Green House Gas

[Dick7Access]

August 14, 2012
Governor Jerry Brown,
Your OPR’s “The Deniers” web page makes numerous assertions that are unsupported by the citations you provide, namely that:

• skeptic scientists are a ‘small group’
• they “spread misinformation”
• they “create confusion and uncertainty” rather than point to pre-existing uncertainty
• they “have little or no expertise in climate science”

And most egregiously, that:

• they “receive funding for their efforts from industries”
• this is the “same strategy was used cynically for decades by the tobacco industry”

The most simple response to every assertion above is two words: Prove it.
Since you have California state employee researchers at your disposal to back each of the above assertions with detailed citations, and yours is a state government web site, I strongly suggest you undertake that effort as a matter of basic public obligation to the citizens of your state. Citations relying on guilt-by-association accusations are not credible when no evidence is offered to prove exchanges of money resulted in false, fabricated science papers or assessments.
As I have documented in my own articles (“The ’96-to-present smear of skeptic scientists“), the particular assertion about a ‘tobacco industry parallel’ of fossil fuel industries corrupting skeptic climate scientists into putting out knowingly false, fabricated science papers and assessments is literally unsupportable. Worse, the accusation has every appearance of being consolidated by enviro-activists back in the ’90s as a means of manufacturing doubt about the credibility of skeptic climate scientists and those who support them.
How do you justify proceeding with greenhouse gas regulations when the science debate over the idea that human activity drives climate change is not settled, and why has so much effort been made to marginalize skeptic scientists using 20 year-old talking points?
Respectfully,
Russell Cook

 

[Galaxiom]

I have seen plenty of false science put out by the deniers. Faked graphs and avoidance of data the disagees with their proposition.

There are many who are being paid by fossil fuel industry and who similarly denied the relationship between fluorocarbons and Ozone depleteion and the link between tobacco and cancer.

BTW. What is your position in the array of denialist attitudes?
1. The climate isn't changing.
2. It is changing but not because of humans.
3. It is caused by humans but it won't affect anything that matters.
4. It will have an effect but it will improve things.
5. This will get worse but nature will adapt.

All these positions have been debunked over and over again. Very few denialists are still sticking to position 1 and support for positon 2 is rapidly weakening.

 

[Dick7Access]

I have seen plenty of false science put out by the deniers. Faked graphs and avoidance of data the disagees with their proposition.

There are many who are being paid by fossil fuel industry and who similarly denied the relationship between fluorocarbons and Ozone depleteion and the link between tobacco and cancer.

BTW. What is your position in the array of denialist attitudes?
1. The climate isn't changing.
2. It is changing but not because of humans.
3. It is caused by humans but it won't affect anything that matters.
4. It will have an effect but it will improve things.
5. This will get worse but nature will adapt.


All these positions have been debunked over and over again. Very few denialists are still sticking to position 1 and support for positon 2 is rapidly weakening.

My position is 2. It is changing but not because of humans.

 

[Adam Caramon]

BTW. What is your position in the array of denialist attitudes?

I'll save you some time Galaxiom, you won't be able to use evidence or expert opinion if you're trying to convince Dick. If it disagrees with his preconceived notions, it is automatically wrong.

 

[RainLover]

Its really about the Taxes the Government can introduce.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I believe that it is changing but not because of human activity tho I suspect that may well be accelerating the change.

I am more worried about the population growth and the accelerating depletion of the earth's resources.

Brian

 

[Dick7Access]

I'll save you some time Galaxiom, you won't be able to use evidence or expert opinion if you're trying to convince Dick. If it disagrees with his preconceived notions, it is automatically wrong.

First off I did not write that letter to Govern Brown, I merely posted it. I was asked where I stand. I truthful answered that I am on the side of not man made. Nobody has produced any evidence on this thread to contradict that it isn’t man made. I keep hearing that it is conclusive that it is, but nobody has produce any evidence (ON THIS THREAD) I am sure that we listen to different people but the people I listen to have produce a list, of scientist that disagree. I have posted a list of over 500 scientist that disagree with manmade global warming, and have ask for a list of scientist that do agree with manmade global warming and nobody has come up with any, so the premise that logic doesn’t work with me is mute until that time that a list is produce. If you want to use logic we first thing we have to do is evaluated the persons that is producing the so called evidence. Case in point: I rented a piece of property to a company that had 3 or 4 investors that were famous players with the Boston Red Socks. MY lawyer going over the contract said let’s do a Dunn & Bradstreet on this company. Being young and naive I said if these players are investing it must be solid. He said he may be the best short stop in the world but he may not know beans about business. It’s a published fact that some of the so called manmade people would not let the other side see their findings. That would damage their credibility, now wouldn’t it.

 

[Adam Caramon]

I have posted a list of over 500 scientist that disagree with manmade global warming, and have ask for a list of scientist that do agree with manmade global warming and nobody has come up with any, so the premise that logic doesn’t work with me is mute until that time that a list is produce.

I'm just letting Galaxiom know not to waste his time, unless he is incredibly bored (his call of course).

Why don't you specify what evidence you will accept, and then someone can see if they want to take the challenge?

I have a feeling that Galaxiom could provide a lot of evidence for his point of view, and you would simply dismiss it as it does not agree with your beliefs. Now, we could normally refute various sources by investigating them for bias and such, or citing other experts who discredit said evidence, buy you've already admitted in another thread that you don't care what experts think about their field.

So, again, why waste the time?

 

[Vassago]

Can't we have a discussion without someone trying to start an argument? Grow up, people! There was no need to post what you did, Adam.

 

[Dick7Access]

I'm just letting Galaxiom know not to waste his time, unless he is incredibly bored (his call of course).

Why don't you specify what evidence you will accept, and then someone can see if they want to take the challenge?

I have a feeling that Galaxiom could provide a lot of evidence for his point of view, and you would simply dismiss it as it does not agree with your beliefs. Now, we could normally refute various sources by investigating them for bias and such, or citing other experts who discredit said evidence, buy you've already admitted in another thread that you don't care what experts think about their field.

So, again, why waste the time?

Adam, you misquoted me. I said so called expert. You missed my point. How can we say they are expert or so called expert if we don’t know their credentials? How can we check their credentials if we don’t have their names. Did the part about the Red Sox go over your head, or did you just choose to ignore it.

 

[Dick7Access]

Can't we have a discussion without someone trying to start an argument? Grow up, people! There was no need to post what you did, Adam.

Jax, did I miss somethng. Why can't Adam post what he did?

 

[Adam Caramon]

Jax, did I miss somethng. Why can't Adam post what he did?

He's saying I was being needlessly antagonistic, and he's right. Each thread should be considered on its own merit, instead of carrying baggage from one to the other.

 

[Dick7Access]

He's saying I was being needlessly antagonistic, and he's right. Each thread should be considered on its own merit, instead of carrying baggage from one to the other.

Where were you being antagonitic. I often do not agree with you and others, but I would die for your right to say it.

 

[Dick7Access]

He's saying I was being needlessly antagonistic, and he's right. Each thread should be considered on its own merit, instead of carrying baggage from one to the other.

I would rather be dead than live were we could not express or view. Anything people say that would be derogatory towards me does not offend me. I know who I am, (the good and the bad) and what they say doesn’t change that. However, it says a lot about them, doesn’t it.

 

[Vassago]

It's not up for debate or anything. I shouldn't have even posted that here. Sorry for that. Adam know which post I speak of, that's all that matters. I just didn't want this thread to get off on a tangent of negative intention that was far off topic.

Carry on.

As far as the topic goes, it's obvious we have contributed to it. I believe it was going to occur naturally, but with our pollution numbers ever increasing, it's not so hard to believe we aren't causing some of it to happen, probably at a faster rate than it would have occurred naturally.

 

[Brianwarnock]

As far as the topic goes, it's obvious we have contributed to it. I believe it was going to occur naturally, but with our pollution numbers ever increasing, it's not so hard to believe we aren't causing some of it to happen, probably at a faster rate than it would have occurred naturally.

Which is what I said in post 6 so at least 2 of us agree on the true argument .

Brian

 

[Libre]

I, for one, am sufficiently convinced that human activity is contributing to climate change, if not causing it outright. But suppose that human activity is NOT the cause, or even contributing.
What of it?
Does human activity account for natural disasters such as lightning strikes, earthquakes, or hurricanes? But we still try to do something about them, don't we?
Is anyone saying that if humans are not responsible for causing it, then we can't be bothered to try to do anything about it?

Another thing, it is not "green house gas", it is "greenhouse gas".
The latter is gas that produces the greenhouse effect, and the former is gas that forms in houses that are green, or else it is green gas that forms in any color house. (Most likely in the bathroom).

 

[Dick7Access]

It's not up for debate or anything. I shouldn't have even posted that here. Sorry for that. Adam know which post I speak of, that's all that matters. I just didn't want this thread to get off on a tangent of negative intention that was far off topic.

Carry on.

As far as the topic goes, it's obvious we have contributed to it. I believe it was going to occur naturally, but with our pollution numbers ever increasing, it's not so hard to believe we aren't causing some of it to happen, probably at a faster rate than it would have occurred naturally.

How right you are. Not just this tread, but many tread. It is amazing how they can go in a different direction, (Me include ) but sometimes it becomes very interesting. it

 

[Dick7Access]

I, for one, am sufficiently convinced that human activity is contributing to climate change, if not causing it outright. But suppose that human activity is NOT the cause, or even contributing.
What of it?
Does human activity account for natural disasters such as lightning strikes, earthquakes, or hurricanes? But we still try to do something about them, don't we?
Is anyone saying that if humans are not responsible for causing it, then we can't be bothered to try to do anything about it?

Another thing, it is not "green house gas", it is "greenhouse gas".
The latter is gas that produces the greenhouse effect, and the former is gas that forms in houses that are green, or else it is green gas that forms in any color house. (Most likely in the bathroom).

Great Point! Even if isn't causing global warming, if it’s polluting our streams etc. let’s fix it. Just don’t tell me that I have to buy a curly light bulb as if that is going to make a pin hole in the snow.