Back in 2001 The Discovery Institute paid for advertisements with a list of a hundred scientists who disputed the theory of evolution via natural selection. A notable feature of their list is that the vast majority of the people were not biologists.
Now The Cato Institute has paid for advertisements with a list of a hundred scientists who dispute the scientific consensus about global warming. A notable feature of their list is that it contains only a handful of climatologists. There's Lindzen, Spencer, Michaels and ... well that's about it. Of the 619 contributing authors of Working Group I of the the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, not one is on the Cato list. John Christy, who to my knowledge is the only skeptic who was an IPCC AR4WG1 author is notable for his absence from the Cato list. Compare with another Cato ad opposing Obama's plans for an economic stimulus. All the signatories were economists -- Cato did not have to pad that list out with climatologists.
The affiliations of four people were just that there were IPCC reviewers, which sounds impressive util you realize that the IPCC has an open reviewing process and any at all can review their reports.
So who is on both the Cato list and Discovery Institute list? Two people, both from the University of Oklahoma:
Edward Blick, Professor Emeritus of the Mewbourne School of Petroleum and Geological Engineering, University of Oklahoma. In an article published by the Twin Cities Creation Science Association, he wrote:
The predecessors of today's unbelievers replaced the Holy Bible's book of Genesis with Darwin's Origin of the Species. Now with the help of Al Gore and the United Nations they are trying to replace the Holy Bible's book of Revelation with the U.N.'s report Anthropogenic Global Warming. They tell us that man's use of fossil fuels results in too much atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) which causes excessive warming and melting of polar ice caps. They say if we don't take drastic steps (trillions of dollars of taxes, year after year, after year), we will either roast to death, or drown in the rising seas. The plan is for the U.N. to take control of the world's economy and dictate what we can use for transportation (bikes?), what we can eat, where we can live, and what industries we must shut down. This whole scheme is a "Trojan Horse" for global socialism! ...
For thousands of years our earth has undergone cooling and warming under the control of God. Man cannot control the weather, but he can kill millions of people in his vain attempt to control it, by limiting or eliminating the fuel that we use. How does God control our warming and cooling? Scientists have discovered it is the Sun! Amazing, even grade school children know this. The Sun's warming or cooling the earth varies with sunspot and Solar flairs.
David Deming, associate professor of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma. In an op-ed in the Edmond Sun he wrote
Obama is a vapid demagogue, a hollow man that despises American culture. He is ill-suited to be president of the United States. As the weeks pass, more Americans will come to this realization and elect McCain/Palin in a landslide.
I also checked who was Cato's list and this list of HIV/AIDS "rethinkers":
Eduardo Ferreyra. President of the Argentine Foundation for a Scientific Ecology, which seems to just be Ferreyra and a couple of his friends.
Ferrerya has commented on this blog -- as well as the HIV/AID and AGW denial, he subscribes the DDT ban myth. Plus this:
In January 1980, conducted an expedition into a Jivaro indian tribe on the Wichimi River, in the Ecuadorian Amazon, few miles from the Peruvian border. He went along with César Miranda, Emerit Professor at the National University in Córdoba, Argentina, and together made a research that suggested the Jivaro indians came from Okinawa, Japan.
Dr. James DeMeo. Director, Orgone Biophysical Research Lab. Apparently orgone energy is the real explanation for global warming:
However, cloudbusting is definitely not "magic", but a combination of
both natural science and empirical art, requiring the practitioner to
know much about modern science, climate and technical matters. They
must also have the capacity to feel the atmospheric orgone energy via
organ sensations, and to see the expressive language of the living
which appears across the whole of Nature, if one knows what to look
for, and has the eyes to see. It helps us to understand previously
inexplicable things such as the relationship between desert-spreading
and the subsequent appearance of droughts and heatwaves, both of which
fuel the misunderstood "global warming" and "El Nino" effects, which
in fact are regional in nature, and always connected with outbreaks of
expanding Saharasian desert atmospheres.
Joel Kauffman. Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. Kauffman doesn't think that orgone energy is causing global warming. No, he writes:
Either Warmers or Skeptics may accept that primordial ionizing radiation from within warms the Earth.
Michael R. Fox. reckons that global warming is a big fraud by scientists so they can get research money:
One explanation of this may be described by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D., writing from Brisbane, Australia: "The Holy Grail for most scientists is not truth but research grants. And the global warming scare has produced a huge downpour of money for research. Any mystery why so many scientists claim some belief in global warming?"
Also examining the Cato list are the International Journal of Inactivism and Eli Rabett
- Log in to post comments
This:
Compare with another Cato ad opposing Obama's plans for an economic stimulus. All the signatories were economists -- Cato did not have to pad that list out with climatologists.
is profoundly depressing.
Are there any economists out there writing something like "When the reality-denying, wealth-destroying Cato Institute tried to peddle climatic pseudo-science, they could only scrabble to find a handful of climate scientists to support them. When they campaigned to impoverish America, however, they had no difficulty attracting massive academic support."
It's desperately needed.
This list says it all really - the denial camp have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find nanes willing to join their crusade against science. Of particular note is Eduardo Ferreyra. His comic book web site is called, "President of the Argentine Foundation for a Scientific Ecology" which in my opinion bastardizes the term ecology; of course ecology is a science. But his web site has virtually no 'ecology' in it. Ecology is defined as the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the environment that determine the abundance and distribution of organisms. Read the site and tell me where the actual 'ecology' is. Speaking as a population ecologist, I can assure you that there ain't any.
I've had exchanges with Ferreya in the past and in my view he knows nix about the environment or ecology. By the way, his organization apparently is an offshoot of the 'Heidelberg Appeal' (HA), a petition drawn up by forces on the political right to counter the 'World Scientists Warning to Humanity' at the Rio Biodiversity summit in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. The former argued that humans and the natural world are on a collision course and that urgent measures were needed to prevent the serious consequences of inaction to better protect and manage the environment. It was endorsed by 70% of the world's living Nobel Laureates as well as by every national academy of science in every country on Earth. The HA argued that an 'irrational idealogy' (by this they meant environmentalism) threatened human progress and that humans had always advanced by harnessing nature to our own needs. But by this time it should have been patently obvious that humans were 'harnessing' (i.e. destroying) too much nature and that, in fact, nature needing protecting from humans and not the reverse. Needless to say, the HA split into two factions after the conference, one relocating in Holland under the same monoicker and the other popping up in Argentina under the apparently benign name of 'Argentine Foundation for a Scientific Ecology'.
Note alsop the aggressive mimicry - the Argentine group gives the impression of being a serious scientific site where many qualified scientists contribute. This is called 'aggressive mimicry' and is a strategy used by anti-environmental groups which in my view is aimed at deliberately misleading the public. For instance, the 'Greening Earth Society'; The 'Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change'; The 'National Wetlands Coalition'. There are many others. In my view all use eco-friendly names to promote arguments arguing fore a reduction in regulations aimed at protecting the environment, and all appear to have links with polluting industries, corporate funded public realtions groups or think tanks.
How does God control our warming and cooling? Scientists have discovered it is the Sun! Amazing, even grade school children know this.
Yes, I remember now they kept trying to tell me about the sun of God in grade school.
David Deming, associate professor of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma
Well, even his own think tank admits he has a "BS degree". And frankly, I'm not surprised.
With all the little Al-Gore-idolizing bobbleheads around (i.e., those who think Al's climate-science notions are spot on), a sufficient explanation of the midieval-warming period should be a gimmie.
Not.
All those very-old-school Vikings raising crops and grazing their cattle in a balmy Greenland, the balminess of which was certainly not created by carbon-spewing SUVs, constitute a hole in the Al's notions that's big enough to drive a super tanker through.
Duh.
v. gates,
The Medieval Warm Period existed, but it was largely confined to Europe, and it was not warmer than today. And the Viking colonization of Greenland was always a marginal effort. They supported themselves more with seal meat than with agriculture, and the venture ended with most of them starving to death.
v. gates touches the nub of the problem when he states "With all the little Al-Gore-idolizing bobbleheads around (i.e., those who think Al's climate-science notions are spot on)."
Several variations of this comment surface regularly in the denialosphere. Which makes me wonder; what would happen if we could persuade Gore to refute AGW completely - would that mean those that are "septical" will reverse their position to once again be diametrically opposed to their most-hated politician?
The link is broken, but I would give odds that--using your criterion for biologists/climatologists (a Ph.D. and work in the field), or even a slightly more relaxed one (say, an advanced degree in Economics [NOT an MBA] and actually working as an economist)--the CATO ad opposing the stimulus package was rather padded too.
If it wasn't, it would be the first one of their ads that isn't.
Chris S: "v. gates touches the nub of the problem when he states 'With all the little Al-Gore-idolizing bobbleheads around (i.e., those who think Al's climate-science notions are spot on). "
Yes, and isn't it amazing how much attention is paid to Al Gore by the anti-science spruikers and how infrequently he's referred to by those of us persuaded by the evidence pointing to AGW.
I've never read anything Gore has written, nor heard him speak, nor seen his movie. Why would I, when there's so much good quality, peer-reviewed science, and excellent sources like the IPCC reports that bring it all together?
I'm sure I'm not the only non-scientist who prefers to go straight to the science and make an honest attempt to undersand it, rather than relying on someone like Al Gore to act as a middle-man.
Perhaps because those in the denialist camp prefer secondary sources because its easier and they prefer glib reassurances they they assume everyone else does too.
Anyway, as I'm sure someone will soon remind us again before too long, Al Gore is fat.
V. Gates,
The most enlightened part of your vacuous comment was "Duh". But not as you intended. More of a self-parody. The Greenland/warmth/Viking/ myth lives on.
Have you pointed out the Oklahoma connection to Abbie/erv? I'm sure she'll be delighted. Or something.
No surprise that there's significant crossover between lists -- my law of colocated crackpottery.
Is there a vaccination causes autism list? If so, that may be interesting.
Not just vaccine-denial, but I bet we can find a bunch more on such diverse topics as Holocaust denial, the Reptoid conspiracy, and the Birthers - heck, I'm sure there are probably 9-11 "truthers" on there as well. Once you swallow anything that large, your mouths open for a whole lot more.
> would that mean those that are "septical" will reverse their position to once again be diametrically opposed to their most-hated politician?
I imagine that, if Gore changes his stance, then it'll mean that he's a hypocrite and therefore still WRONG!!!
That'll be in keeping with the core principle of neoliberalism, namely Destroy All Democrats.
You'd think they could have at least got 100 names with a PhD (or equivalent). A few names have MS or MSc and several not even that. And given the often insular nature of opinion in the United States, you'd think any non-Americans they included would at least be PhD's. But no. E.g. Eduardo Ferreya, an Argentinian apparently does not have an advanced degree or a university affiliation.
I see Dick Courtney has his "PhD" back. Perhaps he has it this time. Whaddya think? Nah! Me neither.
The Cato Institute used to actually be thoughtful and sensible back in the early 1980s. They've gone way downhill since then.
Ha, I know Ferreyra from 6 or 7 years ago online- he was arguing against environmentalists and global warming back then, and his continued stupidity is one reason I kept reading up on it. Oddly enough I came across him a couple of years ago and was able to demolish his assertions in a second.
abb3w:
They can be good, e.g. on executive power issues, opposing the Unitary Executive and various Bush-era abuses (and sad to say in many cases ongoing executive power abuses).
Eduardo Ferreyra is on a list of AIDS/HIV deniers.
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htm
Ferreyra's family is in the cement business in Argentina. The last time I checked he was running the operation. Cement burners are the worst GHG contributors.
Jeff Harvey: you have the (early) history of the Heidelberg Appeal and the World Scientists' Warning reversed. The Appeal came first (in June 1992); the Warning was published that Fall, and was in part a response to the Appeal. Quite a few people (including 49 Nobel Laureates) signed both. (This is not as inconsistent as it seems in hindsight - the Appeal is very vague, and it's likely that most of the distinguished scientists who originally signed it were unaware of the agenda of the people behind it.)
re: CATO
See Sourcewatch on CATO, especially the section on tobacco. (caveat: Wiki, but still useful, and certainly consistent, i.e. Search CATO site for tobacco.)
Look carefully at funders, including especially the Foundations.
Seconding Vagueofgodalming here - one of the biggest marks against economics is that when one wants economic cranks, hacks and frauds, one can usually get a full load at elite econ depts.
We could run a competition.
Who have contributed more peer reviewed scientific papers in the area of biology or climate? Creationists or climate change skeptics?
Robert, I stand corrected. Many thanks for that. But the agenda of the HA should be quite clear. It was an attempt to derail the summit before it even began by promoting nonsense about illusory threats posed by 'environmentalism'.
It is also interesting that after the summit it broke into two parts. The Dutch version, as far as I can tell, plays it very low key because they are well aware that many of their ideas would be seen as extreme by the mainstream Dutch public. Their web site links to a range of astroturf groups and pseudoscientific bodies. The Argentine version is more brazen and, in my view, wacky in its approach to science. Their monicker always makes me laugh - 'Argentine Foundation for a Scientific Ecology'. Of course ecology is science. Could you imagine a group being called 'Argentine Foundation for a Scientific Physics' or 'Argentine Foundation for a Scientific Geology'. The name alone should enable the reader to determine how *unscientific* this organization is.
Cato Institute was just as fraudulent with the economy ad. They took an Obama quote from when he was merely a president-elect and painted it as referring to the stimulus package prepared and passed in February, even though a little basic research could show that was not the case at all.
Ken Miles...
Climate change skeptics, actually, but only because a small number > 0 is larger than an even smaller number > 0.
In other words, climate change skeptics win because, for instance, LIndzen's published real work on his Iris hypothesis (shot down by data analyzed by others).
Creationists and the intelligent design types like Dembski, on the other hand, have a tendency to write popular books rather than attempt to publish in the literature. More $$$ that way.
Hi all, this is Eduardo Ferreyra, back in the snake pit.
It is good to see the bunch of monkeys are still howling from the branches when they see men walking the right path.
Jeff Harvey: I still remember who discussed about your failed attempt to mudsling Bjorn Lomborg and tried to get him tried for unscientific and unethical behavior. Saddly, the Denmarkâs Ministry of Science reject your (and Schneiderâs) insane proposal and backed up Lomborg. Are you still trying to understand how worms behave? Thatâs good, because you havenât understood how the climate system behave and you wonât. Ever.
Guthrie: Playing in the woods while the wolf is not there? Well, I am here now. You have never refuted me or made a notch in any of my arguments in Sciforum. If so, please gave us a link. On the contrary, you have been sacked quite a lot by other members as André. It figures as you know zilch about climatology or the ozone scam.
Steve Bloom: the last time you checked about my family business engaged in the cement making must have been back in 1993 because we sold our factory and quarry to the Swiss Corporation Holder Bank in October 1994. We have been engaged in limestone quarry and lime production, and I am very glad we spew so much CO2. We have contributed a lot to our crops yield.
Thatâs how trustable is your information? Thatâs how you have you information updated? Now I understand how you havenât noticed that we are in a big cooling trend. Havenât you noticed how low the Ap index has been for such a long time? (68-71) Have you noticed that there have been more than 580 days with no sunspots? Did you know that in the next days weâll break the record set back in 1913, and in a few weeks will be in the same conditions as shortly before the Dalton Minimum? And last: do you know what is the Sun?
Tim Lambert: Yes, we solved a puzzle ethnologists had been wondering since hundred of years: Where did the Jivaro Indian came from? Have you made a similar contribution to human science? When? I see that a degree in computing allows you to claim to be an expert in climatology, biology and other sciences. I agree that you can be an expert, because for being an expert you donât need a PhD or a Maaters, or even attended to a university. A degree is just a certificate to show where you studied. It is not a certificate of honesty or skill.
If a PhD gives people like Hansen I rather not have one.
BTW, what about the World Health Organization having lifted the DDT ban and recommending it for indoor spraying in the entire world where there is malaria, dengue and other vector carried disease? Too bad the rehabilitation of DDT came 10 months after our debate on DDT in December 2005. Too bad. Did you now that the WHO lifted their ban because they found those studies (Bitman, DeWitt, and all Carsonâs rant were flawed and have no scientific entity?
> Hi all, this is Eduardo Ferreyra, back in the snake pit.
> It is good to see the bunch of monkeys are still howling from the branches when they see men walking the right path.
> [...] Playing in the woods while the wolf is not there?
You know, Eduardo, it may help your credibility a little bit if you refrain from mixing your metaphors like crazy. Then again, maybe not.
"the ozone scam"
another attempt to show that he is wrong on everything?
Eduardo is a climate denialist and a DDT lie-spreader. Fits the profile. Thank you for the laugh, sir.
Best,
D
Dano: you fit the profile of a typical warmaholic: naive, gullible, mudslinger, ad hominem provider, and messenger shooter that keeps avoiding a really scientific debate.
How sad, it is nothing to laugh at.
PS: who wants to bet that in spite of all efforts by the Montreal Protocol, this year will show one of the deepest and biggest ozone hole ever?
> a typical warmaholic: naive, gullible, mudslinger, ad hominem provider, and messenger shooter
That's about the entirety of Eduardo's 'rebuttal'. Oh, the irony.
Climate change skeptics, actually, but only because a small number > 0 is larger than an even smaller number > 0.
In other words, climate change skeptics win because, for instance, LIndzen's published real work on his Iris hypothesis (shot down by data analyzed by others).
Creationists and the intelligent design types like Dembski, on the other hand, have a tendency to write popular books rather than attempt to publish in the literature. More $$$ that way.
I'm not certain that this is correct. Some creationists and their intelligent design partners have contributed some interesting scientific papers (Behe would be an example of this). Yet this doesn't stop them from embracing a pseudoscience with all of the associated BS that comes with it.
I'm just not convinced that global warming skeptics are smarter or more honest than creationists.
Ken Miles,
No, your last comment is accurate - we are not that fucking stupid.
Note the level of Eduardo's discourse on this thread. To say it reaches the level of a grade school student would be to give it too much credit. The very fact that he calls his pseudoscientific joke of a web site "Argentine Foundation for a Scientific Ecology" says enough. Where is the 'ecology' Eduardo?
As far as 'worms'are concerned, I actually do not work with any lumbricids in my research, but this in no way downplays their importance in cycling nitrogen below-ground, and ultimately in community level productivity. Nematodes are also important as plant parasites and as predators. So Eduardo, think before you make pithy remarks.
Then for Eduardo to attack Dano of someone who 'avoids scientific debate'- is even more hilarious. OK big boy Eduardo, put up or shut up. What are your esteemed qualifications in climate science or ecology?
Cato's list of economists is no better. There are some A-grade kooks on that list too - Deepak Lall, UCLA, is a professor of history, who passes himself off as some "economic historian", and writes polemic these days in his dotage. Also note the number of Emeritus profs, which means they have stopped doing anything significant and simply signing up for every cause that catches their fancy. Garbage as usual from Cato. What else does one expect?
re: #37
re: emeritus professors
One must be careful: I know many emeritus professors who are still sharp, still active, either in their long-time field, or in something related on which they've spent serious time studying.
Some Emeritus folks, for example:
Don Kennedy (ex president of Stanford, ex Editor-in-Chief of Science)
Burton Richter (Nobel particle physicist, now spends a lot of time on energy&climate issues)
William Ruddiman of Plows, Plagues, Peteroleum fame
All these are still very sharp and contributing strongly.
BUT, there are two "Emeritus" syndromes (whether official or not) that are red flags, and this bears on teh CATAO list, since at least 42 of the 115 are Emeritus/Retired:
a) Someone took a position early in their field's development, the data piles up against them, but they never change, and if anything, their opinion hardens.
b) At/near retirement, they start opining on a field, against the mainstream in that field, where they demonstrably don't know much.
I.e., to be in a), you actually have to be involved in the field.
OUTSIDE CLIMATE SCIENCE:
a)
Linus Pauling, on non-existence of quasicrystals (H/T Arthur Smith)
Sir Ronald Fisher, famous statistician, never accepted epidemiological statistics on smoking
Sir Fred Hoyle never accepted the Big Bang or Darwinism
b)
Linus Pauling, Vitamin C
William Shockley, eugenics
CLIMATE SCIENCE RELATED
The CATO list has many of these (my opinion, obviously):
a) Richard Lindzen, William Gray
b) Akasofu, Bellamy, Giaever, Kauffman, Wimberly (small sample)
The appearance of Louis and Eduardo here have led me to reconsider my statement :)
Shorter Ferreyra:
It is not true that the best the denialists can do is populate their 'Top scientists disagree with evidence' lists with marginal characters who use wurdz like 'warmaholic'. Our total number is so small we do not register as 'marginal'.
Best,
D
Jeffrey Harvey: Ecology is the word invented by the famous fraudster Haeckel and is theory of "spontaneous generation of life" based on fraudluent studies he did. It cn be defined a group of scientific disciplines related to the environment, so the use of "Scientific Ecology" is just to differentiate from the "Emotional-Religious Ecology" played by greens, disguised as "scientific" when it is only a tool for advancing an anti human malthusian agenda and the quest for world power.
Though I am not not a religious man, (not Creationist, of course!) my credentials are as the Bible that christians like so much say: "By their fruit you'll know the tree". The first thing I told you back in 2002 in our personal debate (that you quit), when you tried to impress me with your "credentials" and degrees, was that an academic degree does not impress me and it is only a way to show where someone attended to get the degree. I have seen enough stuffed dummies with PhDs that are not more than clowns (Paul Ehrlich? James Hansen? John Holdren?).
That a degree is not a guarantee of honesty or even of knowledge, and PhDs are used only as an "appeal to authority". The degree is not even a proof that someone did understand what he was learning. The fruit on the tree blooms much later... if ever.
Well, the ecology in my website (the most famous one in Spanish language -and quoted and cited by thousands others) can be found in the thousands of papers and articles written by peer reviewed scientists (Bruce Ames, Alice Ottoboni, Aaron Wildawsky, Chárátova, Obdusamatov, Willie Soon, Sallie Balunias, Zbigniew Jaworowsky, Richard Lindzen, Thomas Jukes, Gordon Edwards, and many argentininan scientists that do not publish in English, but are cited in the scientific literature as Por Miguel A. González, geologist, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences, for his groundbreaking studies on foraminifera in the inland dry lake of Laguna del Bebedero, that upturned all what was believed on foraminifera in the scientific community.
You don't need a PhD to be an expert on something. (Einstein?) Now, what are your credentials for admonishing other people about climatology? You are still locked inside your ivory tower with no windows to the outside, real world. It is shown by you being a regular commentator in this snake pit of a blog.
Still hurt by the rejection of your irrational complain to the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty against Lomborg? I must have hurt you:
In December 2003, the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (a branch of the government that had appointed Lomborg) repudiated the findings of the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty, saying its treatment of the case was "dissatisfactory", "deserving criticism" and "emotional" and contained a number of significant errors. It told the DCSD to reconsider their verdict. In March 2004, the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty declined to reconsider its verdict against Lomborg.
That should have given you a hint that there is another world outside of your ivory tower. Don't be afraid. Just take a quick look.
Eduardo:
> You don't need a PhD to be an expert on something. (Einstein?)
lolwut.
Einstein did have a Ph. D.:
> A. Einstein. 1905. A new determination of molecular dimensions. Ph. D. thesis, University of Zürich.
I think you need to get your right-wing talking points straight. For example, you need to remember that the guy without a Ph. D. was GALILEO!!! and not Einstein. Also, the two are not interchangeable.
Also (via l'oca s.), one of the signatories, Antonino Zichichi, wrote a book claiming that Galileo renounced heliocentrism because he was more committed to Catholicism than his science.
I guess that means he can't use the GALILEO!!! crank excuse.
The meteorologists on the list are a rather "special" bunch as well.
The appearance of Louis and Eduardo here have led me to reconsider my statement :)
Louis is my perfect data point whenever I want to link gw sceptics with any other pseudoscience. However, Eduardo appears to be doing his best to take the crown.
"Well, the ecology in my website (the most famous one in Spanish language -and quoted and cited by thousands others) can be found in the thousands of papers and articles written by peer reviewed scientists (Bruce Ames, Alice Ottoboni, Aaron Wildawsky, Chárátova, Obdusamatov, Willie Soon, Sallie Balunias, Zbigniew Jaworowsky, Richard Lindzen, Thomas Jukes, Gordon Edwards, and many argentininan scientists that do not publish in English, but are cited in the scientific literature as Por Miguel A. González, geologist, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences, for his groundbreaking studies on foraminifera in the inland dry lake of Laguna del Bebedero, that upturned all what was believed on foraminifera in the scientific community".
Eduardo sinks himself again. Look at the list - not an ecologist on it. Most are the usual pseudoscientific suspects that pop up on other contrarian web sites. Why is this? Simple: because ecologists wouldn't touch his pseudoscientific web site with a 10 foot barge pole.
As for 'quitting' our so-called debate, I did no such thing (as a matter of fact, Lomborg pulled out of at least two venues where he was invited as well as myself after I shredded him in our single Dutch encounter; it wasn't hard, because the guy has no beasic understanding in my view of ecology - like someone else I know [=you]).
There are two reasons I won't debate you, Eduardo:
1. Because you have made it clear to me that you do not understand basic ecological principles as these apply to global change - for example the relationship between biodiverasity and ecosystem functioning and the role of trophic interrelationships in this capacity. Thus I am wastiong my time.
2. Because I am a senior scientist and I do actual research, write actual grants, and supervise actual Master's and PhD students.
Nice to meet you, Eduardo. So, for quotes, shall we just go with the standard ones ("greatest hoax in the history of mankind, unjustifiable burden on poorer nations", etc.), or do you have something specific to add? Also, the standard question for anyone in science. What evidence would change your mind, about a) global warming occurring, and b) having a human cause?
Stwart: Answering your gentle questions:
âWhat evidence would change your mind, about a) global warming occurring, and b) having a human cause?â
1)Global warming has occurred, of course. I donât know of any good scientist that denies that. The cause are natural, in our opinion, because it a consequence of a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age. I hope you wonât deny that.
Also that astronomic evidence shows there was an extremely close correlation between solar activity (not only TSI) but changes in the sunâs magnetic field, something that is firmly supported by al solar minima (Wolff, Maunder, Spörer, Dalton, etc), and the repetition of those cycles show the same effect: long solar cycles precede periods of deep cooling. Thtâs and observed and accepted rule by astrophysicists. I know that âastrophysicistsâ and âsunâ are some kind of four letter words for warmers, but facts are facts.
2)Whatâs the mechanism that makes the sun exert such a strong effect on Earthâs climate? It is not known, but there are some theories advanced, especially by Russian astrophysicists (Charávátova, Abdusamatov) and other westerners (Alexander, Kininmonth, Soon, Baliunas, Timo Niroma, etc) relating the baricenter of the solar system with forces that makes the sunâs core to rotate faster or slower, depending on the position of the baricenter. It is generally known as the Jovian cycles hypothesis. And it makes a lot of sense.
3)I will only change my mind about human induced global warming if someone proves that all thermodynamic and celestial mechanics are wrong. I wish him luck. I someone proves that CO2 has not a logarithmic property related to a doubling of its concentration. If somebody proves that CO2 is a better GHG than water vapor; that water vapor increase is not a negative feedback; if somebody proves that models are correct and there really is a âhot spotâ in the upper troposphere above the tropics; that the Artic has never melted completely; that there never existed warmer periods than now as the Roman, or Medieval, or in 900-1000 BC; or that CO2 forcing is more than 1.2 W/m2; and thousand of other things too long a list to post here.
And if someone proves to me that the present cooling has nothing to do with the extremely long solar minimum we are seeing, now longer than the 1913 minimum and with high probability of reaching or surpassing Daltonâs minimum. Someone to prove that CO2 has caused any deleterious effect on Earth and mankind. Someone that proves that storminess, hurricanes and tornadoes (globally) is not at the lowest point in the last 30 years, in spite of the sustained CO2 increase. Or someone that proves that there is an unequivocal cause/effect between CO2 increase and 20th Century temperature increase. Or someone that proves that along Earthâs history the rise of temperatures did not precede CO2 increase.
A lot of work, I guess.
And you see, I haven't started to touch the issue of PlayStation® climatology used by Jimmy Hansen. Just take a look at the IPCC chart in AR4 showing model prdictions -with the addition of the real temperatures observed and recorded by RSS, UAH, and Hadley:
a href=http://tinyurl.com/cl52op
Sorry if the addition is in Spanish, but degrees centigrades are universally understood.
Stewart, I am sorry for the not functioning link to the graph. This is the correct one:
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/images-27/ipcc-chart.jpg
> I someone proves that CO2 has not a logarithmic property related to a doubling of its concentration. [...] if somebody proves that models are correct
So if the forcing from CO2 is logarithmic and if one can't tell the future with 100% precision, then global warming isn't man-made! Scienciterific!
After all, Einstein didn't have a Ph. D. ... thus said Galileo.
So, Edodo, given that there's actually no statistically significant present cooling ("statistics" is "estadÃstica", though I doubt that helps) ...
please tell us how this long solar minimum doesn't do anything other than reinforce the fact that we're warming. Why hasn't this long solar warming returned us to the temperatures of the 1970s or 1980s or 1990s? We're still warmer. This long solar minimum phenomena, if as significant as you think it is, should wake you up to the fact that warming's overwhelming any solar minimum induced ice age.
Please tell us how this present cooling has led to a continued loss of arctic sea ice.
And what are you going to tell us in six months, given that La Niña is finally dying and a weak El Niño will replace it by the end of summer? Temps will rise ... solar minimum may well continue ...
And you'll just lie in some other way, right?
The cause are natural, in our opinion, because it a consequence of a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age. I hope you wonât deny that.
yes, and electricity comes straight out of the socket in the wall.
"recovery from the little ice age" is NOT a forcing in itself.
please try harder.
Eduardo, 20 years ago the sceptics were telling us that climate warming wasn't happening. Now its happening but its natural. This is the typical progression that denialists admit to. Some (like Michaels) are now beginning to admit that there is at least some anthropogenic input, but (1) that it's too late to do anything except adapt, or (b) that it is beneficial anyway, so why worry?
In every stage of the accumulation of scientific knowledge, one thing has remained the same: don't do anything. Business as usual. Allow corporate profits to remain unhindered by science or by pesky regulations.
Lastly, I'd like you tom list all of the ecological studies publsihed by your list of luminaries yesterday (e.g. Soon, Baliunas, Jaworowsky, Lindzen et al). I'd also like to know what you and they understand about the following concepts in ecology: Holling's functional responses types 1-3; Nicholson-Bailey and Thomspon's models of species interactions; neutral models in predicting niche differentiation amongst species; the Lack hypothesis of 'ghosts of competition past' on generating separate niches; k-factor analysis; the relevance of k and r strategies as they relate to resource exploitation in communities; semel and iterparity and hos these are correlated with life-histories; Hubbell's neutral model as an alternative to niche theory; why hybrid zones may or may not have higher fitness; chronosequencing as a tool in comparing community structure and assembly rules following an ecological disturbance; the EICA, enemy-release and novel weapons hypotheses in ecplaining the success (or failure) of exotic species; the relationship between species richness and the resilience and stability of communities and ecosystems; shall I continue? I could write a helluva lot more.
The reason I write this it that I get seriously pissed off when laypeople like Eduardo suggests that his band of merry men (and women) possess expertise in population ecology or evolutionary ecology when it is clear that they have none. This vacuous claim is accompanied by attacks against scientists like Paul Ehrlich (and myself for that matter) who have studied the field in depth for (in Paul's case) 50 years (20 years in my case). I am not about to challenge a professor in physics who has worked in his or her field for many years and vacuously claim that I know more than they do because I say so and because I set up a silly web site described as a 'Foundation for Scientific Physics'.
Every armchair pundit thinks that they are experts in ecology, biology, or climate science for that matter. When these armcahir experts like Eduardo do not publish their arguments in peer-reviewed journals but snipe from the sidelines, we all should wonder.
Eduardo, for the record: how many peer-reviewed journals in ecology do you actually regularly read? Or read at all? Oikos? Oecologia? Journal of Ecology? Ecology? Ecological Applications? Global Change Biology? Functional Ecology? Ecology Letters? Journal of Animal Ecology? Biological Conservation? Conservation Biology? Ecological Entomology? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment? Behavioral Ecology? Evolution? Evolutionaray Ecology? I would like to know.
It was found by Udvalgende Vedrørende Videnskablig Uredelighed (UVVU) that Lomborg wasn't qualified enough on the subject to be considered dishonest. This is why nothing more happened. In other words, had someone with some provable knowledge of the subject said the same as Lomborg, UVVU would most likely have found them scientific dishonest.
I don't know why some people considers this a vindication of Lomborg.
The Danish ministry of Science asked UVVU to re-evaluate Lomborg, since the ministry (or probably the minister) didn't like the way the UVVU presented its conclusions. As it had already found him not-guilty of scientific dishonesty, and as there were no new information that would lead them to come to a different conclusion, the UVVU declined taking up the case again - entirely as they should, according to the rules governing them.
Some people claim that UVVU were political in nature, but in reality, the only political aspect was when the politicians tried to get UVVU to change their ruling, or rather, the wording of their conclusions. They certainly didn't want UVVU to reach the conclusion that Lomborg was scientific dishonest.
I hadn't appreciated that aspect. IMHO, that should be about as damning an indictment to a scientist as actually being found to be scientifically dishonest.
Is it [the not being qualified enough on the subject to be considered dishonest] perhaps a prerequisite for a political/scoial scientist then?
Re 52 sod
Recovery from LIA
Yes, for sure.
Belief in "recovery" = rejection of conservation of energy.
Science is born in a faith that truth, and its opposite, exist to be understood by those with the capability and the will to search.
For Lomborg to have been judged by a qualified, fair review to be "scientifically dishonest" - as he originally was - was damning of his character yet it presumed that he was worthy of being taken seriously on the scientific matters in dispute. Liar and cheat but not fool.
The final judgment by that review committee, that after all Lomborg didn't understand enough of the subject matter to make him dishonest for the rubbish he was purveying, says that Lomborg is actually irrelevant to science. He's just another fool with an enthusiastic audience.
History records that people have always made plenty of time for fools telling them things they've liked to hear, and the more the fool has believed in his own nonsense the better he's been loved. Science has always been about another matter, entirely.
Ferreyra:
Yawn. Strawmen send me to sleep.
Chris O'Neill:
You see, exponential growth equals FREEDUM!!! and the log function is the inverse of the exponential function. Therefore, the log function has a liberal bias, and is in fact the Antichrist.
Chris OâNeill: (or Chris Oh! Nil)>/p>
Oh, yes! You have sleeping since you were born. No knowledge acquired.
Yes, it did help to show you have a synapses trouble. You should have it checked. It looks as your only three working neurons donât always make good contact.
Had you known anything about climatic history and solar cycles youâd had your big mouth shut. Youâve never heard about lag time, of course.
Now it looks as a continued Arctic ice gain has started:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
(or http://tinyurl.com/59fh97 if the link was broken.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and…
The very weak La Niña event now already disappeared) doesnât compare to the inversion of the PDO occurred last year. El Niño? Sorry to disappoint you. El Niño and La Niña events are controlled by the PDO phase. No more strong El Niños for the near future, and more La Niñas to make you angry. Cooling ahoy!
Why donât you go, sit at the end of the class and listen carefully to people who really know about this?
Eduardo
Now it looks as a continued Arctic ice gain has started:
this one is funny. in case you missed it, he Eduardo is talking about that tiny [uptick](http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png) that the graph of 2009 took, since it left the 2004 one.. 8about 2 weeks of data.)
please notice: this year sea ice extent is still BELOW the one of 2008, that turned out to be the second lowest since measurement began!
Cooling ahoy!
so how far above the long term average will the 2009 lowest sea ice extent be?
Gentlemen, you all have been misled by Slob.
So Slob, are you blind? Or need new glasses? Present extent of the ice this year (yes, 2009!) will be in two more days bigger that any year back to 2003, (they donât show previous years before that). Just see the trend and think about all those ashes that Redoubt volcano has injected into the Arctic astrosphere!
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Watch again (use better glasses this time!)
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
And this graph you can see that 2009 ice will enter by tomorrow the grey area of the mean 1979-2007!
Man it is you whoâs lying!
http://eva.nersc.no/vhost/arctic-roos.org/doc/observations/images/ssmi1…
Why donât go and sit in the end of the class along with Oh!Nil and listen to those who really know?
In Eduardo Ferreya's world, Einstein didn't get a Ph. D., and the log function has a liberal bias, therefore Ferreya is the Grand Master and we should all just shut up and listen to him.
Pass the popcorn.
My farewell post.
It is evident that all responses to my arguments and evidences presented has been limited to "killing the messenger", mockery, mudslinging, defamation, proven false accusations, and irrelevant mention of studies or IPCC figures, etc, without ever discussing real science behind facts presented by me. It is not surprising as latest events in Earth's climate and solar activity have totally burnt down the AGW theory.
It is also interesting to note that the first howler monkey that started this thread, Tim Lambert, who tried to make fun of my person and discredit the letter to "Boobama", has limited to send his claque to the firing line watching how they were being shot down as ducks in a shooting gallery.
So long, howlers. Keep howling in your gatherings in this Mutual Admiration Club. See you in colder times.
sorry Eduardo, but you failed to make a point.
everything that you wrote is false. sorry. bye.
Bye now. Seeing as what was true in your posts was misrepresented, and what remained was a lie, you won't be missed. There are much funnier climate cranks out there (I understand 'denialist' is considered offensive by denialists).
I'll take my science straight, thanks.
But if Eduardo Ferreya is a lying idiot, how can we be so sure that that will really be his "farewell post"? Hmm...
Is "howler monkey" some kind of Latin American insult I've never heard of before? I love how this guy whines about "mudslinging" and "defamation," yet insults everybody he's talking to in every message he posts. Pot, kettle, black.
Ferreyra:
You have been a moron since you were born who doesn't understand when he's stating a strawman.