Climate stupidity 8: Shoot the messenger, not the message

A friend in facebook, will refer to him here as HIM1, posted in his status last April 22, Earth Day. I commented on it, then his other friend, HIM2, came to support HIM1. Here are our exchanges, from April 22 to April 29, 2011.

HIM1: The first Earth Day worked because of the spontaneous response at the grassroots level. We had neither the time nor resources to organize 20 million demonstrators and the thousands of schools and local communities that participated. That was the remarkable thing about Earth Day. It organized itself.

Wake Up Earthlings!
How the First Earth Day Came About By Senator Gaylord Nelson, Founder of Earth Day What was the purpose of Earth Day? How did it start? These are the questions I am most frequently asked. Actually, the idea for Earth Day evolved over a period of seven y...

Nonoy Oplas Pare, the planet is never and was never in danger, it's all part of natural climate cycles of warming-cooling-warming-cooling, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/04/climate-cycle-and-forecasts.html

HIM2: Check tis out: 6th (of d six) global warming skeptic who changed his mind: http://resourceefficiency.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/6th-of-d-six-global-warming-skeptic-who-changed-his-mind/

if der s no problem w/ d planet den we can pollute more....waste more energy....hmmmm...very nice!

Nonoy Oplas: Pollution includes many other gases -- CO, NOx, lead, particulates, mercury, etc. The warming scam targets mainly CO2, hence the various regulations and prohibitions to control and tax CO2. I also don't like the emission of many other pollutant gases, but CO2 is not a harmful gas. It's the gas that you and I exhale, the gas that our pets and animals exhale, the gas that our plants and trees need for photosynthesis.

HIM2: here's d 5th (of d six) global warming skeptic who changed his mind: http://resourceefficiency.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/5th-of-d-six-global-warming-skeptic-who-changed-his-mind/

warming scam?????

Nonoy Oplas: Weird. I showed my article with lots of graphs and data, very updated data like the same week where I wrote that article, you reply with literature with zero graph or data. Ok, here's another article, 2 graphs of sea ice extent in Arctic and Antarctica, then 2 satellite pictures of the same polar region, data as of the other day, Apr. 21, 2011, http://www.thelobbyist.biz/perspectives/less-gorvernment/666-lent-and-the-crucifixion-of-climate-science

HIM2: here's d 4th (of d six) global warming skeptic who changed his mind: http://resourceefficiency.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/4th-of-d-six-global-warming-skeptic-who-changed-his-mind/
pple have a choice: either one become part of d solution or one is part of the problem.

my choice: “I wish 2b a catalyst in d quest 4an environmentally sustainable, spiritually fulfilling & socially just human presence in tis planet……”
EQ or IQ?

Nonoy Oplas: That's why man-made warming is a new religion. Based on faith and belief, not science. Even if climate data show there is warming-cooling-warming-cooling cycles, people just keep their faith. And the UN, governments are too happy to impose new environmental regulations, new carbon taxes, carbon cap and trade, climate bureaucracies, get new climate loans, etc.

HIM1: Pareng Nonoy, you want graphs and data debunking the deniers of global warming. Here it is: www.durangobill.com/Swindle_Swindle.html. It's the same old story of how so called global warming skeptics or climate change deniers fraudulently misrepresented both the data involved and scientists who have researched global climate just to support their warped view that global warming is a myth.

try watching this video and maybe you'll be enlightened on the urgency for adopting decisive solutions to climate change: http://youtu.be/zORv8wwiadQ

BTW, is your organization, Minimal Government, a member of the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change (CSCCC)? Based on reports, the CSCCC was organized by the International Policy Network (IPN) which is a well known recipient of Exxon funding. IPN has received $390,000 from Exxon. Here's the link: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/outsourcing-skepticism.php#ch03 Just asking lang, Pareng Nonoy.

Nonoy Oplas: Thanks for the links, pare. Those are old data. Let me give you a link of pure data, updated weekly or daily. Zero discussion, just plain, hard data and graphs. (1) Arctic, Greenland, Antarctica, other polar ice data, http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/ocean/ (2) sea surface temperature data, el nino southern oscillation (ENSO), http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/enso/, and (3) solar activity, solar flux, cosmic rays, ap index, etc., also updated daily, http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/.

About Exxon funding, etc., pls don't start the ad hominem criticism pare. It is easy to dig dirt about Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC, FCCC, Jim Hansen, etc. So let us focus on data. Prove, zero doubt, that climate change is NEVER natural, that there is no such thing as warming-cooling-warming-cooling cycles.

HIM 2: here's 3rd (of d six) global warming skeptic who changed his mind: http://resourceefficiency.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/3rd-of-d-six-global-warming-skeptic-who-changed-his-mind/

itz odd pple r still debating if we need 2help save d planet....man u guys r late....famous skeptics already changed deir hearts...

hmmmm...i didn't know i'm into a new religion...i just wanted 2have better world....been tryin 2stop d pollution since early 90's.....didn't know am brainwashing young & old pple???? duh, am such a bad guy...

Nonoy Oplas: In religion, people don't need graphs, tables, statistical data. They just believe on something, like the existence of a God, it's fine. In the warming religion, people just believe in "man-made warming". Even if you show several dozens, even hundreds, of graphs, charts, tables and satellite pictures, that there is also global cooling occurring in cycle with wwarming. Belief in a particular religion makes people feel good about themselves. Amen.

HIM2: here's d 2nd (of d six) global warming skeptic who changed his mind: http://resourceefficiency.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/2nd-of-d-six-global-warming-skeptic-who-changed-his-mind/.

a lot of pple who believe dat climate change is a joke r very influential in deir fields...some even feel superior & discriminate others....some think they know better coz they know d truth....some loves just love 2argue...

i remember wen a fellow apec workin member on low carbon society told me dat he can interpret his data depending on who is paying him or funding his research....hmmmm he's really cool eh? 4me, i don care as long as he don't discourage pple fr stopping pollution. yes i feel good wen i do d right thing, e.g. saving d planet! i hate polluters...even mind polluters....of course specially those trashing our planet!

HIM1: Pareng Nonoy, the source of your "pure data" is whatssupwiththat.com. Its editor is Anthony Watts, awarded late last year as one of the World's Most Heinous Climate Villains. Here's the reason why AlterNet gave Anthony Watts the notorious award:

"Overnight, went from local TV weatherman to a climate 'expert,' constantly attacking scientific reports for groupthink, grant-seeking greed, and phony data. Sent his minions to photograph those US temperature stations which he claimed were too close to heat sinks, skewing temperature readings.

NOAA decided to take him up on his claim and analyzed the station data from all 1218 sites, and found no evidence of bias or distortion. Anthony instantly dropped the project with no mention of his error and simply began shouting, "Climategate!" -- the oil company e-burglary and nontroversy, which ultimately offered no evidence of scientific wrongdoing. People contribute to the "cookie jar" on his loony blog, but oil and coal companies support him through former pro-smoking "researchers" at the Heartland Institute. Anthony Watts' Most Egregious Lie: "The Hockey Stick is Broken!" Really? The hockey stick has been duplicated in over 20 charts from climate scientists, and vindicated in an exhaustive study by the National Academy of Sciences.”

Source: http://www.polluterwatch.com/category/freetagging/anthony-watts

Nonoy Oplas: Pare, mahilig kayo to focus on personalities and adhominems. Eto, adhominem attack and I have basis for saying this: ALL warming leaders in this country are cowards, duwag, when you challenge them to a public debate on climate. I have written to the top honchos of Earth Hour and WWF, calling their EH campaign as lunatic, showed them my paper why I said so, they only have 1 answer: sound of silence. I have challenged several warming leaders like Tony LaVina, Greenpeace, Oxfam Manila, etc. to a debate, all of them duck. I have written many articles in my blog,http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/, arguing why man-made warming is a joke and a scam, ALL with climate data to prove. Now, if you can produce any sensible, ready to square off in a debate on climate science and policy, thank you, you can disprove that not ALL warming leaders here are cowards. But my challenge remains, anywhere anyday. We debate data vs data, graph vs graph, satellite picture vs satlelite picture, of (a) air temp, lower troposphere, (b) land surface temp, (c) sea surface temp (SST), (d) polar ice, ARctic and Antarctica, (e) sea level height. Produce the latest data possible, preferably as of 1 day or 1 week before the scheduled debate.

In the US, Heartland organized 4 intl. conf on climate change (ICCC), 2 of which (1st and 2nd ICCC) were held in NYC in 2008 and 2009. NYC is the HQ of the UN and all its climate bureaucracies (IPCC, FCCC, UNEP, etc.). About 700 participants worldwide attended each of those ICCC, mostly scientists (physicists, meteorologists, climatologists, geologists, biologists, etc.) who openly and explicitly challenge the IPCC reports. Al Gore, IPCC head Pachauri, other key authors of the IPCC reports were all invited. And ALL of them chicken out, no show cowards. If the IPCC is so sure of its position, why didnt it send 100 or 500 of their "thousands of warming scientists" to debate face to face with those who question their reports? Only cowards and those unsure of their position duck off from debates. A topic as divisive as man-made warming shd be debated openly. Those who are cowards to open, public debates show that they know they are holding on to political science, not climate science.

HIM2: now i get it....ur a bully! just like d oder climate change skeptics who thought dey r a better human being....anyways here's d 1st (of d six) global warming skeptic who changed his mind:http://resourceefficiency.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/1st-global-warming-skeptic-who-changed-his-mind/

sir nonoy oplas....der r lotz of earth warriors around...pls don't call pple cowards...u might regret it afterward....

Nonoy Oplas: Bully ba yon manghamon ka lang ng debate, fair debate? Tapos yong hinamon mo, palaging nasa dyaryo, sa tv, sa radyo, sa kalsada, so sure of what they are saying that the earth is in crisis and they are the saviors of the planet? Pag hinamon mo sa debate, parang kuting at tuta na ayaw magsalita? sus ginoo. Sabi nga ni Dong Abay ng Yano dati eh, "banal na aso, santong kabayo, natatawa ako, hehehehe"
-------

See the trend? Ask them to produce graphs, tables, data, the most updated ones (say, data as of yesterday) that produce definite, unequivocal warming. And they give you literatures how bad, how corrupted by big oil money, etc. the people are who question their religion. And the funniest thing there is when I asked for a debate, square public and transparent debate, I was accused of being a bully. Really strange.

See related article, Climate stupidity 3: Cowards to face public debates