Why so much anger in anti-AGW circles?

[Cassandra Syndrome]

So far your response has been the usual mix of hilarity and distraction.

Only in the eyes of the cult.

[ibis]

Hm. The phrase "solar science" reminds me of "creation science" for some reason. "Creation science" apparently doesn't get funded either, as a result of a scientific conspiracy to suppress the truth.

[Oreo Livermore]

Just for everyone's information, The above poster is the troll formerly known as Youngdan. He is someone who has openly admitted trolling and using multiple accounts to carry out conversations with himself. He is clearly suffering from some kind of personality disorder.

He is forced to constantly re-brand and change his name because after a few months, everyone who uses the forum will have put him on ignore.

I have a strong suspicion the poster "Abrax" is also a youngdan pseudonym as his posts are equally vacuous and he knows too much about the regular posters here for someone who has just joined a few months ago and only has 79 posts

Measage from Al to Akrasia.
"Keep paying those carbon taxes. This is very serious business. The polar bears appreciate your efforts and remember there are more of them than ever before, growl growl growl. That youngdan is a pest, he has just one monstermobile, imagine if he had all the jets that I have.

Listen kid, thanks a billion, just don't predict a record hurricane season this year, you looked pretty stupid last year when the US didn't get a single puff of wind. Keep it simple as I know you are a simpleton. Just tell everyone the sea is going to rise and the science has spoken. Keep repeating it for my next billion.

Thanks kid, thumbs up."



_________________________________
my sig realirishpolitics.org

[Cassandra Syndrome]

Hm. The phrase "solar science" reminds me of "creation science" for some reason. "Creation science" apparently doesn't get funded either, as a result of a scientific conspiracy to suppress the truth.

Yes we are all Pagans. We worship the Sun and we dance around fires naked..

[jman0war]

It is just another straw-man that Theodor Landsheidt should be discounted because he is an "amateur climatologist". Such persons could in fact contribute to science (however doubtfull).
Amateur astronomers have contributed to Astronomy. So it is not outside the realm of possibility that an "amateur climatologist" could contribute toward our understanding of climatology.
I would exercise caution however, amateurs in Astonomy and Climatology are not 2 sides of the same coin.

The reason Theodor Landsheidt should be discounted is because he is an Astrologer.
Astrology has zero scientific basis and is worthy only of our derision.
Any adherent to such ridiculous nonsense should not be taken seriously in an scientific discussion.

Why someone would cite a paper by this loon, while casting aside actual scientific papers is someone with a loony agenda.

Perhaps Cassandra Syndrome would explain to us laymen, why Theodor Landsheidt's paper is trumps over all the other papers i've linked to in my earlier post. (and would be happy to link to again).


Note also that Theodor Landsheidt's "credentials" are a bit suspect:

In 1983 he founded and financed the Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity in Lilienthal, near Bremen

[Húrin]

I hope you aren't beoing so naive to suggest that this is one way? I would love to see the contents of Lord Monckton's mailbox for example.

I'm sure if it contained much of this sort, he would publicise it proudly. It would help back up his rant about the "Hitler youth".

I certainly get angry when small vociferous and ideologically bound lobby groups try to infringe on my liberty under the most spurious of circumstances. I am well able to rationalise those emotions though and wouldn't think of threateing others, no matter how stupid, or misanthropic they appear.

You believe that scientists are "small vociferous and ideologically bound lobby groups," trying to infringe on your liberty?

You will find the emotive argumentation is led by alarmists.

Here I agree. There are alarmists of both pro- and anti-AGW varieties.

That serves a proper debate poorly. AGW proponents, even the supposed dispassionate "scientists" lead with a moral imperative.

So all climate scientists are on a moral crusade? Evidence? A few James Hansen quotes will not cut it.

Unfortunately, when you behave that way you will prompt reaction from those who are not empowered to influence policy. Those normal everyday people wanting to get on with their lives, but increasingly realising that they are going to have to drive only the type of car that is "correct", must pay a lot more for electricity, or petrol, must buy lightbulbs that cost up to 10 times as much and don;t do the job you want.

What about the normal everyday people, particularly those of my generation (20-30), who are frustrated with seeing those who are empowered to influence policy, not making the choices that might prevent the climate problems that we will have to deal with when older generations are long gone? We have to watch new coal mines being given the green light in the knowledge that the by-products of their combustion will probably make our lives poorer. Although few politicians deny AGW, the widespread denial of it makes their inaction easier.

The assumption that the mere acceptance of AGW will lead to restrictions on liberty is truly spurious, and an example of confusing science with politics. What about all the people in the world who don't live in countries where driving a car is considered "a right"?

Of course the emotion is only enflamed by the rank hypocracy that the disenfranchised majority witness among those who do have a public platform or influence -the Al Gores the Hollywood stars and even the self manufactured celebrity scientists etc. who are helping to shape the type of world they want to see and which (coincidentally) won't really damage their standard of living or quality of life.

None of these have anything to do with science or make the raging any less laughable. Though it does point to the cultural aspect of AGW scepticism and thus weakens its case.

[Húrin]

And this gets to the heart of the matter.

Shouldn't the science be at the heart of the matter, rather than vague fears of lost "freedom"?

If Oreo wants to drive a monster vehicle, why should he not?

I think ibis' point is that the restrictions that are claimed to exist, don't actually exist.

THe imposition of climate based tax and regulation is significant already. Lots and lots of small cuts.

You and your ilk are advocating a lot lot more.

From what I can see you have no specific idea about what this "ilk" are advocating at all. Do you think that everyone who "believes" in AGW agrees about what should be done about it? Like some sort of consensus.

Cap and Share for example is not a tax at all and I favour it.

Hmmm. That's one perspective.

Another might be it has become the laughing stock, and embarrassment to real scientists. Despite the tens of billions of taxpayers dollars/Euros and Yen poured into this thriving industry.

Last time you claimed that most scientific institutions had abandoned AGW you declined to provide evidence. Will you now provide it?

Evidence of the contrary is linked in my sig.

But policy is being designed to stop him or make him pay punitively for the privilege.

Thanks, now you realise that the restrictions which were claimed to exist don't.

[Húrin]

In a free market a company would not behave in that way. That is behaviour from individuals who are using outdated stupid company laws that would not exist in an anarcho capitalist world.

Ridiculous. You want to build an anarcho-capitalist world and you see AGW as an obstacle to that goal.

And any alternative proposals about moving towards a planet run by renewable energy that don't involve their selfish interests are ignored.

What are you referring to? Who are "they" are what proposals do you refer to?

What happened in Copanhagen then Mr Gloaty?

Possibly the ultimate example of confusing science and politics.

UN Copenhagen Conference = politics
climatology = science

I believe in an amateur's paper from 1905 on Special Relatively by the name of Albert Einstein. Are you going to stick your nose up at him as well you green intellectual snob?

He wasn't an amateur.

[Húrin]

Policy makes my personal aspirations unrealistic because I will be inordinately punished for pursuing them.

And make no mistake, we are looking at extremely draconian regulation and/or taxation which will have a massive impact on everyone standard of living and choices. You alarmists are demanding reduction of 50% plus in CO2 emissions over periods of 20-30 years. That really means a 50% plus fall in incomes.

So you're entirely unaware of alternative and new technology then.

And I hate to break it to you but it now appears that the minimum sensible emissions cut by 2020 is 40% below 1990 levels. It is my personal aspiration to live in a safe world and to raise children in a safe and comfortable world. Policy that does not reduce emissions makes this aspiration unrealistic.

Warmies refusing to deal with the argument. Many people do wierd stuff.

Sandra's argument that the sun is primarily driving global climate has been refuted numerous times here. Why should anyone bother refuting it again when he will only ignore the refutation?

[Húrin]

The greens are off checking up on Einsteins CV, hence the delay on response.

Yes, the "greens" should have posted in ignorance of it like you did. I love the way anti-AGW loopers are so fanatically anti-intellectual.

He was a patent clerk. Fact
While published in 1905 it was the product of his thinking and informal discussions with other "amateurs" over a number of earlier years. Fact

Wriggle as much as you like, but he was outside the acaedmic establishment, like some others who have turned scientific theories on their heads.

Who is arguing that Einstein had to be working in academia to be a professional scientist?

Could someone show this confused little old lady where the knitting circle is meeting this week. The poor dear seems lost.

_______________

Cos it's OK to ad hominem if you're against AGW...