• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Intolerant Zealotry of AGW Advocates

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The intolerant zealotry of some AGW advocates is increasingly evident. The result is a poorer, less thoughtful discussion.


Al Gore unhinged – now even climate change believers are ‘deniers’


Continue reading →

Bjorn Lomborg  writes:
Al Gore recently had a telling altercation with a journalist. The Spectator’s Ross Clark wanted to ask him about Miami sea-level rises suggested in the new film, “An Inconvenient Sequel.” The reporter started to explain that he had consulted Florida International University sea-level-rise expert Shimon Wdowinski. Gore’s response: “Never heard of him — is he a denier?” Then he asked the journalist, “Are you a denier?”
When Clark responded that he was sure climate change is a problem but didn’t know how big, Gore declared, “You are a denier.”

I was recently on the receiving end of a similar rebuff from Chile’s environment minister. I’d written an op-ed for a Chilean newspaper that, among other things, quoted UN findings on how little the Paris climate treaty would achieve and argued that vast investment in green energy research and development is a better policy. Marcelo Mena proclaimed, “There is no room for your climate-denying rhetoric in Chile.”

Something odd — and dangerous — is happening when even people who accept the reality of man-made climate change are labeled “deniers.” The unwillingness to discuss which policies work best means we end up with worse choices.

Consider the case of Roger Pielke, Jr, a political scientist who worked extensively on climate change. He believes that climate change is real, human emissions of greenhouse gases justify action and there should be a carbon tax.

But he drew the ire of climate campaigners because his research has shown that the increasing costs from hurricane damage is not caused by storms made more intense by climate-change but by more and pricier property built in vulnerable areas. He took issue with the UN’s influential International Panel for Climate Change over a chart in its 2007 report that seemed to imply causation when there was only circumstantial evidence.

Pielke was proven right, and the IPCC’s subsequent outputs mostly accepted his arguments. Yet, he was the target of a years-long campaign, including a massive but baseless takedown that later turned out to have been coordinated by a climate-campaigning think tank funded by a green billionaire, alongside an investigation launched by a congressman.

Pielke left climate change for other fields where “no one is trying to get me fired.” And sidelining him has made it easier for climate-campaigners to use hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria to argue for carbon-cut policies, even though these will do very little to prevent future hurricane damage. . . .

Leaving out dissention echoes the worst of the leaked “ClimateGate” e-mails. In 2004, the head of a leading climate-research organization wrote about two inconvenient papers: “Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Journalists also ensure debate “purity.” In Scientific American, climate writer and former CNN producer Peter Dykstra stated baldly that “climate denial extends beyond rejecting climate science,” comparing policy questioners to Holocaust deniers and dismissing my own decade of advocacy for a green energy R&D fund as “minimization.”. . .

The expanding definition of “denial” is an attempt to ensure that public and policy-makers hear from an ever-smaller clique. John Stuart Mill calls this “the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion.” . . .



 
The intolerant zealotry of some AGW advocates is increasingly evident. The result is a poorer, less thoughtful discussion.


Al Gore unhinged – now even climate change believers are ‘deniers’


Continue reading →

Bjorn Lomborg  writes:
Al Gore recently had a telling altercation with a journalist. The Spectator’s Ross Clark wanted to ask him about Miami sea-level rises suggested in the new film, “An Inconvenient Sequel.” The reporter started to explain that he had consulted Florida International University sea-level-rise expert Shimon Wdowinski. Gore’s response: “Never heard of him — is he a denier?” Then he asked the journalist, “Are you a denier?”
When Clark responded that he was sure climate change is a problem but didn’t know how big, Gore declared, “You are a denier.”

I was recently on the receiving end of a similar rebuff from Chile’s environment minister. I’d written an op-ed for a Chilean newspaper that, among other things, quoted UN findings on how little the Paris climate treaty would achieve and argued that vast investment in green energy research and development is a better policy. Marcelo Mena proclaimed, “There is no room for your climate-denying rhetoric in Chile.”

Something odd — and dangerous — is happening when even people who accept the reality of man-made climate change are labeled “deniers.” The unwillingness to discuss which policies work best means we end up with worse choices.

Consider the case of Roger Pielke, Jr, a political scientist who worked extensively on climate change. He believes that climate change is real, human emissions of greenhouse gases justify action and there should be a carbon tax.

But he drew the ire of climate campaigners because his research has shown that the increasing costs from hurricane damage is not caused by storms made more intense by climate-change but by more and pricier property built in vulnerable areas. He took issue with the UN’s influential International Panel for Climate Change over a chart in its 2007 report that seemed to imply causation when there was only circumstantial evidence.

Pielke was proven right, and the IPCC’s subsequent outputs mostly accepted his arguments. Yet, he was the target of a years-long campaign, including a massive but baseless takedown that later turned out to have been coordinated by a climate-campaigning think tank funded by a green billionaire, alongside an investigation launched by a congressman.

Pielke left climate change for other fields where “no one is trying to get me fired.” And sidelining him has made it easier for climate-campaigners to use hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria to argue for carbon-cut policies, even though these will do very little to prevent future hurricane damage. . . .

Leaving out dissention echoes the worst of the leaked “ClimateGate” e-mails. In 2004, the head of a leading climate-research organization wrote about two inconvenient papers: “Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Journalists also ensure debate “purity.” In Scientific American, climate writer and former CNN producer Peter Dykstra stated baldly that “climate denial extends beyond rejecting climate science,” comparing policy questioners to Holocaust deniers and dismissing my own decade of advocacy for a green energy R&D fund as “minimization.”. . .

The expanding definition of “denial” is an attempt to ensure that public and policy-makers hear from an ever-smaller clique. John Stuart Mill calls this “the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion.” . . .




You are not allowed to question the high Priest of the faith!!!!
Question show a lack of faith!:mrgreen:
 
You are not allowed to question the high Priest of the faith!!!!
Question show a lack of faith!:mrgreen:

Which is why I don't believe smoking causes cancer, and gravity is just a liberal conspiracy. Never belive anything experts tells you.
 
Which is why I don't believe smoking causes cancer, and gravity is just a liberal conspiracy. Never belive anything experts tells you.
But you are allowed to question the data.
The data on smoking shows that it does increase the risk of cancer by a measurable amount.
More smokers die from breathing all that smoke and carbon monoxide, than from cancer.
Generally it is easy to show that smoking very bad for you.
Can the same be said of CO2 emissions?
Does CO2 cause warming? almost certainly!
How much warming, will the added CO2 cause? That is where things start to get questionable.
Most of the catastrophic predictions, are based on the mid to high end of the range,
but the actual sensitivity is coming in at the very low end of the range.
Is AGW bad for the climate? this is a valid question, maybe they should allow it to be asked!
 
But you are allowed to question the data.
The data on smoking shows that it does increase the risk of cancer by a measurable amount.
More smokers die from breathing all that smoke and carbon monoxide, than from cancer.
Generally it is easy to show that smoking very bad for you.
Can the same be said of CO2 emissions?
Does CO2 cause warming? almost certainly!
How much warming, will the added CO2 cause? That is where things start to get questionable.
Most of the catastrophic predictions, are based on the mid to high end of the range,
but the actual sensitivity is coming in at the very low end of the range.
Is AGW bad for the climate? this is a valid question, maybe they should allow it to be asked!

No one is stopping you asking. You're asking on this very thread. No one is stopping you asking if the sky is really blue either.
 
Which is why I don't believe smoking causes cancer, and gravity is just a liberal conspiracy. Never belive anything experts tells you.

You seem to have missed the point that all the zealots' targets in this OP are AGW believers.
 
No one is stopping you asking. You're asking on this very thread. No one is stopping you asking if the sky is really blue either.
Since the Scientific results are actually coming in at the lower range, perhaps the more accurate question should be
why is the IPCC not reporting the results.
The lead authors (Scientist) from AR5 had to send their results as a letter to the editor of nature, because their results were edited out of the final report.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
FYI Otto found a best estimate of ECS of 2C out of the IPCC's range of 1.5 to 4.5 C.
 
Which is why I don't believe smoking causes cancer, and gravity is just a liberal conspiracy. Never belive anything experts tells you.

Climate experts do not agree on what the global temperature is right now.

They don't agree on the rate of change of the global temperature.

They don't agree on what the global temperature was at any point in the instrument record.

In the case of NASA in particular, they dismissed their own data adjustments in about 1999 and replaced them with data adjustments they liked better.

NASA, apparently, doesn't even agree with NASA. However, you seem to think that the experts agree.

Care to explain this departure from logic?

Care to explain?
 
Which is why I don't believe smoking causes cancer, and gravity is just a liberal conspiracy. Never belive anything experts tells you.

I can test those myself.

I can also test some of the claims of the global warming cult.

The first lot pass. The second fail, always, all the ones I can test.
 
The intolerant zealotry of some AGW advocates is increasingly evident. The result is a poorer, less thoughtful discussion.


Al Gore unhinged – now even climate change believers are ‘deniers’


Continue reading →

Bjorn Lomborg  writes:
Al Gore recently had a telling altercation with a journalist. The Spectator’s Ross Clark wanted to ask him about Miami sea-level rises suggested in the new film, “An Inconvenient Sequel.” The reporter started to explain that he had consulted Florida International University sea-level-rise expert Shimon Wdowinski. Gore’s response: “Never heard of him — is he a denier?” Then he asked the journalist, “Are you a denier?”
When Clark responded that he was sure climate change is a problem but didn’t know how big, Gore declared, “You are a denier.”

I was recently on the receiving end of a similar rebuff from Chile’s environment minister. I’d written an op-ed for a Chilean newspaper that, among other things, quoted UN findings on how little the Paris climate treaty would achieve and argued that vast investment in green energy research and development is a better policy. Marcelo Mena proclaimed, “There is no room for your climate-denying rhetoric in Chile.”

Something odd — and dangerous — is happening when even people who accept the reality of man-made climate change are labeled “deniers.” The unwillingness to discuss which policies work best means we end up with worse choices.

Consider the case of Roger Pielke, Jr, a political scientist who worked extensively on climate change. He believes that climate change is real, human emissions of greenhouse gases justify action and there should be a carbon tax.

But he drew the ire of climate campaigners because his research has shown that the increasing costs from hurricane damage is not caused by storms made more intense by climate-change but by more and pricier property built in vulnerable areas. He took issue with the UN’s influential International Panel for Climate Change over a chart in its 2007 report that seemed to imply causation when there was only circumstantial evidence.

Pielke was proven right, and the IPCC’s subsequent outputs mostly accepted his arguments. Yet, he was the target of a years-long campaign, including a massive but baseless takedown that later turned out to have been coordinated by a climate-campaigning think tank funded by a green billionaire, alongside an investigation launched by a congressman.

Pielke left climate change for other fields where “no one is trying to get me fired.” And sidelining him has made it easier for climate-campaigners to use hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria to argue for carbon-cut policies, even though these will do very little to prevent future hurricane damage. . . .

Leaving out dissention echoes the worst of the leaked “ClimateGate” e-mails. In 2004, the head of a leading climate-research organization wrote about two inconvenient papers: “Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Journalists also ensure debate “purity.” In Scientific American, climate writer and former CNN producer Peter Dykstra stated baldly that “climate denial extends beyond rejecting climate science,” comparing policy questioners to Holocaust deniers and dismissing my own decade of advocacy for a green energy R&D fund as “minimization.”. . .

The expanding definition of “denial” is an attempt to ensure that public and policy-makers hear from an ever-smaller clique. John Stuart Mill calls this “the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion.” . . .




I just want these advocates to tell me what they want to change the climate to. Hotter, colder, pre cambian? Spit it out and let me in on the goal.
 
I just want these advocates to tell me what they want to change the climate to. Hotter, colder, pre cambian? Spit it out and let me in on the goal.

The goal is the situation where they get the power and money.
 
I can test those myself.

I can also test some of the claims of the global warming cult.

The first lot pass. The second fail, always, all the ones I can test.

Are you saying the earth isn't getting warmer?
Are you saying the arctic ice and glaciers aren't shrinking?

These things are fact that we can see with our eyes.
 
I just want these advocates to tell me what they want to change the climate to. Hotter, colder, pre cambian? Spit it out and let me in on the goal.


The goal to slow down the rate of change.
 
Since the Scientific results are actually coming in at the lower range, perhaps the more accurate question should be
why is the IPCC not reporting the results.
The lead authors (Scientist) from AR5 had to send their results as a letter to the editor of nature, because their results were edited out of the final report.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
FYI Otto found a best estimate of ECS of 2C out of the IPCC's range of 1.5 to 4.5 C.

You made a claim about AR5 omissions, and supposedly posted a link that backs up this claim. Please copy the area of that link that backs up the claim, because I cannot find it.
 
Are you saying the earth isn't getting warmer?
Are you saying the arctic ice and glaciers aren't shrinking?

These things are fact that we can see with our eyes.

I agree that the arctic ocean ice has shrunk.

I agree that the earth is warmer now than 1979.

It has not warmed since 1998. The Antarctic ice is getting bigger in mass as is the Greenland ice sheet. Greenland glaciers near the coast or in the sea have shrunk back a bit.
 
You made a claim about AR5 omissions, and supposedly posted a link that backs up this claim. Please copy the area of that link that backs up the claim, because I cannot find it.
Well let's just compare what the Scientists say to what was said in AR5.
Here is AR5
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf
16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
This sounds nice, but here is what the scientist said.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy
budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C, with a 5–95% confidence interval of
1.2–3.9 °C (dark red, Fig. 1a), compared with the 1970–2009 estimate of 1.9 °C (0.9–5.0 °C; grey, Fig. 1a).
The AR5 report choose not to mention that the scientist had an actual best estimate/most likely value for ECS based on the observable data,
saying only that there was a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
 


It has not warmed since 1998.

Untrue. 2014, 2015, and 2016 are the three warmest years on record. Temperatures have been climbing steadily and quickly for the past 40 years.

In January 2017, several scientific agencies around the world, including*NASA*and the NOAA*in the United States*and the*Met Office*in the United Kingdom, named 2016 the warmest year recorded. This marked the third consecutive year reaching a new record temperature, the first time since the current warming trend began in the 1970s that three years in a row were record highs. 2016's record meant that 16 of the 17 warmest years have occurred since 2000.
 
Untrue. 2014, 2015, and 2016 are the three warmest years on record. Temperatures have been climbing steadily and quickly for the past 40 years.

In January 2017, several scientific agencies around the world, including*NASA*and the NOAA*in the United States*and the*Met Office*in the United Kingdom, named 2016 the warmest year recorded. This marked the third consecutive year reaching a new record temperature, the first time since the current warming trend began in the 1970s that three years in a row were record highs. 2016's record meant that 16 of the 17 warmest years have occurred since 2000.

OK, not warmed more than the instrumental accuracy level.

Not cooled either but basically been remarkable stable.


It has not warmed since 1998. The Antarctic ice is getting bigger in mass as is the Greenland ice sheet. Greenland glaciers near the coast or in the sea have shrunk back a bit.

You are not challenging the other bits then?
 

OK, not warmed more than the instrumental accuracy level.

Not cooled either but basically been remarkable stable.




You are not challenging the other bits then?

Nice try, Timmy Boy, but he proved you wrong. Why should we address the Fox News Lie?
 
Untrue. 2014, 2015, and 2016 are the three warmest years on record. Temperatures have been climbing steadily and quickly for the past 40 years.

In January 2017, several scientific agencies around the world, including*NASA*and the NOAA*in the United States*and the*Met Office*in the United Kingdom, named 2016 the warmest year recorded. This marked the third consecutive year reaching a new record temperature, the first time since the current warming trend began in the 1970s that three years in a row were record highs. 2016's record meant that 16 of the 17 warmest years have occurred since 2000.

Nice try, Timmy Boy, but he proved you wrong. Why should we address the Fox News Lie?

Actually, Tim is more right than wrong.

Anomalies – 1979 to Present
University of Alabama – Huntsville (UAH) – Dr. Roy Spencer – Base Period 1981-2010 – Click the pic to view at source
 

OK, not warmed more than the instrumental accuracy level.

Not cooled either but basically been remarkable stable.




You are not challenging the other bits then?

Keep the faith.

Anomalies – 1979 to Present
University of Alabama – Huntsville (UAH) – Dr. Roy Spencer – Base Period 1981-2010 – Click the pic to view at source
 
Back
Top Bottom