Paradox said..I would say that there is as much correllative evidence between global warming trends and natural temperature variance as there is with CO2 increases.

"You would say", would you Bootstrap?

So, show us the evidence that supports your statement I've quoted above and stop pretending we should just read your mind on this so-called evidence.

That's what I mean by "you're all over the shop". You ask for evidence to support the mainstream science of the day yet you provide zero evidence to support your hypothesis.

As for Naomi, as a member of the Heartland Institute, the Heartland provides direct support and funding for her propaganda. Heartland Institute is a disgrace, having spent decades discrediting the science of smoking related disease, they have now moved on to attempt to discredit the science of climate change.

Macroscien said..
Two things. Firstly we need to know Naomi Greta grades at school at science subjects. I very doubt there are above average, rather the opposite, so her scientific approach don't have any basis. Questioning experts even more dissapoiting , because she don't have any arguments on her own. Secondly. What is message, if any? Everything is fine, we don't need to anything or change. Can she rather consider other caree? modeling, cheerleading,accounting, drink serving at pub? Complete waste of talent to engage into activity she don't have a slightest idea about.

There. Fixed it for ya!!

holy guacamole said..

Paradox said..I would say that there is as much correllative evidence between global warming trends and natural temperature variance as there is with CO2 increases.

"You would say", would you Bootstrap?

So, show us the evidence that supports your statement I've quoted above and stop pretending we should just read your mind on this so-called evidence.

That's what I mean by "you're all over the shop". You ask for evidence to support the mainstream science of the day yet you provide zero evidence to support your hypothesis.

As for Naomi, as a member of the Heartland Institute, the Heartland provides direct support and funding for her propaganda. Heartland Institute is a disgrace, having spent decades discrediting the science of smoking related disease, they have now moved on to attempt to discredit the science of climate change.

Always happy to oblige you with some backup.....every time you ask. Ive noticed that dispite your shrill cries for my backup (that I have always supplied) you have still failed to supply any backup for your comments regarding Heartland? or any other claim you make for that matter. I'll assume that the lack of evidience means the veracity of your claims are questionable.

If you look at any temperature data set that goes back to 1800 you will see that the current global warming trend started then and has been pretty consisitant. It can be argued there is correllation with a slightly higher rate of warming than the trend since about 1950 and this correlates with CO2. However there is a good argument that says the underlying natural trend is just a strong. Hence my assertion that there is as much correlation with natural variation as there is for CO2 influence.

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Regional/TAVG/Figures/global-land-TAVG-Trend.pdf

Pretty simple really and does not say that CO2 is not making a difference, only that exactly how much is in question, and there are other explanations that can explain the current trends if the contribution is small. This is not controversial and matches the accepted scientific stance that there is still significant debate as to the contribution of CO2 to observed global warming.

Does anyone remember that hole in the ozone layer? Wasn't it caused by man made chemicals or something? Didn't we ban something and it started to go away or something?

holy guacamole said..
She's a member of, a spokesperson of and she takes funding for her speeches from the Heartland Institute, a lobby group that worked for decades to discredit the links between smoking and disease. Exxon Mobil is one of their biggest donors....

It doesn't matter what her grades are, her affiliations with this disreputable organisation demonstrates that she has zero credibility. Zilch.

you still prefer to play the person rather than tackle the argument

cammd said..

holy guacamole said..
She's a member of, a spokesperson of and she takes funding for her speeches from the Heartland Institute, a lobby group that worked for decades to discredit the links between smoking and disease. Exxon Mobil is one of their biggest donors....

It doesn't matter what her grades are, her affiliations with this disreputable organisation demonstrates that she has zero credibility. Zilch.

you still prefer to play the person rather than tackle the argument

Isn't the rule only sad old white men attack little girls?

cammd said..you still prefer to play the person rather than tackle the argument

holy guacamole said..
She's a member of, a spokesperson of and she takes funding for her speeches from the Heartland Institute, a lobby group that worked for decades to discredit the links between smoking and disease. Exxon Mobil is one of their biggest donors....

It doesn't matter what her grades are, her affiliations with this disreputable organisation demonstrates that she has zero credibility. Zilch.

I'm addressing the argument at every level.

Seibt freely chose to affiliate with such a disgusting group. It reflects badly on her. She has zero credibility.

Pugwash said..
As emotional as Adriano

Pugwash pugwash. Do you think this little game of yours makes your inane posts any more valuable here?

Honestly who cares?

Peace be with you.

I mean you no ill will.

Up to you whether you wish to more mature about this or continue playing the man.

Sorry can't help you pugwash. Try moving on....you're getting nowhere....peace.

holy guacamole said..

I stand by the facts surrounding Seibt's affiliations to the Heartland Institute. She's a member, gives talks under their banner and receives funds from them for her speeches outside of the US.

wtf, why would anyone be disputing that??? she clearly says all that, although I am unsure of the funding aspect, exept maybe travel costs. It's your assertions on Heartland that ive asked for evidence for. You have brought it up several times.

for example you state: "a lobby group that worked for decades to discredit the links between smoking and disease. Exxon Mobil is one of their biggest donors...." and

"This is a group of industrialists who have long questioned the link between smoking and cancer and heart disease and take a large part of their donations from Exxon Mobil. The Heartland Institute's core objective IS to spin misinformation and spread doubt."

Stay on track, don't dissemble and back those statements up because it sounds like a smear campaign to me and I bet it's either a total fabrication or a complete twisting of the truth.

I have no particular leaning to the Heartland Insititute's efforts, but everything I have read from them seems factual and on point, I cannot find any deliberate miss-information from them.

holy guacamole said..
You've provided no evidence or hard facts to back your claim that the current warming is largely or even equally natural. Only an argument and opinions.

you know I can't quite get whether you just have no ability to understand what I say or just choose to ignore it.

I have never claimed current warming is largely or equally natural variance, or CO2 driven or anything else. Thats what you keep saying I have said, when I have not. My point is that the correllation with CO2 levels and global warming is not that strong as the warming trend was in place well before the CO2 levels were high enough to have an effect.

All I have done is provided evidence that the current warming trend started around 200years ago and is still continuing and that natural trend can't be dismissed as having no ongoing effect.

I will make it clear for you....the level of contribution of CO2 to current observed warming is not known. NOT KNOWN..... IS NOT KNOWN BY ANYONE.....IS A SOURCE OF SIGNIFICANT DEBATE BY SCIENTISTS....ALL CLAIMS OTHERWISE ARE THEORY ONLY (ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT)

Regarding your graph, im not sure what that means, it no secret or even debated that CO2 levels have risen and are currently 30% higher than at any time in the recent past (from your graph).....if you are trying to suggest that CO2 emmissions from 1800 created a strong warming trend immediately that has continued at the same rate since then, I think you had better find some backup for that, because I don't think anyone disputes that the influence of CO2 on warming was miminal until mid 1900's.

cisco said..

Macroscien said..
Two things. Firstly we need to know Naomi Greta grades at school at science subjects. I very doubt there are above average, rather the opposite, so her scientific approach don't have any basis. Questioning experts even more dissapoiting , because she don't have any arguments on her own. Secondly. What is message, if any? Everything is fine, we don't need to anything or change. Can she rather consider other caree? modeling, cheerleading,accounting, drink serving at pub? Complete waste of talent to engage into activity she don't have a slightest idea about.

There. Fixed it for ya!!

Well no you didn't fix it. All Greta is saying is to take the advice of the experts and get on with it. Naomi is attempting to discredit the experts and substitute her own advice.

Paradox said..

holy guacamole said..

I stand by the facts surrounding Seibt's affiliations to the Heartland Institute. She's a member, gives talks under their banner and receives funds from them for her speeches outside of the US.

wtf, why would anyone be disputing that??? she clearly says all that, although I am unsure of the funding aspect, exept maybe travel costs. It's your assertions on Heartland that ive asked for evidence for. You have brought it up several times.

for example you state: "a lobby group that worked for decades to discredit the links between smoking and disease. Exxon Mobil is one of their biggest donors...." and

"This is a group of industrialists who have long questioned the link between smoking and cancer and heart disease and take a large part of their donations from Exxon Mobil. The Heartland Institute's core objective IS to spin misinformation and spread doubt."

Stay on track, don't dissemble and back those statements up because it sounds like a smear campaign to me and I bet it's either a total fabrication or a complete twisting of the truth.

I have no particular leaning to the Heartland Insititute's efforts, but everything I have read from them seems factual and on point, I cannot find any deliberate miss-information from them.

LOL, you think everything the Heartland Institute is factual and on point. That's telling. How Ian seems to think you have a scientific background when you can roll out pearler like that is astounding.

Have you not read up on their origins? They started as a pro-tobacco lobbyist and worked directly with Phillip Morris.

......FFS.

holy guacamole said..
...and to think IanK rated him as having a scientific background yet he doesn't realise Heartland was one of the number one pro-tobacco lobbyists of the '80's and '90's and one of their biggest donors is Exxon Mobil.

Whats Science got to do with any of that? It's Just more wild unsubstiantiated statements that are particularly unhelpful. If these guys are the antichrist as you say I'm sure there will be plenty of hard evidence available right? The only confirmed info I can find is that they got involved in the 80's in opposing increased taxation on tabacco and yes worked with tabacco companies on it. I know plenty of people who still have the same view on tabacco tax themselves. So what.

Science and the scientific process is about factual evidence and balanced debate. Not about moral choices or soapboxing emotionally virtuous outbursts. Just because they started out as a lobby group that defended the rights of smokers and tabacco farmers isn't exactly a damning indictment on thier credibility now.

If you have some evidence that this organisation has or is deliberately falsified facts or aimed to deliberately decieved by distorting the truth or are being influenced by their doners then I will be happy to agree they are not worth listening to. Until then I have no reason to doubt they have been and are still working with facts.

Paradox said..

holy guacamole said..
...and to think IanK rated him as having a scientific background yet he doesn't realise Heartland was one of the number one pro-tobacco lobbyists of the '80's and '90's and one of their biggest donors is Exxon Mobil.

Whats Science got to do with any of that? It's Just more wild unsubstiantiated statements that are particularly unhelpful. If these guys are the antichrist as you say I'm sure there will be plenty of hard evidence available right? The only confirmed info I can find is that they got involved in the 80's in opposing increased taxation on tabacco and yes worked with tabacco companies on it. I know plenty of people who still have the same view on tabacco tax themselves. So what.

Science and the scientific process is about factual evidence and balanced debate. Not about moral choices or soapboxing emotionally virtuous outbursts. Just because they started out as a lobby group that defended the rights of smokers and tabacco farmers isn't exactly a damning indictment on thier credibility now.

If you have some evidence that this organisation has or is deliberately falsified facts or aimed to deliberately decieved by distorting the truth or are being influenced by their doners then I will be happy to agree they are not worth listening to. Until then I have no reason to doubt they have been and are still working with facts.

Did I say the Heartland Institute are the anti- Christ?

No.

I said they spent the better part of their first 20 years spreading misinformation and lies about the hazards of smoking.

They lost that battle fair and square so they moved onto climate change in 2008.

Science has a lot to do with it in fact. Science and medicine.

Mate, I think you've exposed yourself as a bit of a poor researcher by trying to defend the Heartland Institute.

At least do some research before you spout further and embarrass yourself anymore.