NOTE: This is a continuation of my response to comments from my original blog on Global Warming Canards. It originally appeared in a much longer (and virtually unreadable) blog. I have broken that blog into several shorter ones.
Before I address jackbenimble's global warming canard about scientific dissent concerning global warming I want to address this from him:
... For the record I a conservative/libertarian. I do not deny the holocaust. I am a firm believer in evolution. I think HIV is a sexually transmitted disease that mainly effects people who engage in risky behavior and not some sort of punishment from GOD and most days I am an athiest although I waiver a little. All in all I believe in science and I believe in the scientific method.
He said this in response to my statement that it seemed to me that modern conservatism has set up an environment that promotes science denialism. I do not believe that being conservative is necessarily a bad thing. I also remember well jackbenimble voicing his support for modern evolutionary theory. While I still believe that modern conservatism has created an environment where science denialism thrives, I don't think ALL conservatives are science denialists. And on most things I don't think jackbenimble is either. But with respect to global warming ... he is.
Why do I say that? Look at his response. He makes no argument with the SCIENCE in my blog, but instead he links to the Senate Minority Report claiming that 650 scientists disagree with me. Furthermore, he says:
I think Darwins Beagle should explain why he is a better scientist and more believeable then the many Nobel Lauterestes, Award Winning Scientists, Department Heads for Major Universities and others who voiced their dissent in his report. There were 650 very respected scientists that signed that report. Something like 30,000 signed the Petition Project of which 9000 were PHDs which I linked to in another recent blog. How many scientists were involved in writing the IPCC summary on global warming? About 50.
Er ... in science I shouldn't have to do that at all. All I should have to do is present a better scientific case than they do. Instead of asking me to explain why I am a better scientist, jackbenimble should be asking them why it is that THEY think CO2 should act differently in the atmosphere than it does in the lab. In the lab it absorbs infrared radiation and re-emits it. Mainstream climatologists claim that this is exactly what it is doing in the atmosphere. That re-radiation means that the earth is getting bombarded with energy that would have otherwise escaped into outer space. This cannot help but make the earth warmer. In fact, based on laboratory measurments, it should make the earth get almost exactly as much warmer as records suggest it is getting.
He should be asking them why it is that there is a shift in the isotope ratio of the carbon in CO2 just as one would expect if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to burning fossil fuels. He should be asking why it is they promote the CO2 lag behind temperature changes at the onset of naturally-occurring warming cycles when global warming climatologists had predicted that would be the case even before it was shown. He should be asking them what is wrong with the "balance sheet" measurements that fit perfectly with anthropogenic global warming claims and NOT with theirs. But he doesn't do that. Instead he says:
If you read DBs very impressive blog again, he does an excellent job of explaining the THEORY, BUT the ONLY ACTUAL EVIDENCE he put forward for AGW was the incredibly brief geologically speaking period of correlation between tempurature rise and the beginning of the industrial revolution. That is very thin gruel. The tempurature rise is nothing particularly unusual and well within the bounds of normal when one looks at he geological record. The carbon dioxide increase is clearly man-made but there is no proof that one is related to the other.
Actually I presented all the evidence I just summarized in this blog above as well. But even more importantly ... what evidence have THEY, the Global Warming Denialists, presented? The Senate Minority Report (to be discussed in detail in a later blog) presents no evidence, just claims by people that they don't believe the evidence of others. So, if evidence is so important to jackbenimble then why doesn't he actually believe it when it is presented to him? The answer is that he would rather believe unsubstantiated declarations otherwise ... that is science denial.
