….ok, obviously I’m kidding.
I just have a soft spot in my heart for cars with a 400 ci engine with 350 hp and four on the floor that can just MOVE (specs for the 1969 GTO – a car I WILL own).
Oh, and as for evidence that you might also be Sam….as far as I know, Sam is the only man in the known world that I in any way “do it for”. If you’re not him, be warned: he can be jealous!
Chuck Norton said
Anon,
The hottest day on record in Denver is in 1878… look it up.
But you see no matter what you post I win as I have real data that backs up my claims, I also have other data sets that show heat records in 1929,or 1930’s or during the medieval warming period.
The point is that many data sets do not match, and that leads to the problem with the entire idea of consensus.
But here is another idea, how about you take my argument in context like in my post above instead of trying to take snippets and than trying to find a data set, somewhere that says otherwise? The state of “warming science” as a whole is so bad, that you can find a data set that “proves” almost anything that you like.
Rachel Custer said
LOL it posted it as a link! Alright….I’m now moving back to my position of aloof propriety.
anonymous said
Chuck,
Your article very clearly stated that the 1800’s were warmer than today. This is not out of context, and it is not contrary to how you meant it. You misunderstood a quote and thought it supported your preconceived conclusion, when in fact, it most certainly did not. This is not a matter of opinion. You are definitively wrong.
Do I really need to explain to you why a particularly hot day in Denver in 1878 is not germane to a discussion of global climate change?
Passing Through said
Dear All,
First off, I’m not a troll and I don’t have multiple identities. Although I disagree with much of what Mr. Norton has written, I have made a good faith effort to listen to his arguments and responded in a reasonable manner. I stand by my earlier comments that Mr. Norton suggested that global warming might not be “real” (see post 110 by anonymous), but I might have not properly characterized his views and he is more than welcome to call me on this point.
I understand and support IUSBvisions’s attempt at limiting the “nature and vulgarity” of comments on this board. However, I would submit the following text from various posts and ask the board: Were these reasonable responses to my posts?
“You use that technique as a dodge.” – Post 90
“As far as my tone, tone is difficult to ascertain in text based communication like this, but I am aware that when dealing with some far left ideologues that post here I am aware that they are so dishonest that they lie to themselves and expect others to believe their lies, or they are just misinformed, or delusional, or just blinded by their own partisan or ideological hatred….. and at times I treat them as such.” – Post 90
“That is exactly how he implied that I made that argument, and that is why I called him out for his deception and dishonest tactic.” – Post 115
“Passing Through, You are engaging in outright dishonesty.” – Post 92
“Do you expect me to be really nice to you when I catch you in outright lies and catch you mistating my arguments and than trying to attribute them to me??? …Of course you dont… I caught you and asked you questions that you are ill prepared to answer and now you need an excuse to run away.” – Post 100
Mr. Norton, why did you not simply say that I was mistaken? Why did you have to revert to such language which only serves to inflame the issue rather than promote understanding and discussion?
Chuck Norton said
Passing Through,
Are we to believe that your very careful parsing of words and deception was innocent… and that you were simply mistaken?
Your statements were clearly and most obviously NOT designed to promote understanding and discussion. You took arguments that I never made and attributed them to me and than you insult my intelligence by claiming it was innocent…. come on man. I was born at night, but not last night.
It is this simple. If you want to disagree that is fine, do it honestly and I will be as nice to you as I can, but the tactic you engaged in needed to be rebuked. If you want to have a second chance just ask for one. Keep the debate at an honest level and I will post my responses without the rhetorical sting. Fair enough?
The first thing that the hard ideologues need to understand is that when you try to make it about the person instead of taking on the meat of their argument to begin with, you have lost the argument.
Thousands of people read this blog and less than 100 of them post. When such tactics are used people notice and the vast majority of people who come here to read are not on the extreme left as some who post are. They see the tactics that the far left uses and notice when their argument adds up to calling someone cuss words or other such diversions.
Here is a revelation that I do not share very often. While I have a traditional point of view, I am by no means a partisan ideologue, in fact I often vote libertarian. My angle is against that of the antique media or what I call the elite media culture. They make no attempt to give people enough information to make informed judgements. Instead they give a small amount of information and present it with an attitude that generates the desired impression. So what I do is take the information that the media spins, lies about, ignores etc and put that front and center, this is a great way for people to have more information so they can make a more informed judgements for themselves.
Chuck Norton said
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring about?” – Maurice Strong
And if you dont know who this guy is, you really should not be trying to discuss global warming.
Rachel Custer said
Actually, um….I don’t know who that guy is. Guess I’d better google him.
Craig Chamberlin said
Chuck,
I don’t know who that guys is… nor do I want to know.
I suppose my next question is to him would be, “Just how do you propose we do that?”
and his response will be, “By any means necessary.”
Then I’ll go, “How hollywoodesque of you.”
He’ll say, “Why thank you.”
Then I’ll ask, “While were at it, why not create a dictator regime and force people into our compliance? That way we can make sure they don’t ever use fossil fuels again.”
He’ll respond, “Hmm, now that’s an idea, we may save millions of lives.”
“We sure will!” I’ll reply.
“Why not do it?!” He’ll exclaim.
“Wait, I know, how about nuclear power?” I’ll ask
“ARE YOU PSYCHOTIC?!” He’ll scream.
“Good Question.” I’ll respond.
Anonymous said
I had to look Mr. Strong up myself, and was quite impressed by how much influence this man has had and continues to have. I was struck that someone in his position would make such a crazy statement as Chuck quoted above, so I poked around to find a little more context. Here’s what I found (copy and paste job, from the following URL):
sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Ecoterrorism.htm
————————-
Maurice Strong, secretary general, 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development: “What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The groups conclusion is “no.” The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders forms a secret society to bring about an economic collapse.”
————————-
I think it is pertinent to realize that he was posing a hypothetical situation and postulating what a hypothetical group would potentially conclude. My point is that to quote this as if he said it as a matter of policy recommendation is grossly out of context and misleading.
Again, I had to look Mr. Strong up, so I really have no opinion about him one way or the other, but this appears to be an unfair misrepresentation of what he actually said and his intended meaning.
Chuck Norton said
There is no misinterpretation whatsoever. The point is that the so called environmental movement has very little to do with the environment, it is a political movement. They are using environmentalism as a vehicle for an anti-capitalist agenda.
Case in point, Kyoto Treaty proposed to let the worst offending countries on Earth (Russia and China) off the hook when it comes to pollution and why is that????…. because those countries like Russia and China already have someones vision of central economic control, the United States stands in the way of such Marxist and tyrannical “visionaries”.
Chuck Norton said
Here are more quotes from Strong –
“After all, sustainability means running the global environment – Earth Inc. – like a corporation: with depreciation, amortization and maintenance accounts. In other words, keeping the asset whole, rather than undermining your natural capital.” – Translation Central Control…
“I do wish I could assist my many friends and colleagues in all the organizations I belong to, to remake the political and economic landscape.” – Oh I have no doubt about that ….
“Licences to have babies incidentally is something that I got in trouble for some years ago for suggesting even in Canada that this might be necessary at some point, at least some restriction on the right to have a child.” – …… that one speaks for itself… but talk about central control…
“Ted Turner is still a leader. And he sets a great example. His ability financially has been reduced, but his influence and his example still is an important asset to the whole environmental movement.” – ….priceless…
“We in the industrialized world make a greater difference because our ecological footprint, our impact on the condition of the environment, is 40 to 50 times larger than that of people in the developing world.” – EXCUSE ME – Maybe that is because we outproduce everyone in the world and we feed the world….what does the “developing world” produce…essentially squat thats what… so only if we didndt produce either we could be more like them…….
“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”
Chuck Norton said
More Strong Quotes…
This is about how national soveriegnty is bad (you know stuff like your borders and constitutions and god given rights and all that stuff.
http://www.sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html –
“Strengthening the role the United Nations can play…will require serious examination of the need to extend into the international arena the rule of law and the principle of taxation to finance agreed actions which provide the basis for governance at the national level. But this will not come about easily. Resistance to such changes is deeply entrenched. They will come about not through the embrace of full blown world government, but as a careful and pragmatic response to compelling imperatives and the inadequacies of alternatives.”
“The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. What is needed is recognition of the reality that in so many fields, and this is particularly true of environmental issues, it is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.”
Chuck Norton said
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/cover061506.htm
Here is an article about how Strong and George Soros are trying to get super cheap Chinese cars brought into the United States to try and sink the US auto industry.
Anonymous said
Chuck,
Thanks for elaborating on your political differences with Mr. Strong and the “Environmental Movement” in posts #130 – 133. As a journalist, certainly you recognize that the snippet you extracted from what he actually said in Post #126 was unfair, don’t you? If you’ve got so much evidence to make your point, why would you stoop to something as disingenuous as what you did in Post #126? Or, had you never seen the quote in its proper context?
Chuck Norton said
Public release date: 15-Feb-2007
Contact: David Bromwich
Ohio State University
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php
Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions
COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world’s southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.
…..ya dont say….
Clay Moore said
The most important issue of our time”, “How we react to this crisis will determine the future of mankind for generations to come”, says Angela Merkel, Prime Minister of Germany. Were they talking about tax policy, or the growing gap between rich and poor, no, they were talking about the very real threat of global warming. Despite what some skeptics say, it is a proven fact that global warming is a man made phenomenon. And also despite what “experts” say, there is much agreement by the scientific community that it is real. According to Steve Connor, a UK Scientist, and a contributor to the UK Guardian, in his article titled, “The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster”, in the February, 2007 issue of the Guardian, Connor says, “Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth’s oceans”. Connor points out that the research, which was funded by the U.S government, has seen a dramatic increase in the correlation between the rise in ocean temperature within the last 40 years, and the rise in pollution in the atmosphere (Connor). Many people believe that this could destroy the argument by the skeptics that the rise in temperatures is a “natural phenomenon”, believes Connor. Perhaps, says Connor, it could encourage the Bush administration to revisit the Kyoto Protocol (Connor) Many scientist are now say that there is no longer any debate about whether this is real or not, but rather what are we going to do about it, says Connor. Connor says “America produces a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gases, yet under President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have signed the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions.” He goes on to say “the President’s advisers have argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties and change might be a natural phenomenon”
But many skeptic continue to say that the earth was warmer millions of years ago than it is today, so how can this be global warming, it is just a natural cycle of life. Or they like to say that, how can we have that much impact on the earth when we didn’t make it, or that there is a “higher power” that created the earth. This all falls on deaf ears when you look at the facts. According to the leading scientific agency in the U.S, NASA, on their website, http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/earth_warm.html, “Last year 2006, was the fourth warmest year on average for our planet since the late 1800s”, and scientist say. But was it warmer in the stone ages than it is today, as many skeptics believe? No, say NASA scientists. According to the agency, to determine the temperature of the earth, scientists look at average temperature. The charts, which you can see at the above website, show a large spike in average temperatures over the past 20 years, and it does not appear to be dropping any time soon. In addition, NASA, long considered by the world to be the leading scientific agency in the world say in their website “Even though big climate events like El Nino affect global temperatures, the increasing role of human-made pollutants plays a big part”
Chuck Norton said
Rush Limbaugh, as verified by consensus, is the most accurate and enjoyed news program anywhere.
By the consensus of news consumers, The Rush Limbaugh Show is number one. Limbaugh enjoys an audience of 20 Million whereas the big 3 television networks best news programs range between 4 and 8 million viewers each. Cable news does not hold a candle to Limbaugh as Fox News Bill O’Really enjoys an audience of approximately 2.1 million , with CNN top program at approximately 1.2 million and MSNBC’s top rated show getting an audience of 410,000.
Gotta love consensus……
Andres Paz said
Just in the news…
Rachel Custer said
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/06/national/main2655181.shtml
Also in the news. lol
Chuck Norton said
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=global+warming+swindle
The Great Global Warming Swindle from the BBC.
This documentary from the BBC has TOP scientists from MIT, NASA, and those that wrote the IPCC report itself, that say the IPCC report is a fraud.
Most of the authors of the IPCC report that is in your article Andres are not experts at all…and some of the real experts who participated in the IPCC say the conclusions are a political falacy.
Watch the video.
Chuck Norton said
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070406/D8OB2OGG1.html
As you can see here, the IPCC people are “negotiating” about their findings.
Hmmm so scientific “certainty” is now determined through negotiation… how interesting.
This is why even scientists who participated in the IPCC say its a fraud. Top scientists from NASA and England and even MIT say it in the google video I posted above.
Chuck Norton said
Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate
March 16, 2007
Posted By Marc Morano – 8:45 AM ET – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.gov
Just days before former Vice President Al Gore’s scheduled visit to testify about global warming before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists Wednesday evening ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an audience of hundreds of people.
Before the start of the nearly two hour debate the audience polled 57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a “crisis”, but following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view. The audience also found humor at the expense of former Vice President Gore’s reportedly excessive home energy use.
After the stunning victory, one of the scientists on the side promoting the belief in a climate “crisis” appeared to concede defeat by noting his debate team was ‘pretty dull” and at “a sharp disadvantage” against the skeptics. ScientificAmerican.com’s blog agreed, saying the believers in a man-made climate catastrophe “seemed underarmed for the debate and, not surprising, it swung against them.”
The New York City audience laughed as Gore became the butt of humor during the debate.
“What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of their hypocrisy. I’m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his house. But it is a very serious point,” quipped University of London emeritus professor Philip Stott to laughter from the audience.
The audience also applauded a call by novelist Michael Crichton to stop the hypocrisy of environmentalists and Hollywood liberals by enacting a ban on private jet travel.
“Let’s have the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets. They must get their houses off the [power] grid. They must live in the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously?” Crichton said to applause audience. (For more debate quotes see bottom of article)
The debate was sponsored by the Oxford-style debating group Intelligence Squared and featured such prominent man-made global warming skeptics as MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, the University of London emeritus professor of biogeography Philip Stott and Physician turned Novelist/filmmaker Michael Crichton on one side.
The scientists arguing for a climate ‘crisis’ were NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt, meteorologist Richard C.J. Somerville of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned Scientists. The event, which was moderated by New York Public Radio’s Brian Lehrer, debated the proposition: “Global warming is not a crisis.”
Skeptics Dramatically Convinced Audience
The skeptics achieved the vote victory despite facing an audience that had voted 57% in favor of the belief that mankind has created a climate “crisis” moments before the debate began.
But by the end of the debate, the audience dramatically reversed themselves and became convinced by the arguments presented by the skeptical scientists. At the conclusion, the audience voted for the views of the skeptics by a margin of 46.2% to 42.2%. Skeptical audience members grew from a pre-debate low of 29.9% to a post debate high of 46.2% — a jump of nearly 17 percentage points. [Link to official audience voting results]
[Link to full debate pdf transcript]
Scientist Concedes Debate To Skeptics
NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, one of the scientists debating for the notion of a man-made global warming “crisis” conceded after the debate that his side was ‘pretty dull’ and was at “a sharp disadvantage.” Schmidt made the comments in a March 15 blog posting at RealClimate.org.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ac1c0d6-802a-23ad-4a8c-ee5a888dfe7e
Chuck Norton said
I have often heard it said that there is a consensus among thousands of scientists on the global warming issue that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true.
Dr. John Christie – Lead Author UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
El Pollo Loco said
To all readers,
This is a copy of an email I received recently that I thought was pretty funny and wanted to share with you.
A stock broker, on his way home from work in New York City, came to a dead halt in traffic and thought to himself, “Wow, this seems much worse than usual. He notices a police officer
walking between the lines of stopped cars, so he rolls down his window and asks, “Officer, what’s the hold up?”
The officer replies, “Hillary Clinton is depressed, so she stopped her motorcade and is threatening to douse herself in gasoline and set herself on fire. She says her husband has spent all her
money and the Democrats told her to forget about running for President in 2008. So we’re taking up a collection for her.”
The stock broker asks, “How much have you got so far?”
The officer replies, “About 4-1/2 gallons, but a lot of folks are still siphoning.”
Condor said
So what part of New York City does that joke take place in? Was it in Manhatten (where Hillary got 85% of the vote in 2006), the Bronx (89%), Brooklyn (84%), or Queens (80%)? It’s important to remember that New York City is not Elkhart, Indiana.
El Pollo Loco said
IT WAS JUST A JOKE!!!!!!!!
El Pollo Loco said
I saw this on youtube, and regardless of how you feel about this war, this is a very special song honoring the wives who are left behind when our boys go to war. It can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZEb5Ohry1Q. MAY GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
El Pollo Loco
Condor said
Suppose I tell a joke that exaggerates how much people in rural Texas hate president Bush. Perhaps I say that they hate him so much they would be willing to secede to Mexico (which they’ve hated since the Alamo). The joke wouldn’t make any sense because (all things being equal) people in rural Texas don’t hate president Bush. So, to exaggerate how much they hate him doesn’t really work.
The point is that the joke doesn’t work if it fails to be an exaggeration of New Yorker’s pre-existing attitudes toward Hillary Clinton.
Your joke can work, you just ought to change the location.
Rachel Custer said
That joke was hilarious. Get a sense of humor.
Condor said
It should be immediately apparent that I have quite a sense of humor. After all, I do read this website, don’t I?
Rachel, if you’re tough enough to defend your humor in public, and not just full of a bunch of empty talk, then I challenge you to a joke-off in the IUSB cafeteria Seinfeld-Cosby rules.
El Pollo Loco said
Condor,
I have another joke for you. When is a democrat not a democrat? When the’re running for office
Rachel Custer said
Condor,
I accept your challenge, if we can debate under Seinfeld-Cheers rules. I apologize for assuming that you had no sense of humor…I should not have been so quick to assume (you know what that makes me). I just thought the joke was pretty funny, and one should not analyze a joke too closely for fear of it losing it’s appeal (in my opinion).
Here’s a bad joke of the day offered as a conciliatory gesture:
A sandwich and a banana walk into a bar. They go up to the bartender and say, “Bartender, get us each a beer!” The bartender turns to them and says, “Sorry, but we don’t serve food here.”
Dallas said
Is this the real reason we are at war and so many of our fine men and women are dying today? Even some conservatives agree it is. The following article is for you to read and decide. It can be found at http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_07_17/cover.html
Please notice the title of the publication “The American Conservative” How can Mr. Norton discredit this one. We all wait in anticipation
Dallas
El Pollo Loco said
Everyone,
Sorry the last link did not work, but I found another video about 9/11, and regardless of how you feel about the war and what happend on 9/11, this is a very touching video. Can you keep from crying, it took me about 2 minutes before that happend.
Chuck Norton said
Dallas,
Point 1 – The author of that Article left the GOP after Nixon and now has his stuiff appear on left wing blog sites like Salon.com. So much for your illusion of his “conservativeness”.
Point2 –
This is a quote from your link.
QUOTE –
During 2001, the energy task force that became Cheney’s first major assignment as vice president spent much time poring over maps of the oilfields in Iraq and the rival nations—China, Russia, and France among them—to whom Saddam Hussein intended to give the concessions for development. Part of Cheney’s mandate involved “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.”
– END QUOTE
But who did the oil contracts go to when the Iraqi Soveriegn Government made up its own decision….
http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm
And Iraq’s big oil contracts go to …
Companies from China, India and other Asian nations are seen getting the first contracts.
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
April 5 2007: 1:42 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq’s new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia.
While Iraqi lawmakers struggle to pass an agreement on exactly who will award the contracts and how the revenue will be shared, experts say a draft version that passed the cabinet earlier this year will likely uphold agreements previously signed by those countries under Saddam Hussein’s government. – END QUOTE
So look, the preferences went to those who had the oil contracts from before the invasion, this takes the entire conspiracy theory your link espouses and flushes it.
Chuck Norton said
LOL Its finals time and my last article for this semester comes out this week
Just wait :-)
A Student said
LOL. Got it, Chuck. I take it that this one won’t just be a cut and paste job like the last one, right? :) It MUST be finals time! I’m looking forward to it.
supplysider1971 said
I get so tired of hearing how bad America is, be it in political science class here on campus, or on television. Last night, I was watching a series on PBS called America at a Crossroads, and it was saying how our foreign policy is what caused terrorism. We have shed more American blood, and spent more money than any nation in the world to advance freedom. Chuck, as you know, I am a veteran as well as you are, and we both know that the military’s first mission deterrance, and if that fails, WE BREAK THINGS AND HURT PEOPLE. But a point I want to bring up is that we are not peace keepers, didnt we criticize Clinton for doing the same thing. I am not a cut and runner, but I tend to think that maybe the military in Iraq has out used its usefullness, and maybe it is time to get them out of there, and maybe try a different approach.
Chuck Norton said
A Student,
Whenever someone is censored due to viewpoint discrimination I make every effort to print what was censored, even if I disagree with it. I have no regrets about ceding my article space to UN Watch in the last issue.
Bart said
The whole world is wrong and Chuck is right? I dont think so. Please check out this website and decide for yourself. Edited out – please dont use this board to spam or promote other web sites – iusbvision
Bart
Chuck Norton said
Bart,
I have a list of a great many top scientists on my side, so your allegation that it is “the whole world” is simply a lie in light of the evidence.
In fact, here is a short list of professors from the UN IPCC and other places that agree with me.
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu – Professor and Director, International Arctic Research Center
Dr. Tim Ball – Head of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (misattributed as Professor from the Department of Climatology, University of Winnipeg. Ball left his faculty position in the Department of Geography in 1996; the University of Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology.)
Dr. Nigel Calder – Former Editor, New Scientist
Dr. John Christy – Professor, Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville and Lead Author, IPCC
Dr. Ian Clark – Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Piers Corbyn – Weather Forecaster, Weather Action
Dr. Paul Driessen – Author: Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death
Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen – Director, Danish National Space Center and Adjunct Professor, University of Copenhagen
Dr. Richard Lindzen – Professor, Department of Meteorology, M.I.T.
Dr. Patrick Michaels – Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Patrick Moore – Co-founder, Greenpeace
Dr. Paul Reiter – Professor, Department of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, Paris
Dr. Nir Shaviv – Professor, Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem
Dr. James Shikwati – Economist, Author, and CEO of The African Executive
Dr. Frederick Singer – Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (misattributed in the film as Former Director, U.S. National Weather Service. From 1962-64 he was Director of the National Weather Satellite Service.)
Dr. Roy Spencer – Weather Satellite Team Leader, NASA
Dr. Philip Stott – Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London
Where are all of the category 3-5 hurricaines that were supposed to devistate the US due to global warming? - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 4 - City-Data For said
[…] Originally Posted by nei Every year? Where'd you get that? No such prediction, you are arguing against a straw man. Reading real sources would help. from Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory – Global Warming and Hurricanes Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). <br><br> Can that small change be noticeable every year? Hardly. You can deny all you want, but following katrina, it was nothing but alarmist rhetoric about the severity and the increase in numbers of the storms going forward. I'm sorry that some choose to forget history. Inconvenient Questions Global Warming Alarmists Don […]
Benito said
Thanks for the marvelous posting! I quite enjoyed reading it, you will be a great author.
I will make sure to bookmark your blog and will often come back at some point.
I want to encourage continue your great work, have
a nice morning!