Have You Seen this"crazy" scientist debunking AGW?

Question

Notice he does not rely on Consensus studies or name calling to prove his point?

There are 4 parts to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Bob,
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. For someone to actually use the "consensus" argument borders on idiocy. Science has nothing to do with Consensus. If you know anything about science, it is that. Science is about being a sceptic and proving your point by showing evidence. Exactly as he has done.
As for your temperature data, you are totally wrong. NASA has retracted their previous claim that the US was the hottest in 1998. 1934 holds the record. You may need to start using actual science to back up your data. Stating that Most scientist argree with global warming is ridiculous at best, moronic at worst. Thousands of scientist disagree with your statements. There are sites with 19,000 scientists signitures who disagree with AGW. Leading scientist all over the world disagree with AGW.

And please never admit to thinking CO2 is a pollutant. You may need bio class 101 if you do not understand CO2's role in our survival. I can lend you my son's 3rd grade science book if you need the review.

Answer 1

Exactly. Some people will use a politicians statements as proof that global warming is real. How silly. Why should we believe politicians to tell us what science is.

Next they will tell you that if the CEO of Wal-Mart thinks it's true, then it must be.

This is not science....

Answer 2

You said: "And please never admit to thinking CO2 is a pollutant. You may need bio class 101 if you do not understand CO2's role in our survival. I can lend you my son's 3rd grade science book if you need the review."

This statement actually shows who is the confused one. Do you consider ozone as a pollutant? Probably not because it shields us from harmful UV rays right? Guess what, it is a major pollutant (defined by the EPA) at ground level because it is found to cause respiratory ailments. In our sensitive environment, every element can both be beneficial and harmful at the same time; the effect depends on the time, amount, and location. So is CO2.

There is a ton of confusing and unproven information out there from both sides, and it is a challenge to identify the truths from lies. However, claiming GW is not real is just not responsible because the temperature measurements are true. The debate is really on how fast is it and what we can do about it.

Answer 3

Anything we put into the environment that doesn’t belong there is a pollutant. This “CO2 is natural” angle is a key point of the fossil fuel lobby, for obvious reasons. What about ocean acidification or other unforeseen problems?

Anytime I see political conspiracy theories included in a presentation as proof of an argument (any sort of presentation, scientific or otherwise) my first impulse is to get up and walk out.

His argument seems to hinge on two ideas:

That climate has always changed and nothing interesting is happening now because, even though models show we are diverging from what we should expect in an unforced world, the models are just wrong.

That there is a grand conspiracy at the IPCC to fabricate data and cover up competing theories.

Well, I believe in computer models and I used to believe in conspiracies. You know, every crank in the world says they are the only one with the truth, and the others are against them and part of the conspiracy.

Answer 4

I'm only about six minutes in, and I don't know if I can finish it. This dude's just butchering elementary statistical analysis. I'll update as I watch it.

One thing right off the bat. Here's the reconstruction he's showing while talking about the MWP about six minutes into the first clip (blue line):

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/recon3.JPG?w=400

Here's the same reconstruction after the instrumental temperature data for the past forty years have been added:

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/recon4.JPG

Sting.

------------------
"Warm equals bad."

Uh, no. Warm doesn't equal bad. Rapid warming equals bad. Moving right along now.

"It's not going to get warmer. It's going to get colder."

Yup. Over the long term it's probably going to get colder. Over the long term. Over the short term, it's going to get warmer. It's going to rapidly get warmer.

And here we go again. Warming isn't going to hurt the polar bears a bit. Rapid warming might.

Anyway, I'm done with part one. I'm disappointed. I was hoping for something new and thought provoking. So far it's just been the same stuff denialists have been using for years. Bleh.

---------------
"I read some =idiot= biologist..."

Lol.

There's a part about two minutes into the second clip where he shows the rate of temperature changes over the past fifty thousand years. I admit, I have never seen this graph before. However, I strongly suspect it of being misleading. Here's a reconstruction showing temperature changes over the past hundred thousand years. Nowhere on the graph am I able to find a rate of change as rapid as we're seeing today:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/100KYearsGreenlandTemp.jpg

-------------
Here's one last one. He briefly mentions that there has been no warming trend since 1998. Naturally, I didn't believe him, so I a calculated the trend since 1998 through 2006 using the HADCRU3 time series. Here's the result:

http://data.co2science.org/tmp/071108213623.gif

Ouch.

I would comment on part four, but I don't see any reason to bother. He'll go on lying to his students about the data and you'll go on believing him regardless of anything I or anyone else says about it. So, have fun with that.

Answer 5

I stopped watching after about half of the first portion of the film where he lied about the temperature data.

I don't know where the hell he got those temperature measurements, but it's warmer than 2000 years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

warmer than 1000 years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

and continues to warm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

The only way to conclude otherwise is to use old superceded data, and for the last claim (that it's unchanging over the past 9 years), draw a line between 1998 and present, which proves absolutely nothing because 1998 was an anomalously hot year. If you take the 5 year average, global warming continues to accelerate.

If he's going to immediately lie about the data, I'm not going to waste 45 minutes of my time watching the rest of his talk.

Answer 6

He's not crazy, just wrong.

There are a few skeptics. But why should anyone believe them as opposed to the overwhelming majority of scientists, backed by a mountain of data? It makes no sense. Not even if you're a conservative:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review published a cover story this past week calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

Specifics about what Carter says:

He says CO2 is not a pollutant. Maybe not in Australia, but the Supreme Court in the US has ruled that it is. Since "pollutant" is a legal term, they win.

His temperature data of the last 100 years is flat wrong:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

His degrees are in paleontology and geology, as are his publications.

More about Bob Carter:

http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.html

Just another "skeptic" with questionable credentials and data. Once again, why select him out as correct, when literally thousands of climatologists with mountains of data disagree? Newt doesn't.

EDIT - Dana did a good job exposing his mistakes about the temperature data. The temperature data I cite is the global temperature data, not the US. And NASA's change was trivially small. It amounted to a few hundreths of a degree in the US, and about one-thousandths of a degree in the world. And only for 2 years. It changes absolutely nothing about global warming science.

Once again, "pollutant" is a legal word, not a technical one. And, in that arena, the US Supreme Court has the final say.

Finally, the "19,000" petition you site is bogus. People emailed in names, with no affiliations or credentials. Anyone could send in hundreds of names. Many are obviously fake. It was a scam to begin with, designed to look like an official communication from the National Academy of Sciences, which issued a press release denying it was theirs. More here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

But it's clear you're not interested in facts. EnragedParrot summed it up nicely:

"you'll go on believing him regardless of anything I or anyone else says about it."

Answer 7

You a cruel person. Getting the alarmists to watch this is like throwing holy water on the possessed. Does anyone really believe that he is lying. Consensus is nearly synonymous with "pop science" but certainly not science.

Answer 8

That was quite possibly the greatest video i have ever seen.
The Global warming cult is already berating him i am sure.
They will be coming after you next so please be carefull. lol

In answer to your question: I had not seen that particular video before.