It's the ozone layer, stupid!

Actually it's Qing-Bin Lu. The article you quoted didn't even get his name right, follow your link to the abstract if you don't believe me. Regardless of his name, he's been on this tack since at least 2001 and has been debunked at every turn.

See http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2009/11/plot-thickens-ozone-does-not.html.

And http://prl.aps.org/pdf/PRL/v103/i22/e228501.

If anything the fact that the ozone hole is repairing itself due to our substantially decreased use of CFC's causes an *increase* in global warming and rising sea levels. Apparently the ozone hole over the Antarctic has allowed radiational cooling of the eastern, more densely ice-covered, section of the continent which has partially protected it from the effects of global warming and so as the ozone hole repairs itself this protection diminishes.

See http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-12/study-finds-ozone-hole-repair-contributes-global-warming-sea-level-rise.

And http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/01/ozone-antarctica

As if a typo on a foreign name somehow discredits the author. I had followed the link before I created the post, and didn't notice it myself. Either way, my attribution has been corrected.

Where do you get "debunked at every turn" from? I took a look at all of the links that you provided, and the are all basically referring to the same paper.

I have no problem with Lu being challenged, and I'm sure that he expects it too. From your first link, "Müller proceeds to go through Lu's research with a fine-toothed comb; sure enough, it hitches on subtle snarls in argument and approach". Hardly a debunking.

That's what your links imply, but where's this "*increase* in global warming and rising sea levels" that you mentioned. Didn't anyone tell you that temperatures have been going down since 1998 or so?

Sure. Every denier on the planet says that. But they are either outright lying or they simply wish to be deluded because it suits their ideology.

 

Also it's not "or so". It's precisely 1998 that must be cherry picked as the starting date of the comparison otherwise the comparison is easily seen as the total bullshit that it is.

Plus the effects of a repairing antarctic ozone hole are not expected to kick in for another decade or so.

The warming zealots have to claim that.  You see in their religion, there can be no debate (the debate is over).  In science, as all rational sane people know, the debate is never over until something becomes a FACT, which AGW is not.  It is a mystlical belief perpetuated by the almighty dollar and small minded religious zealots.

No. It is all in the numbers and the manipulation of them. You see the Religious zealots dont want you to talk about manipulation since they are guilty of it (eliminating the MWP and LIA along with most of the Russian reporting stations to name a few).  So they doctor the data for the history and then start their proof from an arbitraty point.  Now when the skeptics (note not deniers - the true deniers are the religious zealots who are denying science) do the same, but instead start the trend at 1998, the trend is a slight decline.

Now, contrary to the religious zealots, there is no "debunking this".  As it is just a fact, not a doctored number.  However statisticians have said there is insufficient data points to provide any statistical sampling, and hence it is just numbers plotted on a graph, and not a statistical trend.  Which most skeptics do readily acknowledge, but the religious zealots then lie and say it has been "debunked".

So what we now have is an alternate theory, not debunked (but debated as it should be) and of course the religious zealots worried that perhaps their religion is about to be proven irrelevant, trying to burn the heretics at the stake.

Did you see how fast Mr. Know it all came out and lied about the study?  Using a typo to try to add some legitimacy to his creed?  That is how the religious zealots work,  Torquemada would be proud.

Hmm. It seems to me that you're the one with the ideology here. While I'm not convinced that global warming is man-made, I am convincible. Name calling and attempts at impugning a man's reputation won't fly with me though.

If you think that the video that you embedded is the kind of information that might persuade me, then you're woefully mistaken. Reasonable people can look at the same information and walk away with different conclusions.

Well he certainly offered no response to it. And other than embedding a rather condescending video and matching verbiage, he added nothing of value to the conversation.

My take exactly.

Yes, it's felt like a religious war for some time now, with a lack of reasoning and a desire to smack the opponent over the head until they finally "get it".

Ouch!  

I still find it funny that there are still people who believe the Global Warming™ myth. 

 

As I find deniers quite funny.

Perhaps another 5 or 10 years will be enough that even you will have to admit that you were wrong. However when you can deny 30 years of warming it's difficult to believe that another 5 or 10 will make any difference to you.

Of course there are still people that believe that smoking isn't bad for you either. It shouldn't be suprising that many of the same organizations that deny global warming were heavily involved with denying that smoking was harmful.

 

It should not be surprising that the AGW religious cant debate the issue on merit, and must then try to impugn the other side by association.  WOuld it surprise Mr. Know it all, that MOST of the groups supporting AGW as a fact also supported Segregation/Racism?  Indeed!  But do you see that played out in the debate?  No, because it is a non-sequitur.  Just as the crap about some (hardly many, but then that is another tactic - use nebulous terms and insinuate a greater weight than actually exists) having supported smoking as well.  And the point is?  Nothing, but they think it is significant, so play it constantly.

ANd of course, like any religion, they have an answer for anything.  Just a short while ago, they maintained there was NO debate.  Then when the scientists got together and said "Wait, we are scientists, and there is debate", they had to impugn them!  By of course calling into question their connections and qualifications.  And this SInclair - a known supporter of eco terrorists.  And we are supposed to believe some clown that agrees with blowing up people to save snails?

That is AGW for you,  All religion and no facts.  The facts are that there is an hypothesis on the issue, but it will never go anywhere now that the religious have taken it over.

NOw mr. Know it all, before embedding another terrorist blog, please prove to us why we should believe racists?

This from the king of no facts.

It is not a non sequitur because the fact that the same groups and even the same people that denied smoking was bad are in fact using the same techniques in their fight against AGW. They have no need to prove anything, all they have to do is to put forth any contradictory information regardless of it's credibility and thereby claim that there is some sort of debate.

There is no debate among credible and credentialed scientists in the field. All of this is just smoke and mirrors from the right.

Here's just a very few examples of orgainzations that have been prominent in both the pro-tobacco and anti-AGW movement.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Coalition

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_for_a_Sound_Economy

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute

You might also take a look at http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf which is a report authored by the Union of Concerned Scientists about "How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science."

So no, relating climate change denial and big tobacco is *not* a non sequitur.

And if there are really those that truly "can be convinced" then they should also check out http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2 from which the following was excerpt.

"For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story."

I don't suppose you notice the irony between these two comments.

 

You should have stopped there.  The rest just shows that you dont understand what a non sequitur is.  And apaprently dont care.  But then having declared yourself an avowed racist, I dont expect you to worry about being associated with them and their attempts to control the debate on climate as well.

Well, Mr, Know it all, let me clue you in.  Whether it is 5 groups, 10 groups or 100 groups, it does not matter if they support tobacco or not, now does it?  Unless you are running a popularity contest.  Are you?  Apparently, because you dont even understand or are well versed in the debate.  instead you link (and probably slavishly follow) a nice PR site (no science, just PR), and the rest of the debate goes over your head.  You dont have to have facts to be a religious zealot, just the bible of AGW.  You have that, and nothing else.

But for your education, let me give you one little definition.  Try to learn the difference between descriptions and name calling.  If you dont want to be described by your drivel, dont live up to it.

stu⋅pid

   /ˈstupɪd, ˈstyu‑/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [stoo-pid, styoo‑] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, noun

–adjective

1.	lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.

2.	characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.

3.	tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.

No, you are.  You stated you would never vote for anyone with an R next to their name.  Men like Abraham Lincoln and the republican Congressmen of the 60s that dragged this nation out of segregation.  You would not vote for them because in your words "I have never seen anything they stand for worth voting for".  So you are against emancipation, and civil rights.  That makes you a racists (in all but Al Sharpton's book since you are a D, not an R).

So you are the liar.  And clearly I struck paydirt with your vitriolic response to me.  The truth hurts.  Lies do not.  next time you are going to do a knee jerk, think (if that is possible) before you write.

And quit blaming your parents.  At least (if what you say is true since now everything you say is called into question) they were honest.  Not liars.

That does not make me a racist.

And yes, you are the liar. 

You quack like a racist, swim like a racist, and fly like a racist.  you are a racist.  You hate evereything the republicans have done, and that was one of the prominent ones mentioned.  You can call yourself a "person of a different color" or whatever other euphamism is in vogue on the D side (check with Harry and Bobby for the latest).  But your words say otherwise.

And if I am a liar, you should be able to post my lies.  So far, you have not posted anything but your own.  And while I am aware that the D is never responsible for anything (someone else made them do it, or it is someone else's fault), I did not make you.  Your parents did.  So do not attribute your lies to me.  They only serve to remind everyone what you said, and the lies you told.

Check your PC at the door.  You are not high enough up in the D party to get a pass on JU (if anywhere).

One more thing quacker.  Was it not you who said:

 

And is it not you that "flew"?  Have you now branded yourself (once more) a racist? Hurts when the truth is revealed - by you no less.

Hardly, given that I was a minor at the time.

Everything you type is a lie.

The party of Abraham Lincoln indeed, that's how far you'd have to go back to find an honest one.

You are a childish ass and I will no longer participate in your inane doublespeak talk. Feel free to chatter on aimlessly, it suits your personality well.

grew up?  Or was just born there?  And if you left when a minor, you could not have been too cognizant of the surroundings (but then that was just last year, right?).

And there must be a warrant for your arrest upon your return, right?  and that is why you did not go back?

Oh, I see.  So you were not against freeing the slaves, just civil rights?  Kind of like bobby.  Yea, how far are you in the grand order?  Kleagle yet?

Please run away and take your juvenile insults with you.  I guess we have enough of your lies.  I know, everything I type is a lie.  And how do we know?  Mr. Know It All says so!

Q. What does smoking have to do with global warming or the hole in the ozone layer?

A. Nothing.

Please keep the conversation on subject.

That's a joke. I say, that's a joke, son!

Gentlemen, let's try to keep the language clean, the discussion civil and on-topic. Thanks.

I appologize for polluting your blog.  An excellent thesis and I appreciate being a part of the discussion.

Apology accepted Doc. Mumblefratz was on the attack the moment he walked in the door. While I deleted two of his posts due to the language used, I'll let the rest of it stand.

It will be interesting to see if there is any follow-up to the original research and what the results are. Time will tell!

With Mumble, anyone who questions the assumptions upon which AGW theory is based is either an idiot or an untrustworthy tool of Big Oil.  All AGW proponents are pure, all opponents tainted in some way.  The value of any information is determined exclusively by where it came from, not its content.  AGW is in his mind accepted fact (settled science), therefore any burden of proof is exclusively on those who question its assumptions.

As long as we're on the subject: interesting read.

The sad part is that the arguments he uses to minimize the sources he does not like can also be applied to his sources.

Such as he only wants to use "Climatologist", but Pachauri, head of the IPCC is not one, nor is Mann.  And climatology is not a branch of science, just an interaction of several branches.  But he discounts anyone in those branches as not being an authority. 

Too many of the AGW religious are like him, and nothing short of the destruction of the planet is going to convince they are wrong.  It is like the Daffy Duck cartoon (the one where he is auditioning for a spot on a show and blows himself up).  They can only be proved wrong once - but there will be no one around afterwards to say "see, we told you so".