73 1 min 13 yrs

On Tuesday, a NASA satellite designed to measure carbon emissions failed to orbit and crashed into the ocean.

Who among you now dare say that there is no God?                           

Read the article

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

73 thoughts on “AGW: Global Scam Comes to Ignoble End

  1. Interesting theological position – if a satellite falls then God must exist. Yes, I can see how that would be persuasive.

  2. if a satellite falls then God must exist. Yes, I can see how that would be persuasive.

    Yes – it has certainly forced me to re-think my position on imaginary friends.

  3. Patty was being ironic; and in any case, last year a similar probe showed that the ice caps on Mars were shrinking at the same rate as those on earth.
    Those earthly carbon emissions sure have legs….

  4. I have never understood the right-wing opposition to climate change. You really would have to be unbelievably certain that it doesn’t exist in order to carry on as we are.

  5. Jaz,

    "I have never understood the right-wing opposition to climate change."

    That’s easy. First, it is science they are opposed to. Science constantly comes with new facts which contradict their values. Since their values cannot change, the facts must.

    The only ones who cheer ignorance as this post does are those for whom ignorance is bliss.

  6. Oh and the specific reason in the case of climate change is that it would require a solution other than cutting taxes, harsher prison sentences, prayer, or bombing the middle east. After this, they are all out of ideas.

  7. Jaz –

    You really would have to be unbelievably dim or just plain lying to talk of ‘opposition to climate change’.

    No-one disputes that climates are in constant flux.

  8. no Jaz The question of Climate Change which used to be called global warming, but the facts hurt that label is not the issue.

    The issue is a gas that makes up ,7of one percent of the atmosphere effects anything.

    especially that the more and more you dig the "science" they use to bolster the theory that this less than one percent is going to kill us all is found to be more and more fraudulant with each review.

  9. Hmmm… I am not a scientist, but I figure that if The Royal Society – the pre-eminent scientific body in the country – says the science is good, well I figure that they would know good science from bad.
    But if you have some sites that show where The Royal Society have gone wrong, I would be interested to see them.

    And although I am no scientist (although I do have A level chemistry) I don’t think the absolute quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere is really the point, is it?
    And if you look at the five-year rolling trend in global average temperatures you will see that they have risen and the trend is an increase, and increasing at an increasing rate.

    But I still don’t understand why people, typically from the right, are so vehemently against the theory of anthropomorphic climate change (is that clear enough Mr Moore?). Given the consequences if the science is right, you would have to be 100% certain it is absolutely wrong, to disregard it.

  10. Jaz,

    "But I still don’t understand why people, typically from the right, are so vehemently against the theory of anthropomorphic climate change (is that clear enough Mr Moore?). Given the consequences if the science is right, you would have to be 100% certain it is absolutely wrong, to disregard it."

    They don’t think that way. They reason entirely from the policy consequences.

    There was a study done where one group was shown information about global warming together with a newspaper story saying scientists recommended anti-pollution regulations, and another was shown a story saying scientists recommended more use of nuclear power. Conservatives in the first group were more likely to dismiss global warming as a threat compared to the second group or a group which received no newspaper story at all. I wrote a bit about this here.

  11. Jaz: When Al Gore declared "debate over" and called any skeptics "deniers" I realized once and for all that AGW was not science.

    Scientists prove their hypotheses; they do not expect nonscientists to disprove their hypothesis.

    AGW was a hoax, a fraud, an excuse to expand govt.control and a means for Al Gore to sell carbon credits.

    The UN created the lobbying group called the IPCC. It was not
    a scientific body and it was created to lobby the US to adopt the Kyoto Protocol.

    Al Gore, the UN, the IPCC — not science.

  12. Correct me if I’m wrong, Frank, but you explain the cooling trend by calling it "weather." When it’s a warming trend, you call it "climate." Logic being that "weather" is short-term, and "climate" is long term.

    Reality being that neither climate nor weather appears to be warming, and the AGW people now have to scramble to find another thing in order to scare the beejeezus out of us.

  13. All the evidence in the World won’t convince them otherwise. Maybe God could talk to them and explain it.

  14. Jaz,

    You’re looking for logic where no logic exists. This breed of right wingers does not believe based on evidence or reason, but on faith. Something is true because they want it to be true. If experiments produce results which challenge their world view they will simply assume that the scientists are involved in a giant conspiracy. This is how they convince themselves that man made CO2 emissions are not harmful and that the earth is 6013 years old.

  15. Jaz –

    Forget the Royal Society. It’s a bought and paid for tool of government propaganda. Sixty-nine per cent (that’s 69%) of its funding is from government. It’s hopelessly compromised.

    If you want to know of the Right’s response to AGW, ask someone from the Right. I’m in the liberty-minded, patriotic centre.

    Now as Frank O’Dwyer knows (since I’ve told him more than once) if I become convinced of the evidence in favour of AGW I’ll jump that way, but I’m simply not convinced.

    Scientism being your creed this evening, have regard the scientific method and the principle that those who advance a theory are obliged to prove it. It is not for heretics to disprove an unproven theory.

  16. Troll,

    "Frank explain the past 9years of global cooling."

    It has been warming for over 30 years. While it is not inconceivable that it might not continue, there is plenty of reason to expect it will. There is certainly no reason to expect it to cool in future and there is no evidence at all that it has cooled over the last 9 years.

    Patty,

    "Correct me if I’m wrong, Frank"

    You’re wrong. There is no cooling trend that requires explanation.

  17. Mahons: "Maybe God could talk to them and explain it."

    "Hit the lights, Hymie."

    (in other words, as I can see you need things explained in a simpler fashion, you have taken a rhetorical device literally and you should instead take it as an ironic comment.)

  18. I look forward to new conspiracy theories about this incident to be concocted by AGW fans

    The satellite crash was a "controlled demolition"

  19. Here’s that 9 years ‘cooling trend‘.

    The only way you could construe that as cooling is if you discard every point but the first and last, or you’re standing on your head.

  20. Mahons: "Interesting theological position – if a satellite falls then God must exist. Yes, I can see how that would be persuasive."

    Are you Hymie ?

  21. Frank O’Dwyer –

    Go on, I can’t wait, let’s have another of your long range weather forecasts – how pavement blisteringly hot will this summer be in Blighty?

    (checks stock price of umbrella manufacturers …)

  22. No Patty, and I am suprised at your use of such a derogatory term for God’s Choosen people. You must be a secret Jesse Jackson supporter.

  23. Doesn’t my link work?

    Hymie was the literal- minded robot on Get Smart. Get Smart was a television comedy recently remade and up on the big screen.

    When Agent 99, or Smart, would said, "Hit the lights, Hymie" Hymie would yank out his pistol and try to hit the lights with a bullet.

  24. Mahons: Oh well…I thought you of all people knew something about pop culture. Guess not.

    figures you’d go straight to political correctness. Which is, I guess, a form of pop culture.

  25. Pete,

    "Now as Frank O’Dwyer knows (since I’ve told him more than once) if I become convinced of the evidence in favour of AGW I’ll jump that way, but I’m simply not convinced."

    Who cares if you’re convinced or not? Most people are. Besides, you’re not ‘convinced’ by the evidence for evolution and there is overwhelming evidence for that.

    Nor does anyone need to wait for you to be convinced that you are doing everyone harm in order to take action to stop you doing it.

  26. Yes Phantom – good connecting of the dots.

    Patty – Actually Get Smart is something I should have suggested to you.

  27. Forget the Royal Society. It’s a bought and paid for tool of government propaganda. Sixty-nine per cent (that’s 69%) of its funding is from government. It’s hopelessly compromised.

    You see I would say that they have a pretty good theory on how man-made climate change works. It may not be perfect, but it is pretty good and it does what a theory should do – it explains the current situation and it helps predict future activity. It isn’t perfect because climate is notoriously chaotic.

    The Royal Society – the Royal Society that was founded in 1660 and included pretty well every single notable British scientist since then. That is a tool of government propaganda is it? Since when did that happen? Since it was founded with a grant from Charles II presumably it has always been compromised – for the last 400 years – and all that science has just been one massive firstly royalist and now governmental conspiracy?
    And I am not quite sure why government funding is so bad? Would it be better were it to be funded by private industry? Would that make it less "compromised"? So if BP fund research why is that less compromising than if the British Government funds it?
    This is another problem I have. Every time an organisation comes up with something with which, again typically the right (which you self-exclude yourself from that category), disagrees, somehow that organisation – no matter what its standing, is to be disregarded.
    So if you don’t accept the Royal Society – home of Boyle, Wren, Newton, Crick, Watson, Berners-Lee, even your namesake Patrick Moore – then who do you accept?

  28. Mahons: You wouldn’t need to provide me with a lengthy explanation like I apparently have to do with you.

  29. I have just had a look at The Royal Society’s website to see who these government stooges are.

    There are currently 21 Nobel prize winners among the Fellows and many other holders of other equally prestigious awards. Previous Fellows include Isaac Newton, Christopher Wren, Charles Darwin, Ernest Rutherford and Dorothy Hodgkin.

  30. Patty – what is the point? You won’t understand it anyway.

    Jaz – theirs is political opposition, not scientific.

  31. Jaz –

    Arafat and Krugman are Nobel prize winners. You’ll be telling me next that I ought to respect the UN.

    Sixty-nine per cent of the Royal Society’s funding is granted from a regulatory state which will cut off that funding in the event of the Royal Society going rogue.

    Its funding arrangements alone are sufficient to render it dubious.

    BP funding would make it no more or less dubious.

    If you disagree, pop along to the Israel thread and have it out with Jimmy Sands, who posits that because the US pays the piper the US will call the Israeli tune.

    Mahons –

    Of course opposition is partly political. The climate change industry is politically founded and maintained.

  32. Pete – it isn’t partly political – it is mostly political, there are almost no real scientists backing your position (and we’ve been through the yahoo lists more times here than we’ve discussed Gaza).

    I would agree that there is politics on the other side as well, but they have overwhelming support of the scientific community. That at least should give you some pause.

  33. Sixty-nine per cent of the Royal Society’s funding is granted from a regulatory state which will cut off that funding in the event of the Royal Society going rogue.
    And you have evidence for this I take it? Evidence that this threat has been hanging over The Royal Society for 400 years?
    So it has been a government front for the last 400 years then? That is a heck of conspiracy – a four-century long one. They have done well.
    And Nobel prize winners in science are all part of this huge, what, conspiracy as well are they? The Nobel committee is in on the deal?
    So if they aren’t to be funded by the state, and they are not to be funded by industry, who is to fund them? I am not sure they can run that many bring-and-buy sales in a year to fund themselves.

    And I would still like to know which scientific bodies are ok and not compromised in some way? Any pointers?

  34. I know that big Al Gore won’t debate anyone on this.

    Are any of the AGW scientists willing to debate in a public forum, or is there solidarity in that skeptics should just shut up as there is nothing to debate about?

  35. What’s the point of debating someone who is going to intentionally lie?

    The debate is over and we need to get on with sorting it out; leave the flat-earthers as they are. Those who have not been convinced so far will never be convinced as they are blind to reality.

  36. Phantom,

    "I know that big Al Gore won’t debate anyone on this."

    So what?

    "Are any of the AGW scientists willing to debate in a public forum"

    Yes. It has happened several times. Though since when is science ‘debated’?

    Your real question should be: how many of the AGW ‘sceptics’ are willing to go to the trouble of producing some research and getting it published for the criticism of their peers instead of on some blog? And if so how has that gone – for example how much of it was cited? How much of it was serious rebuttal of the core ideas and how much was quibbling or actually about the less relevant details?

  37. All opponents and skeptics are liars?

    The debate over events projected over the next decades is " over " ?

    Not sure who the flat earth people are in this equation.

  38. Jaz –

    So if they aren’t to be funded by the state, and they are not to be funded by industry, who is to fund them? I am not sure they can run that many bring-and-buy sales in a year to fund themselves.

    Fine. Fold it up. If insufficient subscribers exist to keep it alive, there’s insufficient demand for its services.

    Mahons –

    I would agree that there is politics on the other side as well, but they have overwhelming support of the scientific community.

    That’s hardly defendable, unless you have your hand out for a grant, which is what it’s about for many scientists.

  39. If insufficient subscribers exist to keep it alive, there’s insufficient demand for its services

    I think a 400-year track record speaks for itself. Even if it is 400 years of being government stooges.

    And any thoughts on scientific bodies that are acceptable if not the Royal Society and Nobel Laureates?

  40. Phantom,

    "All opponents and skeptics are liars?"

    What ‘skeptics’?

    Where can we read their research? Some blog, right?

    "The debate over events projected over the next decades is " over " ?"

    The debate about whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas is certainly over.

    The debate about whether it’s got warmer in recent decades is certainly over.

    The debate about whether CO2 is increasing is certainly over.

    The debate about whether it is manmade is certainly over.

    The debate about whether CO2 acidifies the oceans is certainly over.

    These are not events ‘projected to occur’, they’re all about things that have been observed to occur, and predicted to occur, already.

    But the ‘skeptics’ want to debate even these established facts, and instead suggest they are the product of a worldwide conspiracy. Remarkably, 100.0% of these same ‘skeptics’ have yet to spot a single error made by one of their own or themselves.

  41. Jaz

    You are making great points, but as you can see it’s a dialogue of the deaf. Pete Moore would be happier if the Royal Society had never existed.

    Mind you, he has also attacked Darwin (yeah, really), despite the fact that Darwin never took a penny from the public purse, so presumably his output should be more reliable, from a Rightworld perspective anyway.

    But Darwin goes dead against their sky-god hangups, including that all "creation" appeared on a single day about 6,000 years ago.

  42. Jaz –

    ‘Acceptable’?

    I don’t care if scientists want to club together in voluntary association. They can publish what they like, the rest of us can accept or reject it as we like.

    The idea that any such free association can be ‘acceptable’ – or its corollory, ‘unacceptable’ – really is odd.

  43. ‘They can publish what they like, the rest of us can accept or reject it as we like.’

    Ridiculous. You can reject gravity and walk off a cliff if you like; that’s your choice. Global warming is a reality that will affect us all negatively; you have a responsibility to not be an idiot when your actions may negatively harm others.

  44. Guba,

    "You can reject gravity and walk off a cliff if you like; that’s your choice. "

    What they do is more like rejecting gravity and demanding to be free to shove others off the cliff until they are ‘convinced’ that they will not levitate.

  45. Peter –

    You’re a nice chap, but you do come out with crap.

    Darwin wrote many thousands of words in his life and hypothsised many complicated and multi-layered theories and concepts.

    To say ‘Darwin was right’ is stupid and lazy.

    To pretend that others remain unconvinced of all he promoted because of religion is stupid and lazy, particularly when some of those people are agnostic and Darwin himself stated there is nothing irreconcilable between his theories and God.

    Only the stupid and lazy and cowardly and dogmatic state with complete certainty their positions on these things. It seems a little more sensible to acknowledge the vastly greater minds which remained baffled and to hold a shade of scepticism for any theories which grasp at completeness.

  46. And here comes a demonstration:

    Guba –

    Global warming is a reality that will affect us all negatively

    How do you know? From ancient times to today, agriculture, trade and peace have coincided with warming periods.

    History isn’t on your side here.

  47. Pete,

    "If insufficient subscribers exist to keep it alive, there’s insufficient demand for its services."

    Wrong, since people can freeload.

    As you know, since you don’t pay for the BBC but you watch its programmes anyway.

    "To say ‘Darwin was right’ is stupid and lazy."

    To say "To say ‘Darwin was right’ is stupid and lazy" is stupid and lazy, especially since nobody said that, and especially as Darwin was wrong about several things.

    By the way, Darwin stopped being an expert on evolution in 1882.

  48. ‘What they do is more like rejecting gravity and demanding to be free to shove others off the cliff until they are ‘convinced’ that they will not levitate.’

    You put it better than i ever could.

    No Pete! You cannot, do not reject evolution?

    Oh sweet Jebus, why are you doing this to us? Do your flippin job and sort this crap out. Quit burdening your chosen people with this stupidity. We will legalise weed, which we know you inhaled copiously when you were trippin out in the desert. We also kill loads of babies (which your father enjoyed tremendously) and we are even contemplating leaving homos (another activity which you enjoyed partaking of) marry.

    What more do you want?!

  49. ‘From ancient times to today, agriculture, trade and peace have coincided with warming periods.’

    Ya, so what?

  50. To say ‘Darwin was right’ is stupid and lazy.

    But he was, and he is. And the creationists have been evsicerated. Try reading some science, then get back to us.

    And I am not aware of a single scientist of repute who believes that the creationists are right. Without exception, the anti-Darwinists are religious fundamentalists of either the christian or islamic variety.

  51. Getting back to the topic, I agree with Patty when she says that the scientific debate is not over. Check out this for an alternative scientific explanation, albeit a minority one.

    But I totally refute the absurd Rightworld notion that AGW is a vast scam / conspiracy of governments and governmemt-funded scientists. If it was true, how come none of the thousands that must be involved have blown the whistle yet? Not even one?

  52. Frank O’Dwyer –

    To say "To say ‘Darwin was right’ is stupid and lazy" is stupid and lazy, especially since nobody said that

    Peter –

    – To say ‘Darwin was right’ is stupid and lazy.

    But he was, and he is.

    How can one compete with such a united rational front?

  53. Pete Moore

    Have you ever read The Origin of Species?

    If not, I recommend it. It is highly readable and extremely persuasive. And all the science done since on the subject has confirmed that Darwin was right, most recently DNA analysis which can accurately date the time that all species currently alive had a common ancestor. That obviously include humans and chimps, but it also includes humans and oak trees. Try Richard Dawkins’ The Ancestor’s Tale – truly fascinating.

    Or stay ignorant if you prefer, as Patty evidently wants us all to be. Otherwise, why rejoice at the failure of a scientific mission that would have advanced our knowledge of a very important subject for us and our descendants?

  54. >>Check out this for an alternative scientific explanation,<<

    Peter, I think his

    "A Grad missile that falls in Sderot should be more cause for concern"

    rather gives him away.

  55. Noel,

    Notice also he contradicts himself a few times – he says CO2 isn’t correlated with temperature, then he says warming leads to CO2 not the other way round, then he says CO2 does lead to warming, but of less than 1.5C (in which case 4xCO2 would could be up to 3C and still a problem), then he gives his ‘guess’ of one degree.

    He talks about poisoning of oceans being a problem but is apparently not aware that CO2 acidifies the oceans, and nothing about his theory contradicts that – it is basic chemistry.

    He comes out with the usual cherry pick of ‘the last 10 years’ to claim there has been no warming – this is just a howler and no reputable scientist would use that as evidence for anything.

    Not a word about the studies that contradict his findings – he’s just persecuted because everyone who disagrees with him is bought and paid for while he himself is pure as the driven snow. The possibility that he could be the mistaken one doesn’t even seem to occur to him.

  56. Peter –

    Look, much of what Darwin posited was compelling, but much does still lack evidence and only the future will fill in gaps or re-write what is widely accepted.

    Now, for the last time, please drop this ‘or stay ignorant’ stuff. I don’t say that Darwin was wholly right or wrong. It’s possible to simply acknowledge what others say without having to accept or reject completely their view.

    When I studied at the UCL I had a beer one evening with a cosmologist who was also a Christian. Far from his science eroding his faith, he told me it was his studies which made him religious. The more he learned of the wonders and mysteries and physics of the universe, the more convinced he became that a creator was behind it, that the form of the universe and our existence was so unlikely it must have been pre-ordained.

    Is he wrong? Does it matter?

    Sometimes it’s alright to say "oh really?" and then get on with your life.

  57. The possibility that he could be the mistaken one doesn’t even seem to occur to him.

    Thats because the markets dont open for another 8 hours.

  58. Patty , Do not apologise for your position , as a proof of the existence of God , it is at least as good as the other " proofs " that I have seen .
    Since I have faith in you , I believe that the satellite was brought down by an Act of God .

  59. "If you disagree, pop along to the Israel thread and have it out with Jimmy Sands, who posits that because the US pays the piper the US will call the Israeli tune."

    I said that where?

  60. "To pretend that others remain unconvinced of all he promoted because of religion is stupid and lazy, particularly when some of those people are agnostic"

    Such as?

  61. Jimmy – please don’t expect rational thought (ot truthful comments) from those who have abandoned it long ago, if ever they had the capacity for it.

  62. Well this has proved to be a very illuminating conversation, although not perhaps in the way that some people might have wished.
    You are perfectly free to reject the scientific base of AGW if you wish, but that does not make you right.
    You are perfectly free to reject the scientists who came up with it if you wish, but that does not make you right (in much the same way as you can reject the theory of evolution, or Boyle’s Law, or Flemming’s Law, or that DNA exists – all of which contributions were made by that notorious government front The Royal Society).
    But the problem you have is you end up with an argument that is Reductio ad absurdum.
    You have to take more and more extreme positions – so dismissing all those who oppose it as being part of some huge conspiracy for example, although there is not a jot of evidence to support the claim.
    Or you are reduced to arguing about the evidence, usually around the fringes as if somehow that refutes the entire arguement.
    Or you try and produce guilt by association – so for example dismissing the entire Nobel structure because of one award.
    Or you try and claim that there is a huge, but silenced, opposition (although presumably as these scientists are also paid for either by industry or by government, their claims are no more valid).
    Or you try and reduce everything down to a claim of pure subjectivity where one claim is no better than an other, thereby refuting the entire history of scientific development.
    So you can do all of that – or there is an alternative path.
    You could entertain the idea that holding onto views that require you to do all of that just to validate them might be an indication that you have the wrong end of the stick, and the intellectually curious might be thinking, hmmmm, maybe I am wrong.

    Just a thought.

  63. You are all deluded. the greatest threat to mankind and the greatest source of greenhouse gases is not western industrial byproducts , but the rapacious rate that 3rd world countries are destroying the rain forests(proven and acknowledged to be the lungs of the world).Now we know that it is just soo unacceptable to police those 3rd world goons , especially when the South americans are of a brownish hue and the Indonesians/Malaysians are muslims, so let’s police those white industrialists . Thank god the africans in the Congo are too busy killing each other to denude their patch of jungle,because if they weren’t, the capacity for destruction encrypted in their genes would ensure and end to that patch of rain forest in about half a considerably shortened miserable african lifespan.
    So lets shoot off satellites and do all sorts of bullshit research,because the the truth cannot be stomached by the liberal left who tout Al as spokesman.

  64. "capacity for destruction encrypted in their genes would ensure "

    encrypted in whose genes ? African genes ?

    I guess their genes really beat the white man’s genes when it comes to a capacity for destruction. It’s common knowledge that "African genes" are responsible for much destruction … we whiteys are so civilised …

  65. Sebs:

    Less of the wishful thinking if you please. This is from Washington University in St. Louis:

    "There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. Yet, sub-Saharan Africans and Melanesians share dark skin, hair texture and cranial-facial features, traits commonly used to classify people into races. According to Templeton, this example shows that "racial traits" are grossly incompatible with overall genetic differences between human populations."

Comments are closed.