Friday, December 14, 2007

More On The Myth

"[P]olitics overrides calm rational scientific debate and if that fails the personal attacks begin, and if that fails they invoke the Precautionary Principle, "Shouldn't we act anyway?" Yes, if you want to waste money, ignore other real issues and scare people." ~ Dr. Timothy Ball PhD, Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg

So Dan says, "No One says Global warming is a myth".

I say, "I do".

And so do a lot of other people, including actual climatologists, geologists, and meteorologists.

Many scientists concur with my common sense conviction that Global Warming is a myth. The following videos (which I, the only living global warming denier, according to Dan, didn't create) demonstrates this fact:

Then there's this one:

And then, this:

And, if you have time and/or are so inclined, click on the videos and you will be directed to the youtube pages on which they are found, and there you will find several links to web sites with further information from real actual scientists who agree that Global Warming is indeed a myth.

Just for starters, though, check out this interview with Dr. Timothy Ball.

One video I watched referenced a petition that was signed by 19,000 scientists who all agree Global Warming is a myth. That's a little more than the 928 scientists or so AlGore claims agree with Global Warming.

As I say. Global Warming is a myth.


Dan Trabue said...

Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG). Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy. Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations.


How about someone who isn't being paid by the energy industry?

AGAIN, I'll ask the question: IF you were told by 1000 doctors that smoking was bad for you and one doctor who was employed by the tobacco company that smoking was safe, who would you listen to?

Dan Trabue said...

And finally, Mark, I asked for scientific journals supporting your position. You gave me YouTube videos.

Need I say more?

Mark said...

Try watching them. Obviously you didn't.

Dan Trabue said...

Obviously, I did watch enough to know that they weren't scientific journal articles. There is a difference between a youtube video and a science journal.

Here are some hints:

"Glen Beck" is not a scientific journal.

A video that begins, "Exposed: The Climate of Fear" is NOT a scientific journal.

Does that help?

And one of these repeated the Myth that we HAVE already established, that "the scientists" were saying we were experiencing an imminent ice age.

Now would be a good time to correct that error.

Dan Trabue said...

Really, Mark, I'm wondering: WHY would we accept the word of the few over the word of the many? Especially when the few are in the employ of those who stand to benefit by what they say?

Or, put another way: What criteria SHOULD we use when dealing with matters of policy that we might not be well-informed enough to make a decision on our own? Who should we listen to when there is not universal consensus?

Here's the situation:

1. We are currently doing behavior A.

2. Some scientists say A will give us cancer and grow horns on our heads.

3. Other scientists say A will make our farts smell sweeter with NO negative side effects.

What criteria do we use for deciding policy?

It's an honest question that deserves an answer.

Trader Rick said...

The sweet farts get my vote! Really, Dan, more people would be likely to take your your point of view seriously if you weren't so darned nasty and condescending..but then again, maybe you don't care and just like to hear yourself pontificate? Mark's argument for common sense seems to elude you.

tugboatcapn said...

Mark, how many times are you going to go through this with Dan?

His sources are absolutely unimpeachable.

Your sources are absolute crap.

No matter what your sources are, no matter the topic, no matter what.

You have attacked Dan's true "Religion" here. He will not, cannot entertain the possibility that he might be wrong on this.

He has to save the World.

Don't stand in his way.

Mark said...

OK, Dan I'll answer the question:

"IF you were told by 1000 doctors that smoking was bad for you and one doctor who was employed by the tobacco company that smoking was safe, who would you listen to?"

Here is the surprisingly easy answer for you:

I used to smoke. For 30 years I smoked. Thousands of doctors reported smoking was bad for me, but I smoked anyway, because I wanted to. I once went to a Doctor after so many years of smoking and had a chest x-ray done. The results showed my lungs to be completely healthy.

So, it didn't matter to me what the doctors said. I quit smoking because I woke up every night choking and spitting up yucky brown stuff, and I coudn't run anymore because it caused me to have difficulty breathing. Not to mention I was tired of always smelling bad, and my whole environment turning yellow, etc.

Did the thousand doctors convince me? NO!

My own common sense and logic convinced me smoking wasn't good for me. Just as common sense and logic tells me Global warming is a myth. Why, instead of allowing yourself to be swayed by a bunch of politically and money motivated so-called scientists, don't you use some common sense and logic of your own?

Dan Trabue said...

Trader Rick, I was not/have not been condescending. It's an honest question.

We have decisions to make and policies to set in our country. Usually, when people think there's a problem or a solution, they present to Congress what they think the problem is and their idea for a solution.

Then, Congress listens to the pros and cons, weighs their merits and make policy.

I'm just asking what you all want to base your policy upon? And if you have two sets of conflicting evidence - especially technical evidence that may be beyond what is obviously apparent - how do you propose we sift through it?

I don't know where you think the condescension is in that, but there is none intended.

Now, there was certainly some smart aleck-ness involved when I asked for some scientific journal articles supporting Mark's position and he at first didn't respond then did respond with youtube presentations.

My answer there (pointing out that Glen Beck is not a scientific journal) could be considered condescending, I guess, but it was intended more of a joke.

Take it how you will. Nonetheless, I'm just trying to have a conversation and understand what you're basing your positions upon and why we ought to listen to you rather than the predominant wisdom.

SURE, the predominant wisdom can be wrong, but you'd have to present some evidence of that. The only evidence presented thus far has been along the lines of youtube attack ads, not scientific journals.

Dan Trabue said...

Why, instead of allowing yourself to be swayed by a bunch of politically and money motivated so-called scientists, don't you use some common sense and logic of your own?

Actually, Mark, I AM using my common sense and logic of my own.

1. We KNOW that we put out tons and tons of pollution - pollution of all types.

2. We KNOW that pollution is toxic.

3. We KNOW that if humanity puts out enough toxins, it negatively impacts the environment. Our streams are polluted to the point of not being safe to swim in. Our air is polluted enough that it can make people sick.

4. Personal responsibility dictates that I ought not throw garbage in your yard because it is simply wrong. Personal responsibility tells me the same logically applies to polluting someone else's air or water. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't dangerous or wrong.

5. We know how the greenhouse effect works and it logically makes sense that if we put up more and more pollution that contributes to greenhouse effect, well then, that logically makes sense that it could possibly contribute to global warming.

6. We know that we are consuming/polluting more and more with each year - with more and more people trying to emulate the western lifestyle (personal auto, having lots of stuff created in ways that are harmful to the environment). We simply can't all live like Americans live. There aren't enough resources and it would contribute to the pollution problem.

This is all stuff that makes perfect obvious sense to me, Mark. So, logically, I can see why our behavior could impact the climate and regardless, I can see why our behavior is having other known negative effects. Because I believe in living in a personally responsible way, I therefore advocate policies that would reflect that.

The possibility that humanity is contributing to climate change is just ANOTHER reason for us to support policy changes.

You don't think it's okay to throw your garbage in a neighbor's yard, do you? Then why do you think it acceptable to throw your pollution in other people's air and water?

Mark said...

Really, Dan? How do we KNOW those things? Because politically and money motivated so-called scientists say so?

Do you have any physical evidence that supports your claims? Any at all?

Are you having trouble breathing, Dan? Is the air soupy and the water solid where you live? It's just fine here, Dan. I have no trouble breathing and I am not afraid to swim in the local streams.

Has the pollution there in Kentucky caused you to grow an extra ear or turn your skin green, Dan?

When I go outside I don't feel stifled by foreign gasses. I don't see glass walls all around me or above me. Nothing but a clear azure sky of deepest autumn over my head, Dan.

Oh, and what kind of policy changes would make the least bit of difference, Dan? More taxes? How would that change anything other than making my pockets lighter and the politicians pockets heavier?

Finally, you ask, "You don't think it's okay to throw your garbage in a neighbor's yard, do you?"

Well, yes, as long as no one sees me. If my neighbor feels inclined to clean it up, he can. Or not. Whatever he wants. After all, it is HIS yard, not mine.

By the way, if you had watched the videos, you would have seen that Glenn Beck presented expert testimony from real scientists, one who specifically stated that he didn't work for any energy company and that he was not a Republican. So much for your hypothesis that the scientists presented in Becks video are agenda driven.

Now. How about the agenda that is driving the politically correct scientists? Is their agenda somehow more righteous than the agenda of the scientists who dont agree with the global warming nuts?

And somehow the original question, a two parter, still remains unanswered: Calculate the number of years it will take the earth to get so hot that mankind is endangered, and then explain why that is a more imminent threat than global terrorism?

If you can't answer that question, then why attempt to argue at all?

Dan Trabue said...

Really, Dan? How do we KNOW those things?

Mark, I know the air is polluted because we can measure the pollution and quantify how much pollution is in the air.

I know our streams are polluted because we can dip water out of the stream, measure it, find the pollutants in it. Today, with all the rain we're getting, if we go down to the Ohio or Beargrass Creek, we could test the water and there would be e coli in it (shit germs), there would be oil, gas and other car run-off in it. There would be heavy metals in it (toxic).

We can measure it (and I have been part of these measurements in the past) and there are pollutants in it. Pollutants that would make you sick if you ingested it or if it got in wounds.

Every summer, we have air pollution warning days where my friends with asthma have to stay inside or risk having asthma attacks where they can't hardly breathe. It feels like they're suffocating, they tell me (which, in fact, they are).

Does that answer your question - HOW we know? We know because we measure and test.

So, that being the case, would you support policies that discourage or outlaw the putting of pollutants into our air, ground and water?

I suspect for some reason you were being facetious when you answered it's okay to dump in your neighbor's yard as long as you're not caught.

I don't think you're that kind of evil. I hope you wouldn't support doing it for our air and water, either.

And Mark, I did answer your question. We don't know what all the results might be if we keep polluting. If we allow mercury to get in to our food chain at certain levels, what will be the exact effects, but we know enough about the harmful effects of mercury that it wouldn't be good.

So I answered we don't know exactly but we know putting pollutants into our air, food and water, it's not a good thing. I answered by saying we could find out exactly what would happen if we stick our mouths on the business end of a running car's tailpipe by doing it, but it's ill-advised.

That is an answer. I don't want to find out what the results would be of putting excessive greenhouses gases in the atmosphere by doing it.

Are you advocating doing experiments on mankind?

I'm guessing you all just aren't wanting to have conversations, so I'll leave you to your science bashing if that's what you wish to do.

I may not be a scientist, but I can understand the concept of measuring and harmful results.

As the Bible tells us, if we reap the wind, we'll reap the whirlwind. Logically, we can understand the concept that if we do harmful actions, there will be harmful results - sometimes much more extreme than even we'd have guessed.

Peace and clean air, y'all (something, fortunately, the majority of my fellow citizens support).

tugboatcapn said...

Dan, I have a couple of questions for you about this...

What is the number one "Greenhouse Gas" in our atmosphere?

How much rain falls every day on the Earth?

What is the name of the scientist who proved the "Greenhouse Effect" by re-creating it in a laboratory?

If Global Warming is a Global Problem, then why are nations like China excluded from the proposed solutions?

T/F? The recent rise in CO2 levels is responsible for the measured rise in global temperature.

T/F? Human activity is responsible for the majority of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Which of the following statements is true?
1)An increase in the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has contrubuted to the recorded rise in the surface temperature of the Earth.

2)The increase in the surface temperature of the Earth has contributed to the increase in the level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.

Be ready to link to your sources, and be sure that your sources are reputable. They must be Republicans, Christians, and not paid by any organization with political agendas of any kind.

Now put down the Kool-aid, and get to work.

Mark said...

OK, Dan, yes, there are pollutants in the air and water, (Incidentally, people since the dawn of mankind have been urinating and dumping all sorts of really nasty things in streams, rivers and oceans with seemingly no harmful effects) but that doesn't even come close to answering the question I posed in the previous post. You said:

"That is an answer. I don't want to find out what the results would be of putting excessive greenhouses gases in the atmosphere by doing it."

Uh, no, Dan. That isn't the answer. Well maybe it's AN answer but it's certainly not THE answer to the question I asked.

Here. I'll make it simpler for you:

Just tell me how many years we have before we all die from global Warming, and then tell me whether that death will come before terrorists kill us all, or after.

That is the question. Do you think you can focus long enough to answer it?

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Especially when the few are in the employ of those who stand to benefit by what they say?

Dan, why is it just one side whose motives are questioned because of where they receive their funding from? There is profit to be made as well by those who push for embracing an apocalyptic belief in global warming. What, say you, to the scientists who talk about how they find their research funding dry up, because they don't buy into the alarmism over climate change? Although questioning motive is fine; isn't it more salient to attack the research and science of the deniers, instead? They have points to make, as well as the scientists who are concerned about climate change.

One video I watched referenced a petition that was signed by 19,000 scientists who all agree Global Warming is a myth. That's a little more than the 928 scientists or so AlGore claims agree with Global Warming.

Mark, I used to cite that (17,000 was the number I had from John Stossel's book). But then a liberal did better research, looking further into it. Basically, the 17,000 who signed the petition were not all scientists in fields of expertise on the global warming issue. Curt at Flopping Aces delved even deeper into the matter, stating

2,660 out of the 17,000 are scientists in the related fields of Physicists, Geophysicists, Climatologists, Meteorologists, Oceanographers, and Environmental Scientists who indeed have the necessary knowledge to study the evidence we now have today and come to the conclusion that man-made Global Warming is a hoax.

Additionally, 5,017 of the signers are scientists in the field of Chemistry, Biochemistry, Biology, and other Life Sciences which make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

The Petittion organizer also wrote:

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.

Erudite Redneck said...

It's stuff like this that convinced me to quit arguing with Mark about anything, and to quit taking him seriously about anything whatsoever, since fer all his pontificatin' he appears to have no actual moral center:

"You don't think it's okay to throw your garbage in a neighbor's yard, do you?"

Well, yes, as long as no one sees me.

Lone Ranger said...

Socialists will never stop their attempts to redistribute wealth from those who can to those who won't. They are masters of deception. And Gorbull Whining is probably their biggest scam of all.

Mark said...

Has anyone else noticed that Dan keeps asking questions but refuses to answer the simple question being posed to him?

Has anyone notice that Dan continually tries to change the focus of the discussion while never directly addressing the subject?

Has anyone noticed that Dan has no problem believing some scientists who have been shown to have a money and political motivation, but dismisses out of hand thousands of scientists who have not been proven to have any motive other than getting at the truth?

Has anyone noticed how Dan tries to discredit scientific fact just because he doesn't want to believe it?

Has anyone noticed that Dan doesn't seem to possess common sense and logic?

I will give Dan credit for one thing, though. At least he recognizes sarcasm when he sees it, unlike someone (I won't say his name but his initials are ER) else we all know and love.

Mark said...

Here's a news flash for those of you who followed the link to the interview with Dr. Timothy Ball:

The interview was conducted by a Bush hater. The interviewer believes the myth of Global warming and tried to discredit Dr. Ball in his interview, but only succeeded in uncovering some of the myths surrounding global Warming.

And yet, Dan surmises Dr. Ball is not credible based on his association with other scientists.

Edwin Drood said...

it is true the oil industry pays millions on climate research, it is also true the US government pay billions (yes thats a B) to fund global warming "research" so who is doing it for the money? I remember the eco-nuts saying our world was going to end by the year 2000, it just so happens Reagan's term was coming to an end. Modern environmentalism is a boggy-man meant to scare naive liberals during an election cycle.

Its funny when Clinton was President everything was fine. Now just 8 years later the world is coming to an end.

Dan, check out to debunk just about everything you belive in

BB-Idaho said...

Mark, the the science clearly does not convince you. But it has affected some like you. See These folk are hardly
AlGorians or part of some left-wing conspiaracy. (Or ARE they?)

Dan Trabue said...

Perhaps I have been too harsh. We agree that we ought to make wise decisions, we just disagree on which scientists to listen to. You have some people giving you your info on climate change, I have my sources.

A peace offering then:

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.
An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified.

But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Chris the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."

Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
"Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace, good will to men."

Merry Christmas, Mark. Keep cool.

Edwin Drood said...

cheers everyone

Cameron said...

One huge problem with the credibility of the global warming movement is that which the entire scientific community shares: they keep changing their minds. The global cooling scare of the 70's is one example, and Dan's excuse for it basically amounts to saying "back then we were only really sure, but now we're really really sure."

But this sort of thing happens all the time. Overpopulation was scary, and now the UN decides that much of the world is running out of people. Science told us that drinking alcohol each day was good for our health, but then they tell us that drinking can cause cancer.

Then, of course, there are the "solutions" proffered to solve these problems. The global cooling scare offered up some doozies. The current push for biofuels is a disaster. The overpopulation scare, coupled with global warming, has caused women to grow up so indoctrinated and terrified, that they sterilize themselves in a misguided attempt to save the planet.

We all talk about the scientific studies, the peer reviewed studies, the UN pronouncements, but then we ignore the ones we don't agree with. The population thing is one example, but global warming has its own as well. No one but PETA noticed the UN study proving that by far the biggest culprit to global warming is cow flatulence. And I'm not trying to be silly. The UN published a study which states that cow emissions, methane, is by a long shot the #1 cause of global warming. So where's the big push to become vegans? Why are we still hating on Big Oil? Shouldn't we be having concerts demanding that Big Cow stop killing our planet?

Dan Trabue said...

Cameron, I don't think you understand the science involved or the words I spoke.

I said about the so-called global cooling scare of the 70's that it was a myth, not that scientists said, "we were only really sure." There was no general agreement in the scientific community that global cooling was a reality. It's a myth.

Again, I'd ask that you all help dispel the myth and quit perpetuating it.

Also, population growth remains a concern for the scientific community and for the compassionate humanity community.

We can feed the nearly 7 billion of us today because and only because of so-called advances made in agribusiness due to the availability and use of cheap petrofertilizer solutions. As cheap and available petrofertilizer solutions dry up (petrol being a finite and dwindling resource), feeding the current 7 billion will become increasingly difficult and expensive. Feeding the estimated 9 billion that will be here in 2050 will be likely impossible with current available resources and technology.

Your UN report was talking about the reality of slowing growth rates in part of the world, not all of the world. Science shows us that we have limited resources to tend to a growing population. Economics tells us that expanded demand and dwindling resources = increased price and further dwindling resources. Logic tells us that there is a point at which the available finite resources can no longer feed an ever-expanding population.

You are correct, however, to say that our knowledge is ever expanding and what we know today may be revised tomorrow. Thus is the way of science.

So, while the science today tells us we need to change, and it's true that there's a chance that we may learn differently tomorrow, is it not foolish to place a bet on the possibility that we may learn something contrary to what we know today?

Sure, the poor family MIGHT win the lottery. But it is not especially wise of them to go out and buy a new car after they lost the lottery today, thinking, "Well, tomorrow that will likely change!"

It's about responsibility. Personal and global responsibility. We ought to live within our global means. We do not currently do so.

Mark said...

Thanks for bring it up, Dan. Another myth is the myth of overpopulation. If every man woman and child in the world were given an acre of land and concentrated in one area, they would all fit into a space the size of Australia. If we stood every man, woman, and child in the world on 1 suare foot apiece, they could all be contained in an area the size of Texas.

There's a lot of space in this world for the population, but don't you worry.

Countries like China, with their policy of forced abortion and American Liberals with their push for legal euthanasia and abortion will keep the population down indefinitely.

Anonymous said...

artificial-petrofertilizer polychlorinated biphenyls chlorophenoxy herbicides =
a ruined world

Interesting the two of you going back and forth, since BOTH of you are intelligent and have valid points and similar if not in many instances, the same ideology. Sadly unproductive however, as neither of you want to concede to anything, dismissing each other out of hand, not very wise, as neither of you have a monopoly of the truth and thus should be willing to consider one another's points with an open mind.

" Throughout the long history of civilization, the patterns of our relationship to the planet have been fairly consistent - we tend to cut down the ancient forests, erode the top soil, dam the rivers, drain the wetlands, wiped out keystone species, and in so many other ways eviscerate the web of life. A few thousand years of telling this story, and here we are. The sun is cycling hotter and sending more solar energy into the biosphere, which is clearly beyond human control. In the past this increased energy would have been cycled by the planet's systems, its forests, and rivers and winds and life. The devastation of these cycles and systems globally, which would otherwise move that energy through the biosphere, is totally our responsibility. Choice:Consequence ~ ReGenerate your local ecosystems. Free the rivers. Honor your remaining ancient forests. Plant new ones. Align your future with the needs of your landbase, your watershed, your bioregion, and create a good future."
Dominic, Ashland, Salmon Nation

Overpopulation is an understandable perception, but I agree, it's a myth. In regards to the corrupt system that is in place, a "valid" concern, but the underlying problem is not too many people, but that our system is designed by the centuries long established and dominant institutionalized theos of greed, which has long since infiltrated and manipulated the morality of science and religion.

Mark is a fool for not considering that we have the means to, and are altering our planet on many destructive levels. It's obvious we are wreaking havok. But he is right in the sense that the global warming/environment threat is being used as a propaganda tool for the elites of the new world order to further take over and form a one-world totalitarian rule.

Neither of you seem to consider that our overlords have the ability to manipulate the weather. Neither of you apparently bother to notice the massive aerosol operations (ie: chemtrail/persistent contrails) being carried out right over your heads without your informed consent.

Please consider watching the following highly informative (non-profit) documentary - "Aerosol Crimes" from one of the premier chemtrail researchers, Clifford E Carnicom (of

Remember the Color Blue....

1. _crimes_part_1.wmv
2. _crimes_part_2.wmv
3. _crimes_part_3.wmv

See Also: =5585 ery_id=11&page=1

Fonebones Weather Wars