Michael Crichton on Environmentalism

[jim_scotti]

A very interesting article on the "religion" of Environmentalism:

Michael Crichton Remarks to the Commonwealth Club (http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html)

Michael Crichton in Remarks to the Commonwealth Club:

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.


Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past. So it's time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.

Jim.

[EvilYeti]

Hmmm, here is Crichton (a medical doctor and fiction writer), on global warming


I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit.


I wonder what career climatologists Thomas Karl:

Amer. Meteor. Soc., Fellow (1993) Amer. Assoc. of State Climatologists, Landsberg Award(1993) Amer. Meteor. Soc. Editors Award, J. Climate (1988) Dept. of Commerce Gold Medal (1991) NOAA Administrator's Award (1989) Dept. of Commerce Bronze Medal (1988)

Editor Journal of Climate Associate Editor Climatic Change National Research Council Climate Research Committee (1991-present) Panel on EOSDIS (1992-94) Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1990-1992) Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change Lead Author 1995 Lead Author 1992 Lead Author 1990 Public Affairs: Numerous news media interviews, testimony to U.S. Congress and briefings to cabinet level officials and Vice President of the US.

and Kevin Trenberth:

Fellow American Meteorological Society, 1985- * Fellow American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1994- * Honorary Fellow Royal Society of New Zealand, 1995 * NCAR Best Publication Award Nominee, 1988,~1989,~1992,~1993,~1994 * NCAR Outstanding Education Performance Award Nominee, 1996 * American Meteorological Society Editors Award (J. Climate), 1989 * Jule G. Charney award, American Meteorological Society, 2000

... have to say about AGW in a recent article in Science?

Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability. The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition. These perturbations primarily result from emissions associated with energy use, but on local and regional scales, urbanization and land use changes are also important.


Hmmmm... who to believe on science issues, hack novelist or real scientist?

Sorry Michael, I have to go with the real deal. Stick with the pulp ficion.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Hmmm, here is Crichton (a medical doctor and fiction writer), on global warming



I wonder what career climatologists Thomas Karl:

Amer. Meteor. Soc., Fellow (1993) Amer. Assoc. of State Climatologists, Landsberg Award(1993) Amer. Meteor. Soc. Editors Award, J. Climate (1988) Dept. of Commerce Gold Medal (1991) NOAA Administrator's Award (1989) Dept. of Commerce Bronze Medal (1988)

Editor Journal of Climate Associate Editor Climatic Change National Research Council Climate Research Committee (1991-present) Panel on EOSDIS (1992-94) Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1990-1992) Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change Lead Author 1995 Lead Author 1992 Lead Author 1990 Public Affairs: Numerous news media interviews, testimony to U.S. Congress and briefings to cabinet level officials and Vice President of the US.

and Kevin Trenberth:

Fellow American Meteorological Society, 1985- * Fellow American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1994- * Honorary Fellow Royal Society of New Zealand, 1995 * NCAR Best Publication Award Nominee, 1988,~1989,~1992,~1993,~1994 * NCAR Outstanding Education Performance Award Nominee, 1996 * American Meteorological Society Editors Award (J. Climate), 1989 * Jule G. Charney award, American Meteorological Society, 2000

... have to say about AGW in a recent article in Science?


Well, duh, Yeti. Isn't it obvious that those guys are all just High Priests of the Church of Environmentalism. :D

[Charlie Monoxide]

I'll stick with Reagan's assessment that trees are causing most of the pollution.

Charlie (one for the gipper) Monoxide

[Larspeart]

I love endangered species!

They go great with a red wine sauce and lots of garlic!

Mmm, Giant Panda!

Yum yum, florida panther!

Mmmmmmm, Mountain Gorilla!

And don't even mention the white rhino. My mouth is already salivating enough as it is!

[Luke T.]

I agree with Crichton on at least one thing. The politicization of environmentalism. It has made figuring out the truth to global warming very difficult for this layman.

[Luke T.]

I also agree with Crichton about dire predicitons not coming true. All my life, there have been doom and gloom predictions from environmentalists and psychics. It is hard to tell the difference between the two. They both have about the same hit rate. So any more "the sky is falling" predictions are a real hard sell to me.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I also agree with Crichton about dire predicitons not coming true. All my life, there have been doom and gloom predictions from environmentalists and psychics. It is hard to tell the difference between the two. They both have about the same hit rate. So any more "the sky is falling" predictions are a real hard sell to me.

Playing devil's advocate (as I'm not particularly pro or con environmentalism):

The "doom and gloom" predictions of environmentalists were designed to change policy, and it could be argued that some of these predictions did not come true because polices were changed or programs enacted. (Think EPA, widespread recycling, etc.)

With psychic predictions, it buys into that "fate" crap. Something WILL happen, and if it doesn't, well, you just didn't interpret the prediction correctly. I don't know if any psychics use the "well, it COULD have happened, but the fact that I told people about my prediction stopped it" excuse.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I also agree with Crichton about dire predicitons not coming true. All my life, there have been doom and gloom predictions from environmentalists and psychics. It is hard to tell the difference between the two. They both have about the same hit rate. So any more "the sky is falling" predictions are a real hard sell to me.

Hey Luke, This was before my time, but I heard that enviromentalists were up in arms about global cooling in the 70's. Is that true?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tony


Hey Luke, This was before my time, but I heard that enviromentalists were up in arms about global cooling in the 70's. Is that true?

In the 70s, it was mostly about overpopulation and dwindling natural resources. We'd all be hungry or dead by now. There were some concerns about the number of Apollo space launches having an effect on the ozone layer.

I think the first time I remember anything about global cooling was the "nuclear freeze" scare of the 80s. Global thermonuclear war would bring an early ice age.

Current global warming predictions also say that after global warming reaches a critical point, we will be plunged into an ice age.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Cleon


The "doom and gloom" predictions of environmentalists were designed to change policy, and it could be argued that some of these predictions did not come true because polices were changed or programs enacted. (Think EPA, widespread recycling, etc.)



There is no way environmentalists could take credit for us not running out of natural resources or the overpopulation problems they predicted. Those were their biggest doom and gloom predictions.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I agree with Crichton on at least one thing. The politicization of environmentalism. It has made figuring out the truth to global warming very difficult for this layman.

But the junk science deniers from the petroleum industry are worse.

It's not hard if you understand if you listen to the experts, for example the ones I quoted above.

[HarryKeogh]

tell crichton to stick to writing books about dinosaurs who sue for sexual harassment or something like that.

[corplinx]

When I was growing up in the 80s, the doomsday prophecies of the environmentalists said there would be no trees or breathable air now.

Somehow these folks get less scorn than the marks in the rapture community.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
tell crichton to stick to writing books about dinosaurs who sue for sexual harassment or something like that.

No doubt. His books are so riddled with science errors that I have a very hard time taking him seriously in the non-fiction world.

Edit: Here's a nice article on junk-science in Crichton's latest novel, Prey.

http://www.nanotech-now.com/Chris-Phoenix/prey-critique-old.htm

It's delightfully ironic as the author complains about Crichtons gloom-n-doom predictions for nanotechnology. He even references a collegue that said Jurassic Park set public perception of genetic research back ten years.

I guess doomsday scenarios are only wrong when Chrichton isn't making money from them.

[hgc]

Originally posted by corplinx
When I was growing up in the 80s, the doomsday prophecies of the environmentalists said there would be no trees or breathable air now.

Somehow these folks get less scorn than the marks in the rapture community. No trees by now? By 2003? Please cite. In the meantime, the rain forests, which provide a vast majority of the Earth's oxygen, are being whittled away at a fast clip.

Classic strawman. You should know better.

[Larspeart]

A wise man once said that ''the Earth is not in trouble. The Earth has been here for several billions years. it has been through meteors, floods, earthquakes, plagues, droughts, ice ages, continental drift, tectonic plate shifting, the magnetic reversal of the poles, and both it, and the life on it have all made it out just fine.

The Earth is fine. The PEOPLE are f---ed!''

-George Carlin

I honestly believe this. I hold no grandiose belief that humans are the end of the road in evolution. I don't believe ours is to be a permanent species, or that we can in any way 'destroy all life on Earth'. Maybe we could, but I doubt we will. I give us, at present expansion and development, TOPS 5,000 more years as a species. I'm not going to site anyone or anything, because this is simply a personal belief of mine.

Lets say we cut down the trees, burn the fields, and torch the air. Give the Earth 10,000 years, and it'll be living again. Give it 100,000 years, and most of the major ststems will be up and running. Give it 1-5 million years, and the Earth will once again be flourishing with life.

We just won't be here.



:)

[Luke T.]

In his 1969 article "Eco-Catastrophe!" Ehrlich predicted the following: the oceans dead from DDT poisoning by 1979 and devoid of fish; 200,000 deaths from "smog disasters" in New York and Los Angeles in 1973; U.S. life expectancy dropping to 42 years by 1980 because of pesticide-induced cancers, with U.S. population declining to 22.6 million by 1999 (!), and so on.


Link1. (http://www.sepp.org/misuse/failpred.html)

[Luke T.]

Earth Day 1970 provoked a torrent of apocalyptic predictions. "We have about five more years at the outside to do something," ecologist Kenneth Watt declared to a Swarthmore College audience on April 19, 1970. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that "civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind."

Link2. (http://reason.com/0005/fe.rb.earth.shtml)

[Larspeart]

Great posts and links!

[Luke T.]

I found a very interesting link about global warming. Here is something that has always been on my mind about the predictions:


The models that employ the various scenarios are poor at replicat-ing past climate and even current weather conditions.

Link3. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/books/climate/009-22.pdf)

It seems to me if someone writes a computer model to project into the future, they should be able to play it in reverse and see if it matches up with actual historical patterns. I would think that would be a real test of the model's validity.

[Luke T.]

Hey, Tony! From that last link I placed on here:

From 1940 to the mid-1970s, global temperatures declined a little, setting off speculation about global cooling.

So there you go.

[jim_scotti]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


But the junk science deniers from the petroleum industry are worse.

It's not hard if you understand if you listen to the experts, for example the ones I quoted above.

That's pretty much what Crichton was saying, though - there are the legitimate scientists that are actually working on problems, but the overwhelming majority of environmentalists are not scientists and they are propagating their beliefs rather than real facts. I am a scientist, but not an expert in environmental issues and I can tell you that looking at the global warming issues and other environmental issues leaves me wondering who to believe! Both sides can trot out their favorite scientists to support their favorite theory or doomsday scenario. I think Crichton has a point that it has gone beyond science and descended into the realm of faith, and that needs to change so that we can deal with the environment in a less political way.

Jim.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by hgc

Classic strawman. You should know better.

Zing!

Look when I was growing up in the 80s there was lots of this propaganda about a treeless hot earth. No I can't cite any of it since it came from TV mostly.

I don't appreciate you brushing it off as me making a strawman. I am open to my recollection being wrong.

[hgc]

Originally posted by corplinx


Zing!

Look when I was growing up in the 80s there was lots of this propaganda about a treeless hot earth. No I can't cite any of it since it came from TV mostly.

I don't appreciate you brushing it off as me making a strawman. I am open to my recollection being wrong. Sorry if I was a bit harsh. But I can't imagine any credible predictions of a treeless Earth by now, which seems to be the basis of your discounting warnings about the reduction of oxygen-producing greenery. The fact remains that the very forests that supply most of our oxygen are being destroyed, regardless of someone may or may not have predicted 20 years ago. This is why I called strawman. By the way, this is a different, albeit related, issue to global warming, something about which I am not so certain.

Not to mention the permanent destruction of biodiversity that attends to this.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by corplinx


Zing!

Look when I was growing up in the 80s there was lots of this propaganda about a treeless hot earth. No I can't cite any of it since it came from TV mostly.

I don't appreciate you brushing it off as me making a strawman. I am open to my recollection being wrong.

I suspect you are thinking Mad Max Beyong Thunderdome. It was a movie, not a documentary.

[Larspeart]

I was under thbe impression that the oceans (which take up far more cubic miles of Earth's surface then the forests do) was where MOST of our oxygen was produced.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by jim_scotti


That's pretty much what Crichton was saying, though - there are the legitimate scientists that are actually working on problems, but the overwhelming majority of environmentalists are not scientists and they are propagating their beliefs rather than real facts. I am a scientist, but not an expert in environmental issues and I can tell you that looking at the global warming issues and other environmental issues leaves me wondering who to believe! Both sides can trot out their favorite scientists to support their favorite theory or doomsday scenario.

Therefore, I don't pay any attention to what the "scientists" that either side "trots out." I look to see what the climatologists and atmospheric scientists are saying.

Of course, I have an advantage in that I know a few of them personally.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


I suspect you are thinking Mad Max Beyong Thunderdome. It was a movie, not a documentary.

Or it could be the South American rainforest issue brought up in the elementary classroom. I imagine a lot of teachers in the 80s and even today, tie the environmentalist deforestation thing into a question like, "What would the earth be like without trees?" I can see how in a youngsters mind this would form the belief we were running out of trees. WE MUST SAVE THE POOR TREES OR WE WILL ALL DIE!

[DanishDynamite]

The bottom line is, and will be for the foreseeable future, that we as a species exist in just one place: the third rock from the Sun. Hence, if we wish to continue to exist, we better make damn sure that the third rock will continue to be a livable home.

Just 50,000 years ago (a blink of the eye, geologically) we numbered in the "few" million range. Our presence was of almost no consequence for the environment around us. Today, we are approaching 7 billion. And each of us are consuming orders of magnitude more resources and producing orders of magnitude more waste, per capita. And the amount of both is steadily rising.

Mainstream scientists investigating the "livability" of our only home and our influence on it, are now telling us that our wastes "appear" to be having a tangible effect on our only home, and a negative effect at that. There is a lot of uncertainty though, say the non-mainstream scientists, regarding exactly how much our wastes are affecting the system. It's quite possible, say the non-mainstreamers, that we aren't affecting our only home all that much yet.

Personally, I'd invest substantially in off-Earth habitats, just to be sure of a back-up. Barring that, I'm siding with the mainstream doom-and-gloomers.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by hgc
Sorry if I was a bit harsh. But I can't imagine any credible predictions of a treeless Earth by now, which seems to be the basis of your discounting warnings about the reduction of oxygen-producing greenery. The fact remains that the very forests that supply most of our oxygen are being destroyed, regardless of someone may or may not have predicted 20 years ago. This is why I called strawman. By the way, this is a different, albeit related, issue to global warming, something about which I am not so certain.

Not to mention the permanent destruction of biodiversity that attends to this.

Ah, yes. The cure for cancer is hiding somewhere in the rainforest in the bark of a tree. Or the plague that will kill the world is lurking in a pond waiting for some unsuspecting lumberjack to step in it.

[c0rbin]

I agree with George Carlin :)

Environmentalists have marketing problems, not science problems. They need to change the signs from "Save the Whales" to "Save Your Children"

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I suspect you are thinking Mad Max Beyong Thunderdome. It was a movie, not a documentary. I think the rather large number of post-apocalyptic films released in the 80s would likely tend to merge together with the classroom environmentalism in many young minds. And sometimes the distinction is blurry in any case. I recall a book read in some class or other with the premise that machines controlled the world and humans were only kept around to fix them... the tie in being that for some reason the machines paved the entire earth and all humans were kept on a constantly moving train. The protagonist defeats the machines by finding an apple tree pushing through the concrete and eventually throwing the apple at the head computer and hitting the off switch. :D

(This was an english class, btw)

As others have said, I tend to disregard "End of the World" scenarios simply because their track record is so poor. That means one may sneak up on me, but hey, I'll be dead at that point anyway ;)

[hgc]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Ah, yes. The cure for cancer is hiding somewhere in the rainforest in the bark of a tree. Or the plague that will kill the world is lurking in a pond waiting for some unsuspecting lumberjack to step in it. Cure for cancer? I don't know. But many of our medicines do originate from rainforest plants. The cynic in me says, "sure let's just wipe out the vast majority of the human race, and soon -- at least the survivors' descendents will have a chance at long-term habitation on this planet." But I'd rather find a way for the billions that live here now to level off population growth, and act like we have a choice about keeping this planet suitable for human occupation.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by hgc
Cure for cancer? I don't know. But many of our medicines do originate from rainforest plants. The cynic in me says, "sure let's just wipe out the vast majority of the human race, and soon -- at least the survivors' descendents will have a chance at long-term habitation on this planet." But I'd rather find a way for the billions that live here now to level off population growth, and act like we have a choice about keeping this planet suitable for human occupation. Last I heard the birthrate in Europe is well below the number to replenish the population. National Geographic had a lovely chart of Europe showing the birthrates... 2.1 is needed for a stable population level, most were well below 2.

Maybe it's just me, but I find the thought of the earth's population slowly dwindling to nothing at least as disturbing as overpopulation causing starving and other assorted nastiness. After all, overpopulation has simple solutions... a good old fashioned world war, virulent plague etc. Underpopulation has rather fewer options on that front.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Last I heard the birthrate in Europe is well below the number to replenish the population. National Geographic had a lovely chart of Europe showing the birthrates... 2.1 is needed for a stable population level, most were well below 2. Now, if only the rest of the world would behave that way, we'd be on to something.Maybe it's just me, but I find the thought of the earth's population slowly dwindling to nothing at least as disturbing as overpopulation causing starving and other assorted nastiness. After all, overpopulation has simple solutions... a good old fashioned world war, virulent plague etc. Underpopulation has rather fewer options on that front. Yes, in some ways it would be difficult problem to sustain society with falling populations, especially with longer life expectancies. But, trying to sustain the habitability of Earth with our current growth rate is a losing proposition.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by hgc
Now, if only the rest of the world would behave that way, we'd be on to something.Well, bring some friends and scissors and we can "fix" the problem... ;)

(ooh, now there's a suggestion that'll horrify everyone :D)

[Luke T.]

Isn't it more than a little egotistical for someone to predict The End Of The World?

I appreciate what some environmentalists have done. If it weren't for them, some companies would still be dumping lead or mercury or what-have-you into our rivers and streams and Lake Erie would be still burning. So we owe them a debt of gratitude.

And we need somebody out there to keep a weather eye on things. Make sure we don't slide backwards.

These predictors of gloom and doom only introduce cynicism and reluctance to the equation. I suppose in the beginning of the movement, they felt it was necessary to scream very loudly to halt the momentum of destruction that was occurring and get it turned around. Maybe they got used to the attention and felt making stuff up was okay after a while. I don't know.

I think the predictions of global warming are unproven. It needs to be studied without the histrionics attached. For example, if a politician expresses doubt about the validity of global warming disasters, we don't need them labelled as a monster or enemy of the environment. That is just plain crap.

Many level-headed people have doubts about the predictions.

[DanishDynamite]

Luke T.For example, if a politician expresses doubt about the validity of global warming disasters, we don't need them labelled as a monster or enemy of the environment. That is just plain crap.Indeed it is.
Many level-headed people have doubts about the predictions. And I'm one of them.

The problem, Luke, is that I'm not much into conspiracy theories. If a majority of meteoroligists/climatoligsts around the world say that their evalution of the facts currently available is that human-induced Global Warming is quite possibly true, I take this at face-value.

These are people who have had their articles put through the scientific method's grinder. If you believe that their conclusion is just a "conspiracy" then I presume you have no faith at all in peer reviewed articles. On any scientific subject.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Luke T.And I'm one of them.

The problem, Luke, is that I'm not much into conspiracy theories. If a majority of meteoroligists/climatoligsts around the world say that their evalution of the facts currently available is that human-induced Global Warming is quite possibly true, I take this at face-value.

These are people who have had their articles put through the scientific method's grinder. If you believe that their conclusion is just a "conspiracy" then I presume you have no faith at all in peer reviewed articles. On any scientific subject.

There appears to be an equal number of peer reviewed articles that say it is not true.

The last article I linked is a very interesting read. Have you read it?

edited to add: The last line of the link:


From a scientific viewpoint the evidence for global warming must be ‘‘not proven.’’

[DanishDynamite]

Luke:There appears to be an equal number of peer reviewed articles that say it is not true. Not to my knowledge. Would you have a link?
The last article I linked is a very interesting read. Have you read it?Just had a very brief look. Could you summarize its findings?

[Luke T.]

Lots of anti-global warming concerns here. (http://www.cato.org/current/global-warming/index.html)

[Luke T.]

Interesting.


The predictions of doom rely on the National Assessment of the impact of climate change, which the Clinton team concocted to help Al Gore. The National Assessment was subject to devastating criticism by a wide range of scientists.

Perhaps the best comment during the peer review process came from Dr. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia and the Cato Institute, who demonstrated that the two computer models used did a poorer job of predicting temperature record for the past 100 years than "a table of random numbers."

Edited to add: Link 5. (http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,03052.cfm)

[Luke T.]

Someone should remind Gore that over 17,000 scientifically literate persons signed the Oregon Petition that rejected the global warming hypothesis.


Link 6. (http://www.globalwarming.org/sciup/sci11-25-98.html)

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Lots of anti-global warming concerns here. (http://www.cato.org/current/global-warming/index.html) From your link of concerns:

"Below, find a listing of the studies, commentaries, books and media appearances by Cato scholars that address the issues surrounding global warming."

What am I supposed to gleam from this link, Luke? How does it address my question in any way, shape or form?

[Luke T.]

''There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.''


The carping of an oil-industry flack? The ignorant mutterings of fringe antienvironmentalists?


No. It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. The statement was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine along with an eight-page abstract of the latest research on climate change. The abstract - written for scientists but comprehensible by laymen - concludes that there is no basis for believing (1) that atmospheric CO2 is causing a dangerous climb in global temperatures, (2) that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful, or (3) that human activity leads to global warming in the first place.


The cover letter accompanying the petition and abstract was penned by Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences. (All these documents are available online at www.oism.org/pproject.) The scientific ''consensus'' on global warming, it turns out, does not exist.


The Oregon Institute petition is no anomaly.



Link 7. (http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p725.htm)

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Interesting.

Edited to add: Link 5. (http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,03052.cfm) What is you point? How does this link fit in with my question?

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Luke T.



Link 6. (http://www.globalwarming.org/sciup/sci11-25-98.html) Something about people signing a petition. Once again, how does this address my point regarding mainstream meteoroligist/climatoligists?

[Luke T.]

Just showing you that your claim of "a majority of meteoroligists/climatoligsts around the world say that their evalution of the facts currently available is that human-induced Global Warming is quite possibly true" is questionable. Maybe you could back that up?

At the very least, you can see why my original statement that reasonable people have doubts about the global warming catastrophic predictions was made, can't you?

[Luke T.]

A survey of over 400 German, American and Canadian climate researchers conducted by the Meteorologisches Institut der Universitat Hamburg and the GKSS Forschungszentrum found that 67% of those surveyed either disagreed or were uncertain about the proposition that global warming will occur so quickly that lack of preparation could prove disastrous.

Link 8. (http://www.nationalcenter.org/TP38.html)

How's that?

[Luke T.]

From the same link:


Claim: Thousands of scientists have signed letters and petitions alerting the public to the dangers of global warming.

Fact: One of the letters often cited to support this claim was issued by Ozone Action. A close examination of that letter revealed that only 10% of the letter's signatories had backgrounds in climate science. Worse, landscape architects, a gynecologist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine are among the signatories.

and


Claim: 2,500 United Nations-sponsored scientists have concluded that human greenhouse gas emissions are warming the temperature of the planet.

Fact: This claim is based on the fact that the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report suggesting a "discernible human influence" on climate change. While several thousand scientists were consulted in crafting the report, not all of them agreed with its conclusions. As Dr. John W. Zillman, one of these scientists noted: "[The IPCC was] meticulous in insisting that the final decision on whether to accept particular review comments should reside with chapter Lead Authors... Some Lead Authors ignored valid critical comments or failed to... reflect dissenting views..." The report was therefore the result of a political rather than a scientific process.

Edited to add: So much for "peer review," DD.


A 1992 Gallup survey of climatologists found that 81 percent of respondents believed that the global temperature had not risen over the past 100 years, were uncertain whether or not or why such warming had occurred, or believed any temperature increases during that period were within the natural range of variation. Further, a 1997 survey conducted by American Viewpoint found that state climatologists believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon by a margin of 44% to 17%.

Should I keep going?

[corplinx]

All I know is that I bought Prey by Michael Crichton and I think he owes me 19.99 plus tax and an apology.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.

There appears to be an equal number of peer reviewed articles that say it is not true.

Thats your problem right there, Luke. You have not provided a single peer-reviewed science article in any of your links. Neither SEPP, Reason Magazine or the Cato institute are scientific research bodies. In fact, they all have strong ties to corporate interests, so can we really trust them to be unbiased with regards to research that would show those interests in a negative light?

Considering the track record of the tobacco industry and their position on cigarettes and cancer, I would be very wary of industry sponsored "science".

As a skeptic, wouldn't you agree?

The last article I linked is a very interesting read. Have you read it?



Thats a position paper. Its opinion, not science. Notice it hasn't been published in a science journal.

What do you think about the quote I published earlier

Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability. The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition. These perturbations primarily result from emissions associated with energy use, but on local and regional scales, urbanization and land use changes are also important.


It's the complete opposite of yours. Yet mine comes from two very well respected career climatologists and yours comes from an oil industry propaganda mill.

Who should we trust? Be honest.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by corplinx
All I know is that I bought Prey by Michael Crichton and I think he owes me 19.99 plus tax and an apology.

I take it you won't be going to see the movie Timeline then? :D

[DanishDynamite]

Luke T.Just showing you that your claim of "a majority of meteoroligists/climatoligsts around the world say that their evalution of the facts currently available is that human-induced Global Warming is quite possibly true" is questionable. Maybe you could back that up?Youy have shown no such thing. Still, I'll back it up. I wonder how you can even think this claim is untrue, but I'll back it up. For now, though, it's past my bedtime.
At the very least, you can see why my original statement that reasonable people have doubts about the global warming catastrophic predictions was made, can't you? I can. But it has nothing to do with your links. As I said before, I'm not a 100% convinced. Given the stakes, though, and my lack of faith in world-wide conspiracies, I know which side of the fence I'll be on.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


It's the complete opposite of yours. Yet mine comes from two very well respected career climatologists and yours comes from an oil industry propaganda mill.

Who should we trust? Be honest.

Which particular source is an "oil industry propaganda mill," and how do you know this?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Luke T.Youy have shown no such thing.

"A 1992 Gallup survey of climatologists found that 81 percent of respondents believed that the global temperature had not risen over the past 100 years, were uncertain whether or not or why such warming had occurred, or believed any temperature increases during that period were within the natural range of variation. Further, a 1997 survey conducted by American Viewpoint found that state climatologists believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon by a margin of 44% to 17%."

That is your idea of showing no such thing? :confused:

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.

Should I keep going?

No, I think you have more than adequately diplayed that you have no understanding of the difference between science and propaganda.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.

Which particular source is an "oil industry propaganda mill," and how do you know this?


Financial firms kicking in big checks to Cato include American Express, Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank, Citicorp/Citibank, Commonwealth Fund, Prudential Securities and Salomon Brothers. Energy conglomerates: Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. Cato's pharmaceutical donors include Eli Lilly & Company, Merck & Company and Pfizer, Inc.


source:http://www.accuracy.org/articles/cato.htm

Hey Luke, why bother quitting smoking? The tobacco industry says it doesn't cause cancer. And go ahead and exhale on the twins, it won't hurt 'em. Uncle Cato says so!

The Second-Hand Smoke Charade (http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-28-98.html)

Who needs science when you have biased corporate propaganda?

Way to be a creduloid, Luke.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EvilYeti




source:http://www.accuracy.org/articles/cato.htm

Hey Luke, why bother quitting smoking? The tobacco industry says it doesn't cause cancer. And go ahead and exhale on the twins, it won't hurt 'em. Uncle Cato says so!

The Second-Hand Smoke Charade (http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-28-98.html)

Who needs science when you have biased corporate propaganda?

Way to be a creduloid, Luke.

Woah, slow down there buddy. We are talking global warming here not second hand smoke. However, since you chose to bring it up do you believe it(Second Hand Smoke) is harmful, if so where's your evidence?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EvilYeti




source:http://www.accuracy.org/articles/cato.htm

Hey Luke, why bother quitting smoking? The tobacco industry says it doesn't cause cancer. And go ahead and exhale on the twins, it won't hurt 'em. Uncle Cato says so!

The Second-Hand Smoke Charade (http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-28-98.html)

Who needs science when you have biased corporate propaganda?

Way to be a creduloid, Luke.

Also, while I see how it matters who funded the study and how it can lead to bias, tell me, did the study use any flawed data, did any of the scientists start their research with an already esteblished conclusion? Or are you just disregarding their finding on the basis they were funded by "evil oil corporations"?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Grammatron

Woah, slow down there buddy. We are talking global warming here not second hand smoke. However, since you chose to bring it up do you believe it(Second Hand Smoke) is harmful, if so where's your evidence?

So you are agreeing that its perfectly fine to blow tobacco smoke on infants? Hear that Luke, Cato AND Grammatron say its ok! You might as well double your habit!

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Grammatron

Also, while I see how it matters who funded the study and how it can lead to bias, tell me, did the study use any flawed data, did any of the scientists start their research with an already esteblished conclusion? Or are you just disregarding their finding on the basis they were funded by "evil oil corporations"?

It's not a study. I don't know what it is. The authors aren't even named. I don't trust anonymous propaganda.

The "study" didn't so much as use flawed data, rather it's a collection of earth science howlers. Apparently the authors never heard of the "carbon cycle" for example. Not only could this garbage never get published, it wouldn't even get credit for an undergrad research paper. It's nothing but junk science.

And I am very suspicious of propaganda from private organizations paid to produce propaganda by other private organizations. Sorry, its that whole skepticism thing again.

[Aoidoi]

Woah, slow down there buddy. We are talking global warming here not second hand smoke. However, since you chose to bring it up do you believe it(Second Hand Smoke) is harmful, if so where's your evidence?
So you are agreeing that its perfectly fine to blow tobacco smoke on infants? Hear that Luke, Cato AND Grammatron say its ok! You might as well double your habit!Sorry, just had to save this as a beautiful example of a strawman.

Not going to get involved with YAGWT (Yet Another Global Warming Thread), just thought this vastly amusing. :D

[epepke]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I also agree with Crichton about dire predicitons not coming true. All my life, there have been doom and gloom predictions from environmentalists and psychics. It is hard to tell the difference between the two. They both have about the same hit rate. So any more "the sky is falling" predictions are a real hard sell to me.

I think there's a real "boy who cried wolf" aspect to the predictions of environmentalists. In the 60's and 70's, they shot their wad, and if they were right, we'd all be dead by now.

Instead, things are better than they've been in a long time The Thames river and Lake Erie have fish in them, and they have the normal number of eyeballs. This was not true when I was a kid.

Of course, it could be argued that some of the improvement has been due to the pressures of environmentalists, and there has certainly been some of that, mostly to the good (with a few exceptions like wildfires due to overzealous prevention of forest fires).

Yet a the same time, I think that due to ignorance or stupidity, environmentalists have largely voluntarily given up their credibility, by having no sense of when they should shriek at the top of their lungs and when they should not. Which is quite dangerous, because there are certainly environmental considerations that do need to be dealt with, but there's no way to distinguish them from the rest by the shrieking. When you shriek at the top of your lungs, people tend to tune it out.

A low point in public perception of environmentalism came when Carl Sagan, an otherwise mostly sane individual, elected to play press-release science about the Iraqi oil well fires using a 30-cell, one-dimensional atmospheric transport model that completely ignored convection. This bugged me, because at the time I was working at one of the leading centers for atmospheric and oceanic transport models. We were the first to demonstrate that spiky updrafts did occur in thunderstorms and that oil spills posed a significant threat not only to the surface but to fairly deep coral reefs, and we were the only[b] group correctly to predict the [b]direction of travel of an oil spill off Tampa Bay while it was happening. But nobody, including environmentalists, seemed to care at all.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


So you are agreeing that its perfectly fine to blow tobacco smoke on infants? Hear that Luke, Cato AND Grammatron say its ok! You might as well double your habit!

Really, did I say that? Oh no I didn't. That means you are lying, which would make you a liar. Please do not make a habit of putting word into my mouth.

Now, is it ok to blow smoke on infants? I don't know I'm not a scientist and I don't have any raw data that I can put into a yes or a no answer. What I do know, is that based on current studies it's perfectly ok for adults to be around smokers.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Grammatron

Really, did I say that? Oh no I didn't. That means you are lying, which would make you a liar. Please do not make a habit of putting word into my mouth.


You said:

However, since you chose to bring it up do you believe it(Second Hand Smoke) is harmful, if so where's your evidence?


Meaning you don't believe second hand smoke to be harmful. Otherwise, why ask for evidence that it is?

If its not harmful, why could it possibly matter if Luke smoked around his kids?

Now, is it ok to blow smoke on infants? I don't know I'm not a scientist and I don't have any raw data that I can put into a yes or a no answer. What I do know, is that based on current studies it's perfectly ok for adults to be around smokers.

Is it harmful or isn't it? If it doesn't hurt adults why should we assume it hurts children? They are just small versions of adults, anyway.

Seems hypocritical of me to say secondhand smoke is ok for adults and not children, yet provide no evidence to support either assertion.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by epepke

But nobody, including environmentalists, seemed to care at all.

Here's a tip, nobody except other scientists care about science. Sad, but true.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Meaning you don't believe second hand smoke to be harmful. Otherwise, why ask for evidence that it is?

If its not harmful, why could it possibly matter if Luke smoked around his kids?

Now, is it ok to blow smoke on infants? I don't know I'm not a scientist and I don't have any raw data that I can put into a yes or a no answer. What I do know, is that based on current studies it's perfectly ok for adults to be around smokers.

Is it harmful or isn't it? If it doesn't hurt adults why should we assume it hurts children? They are just small versions of adults, anyway.

Seems hypocritical of me to say secondhand smoke is ok for adults and not children, yet provide no evidence to support either assertion. [/QUOTE]

Of course, that is why medication dose for children is exactly the same as it is for adults. Surely someone as educated as you would know that, right?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Grammatron

Of course, that is why medication dose for children is exactly the same as it is for adults. Surely someone as educated as you would know that, right?

Now thats a strawman to bring home to mama!

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Now thats a strawman to bring home to mama!

Don't like the taste of your own medicine? This is how you talk to people on this forum, exaggerate their arguments, switch conversations, and call them stupid when they run you in to a corner.

No matter what you want to call my response you need to tell me of a study that proofs -- and this is important -- that second hand smoke kills. It's not enough that it inconveniences you, killing is what is important.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Grammatron

No matter what you want to call my response you need to tell me of a study that proofs -- and this is important -- that second hand smoke kills. It's not enough that it inconveniences you, killing is what is important.

Then how is it a lie to infer that you endorse smoking around infants as a safe activity? If second hand smoke poses no health risk, whats the big deal?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Then how is it a lie to infer that you endorse smoking around infants as a safe activity? If second hand smoke poses no health risk, whats the big deal?

Show me where I endorsed smoking around infants....I'll wait.

Edited to add:

You can also include evidence of second-hand smoke health risk while you at it.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Show me where I endorsed smoking around infants....I'll wait.

Edited to add:

You can also include evidence of second-hand smoke health risk while you at it.

If there is no danger inherent to second-hand smoke, why would there be any problem at all smoking around infants? Its just the same as air, right?

If you don't endorse smoking around infants as a harmless activity, how have you come to that conclusion?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


If there is no danger inherent to second-hand smoke, why would there be any problem at all smoking around infants? Its just the same as air, right?

If you don't endorse smoking around infants as a harmless activity, how have you come to that conclusion?

If you are not going to answer my question I can only assume you have no answer or the answer will prove your wrong.

Once you answer my question I will comment on the your infants question.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Grammatron

If you are not going to answer my question I can only assume you have no answer or the answer will prove your wrong.

Once you answer my question I will comment on the your infants question.

Quit dodging and answer mine first. You say second-hand smoke is harmless, now explain why it would matter to expose infants to a harmless substance.

Edit:

Anyone can read back to the example I gave regarding second hand smoke was with regards to children. Thats what Grammatron responded to demanding evidence that it was harmful. Unless he's looking for me to tell him something he already knows, the implication is clear that he feels there are no health risks to exposing children to second-hand smoke.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Quit dodging and answer mine first. You say second-hand smoke is harmless, now explain why it would matter to expose infants to a harmless substance.

Actually I asked a question and you made the first dodge. I will answer your question because unlike you I am not afraid to give out my answers instead of strawman and insults.

I don't think it's harmful to smoke around infants; it might be harmful to continuously blow smoke in infant's face for a simple reason that they can't adequately escape that environment or complain that it's bothering them.

Now, can you please provide evidence that prooves second-hand smoke is harmful?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Grammatron

Now, can you please provide evidence that prooves second-hand smoke is harmful?

Sure, read this.

http://www.ariel.com.au/jokes/Smokers_Rights.html

Second hand smoke can even be dangerous to smokers!

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Sure, read this.

http://www.ariel.com.au/jokes/Smokers_Rights.html

Second hand smoke can even be dangerous to smokers!

That's it? This is what you have been arguing over an anecdotal data in the humor section of some website? Tell me, are you mentally challenged?

[Mr Manifesto]

I'm a bit late to this thread, but is this the same Michael Crichton who thought that American business was going to be completely conquered by the relentless Japanese?

[Luke T.]

EvilYeti! :D

Rather than see this thread fall into an ad hominem debacle, I will completely disregard Cato.

That leaves a few other links which show that the majority of climatologists and meteorologists don't buy into the global warming theory doomsday scenario.

So, DanishDynamite, if you are still out there, I don't know how we can prove how many peer reviewed global warming theory papers there are, but if a majority of the people in the field don't buy it, then it is obvious they didn't write papers in favor of it. And it is a safe assumption that some have written papers against it.

And that is what it is, and what it should be called. A Global Warming Theory.

When a majority of the people in the field don't buy the theory, it is not only pretentious, but downright irresponsible for anyone to call on the government to enact policies based on that theory that will affect millions, if not billions, of people, and cost ungodly amounts of money.

[Luke T.]

Another link. (http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/history.htm)


In 1992 - at the height of the global warming scare - Greenpeace International conducted a survey of the world’s 400 leading climatologists. Greenpeace had hoped to publicise the results of that survey in the run-up to the Rio summit, but when they completed the survey, they gave very little publicity to its results. In response to the survey, only 15 climatologists were willing to say they believed in global warming, although all climatologists rely on it for their employment. Also, the Leipzig Declaration disputes the IPCC assertions about man-made global warming. It was drafted following the Leipzig Climate Conference in November 1995 and has been signed by over 1,500 scientists from around the world.

[Luke T.]

These can't all be oil company lackeys, can they?

Yet another link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_of_global_warming)


In 1996 a survey of climate scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related matters was undertaken by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch. The results were subsequently published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 80, No. 3, March 1999 439-455. [1] The paper addressed the views of climate science, with a response rate of 40% from a mail survey questionnaire to 1000 scientists in Germany, the USA and Canada. Almost all scientists agreed that the skill of models was limited.

The abstract indicates an "incompatibility" between the "state of knowledge" and calls for "abatement measures":


The international consensus was, however, apparent regarding the utility of the knowledge to date: climate science has provided enough knowledge so that the initiation of abatement measures is warranted. However, consensus also existed regarding the current inability to explicitly specify detrimental effects that might result from climate change. This incompatibility between the state of knowledge and the calls for action suggests that, to some degree at least, scientific advice is a product of both scientific knowledge and normative judgment, suggesting a socioscientific construction of the climate change issue.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by epepke


I think there's a real "boy who cried wolf" aspect to the predictions of environmentalists. In the 60's and 70's, they shot their wad, and if they were right, we'd all be dead by now.

Instead, things are better than they've been in a long time The Thames river and Lake Erie have fish in them, and they have the normal number of eyeballs. This was not true when I was a kid.

Of course, it could be argued that some of the improvement has been due to the pressures of environmentalists, and there has certainly been some of that, mostly to the good (with a few exceptions like wildfires due to overzealous prevention of forest fires).

Yet a the same time, I think that due to ignorance or stupidity, environmentalists have largely voluntarily given up their credibility, by having no sense of when they should shriek at the top of their lungs and when they should not. Which is quite dangerous, because there are certainly environmental considerations that do need to be dealt with, but there's no way to distinguish them from the rest by the shrieking. When you shriek at the top of your lungs, people tend to tune it out.

A low point in public perception of environmentalism came when Carl Sagan, an otherwise mostly sane individual, elected to play press-release science about the Iraqi oil well fires using a 30-cell, one-dimensional atmospheric transport model that completely ignored convection. This bugged me, because at the time I was working at one of the leading centers for atmospheric and oceanic transport models. We were the first to demonstrate that spiky updrafts did occur in thunderstorms and that oil spills posed a significant threat not only to the surface but to fairly deep coral reefs, and we were the only[b] group correctly to predict the [b]direction of travel of an oil spill off Tampa Bay while it was happening. But nobody, including environmentalists, seemed to care at all.

Outstanding post. Thanks.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Isn't it more than a little egotistical for someone to predict The End Of The World?

I appreciate what some environmentalists have done. If it weren't for them, some companies would still be dumping lead or mercury or what-have-you into our rivers and streams and Lake Erie would be still burning. So we owe them a debt of gratitude.

And we need somebody out there to keep a weather eye on things. Make sure we don't slide backwards.

These predictors of gloom and doom only introduce cynicism and reluctance to the equation. I suppose in the beginning of the movement, they felt it was necessary to scream very loudly to halt the momentum of destruction that was occurring and get it turned around. Maybe they got used to the attention and felt making stuff up was okay after a while. I don't know.

I think the predictions of global warming are unproven. It needs to be studied without the histrionics attached. For example, if a politician expresses doubt about the validity of global warming disasters, we don't need them labelled as a monster or enemy of the environment. That is just plain crap.

Many level-headed people have doubts about the predictions. Hi Luke,

I'm just getting back to this thread today, and I wanted to address this post before anything else.

I'm a little disappointed in what you've said here. This is a completely emotional argument, and as such, useless. I couldn't care less about what is allegedly egotistical or cynical or histrionic. I'm interested whether what we do as humans to make this planet uninhabitable, and how we can reverse that trend. Yeah, sure many predictions of doom haven't born out. Many have too. And our ability to make predictions gets better all the time, based on our experience of raping (big emotion word!) the Earth and seeing the consequences, and on the general advance of scientific knowledge.

The impact of humans on the environment goes back a long way (and indeed, other plant and animal populations also can have an impact). For instance, I don't know how many thousands of years you have to go back to when new human migrants to Australia wiped out much of that continent's forest and created the Australian desert. But they didn't know any better. We do. That's the real pity. We actually have a lot of information about what we can do and not do to avoid disaster, but instead petty short-term economic concerns, or religious lunacy, or whatever, often gets priority. Now that's really cynical.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by hgc
Hi Luke,

I'm just getting back to this thread today, and I wanted to address this post before anything else.

I'm a little disappointed in what you've said here. This is a completely emotional argument, and as such, useless. I couldn't care less about what is allegedly egotistical or cynical or histrionic. I'm interested whether what we do as humans to make this planet uninhabitable, and how we can reverse that trend. Yeah, sure many predictions of doom haven't born out. Many have too. And our ability to make predictions gets better all the time, based on our experience of raping (big emotion word!) the Earth and seeing the consequences, and on the general advance of scientific knowledge.

The impact of humans on the environment goes back a long way (and indeed, other plant and animal populations also can have an impact). For instance, I don't know how many thousands of years you have to go back to when new human migrants to Australia wiped out much of that continent's forest and created the Australian desert. But they didn't know any better. We do. That's the real pity. We actually have a lot of information about what we can do and not do to avoid disaster, but instead petty short-term economic concerns, or religious lunacy, or whatever, often gets priority. Now that's really cynical.

I think the emotion is coming from the environmentalist side. They are the ones predicting the end of the world, after all.

There is an expression we had in the Navy. "Don't ***** in your own nest." I don't dispute that we have done that very thing. I mentioned Lake Eerie catching on fire. I hope the day comes when our grandchildren will be debating whether or not that is a fairy tale or actually happened.

I am sorry that my pointing out that the environmentalist community is prone to histrionics disappoints you. It doesn't make it not true, though. My pointing out others' emotions doesn't make me emotional.

I think the only emotion I expressed here was actually one of gratitude toward the environmentalist community of all things!

And what is wrong with questioning how we should spend our money and our time? Why shouldn't we question if it is a waste of money and time? What if we enact a policy that does no good whatsoever at the expense of actually doing some good?

We need hard information. We don't need histrionics. A lot of environmentalists have lost credibility with their constant sky-is-falling predictions, and make the job so much harder for those who base their conclusions on hard facts and real science.

[Luke T.]

Geez, it took ten minutes for that last post to get posted. The forum must be acting up again. I hesitate to make another one.

Anyway, I just wanted to add that I guess I must be honest and admit to the emotion of being cynical toward the environmental community as well. But since here we are, in 2003, and we are all still here, with oil coming out our ears, and fat to the point of it being the biggest health threat our nation faces, can you really blame me?

So I am grateful and cynical at the same time. Go figure. :)

[hgc]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I think the emotion is coming from the environmentalist side. They are the ones predicting the end of the world, after all.

There is an expression we had in the Navy. "Don't ***** in your own nest." I don't dispute that we have done that very thing. I mentioned Lake Eerie catching on fire. I hope the day comes when our grandchildren will be debating whether or not that is a fairy tale or actually happened.

I am sorry that my pointing out that the environmentalist community is prone to histrionics disappoints you. It doesn't make it not true, though. My pointing out others' emotions doesn't make me emotional.

I think the only emotion I expressed here was actually one of gratitude toward the environmentalist community of all things!

And what is wrong with questioning how we should spend our money and our time? Why shouldn't we question if it is a waste of money and time? What if we enact a policy that does no good whatsoever at the expense of actually doing some good?

We need hard information. We don't need histrionics. A lot of environmentalists have lost credibility with their constant sky-is-falling predictions, and make the job so much harder for those who base their conclusions on hard facts and real science. We're all for saving the Earth, and that's good. Let me be clear, my arguments are not meant to put forth or bolster any histrionic, Chicken Little predictions. I'm interested in hard science and the predictions we can make using it, and I recognize that our abilities in that area are imperfect. Just because some environmentalists are histrionic doesn't change the cold hard reality (as best we can judge scientifically) that we're killing the goose that laid the golden egg (fun with metaphors ;) ).

I don't favor wasting time and money, except that I would rather err on the side of doing too much to save the Earth than doing too little, as the risk of doing too little is far, far greater.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by hgc
I don't favor wasting time and money, except that I would rather err on the side of doing too much to save the Earth than doing too little, as the risk of doing too little is far, far greater.

Unfortunately, we don't have unlimited money. Decisions sometimes have to be made whether it is worth our time to save the cuddly panda, or to save some poor ugly unphotogenic creature/organism that may be more important to the environment. That is when emotions must be eliminated.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Unfortunately, we don't have unlimited money. Decisions sometimes have to be made whether it is worth our time to save the cuddly panda, or to save some poor ugly unphotogenic creature/organism that may be more important to the environment. That is when emotions must be eliminated. I hate to belabor this thread, but this is getting ridiculous. On the one hand, I'm talking about what it takes to keep this planet habitable for human existence. You can't just dismiss that by taking swipes at cuddly pandas. On the other hand, there's a lot to be said for going out of our way not to destroy the habitat needed for the less adaptable species around us to continue in existence. I may not believe in God-on-High, but I sure believe that humanity has a responsibility toward "God's creatures," over which we exercise the power of life and death. For instance, we may get some benefit in the short term, in lumber and jobs, by clear cutting the forests of the NW U.S., but the jobs will disappear in less than a generation, and the spotted owl will be gone FOREVER. It's not worth it.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Another link. (http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/history.htm)



I was waiting for you to reference Daly. Were you aware that one of the cheif contributors to his website is a "research astrologer"? How's it feel to be a woo-woo Luke?

The Leipzig Declaration is debunked here:

http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let08.html

Maybe you should do some fact-checking before you post in the future?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.
These can't all be oil company lackeys, can they?

Yet another link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_of_global_warming)



They are discussing predictive models of future global warming effects. No one, myself included, disputes that.

This is a completely seperate issue from whether the last 100 years human GHG emissions domindate climate change. Could you try and stick to one discussion at a time, please?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.

Rather than see this thread fall into an ad hominem debacle, I will completely disregard Cato.

That's a step towards developing some critical thinking skills, good work.

That leaves a few other links which show that the majority of climatologists and meteorologists don't buy into the global warming theory doomsday scenario.

We aren't discussing that, we are discussing whether AGW is real or not. Working in the earth sciences, I can assure there is unanimous agreement on this.

So, DanishDynamite, if you are still out there, I don't know how we can prove how many peer reviewed global warming theory papers there are, but if a majority of the people in the field don't buy it, then it is obvious they didn't write papers in favor of it. And it is a safe assumption that some have written papers against it.

Thats a complete and total lie. The vast majority of climatologists, a near-unanimous majority in fact, accept AGW as a reality. I know this because I used to work with them. I'm sure you can find websites that say the contrary, as well as proof the moon landing was faked, but it doesn't mean its true. How bout a 'lil critical thinking, Luke?

And that is what it is, and what it should be called. A Global Warming Theory.

Of course, just like the "theory" of evolution. You doubt that as well? There is as much evidence for it as there is for AGW!

When a majority of the people in the field don't buy the theory, it is not only pretentious, but downright irresponsible for anyone to call on the government to enact policies based on that theory that will affect millions, if not billions, of people, and cost ungodly amounts of money.

Again with the lies. The clear majority endorses AGW as a valid model for the last 100 years of climate change, there is mountains of evidence to support it . The mechanisms behind it are clear and well understood.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


They are discussing predictive models of future global warming effects. No one, myself included, disputes that.

This is a completely seperate issue from whether the last 100 years human GHG emissions domindate climate change. Could you try and stick to one discussion at a time, please?

This, coming from the guy who brought up second-hand smoke in an environmentalist topic????

The discussion was whether or not the majority of climatologists and meteorologists think the world is coming to an end via global warming, or if they even agree what should be done about it if the globe is warming. They don't. My links attempt to show that.
I used a variety of links from a variety of sources to show that. If some of them are connected to woo-woos, it does not negate the other sources. I'll wager you the environmentalist movement has more woo-woos in it than most scientific fields.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Again with the lies. The clear majority endorses AGW as a valid model for the last 100 years of climate change, there is mountains of evidence to support it . The mechanisms behind it are clear and well understood.

I think what we have here is a lack of communication.

This whole line of argument was prompted by my statement, "I think the predictions of global warming are unproven. It needs to be studied without the histrionics attached. For example, if a politician expresses doubt about the validity of global warming disasters, we don't need them labelled as a monster or enemy of the environment. That is just plain crap.

Many level-headed people have doubts about the predictions."

You see, I was talking about the predictions based on the Global Warming Theory. It is these predictions that are in question by the majority of climatologists and meteorologists. So it would be irresponsible to commit time and money to projects that aren't even verifiable as being efficacious to eliminating a predicament that may not even exist.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I think what we have here is a lack of communication.

This whole line of argument was prompted by my statement, "I think the predictions of global warming are unproven. It needs to be studied without the histrionics attached. For example, if a politician expresses doubt about the validity of global warming disasters, we don't need them labelled as a monster or enemy of the environment. That is just plain crap.

Many level-headed people have doubts about the predictions."

You see, I was talking about the predictions based on the Global Warming Theory. It is these predictions that are in question by the majority of climatologists and meteorologists. So it would be irresponsible to commit time and money to projects that aren't even verifiable as being efficacious to eliminating a predicament that may not even exist. If there's one thing more disturbing in all this than the histrionics associated with the environment movement, it's the cynicism of the people that have the power over our future (politicians, think-tankers and their pay-masters) who would gladly sacrifice our long-term prospects for a short-term payoff in jobs and profits. But, I'm not looking to the "movement" such as it is for my guidance in trying to understand these things; I'm looking to working, thinking scientists in this area of study (not synonymous with "the movement"), among whom there is near universal agreement that humanity is causing global climate change.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by hgc
I hate to belabor this thread, but this is getting ridiculous. On the one hand, I'm talking about what it takes to keep this planet habitable for human existence. You can't just dismiss that by taking swipes at cuddly pandas. On the other hand, there's a lot to be said for going out of our way not to destroy the habitat needed for the less adaptable species around us to continue in existence. I may not believe in God-on-High, but I sure believe that humanity has a responsibility toward "God's creatures," over which we exercise the power of life and death. For instance, we may get some benefit in the short term, in lumber and jobs, by clear cutting the forests of the NW U.S., but the jobs will disappear in less than a generation, and the spotted owl will be gone FOREVER. It's not worth it.

hgc, I get the feeling you and I aren't so far apart in opinion. Certainly not as far apart as this apparent friction we are building toward one another warrants.

I wasn't taking a swipe at the panda. I would like to see the panda saved. What I am saying is that human emotion plays too big a part in the debate. I can't say I blame the environmental movement for using the panda as their poster-child. After all, it is hard to get the public interested in saving some butt-ugly creature that may be more vital to the environment. That is just reality. But to expect a politician to yield to emotions instead of what is really important is being irresponsible.

We need to save the environment by priority, not by public relations. If there is enough time, money and resources available after rescuing the really important things, then hell, yeah, save the panda.

I am using the panda as an example without any idea if it is vital to the survival of the environment. It is just a hunch that the panda isn't vital.

The argument that lumber is temporary and spotted owls will be gone forever is a good one. But it can be argued the lumber will not run out with proper land management. And it can also be argued that without lumber, we won't have toilet paper to wipe ourselves.

Spotted owl or Charmin? Tough call.

edited to change the second sentence of this post so it made more sense.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by hgc
If there's one thing more disturbing in all this than the histrionics associated with the environment movement, it's the cynicism of the people that have the power over our future (politicians, think-tankers and their pay-masters) who would gladly sacrifice our long-term prospects for a short-term payoff in jobs and profits. But, I'm not looking to the "movement" such as it is for my guidance in trying to understand these things; I'm looking to working, thinking scientists in this area of study (not synonymous with "the movement"), among whom there is near universal agreement that humanity is causing global climate change.

Okay. But how large is that change? The amount has come down as the science has improved. And what effect is it having? How much of this change is caused by humans and how much is caused naturally? These are the questions no one can satisfactorily answer.

edited to add: By "the amount has come down" I meant the estimated amount.

[Igopogo]

Going back to the original topic for a sec.

Originally posted by jim_scotti


Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost.



I find these comments by Crichton to be surprizing. Was there ever a time in history when science wasn't politicized? I'm always amazed when people hold up the term "science" like it's a positive force. It's 'neutral' (I'd argue that ignorance is neutral as well), it's politics that spins it positive or negative, depending entirely on your viewpoint and beliefs.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.

This, coming from the guy who brought up second-hand smoke in an environmentalist topic????

Second-hand smoke is far enough away from AGW that the intent of satire is clear. Mixing up the real history of AGW with possible future doomsday scenarios does nothing but cloud the issue.

The discussion was whether or not the majority of climatologists and meteorologists think the world is coming to an end via global warming, or if they even agree what should be done about it if the globe is warming. They don't. My links attempt to show that.
I used a variety of links from a variety of sources to show that. If some of them are connected to woo-woos, it does not negate the other sources. I'll wager you the environmentalist movement has more woo-woos in it than most scientific fields.

But you also provided links that made the claim that AGW over the last 100 years HAS NOT HAPPENED. Thats junk science! And ALL the links you provided are from websites with specious motivations. Not a single modern reference, primary source or science journal. Why is that? If so many climatologists doubt AGW, shouldn't you be able to find hundreds of modern refernces to support that?

You are making the rather common mistake that there are two camps at work here, pro and con the reality of AGW. That is a false assumption. There are two camps here, science and not science. The anti-globalization eco-nazi's and the petroleum interests are in the "not science" camp. The scientists are in the "science" camp. The scientists are not motivated to do anything other than uncover the truth, whatever that may be. They aren't trying to "prove" AGW. They are just pointing out that the preponderance of evidence supports the theory.

Again, lets look at quote from some leading climatologists on AGW. These are folks at the top of their field speaking about the best current evidence we have:

Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability. The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition. These perturbations primarily result from emissions associated with energy use, but on local and regional scales, urbanization and land use changes are also important. Although there has been progress in monitoring and understanding climate change, there remain many scientific, technical, and institutional impediments to precisely planning for, adapting to, and mitigating the effects of climate change. There is still considerable uncertainty about the rates of change that can be expected, but it is clear that these changes will be increasingly manifested in important and tangible ways, such as changes in extremes of temperature and precipitation, decreases in seasonal and perennial snow and ice extent, and sea level rise. Anthropogenic climate change is now likely to continue for many centuries. We are venturing into the unknown with climate, and its associated impacts could be quite disruptive.


Whats the deal, Luke? Are they liars? Eco-nazi's? Speaking for a tiny minority of earth scientists? Full of *****?

How much evidence do you need? Considering your dogmatic world view, there will likely never be enough.

[Luke T.]

Does everyone understand I am not disputing that humans have had an effect on the environment? My only dispute is with the predictions based on those effects and what we should do about it.

I have no idea if global warming is going to end civilization as we know it in the next hundred years, or will melt the top of Mount Kilimonjaro off five years from now, or whatever. I have not seen any hard proof of that. I have seen, and believe, proof that we have had some kind of impact on the global environment.

Just trying to get crystal clear here.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Whats the deal, Luke? Are they liars? Eco-nazi's? Speaking for a tiny minority of earth scientists? Full of *****?

How much evidence do you need? Considering your dogmatic world view, there will likely never be enough.

I'm afraid you are not hearing me. I don't know what more to say.

[zakur]

Originally posted by Luke T.
"What would the earth be like without trees?" PaveWorld (http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/1380/pave.html), of course! ;)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


But you also provided links that made the claim that AGW over the last 100 years HAS NOT HAPPENED. Thats junk science! And ALL the links you provided are from websites with specious motivations. Not a single modern reference, primary source or science journal. Why is that? If so many climatologists doubt AGW, shouldn't you be able to find hundreds of modern refernces to support that?

Read my posts again. I am talking about the catastrophic prediction based on the global warming theory.

You are making the rather common mistake that there are two camps at work here, pro and con the reality of AGW.

No. I am making the very common statement that there are two camps, pro and con, about the reality of catastrophic predictions based on global warming. Read my posts again.

[Luke T.]

Is Nature magazine a respectable enough source for you EvilYeti?

From and article entitled "Making mistakes when predicting shifts in species range in response to global warming"

Many attempts to predict the biotic responses to climate change rely on the 'climate envelope' approach, in which the current distribution of a species is mapped in climate-space and then, if the position of that climate-space changes, the distribution of the species is predicted to shift accordingly. The flaw in this approach is that distributions of species also reflect the influence of interactions with other species, so predictions based on climate envelopes may be very misleading if the interactions between species are altered by climate change. An additional problem is that current distributions may be the result of sources and sinks, in which species appear to thrive in places where they really persist only because individuals disperse into them from elsewhere,. Here we use microcosm experiments on simple but realistic assemblages to show how misleading the climate envelope approach can be. We show that dispersal and interactions, which are important elements of population dynamics, must be included in predictions of biotic responses to climate change.

From

here. (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v391/n6669/abs/391783a0_fs.html)

And:


Lower atmosphere temperature may be rising
Controversial satellite data analysis fuels global warming debate.
12 September 2003

...
This will increase the pressure on policymakers for action on greenhouse gas emissions if it is accepted by the research community," says atmospheric scientist John M. Wallace of the University of Washington in Seattle.

That acceptance does not seem to be forthcoming. Frank Wentz' team at Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California, estimates there is a small warming trend of around 0.01 ºC per year. And having scrutinized satellite data for more than a decade, John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville reckon that the troposphere's temperature has remained fairly steady.

From

here. (http://www.nature.com/nsu/030908/030908-17.html) That one's only two months old. Is that current enough for you?

I think it is interesting the scientist John Wallace is talking about policy making decisions when his data hasn't even been "accepted by the research community" yet!

"Fuels global warming debate." Guess the matter isn't proven as well as the theory of evolution yet. And the theory of evolution is still called a theory.

There is more on the site, except you have to have an actual paid subscription to their magazine to have full access. But you get the picture by now, yes?

[Luke T.]

One of the reasons I insist on calling it the Global Warming Theory is because no one has nailed down with any exactness the amount of influence that humans have had on this "global warming."

[Luke T.]

I also think the moment a climatologist or meteorologist begins to discuss predictions of effects on little furry animals, he is stepping outside his field of expertise. If this is what is happening, then these predictions are justifiably open to debate.

The same goes with a biologist who assumes a climate change is because of an automaking plant in Detroit.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I'm afraid you are not hearing me. I don't know what more to say.

I've reading your links, many of which deny that AGW is a real phenomenon. If you don't endorse that position, why the hell are you posting the references?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Is Nature magazine a respectable enough source for you EvilYeti?

You are learning, slowly.

Next we have to work on your comprehension skills, for example, the above article only discusses ONE possible outcome of AGW, namely the effect on ranges of species. This has little, if anything to do with the current discussion.

Here's a quote on some other possible outcomes of AGW, which the above article neglects to mention.

"The likely result is more frequent heat waves, droughts, extreme precipitation events and related impacts (such as) wildfires, heat stress, vegetation changes and sea-level rise, which will be regionally dependent," the two scientists write in the Dec. 5 issue of the journal Science.


here. (http://www.nature.com/nsu/030908/030908-17.html) That one's only two months old. Is that current enough for you?

I think it is interesting the scientist John Wallace is talking about policy making decisions when his data hasn't even been "accepted by the research community" yet!

"Fuels global warming debate." Guess the matter isn't proven as well as the theory of evolution yet. And the theory of evolution is still called a theory.

There is more on the site, except you have to have an actual paid subscription to their magazine to have full access. But you get the picture by now, yes?

Oops, there goes the comprehension problem again.

I am well aware of the above research, unfortunately for you it supports the AGW theory. In fact, the sat. measurements were one of the final sticking points in the debate. I thought the NYT summed it up nicely:


One of the last gaps in the evidence pointing to a human cause for global warming appears to be closing.

A re-examination of 24 years of data from weather satellites has found that temperatures are rising in the lower layer of the atmosphere, called the troposphere, at a rate that is consistent with what has been measured at the earth's surface.

The finding is subtle but significant, experts say, particularly because previous studies of the same data, showing no warming, have been highlighted by opponents of curbs on heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe emissions linked to recent warming.

You are getting better, one irrelevant paper on species migration and study that supports the AGW hypothesis. At least you picked quality sources this time. :rolleyes:

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


You are getting better, one irrelevant paper on species migration and study that supports the AGW hypothesis. At least you picked quality sources this time. :rolleyes:

I wish you would improve, too. You fail to see why a paper on species migration is relevant to a discussion on predictions as a result of global warming.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


I've reading your links, many of which deny that AGW is a real phenomenon. If you don't endorse that position, why the hell are you posting the references?

I can see in only one of my links in which it was claimed that global warming did not exist. It that is your idea of "many," well....

And it serves to show that the spectrum of the debate over global warming is wide.

[Luke T.]

Starting from page one of this topic:


I agree with Crichton on at least one thing. The politicization of environmentalism. It has made figuring out the truth to global warming very difficult for this layman.


I also agree with Crichton about dire predicitons not coming true. All my life, there have been doom and gloom predictions from environmentalists and psychics. It is hard to tell the difference between the two. They both have about the same hit rate. So any more "the sky is falling" predictions are a real hard sell to me.


In the 70s, it was mostly about overpopulation and dwindling natural resources. We'd all be hungry or dead by now. There were some concerns about the number of Apollo space launches having an effect on the ozone layer.

I think the first time I remember anything about global cooling was the "nuclear freeze" scare of the 80s. Global thermonuclear war would bring an early ice age.

Current global warming predictions also say that after global warming reaches a critical point, we will be plunged into an ice age.


There is no way environmentalists could take credit for us not running out of natural resources or the overpopulation problems they predicted. Those were their biggest doom and gloom predictions.

My very next post contained a link to dire predictions from the 1970s.

The next post contained a link to more dire predictions from the 1970s.

My next post:


I found a very interesting link about global warming. Here is something that has always been on my mind about the predictions:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The models that employ the various scenarios are poor at replicat-ing past climate and even current weather conditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Link3.

It seems to me if someone writes a computer model to project into the future, they should be able to play it in reverse and see if it matches up with actual historical patterns. I would think that would be a real test of the model's validity.

If you can't see the pattern here....

In fact you will find that only two or three of my posts in this entire topic do NOT contain the word PREDICT or PREDICTION or PREDICTIONS in them.

And you will NOT find that I deny global warming is taking place.

Geezus...

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I wish you would improve, too. You fail to see why a paper on species migration is relevant to a discussion on predictions as a result of global warming.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but its wrong. That one branch of AGW predictions has proven fallacious has nothing to do any other research. They are not connected.

Each prediction has to be examined independantly. Any single prediction can be correct or incorrect, unless they are interdependant the veracity of any particular one has no bearing on the others.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


I understand the point you are trying to make, but its wrong. That one branch of AGW predictions has proven fallacious has nothing to do any other research. They are not connected.

Each prediction has to be examined independantly. Any single prediction can be correct or incorrect, unless they are interdependant the veracity of any particular one has no bearing on the others.

Okay. Now we are getting somewhere.

I agree with everything in the above quote. Now how about that? :D

The problem with predictions is that they are being used as reasons to change government policy, and it is why I said earlier "it would be irresponsible to commit time and money to projects that aren't even verifiable as being efficacious to eliminating a predicament that may not even exist."

edited to add: I don't agree with everything in the above quote. I don't believe the part that says I am wrong. :D

I think I am just being misunderstood. I am being interpreted wrongly.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.

In fact you will find that only two or three of my posts in this entire topic do NOT contain the word PREDICT or PREDICTION or PREDICTIONS in them.

And you will NOT find that I deny global warming is taking place.



Then why did you say the following,


There appears to be an equal number of peer reviewed articles that say it is not true.

The last article I linked is a very interesting read. Have you read it?

edited to add: The last line of the link:


And link to a Cato paper denying the reality of global warming? And then post a follow-up with more links to anti-AGW propaganda?

If you don't endorse the conclusions of those sites, why did you provide them?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Then why did you say the following,



And link to a Cato paper denying the reality of global warming? And then post a follow-up with more links to anti-AGW propaganda?

If you don't endorse the conclusions of those sites, why did you provide them?

I provided them, along with the others, to show that the global warming debate is wide-ranging and nowhere near settled. You have some who deny human-induced global warming is happening, some who accept global warming is taking place but is not having an ill effect, some who accept human-induced global warming is taking place but is not having an ill effect, and some who accept human-induced global warming is taking place and is having an ill effect. With this kind of debate, my very first post sums up the problem. "It has made figuring out the truth to global warming very difficult for this layman."

I suspect it has made decisions on the part of policy makers very difficult as well. And if a politician hesitates to enact a policy that may or may not alleviate a future problem that may or may not even exist, that does not mean the politician is an enemy of the environment.

[Luke T.]

By the way, EvilYeti, if some of the links are from "oil company lackeys," or whatever you call it, and you can show that, then I appreciate it. I honestly do. If it doesn't aid in getting closer to the truth, it certainly aids in getting away from the false. I hope your reaction next time isn't so virulent. It might turn off the next guy from even listening.

I will still listen to an oil company lackey. But I will listen with the knowledge of who pays his salary.

[DanishDynamite]

Well, this thread sure exploded.

Luke, I've just spent 10 minutes googling and while I can find lots of sites which corroborate my understanding that a vast majority of climatologists view Global Warming as something approaching a fact, I haven't been able to locate a source whose independence is 100% unassailable. However, here (http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/education/scienceofclimatechange/understanding/FAQ/sections/7_e.html) is an excerpt from the Meteorological Service of Canada: (http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/msc/contents_e.html)
The vast majority of scientists studying climate change agree that the basis for concern is scientifically sound.
I could post similar from other national weather institutions.

From one of your posts:
And that is what it is, and what it should be called. A Global Warming Theory.I wasn't aware that it had finally reached this exulted status. It used to be a hypothesis.

You do realize, Luke, that the highest reachable status a scientific claim can attain is the status of Theory, right?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Well, this thread sure exploded.

Luke, I've just spent 10 minutes googling and while I can find lots of sites which corroborate my understanding that a vast majority of climatologists view Global Warming as something approaching a fact, I haven't been able to locate a source whose independence is 100% unassailable. However, here (http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/education/scienceofclimatechange/understanding/FAQ/sections/7_e.html) is an excerpt from the Meteorological Service of Canada: (http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/msc/contents_e.html)

I could post similar from other national weather institutions.

Farther down that same link is this:


I understand there are thousands of scientists who argue that we know too little about climate change, and that it is therefore premature to respond. Who are these dissenters and are they credible?
Response: The dissenting scientists are primarily located in the United States, although there are some in the UK, Germany, Australia and other countries. A few have sound academic credentials relevant to climate change, but most have backgrounds in nuclear physics, energy, oceanography, and earth sciences rather than atmospheric sciences. Their primary argument is that the human influence on climate is not yet apparent, and that the results of climate modeling are exaggerated. However, most generally agree with the fundamental science underlying the concern about climate change. [/b]

As I mentioned earlier today, it would make sense for a biologist to question the impact of global warming on furry animals, not a climatologist. So it makes sense for a wide range of scientific fields to be skeptical of the wisdom of policy decisions or judgements. One of the examples I linked from Nature demonstrates an example of non-climatologist types (biologists) who have a legitimate beef with global warming predictions.

Edited to add: If these climatologists are making predictions that cross over into other fields, then these other fields have the right to fire back.

There is an interesting tidbit which is most definitely testable in that link:


While there is uncertainty as to the magnitude and rate of climate change, particularly at the regional level, scientists generally agree that rates of change over the next decade will almost certainly be greater than anything experienced on earth during the past 10,000 years.

That link is dated:
Created : 2002-08-15
Modified : 2002-12-27
Reviewed : 2002-12-27


From one of your posts:
I wasn't aware that it had finally reached this exulted status. It used to be a hypothesis.

You do realize, Luke, that the highest reachable status a scientific claim can attain is the status of Theory, right?

Cool. But it is generally stated simply as "global warming" which seems to imply that everything is settled on the matter, which it is far from being.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.

I provided them, along with the others, to show that the global warming debate is wide-ranging and nowhere near settled. You have some who deny human-induced global warming is happening, some who accept global warming is taking place but is not having an ill effect, some who accept human-induced global warming is taking place but is not having an ill effect, and some who accept human-induced global warming is taking place and is having an ill effect. With this kind of debate, my very first post sums up the problem. "It has made figuring out the truth to global warming very difficult for this layman.

But the problem is you consider petroleum industry propaganda as equally valid as the scientific research! If you just look at what the climatologists are saying and filter out the oil industry goons, net nutters and astrologers the science is very easy to understand.

You might as well claim there is a "debate" on whether the Apollo landings were faked. Sorry Charlie, but anonymous internet nutjobs do not hold equal rhetorical weight with career scientists.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.
By the way, EvilYeti, if some of the links are from "oil company lackeys," or whatever you call it, and you can show that, then I appreciate it. I honestly do. If it doesn't aid in getting closer to the truth, it certainly aids in getting away from the false. I hope your reaction next time isn't so virulent. It might turn off the next guy from even listening.


I'm not going to turn down the volume anytime soon, as AGW-denying is one of the top junk science beliefs prevalent amongst self-described skeptics. Even luminaries such as Penn & Teller have fallen prey to right-wing woo-woo'ism on this topic. I plan on doing everything I can to prevent losing any more of us to the seductive dark side of pseudo-science.

[DanishDynamite]

(The forum has been acting up again. Hope this gets through.)

Luke:Farther down that same link is this:
-------------------------------
I understand there are thousands of scientists who argue that we know too little about climate change, and that it is therefore premature to respond. Who are these dissenters and are they credible?
Response: The dissenting scientists are primarily located in the United States, although there are some in the UK, Germany, Australia and other countries. A few have sound academic credentials relevant to climate change, but most have backgrounds in nuclear physics, energy, oceanography, and earth sciences rather than atmospheric sciences. Their primary argument is that the human influence on climate is not yet apparent, and that the results of climate modeling are exaggerated. However, most generally agree with the fundamental science underlying the concern about climate change.
--------------------------------
And?
As I mentioned earlier today, it would make sense for a biologist to question the impact of global warming on furry animals, not a climatologist. So it makes sense for a wide range of scientific fields to be skeptical of the wisdom of policy decisions or judgements. One of the examples I linked from Nature demonstrates an example of non-climatologist types (biologists) who have a legitimate beef with global warming predictions.I saw your quote. It had zip to do with whether man-induced global warming is occuring or not.

Still, if your point was that the various predictive models of the consequences of GW aren't in tune, then I agree completely. The predictive models aren't very good. However, this has nothing to do with with the evidence that humans are significantly affecting the climate of their only home.
Edited to add: If these climatologists are making predictions that cross over into other fields, then these other fields have the right to fire back. Of course they do.
Cool. But it is generally stated simply as "global warming" which seems to imply that everything is settled on the matter, which it is far from being. So it isn't a Theory? OK.

As far as "everything is settled", I haven't heard a single scientist ever state this.

[EvilYeti]

Many of the complaints in this thread seem to revolve around "gloom and doom" type scenarios of human extinction. I am unaware of any mainstream environmentalist or environmental scientist that is currently making any such claims. I'm sure you can find an ELF whack-job making such a proclamtion, but to tar the entire environmental movement based on the actions and opinions of a few is wrong.

Here is the full version of a quote I posted earlier, I think it nicely summarizes what we know about AGW and it's possible effects.


Two U.S. government scientists said Monday their research proves human activities are affecting global climate.

Thomas Karl, of the National Climatic Data Center in Camp Springs, Md., and Kevin Trenberth, head of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's climate analysis section in Boulder, Colo., said their research proves industrial emissions have been the dominant influence on climate change for the past 50 years. The most important of these emissions is carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps solar radiation and warms the planet.

CO2 levels have risen by 31 percent since pre-industrial times. Other human activities, such as emissions of sulfate and soot particles and the development of urban areas, cause significant but more localized climate effects.

"The likely result is more frequent heat waves, droughts, extreme precipitation events and related impacts (such as) wildfires, heat stress, vegetation changes and sea-level rise, which will be regionally dependent," the two scientists write in the Dec. 5 issue of the journal Science.

If current emissions continue, they said, the world would face the fastest rate of climate change in at least the last 10,000 years. This could alter ocean currents and change existing climate patterns radically.


Not quite "gloom and doom" is it? Potentially very serious, but not cataclysmic. At least we hope.

I like to point to 2003 as an "appetizer" for the AGW main course of the next 100 years. We saw fires, heat waves, hurricanes, record temps., etc. All of which were exacerbated by AGW effects. And as long as we maintain the status quo, its only going to get worse.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
..snip...

I like to point to 2003 as an "appetizer" for the AGW main course of the next 100 years. We saw fires, heat waves, hurricanes, record temps., etc. All of which were exacerbated by AGW effects. And as long as we maintain the status quo, its only going to get worse.

Nice try there, it was hardly an appetizer unless you ignore facts. Most of Europe did not hit record temperatures with the heat waves, the hurricanes in the US was not the worst one even in a decade. The wildfires were the result of dumb environmental policy where we overplanted the trees, ban state parks from clearing the dry brush, then there was a problem with beetles killing lots of trees and add to that people just being stupid and not using proper materials to build their house and not maintaining enough safety distance between them and the forest. So all and all it was as bad as it usually is. Hardly anything to ponder over.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


But the problem is you consider petroleum industry propaganda as equally valid as the scientific research! If you just look at what the climatologists are saying and filter out the oil industry goons, net nutters and astrologers the science is very easy to understand.

You might as well claim there is a "debate" on whether the Apollo landings were faked. Sorry Charlie, but anonymous internet nutjobs do not hold equal rhetorical weight with career scientists.

Nor are climatologists the only field of science exclusive to global warming.

In my last post to DD, I pointed out in his own link, this:


The dissenting scientists are primarily located in the United States, although there are some in the UK, Germany, Australia and other countries. A few have sound academic credentials relevant to climate change, but most have backgrounds in nuclear physics, energy, oceanography, and earth sciences rather than atmospheric sciences.

Sounds to me like they are trying to dismiss people who are quite legitimately involved in any discussion on global warming. And it appears they are trying to dismiss them because they don't agree with them.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

Still, if your point was that the various predictive models of the consequences of GW aren't in tune, then I agree completely.

That is my point! It has been my point from my first post.

The predictive models aren't very good. However, this has nothing to do with with the evidence that humans are significantly affecting the climate of their only home.

Significantly? That is debatable.

So it isn't a Theory? OK.

I did a completely non-scientific google search on the phrase "global warming theory" and got 4370 results. And some of them have .edu in their domain name. I did another google on "global warming hypothesis" and got 1280 results. So you tell me.

As far as "everything is settled", I haven't heard a single scientist ever state this.

To suggest policies to the government to counteract the future effects of global warming is to suggest that the matter is settled and we need to do something to prevent their predictions from coming true.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.

Sounds to me like they are trying to dismiss people who are quite legitimately involved in any discussion on global warming. And it appears they are trying to dismiss them because they don't agree with them.

No, they are dismissing them because they are speaking outside of their area of expertise. It's considered an appeal to authority fallacy to reference the opinion of a recognized expert on any topic other than what they have demonstrated experience in. A good example is the "carbon cycle" error Cato made. I've seen Phd physicists make this error as well. Not having any understanding of the interaction between plants and the atmosphere can cause otherwise knowledgeable people to make such an error. Randi has pointed out this problem before, demonstrating how scientists can be fooled by magic tricks.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


No, they are dismissing them because they are speaking outside of there area of expertise. It's considered an appeal to authority fallacy to reference the opinion of a recognized expert on any topic other than what they have demonstrated experience in. A good example is the "carbon cycle" error Cato made. I've seen Phd physicists make this error as well. Not having any understanding of the interaction between plants and the atmosphere can cause otherwise knowledgeable people to make such an error. Randi has pointed out this problem before, demonstrating how scientists can be fooled by magic tricks.

Are you sitting there saying that oceanographers, biologists and earth scientists have no right to speak on the global warming theory?!?!?!

And I would guess a nuclear physicist is pretty up to date on computer modelling and the errors they are prone to as well.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


I'm not going to turn down the volume anytime soon, as AGW-denying is one of the top junk science beliefs prevalent amongst self-described skeptics. Even luminaries such as Penn & Teller have fallen prey to right-wing woo-woo'ism on this topic. I plan on doing everything I can to prevent losing any more of us to the seductive dark side of pseudo-science.

There is a right way and a wrong way to point out someone's errors. I wish more skeptics would learn this. Calling people stupid or ignorant or speaking to them condescendingly is not the way to win friends or influence people. You just turn them off. Worse, you drive them even deeper into their own belief system.

The caped crusader approach is all wrong.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Many of the complaints in this thread seem to revolve around "gloom and doom" type scenarios of human extinction. I am unaware of any mainstream environmentalist or environmental scientist that is currently making any such claims. I'm sure you can find an ELF whack-job making such a proclamtion, but to tar the entire environmental movement based on the actions and opinions of a few is wrong.

Here is the full version of a quote I posted earlier, I think it nicely summarizes what we know about AGW and it's possible effects.



Not quite "gloom and doom" is it? Potentially very serious, but not cataclysmic. At least we hope.

The likely result is more frequent heat waves, droughts, extreme precipitation events and related impacts (such as) wildfires, heat stress, vegetation changes and sea-level rise, which will be regionally dependent," blah blah blah.

Let's see. The words "extreme precipitation events" doesn't sound gloom and doom to you? Frequent heat waves? Sea-level rise? Not gloom and doom? Holy smokes!

I like to point to 2003 as an "appetizer" for the AGW main course of the next 100 years. We saw fires, heat waves, hurricanes, record temps., etc. All of which were exacerbated by AGW effects. And as long as we maintain the status quo, its only going to get worse.

Talk about woo-woo...

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.

Are you sitting there saying that oceanographers, biologists and earth scientists have no right to speak on the global warming theory?!?!?!

No, but we should keep in mind that unless they have devoted a signifigant amount of study to the current research on the topic their opinion is worth little more than a layman's. Climatology is a complex subject and much of it can be counter-intuitive.

My background is in computer science and I've worked in the earth sciences, particulary geophysics. Yet I had a better understanding of AGW than many of my co-workers, as it was a topic of interest to me and I have studied it extensively.

And I would guess a nuclear physicist is pretty up to date on computer modelling and the errors they are prone to as well.

If they don't understand the mechanism's underlying the model their opinion is of little, and possibly negative, value. Ask the nuclear physicist about nuclear physics and leave the AGW questions for the climatologists. You wouldn't ask one of them how to build an a-bomb, would you?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.

There is a right way and a wrong way to point out someone's errors. I wish more skeptics would learn this. Calling people stupid or ignorant or speaking to them condescendingly is not the way to win friends or influence people. You just turn them off. Worse, you drive them even deeper into their own belief system.

I have no interest in attempting to convert the religious. Its impossible. I can, however, harrass and belittle them to the point that they leave the forum, as I did with Diamond. Or at least shut them up, ala shanek.

Argue with my methods all you want, but you cannot dispute my results. I've recieved enough PM's and threads of support to know I'm on the right track. As a military man I would think you would understand the value of strict discipline while working to remedy incompetence.

The caped crusader approach is all wrong.

You ain't quoting the Cato institute anymore, are ya?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.

Let's see. The words "extreme precipitation events" doesn't sound gloom and doom to you? Frequent heat waves? Sea-level rise? Not gloom and doom? Holy smokes!

Not particularly. None of those events, in and of themselves, pose a signifigant threat to humanity. They will end up costing alot, however.

Talk about woo-woo...

September 2003 was the warmest on record. (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt)

Woo-woo indeed.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I provided them, along with the others, to show that the global warming debate is wide-ranging and nowhere near settled. You have some who deny human-induced global warming is happening, some who accept global warming is taking place but is not having an ill effect, some who accept human-induced global warming is taking place but is not having an ill effect, and some who accept human-induced global warming is taking place and is having an ill effect. With this kind of debate, my very first post sums up the problem. "It has made figuring out the truth to global warming very difficult for this layman."

I suspect it has made decisions on the part of policy makers very difficult as well. And if a politician hesitates to enact a policy that may or may not alleviate a future problem that may or may not even exist, that does not mean the politician is an enemy of the environment.

I have asked this before, are we just a bunch of w@nkers? We cannot do much more than ensure the scientific process is being followed. I have posted a link to one of the models that is used for GW, and I got lost very quickly.

I think you can take it for granted that scientists will be paid either way, if they come up with pro or anti GW.

I can condidently predict, however, that the likes of Cato, however, is only every going to publish the anti.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


If they don't understand the mechanism's underlying the model their opinion is of little, and possibly negative, value. Ask the nuclear physicist about nuclear physics and leave the AGW questions for the climatologists. You wouldn't ask one of them how to build an a-bomb, would you?

Like I said, physicists know about computer modelling of complex systems. If AGW is based on computer models, a physicist would be able to examine the exactitude of such models.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
No, but we should keep in mind that unless they have devoted a signifigant amount of study to the current research on the topic their opinion is worth little more than a layman's. Climatology is a complex subject and much of it can be counter-intuitive.

My background is in computer science and I've worked in the earth sciences, particulary geophysics. Yet I had a better understanding of AGW than many of my co-workers, as it was a topic of interest to me and I have studied it extensively.


You had a better understanding than other computer scientists? Good for you. What does that have to do with the qualifications of those people who work in the related fields I mentioned earlier? ANd now you want to discount them as unqualified without even knowing if they are. What is this obsession with trying to make the global warming theory the exclusive domain of climatologists? It is very bizarre.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
have no interest in attempting to convert the religious. Its impossible. I can, however, harrass and belittle them to the point that they leave the forum, as I did with Diamond. Or at least shut them up, ala shanek.

Argue with my methods all you want, but you cannot dispute my results. I've recieved enough PM's and threads of support to know I'm on the right track. As a military man I would think you would understand the value of strict discipline while working to remedy incompetence.

You ain't quoting the Cato institute anymore, are ya?

It is more likely they got tired of putting up with you. This in no way advances the cause of skepticism.

PMs of support. Woo hooo! So popularity makes you right. As I said, I wish more skeptics would learn this method doesn't work.

Why are they only supporting you in private?

As for the Cato institute, I told you that I stopped using them because you and Grammatron had started on an ad hominem attack toward each other over it. Precisely my point about your approach. You did not prove anything to me except that you have a tendency to fly off the handle easily.

I have reserved judgement on Cato for later examination. I have not excluded them because of you, but I will examine them closer because of you, if that makes you happy.

You count running people off the forum as a victory? Man oh man...That's very sad.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


September 2003 was the warmest on record. (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt)

Woo-woo indeed.

And January, February, March, April, May, June, July and August weren't. Not even close.

Cherry picking. Ever hear of it?

September. .01 centigrade scale. -53 to 73 for a grand total of variations from 1880 to 2003 of 1.26 degrees. My math must be wrong. Is that all?

Wow! And the ice caps haven't melted and flooded NYC yet?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.

What is this obsession with trying to make the global warming theory the exclusive domain of climatologists? It is very bizarre.

It's called "respect". I have respect for someone that has chose to dedicate his/her life to the pursuit of knowledge in one particular discipline. It requires much work and sacrifice.

I reward that by giving them a much higher degree of trust in their word regarding their relevant area of study than one who has not.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


September 2003 was the warmest on record. (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt)

Woo-woo indeed.

This proves it, EvilYeti knows nothing about statistics or mathematics or even the laws of averages for that matter. Why continue arguing if you keep posting pointless data that you cherry picked just to show you were right. Is that how you concluded there is GW and it was caused by humans?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


It's called "respect". I have respect for someone that has chose to dedicate his/her life to the pursuit of knowledge in one particular discipline. It requires much work and sacrifice.

I reward that by giving them a much higher degree of trust in their word regarding their relevant area of study than one who has not.

So what does a climatologist know about the effect of global warming on insects, animals and crops and so on?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


September 2003 was the warmest on record. (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt)

Woo-woo indeed.

I would be very interested if anyone who doesn't have a dog in this fight would explain how to interpret the data in this link. I see that it says the base period is 1951 - 1980. How does that work for the entire period of 1880 - 2003?

And what does "using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment" mean?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Grammatron


This proves it, EvilYeti knows nothing about statistics or mathematics or even the laws of averages for that matter. Why continue arguing if you keep posting pointless data that you cherry picked just to show you were right. Is that how you concluded there is GW and it was caused by humans?

Looks like October was likely the warmest (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt) as well. Or at least a close second to 1995. But thats just more cherry picking, right?

I've concluded that GW is caused by humans by looking at historical records of CO2 concentrations in the troposphere, temperature reconstructions and having a basic understanding of physics. It's really not that hard, maybe I should write a "Anthropogenic global warming for Idiots" book. I'll send a signed copy to you and Luke free of charge!

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.

So what does a climatologist know about the effect of global warming on insects, animals and crops and so on?

And you have evidence of climatologists making grandiose predictions regarding insects, animals and crops? The closest I can find is the reference to vegetation chages, which is perfectly fair as climatologists study the interaction between flora and the atmosphere. Its that "carbon cycle" think I keep harping about.


"The likely result is more frequent heat waves, droughts, extreme precipitation events and related impacts (such as) wildfires, heat stress, vegetation changes and sea-level rise, which will be regionally dependent," the two scientists write in the Dec. 5 issue of the journal Science.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.

It is more likely they got tired of putting up with you. This in no way advances the cause of skepticism.

Big word's coming from someone who thinks John Daly is a scientist. Stick to technical writing, buddy.

PMs of support. Woo hooo! So popularity makes you right. As I said, I wish more skeptics would learn this method doesn't work.

Why are they only supporting you in private?


EvilYeti v. Diamond & shanek (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28959&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)


As for the Cato institute, I told you that I stopped using them because you and Grammatron had started on an ad hominem attack toward each other over it. Precisely my point about your approach. You did not prove anything to me except that you have a tendency to fly off the handle easily.

Something about snotnosed McSkeptics like yourself posting junk science propaganda on a forum devoted to exposing the same just rubs me the wrong way. I must be a bad guy.

I have reserved judgement on Cato for later examination. I have not excluded them because of you, but I will examine them closer because of you, if that makes you happy.

You do that. Keep in mind you will be reserving your judgment to your grave because Cato is never going to be a research body. They are a conservative propaganda mill.

You count running people off the forum as a victory? Man oh man...That's very sad.

Are you saying you miss Diamond/Titanpoint?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Looks like October was likely the warmest (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt) as well. Or at least a close second to 1995. But thats just more cherry picking, right?

Yes, it is. Shall we wager a one year JREF membership on whether September and October will be hotter next year?

I've concluded that GW is caused by humans by looking at historical records of CO2 concentrations in the troposphere, temperature reconstructions and having a basic understanding of physics. It's really not that hard, maybe I should write a "Anthropogenic global warming for Idiots" book. I'll send a signed copy to you and Luke free of charge!

Just don't be an idiot and make any predictions.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Something about snotnosed McSkeptics like yourself posting junk science propaganda on a forum devoted to exposing the same just rubs me the wrong way. I must be a bad guy.


You have "looked into" Cato. Have you looked into Norman Solomon?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
EvilYeti v. Diamond & shanek (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28959&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)



Seems I'm not the only one who has trouble with your approach. And I don't mean Diamond or shanek.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.

You have "looked into" Cato. Have you looked into Norman Solomon?

While I'm not partial to Mr. Solomon's politics, his journalistic integrity is impeccable. If the truth show's your conservative buddies in a bad light, is it really fair to shoot the messenger? According to you, of course it is!

Here's some more info of creative fact-spinning at Cato.

The Cato Institute (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/cato.html)

Here's a great quote I find most appropos:

Cato is one of the most blatant examples of "simulated rationality", as described in Phil Agre's The Crisis of Public Reason. Arguments need only be plausibly rational to an uninformed listener. Only a tiny percentage will notice that they are being mislead. That's all that's needed to manage public opinion.


I'm the tiny percentage. You're the uninformed listener.

Now is it really fair to claim it's only the ENVIRONMENTALISTS that are making things difficult for the layman to understand?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tony
Hey Luke, This was before my time, but I heard that enviromentalists were up in arms about global cooling in the 70's. Is that true?

Modern Environmentalism (AKA The Last Bastion OF Socialism):

"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer. -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000. -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

"This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

Predictions... :rolleyes:

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Kodiak
"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)



Huh. Meteorologists making crop/famine predictions? How about that!

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


While I'm not partial to Mr. Solomon's politics, his journalistic integrity is impeccable. If the truth show's your conservative buddies in a bad light, is it really fair to shoot the messenger? According to you, of course it is!


Woooo! Perhaps it is you who needs to examine the truth again. Where are the melted ice caps? Where are the famines? Where is your evidence this year was exceptional for hurricanes, wild fires, etc., etc.???????

How about that wager?

[Luke T.]

Kodiak, I've often said that the environmental movement is just socialism with a new dress on. Because at the bottom, their answers are always anti-corporate, anti-capitalist rhetoric.

[Aoidoi]

I've been trying very hard to be a fence sitter on this since way back the last time I got involved in one of these threads. Emotions get far to high for productive discussion in most of these threads.

I just want to mention that while it has little bearing on the issue of GW in general, I find EvilYeti's approach to be unfortunate. Flat out admitting that his purpose is to drive those who disagree with him off the board or else shout them down is rather disturbing from my POV. Arguing that his opponents are religious and their heretical views need to be driven out of public view doesn't really help me believe in the credibility of the rest of his arguments.

While LukeT has cited any number of questionable (or at least questioned) sources, his apparent search for answers comes across as much more reasonable to me. His willingness to put aside sources based on the vitriol they generate also seems quite reasonable.

This all has little to do with the factual basis GW, but as I rather doubt this thread is going to resolve the issue anyway I felt you might want the opinion of someone who just observing. Others may well have a different reaction, but frankly I find myself reluctant to agree with EY based on his tactics.

(My bias in the past has been towards LukeT's side, so that's also probably influencing my opinion, though I'm trying to remain neutral.)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Kodiak, I've often said that the environmental movement is just socialism with a new dress on. Because at the bottom, their answers are always anti-corporate, anti-capitalist rhetoric.

Don't forget anti-individual, also.

They believe the collective good they intend for government to force on us is wayyy more important than individual property and consumer rights.

"Snail Darters of the world unite!" -- :rolleyes:

[Luke T.]

EvilYeti, you'll have to excuse me if I am completely underwhelmed if Solomon (who is described as a "progressive" and uses catch-phrases like "imperialism" and says that it is obvious to him that the police have infiltrated environmental groups and they are the ones who provoke riots) doesn't like a corporate-funded, conservative think tank and spends a lot of energy making sure no one else likes them either.

You are starting to slip. You are on the edge. Cherry picking, rambling on about hurricanes and wild fires. You are just a nudge away from losing it and starting to rant about the next Ice Age being only 50 years away and it's Exxon's fault. I can smell it.

edited to add: Solomon is the kind of guy who won't be happy until there is no Right, and we all march lockstep into the fields of our collective farms. I wonder what they will do to keep warm? Can't burn wood. No sir. That's bad! Bad!

[Luke T.]

You all remember Sean Penn's visit to Iraq? Guess who invited him?

Norman Solomon.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Looks like October was likely the warmest (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/GLB.Ts.txt) as well. Or at least a close second to 1995. But thats just more cherry picking, right?

I've concluded that GW is caused by humans by looking at historical records of CO2 concentrations in the troposphere, temperature reconstructions and having a basic understanding of physics. It's really not that hard, maybe I should write a "Anthropogenic global warming for Idiots" book. I'll send a signed copy to you and Luke free of charge!

Let me use your logic here based on that data...

OH NO! Since 1998 we have been cooling down, it's global cooling!!! Quick, lets change the world economy and the way companies operate without investigating any further. What? No I'm not being alarmist, I'm just giving you reasonable conclusion here!!

[Luke T.]

Well, a simple surf of the net shows the shrieking, alarmist attitude is still around in the environmentalist community. I even found one saying we could be in an ice age by 2050. There was a Horizons show about it on Novemeber 13. Too bad I didn't see it, but maybe it will recycle around to Nova here in the U.S.

My favorite so far is this one (http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16111) from an organization called "Working For Change," of which Norman Solomon is a member.

Some tasty morsels from the article:


Ebell, and other East Coast pseudo-academic commentators whose fondness for America's fossil fuel consumption is related directly to their paychecks, were then promptly buried under a foot of snow over the weekend. It can't be easy, insisting that the world is flat while having to shovel evidence to the contrary.


As science has scrambled to track all these changes, and to track the havoc that changing climates are already beginning to wreak on what turns out to be an exquisitely balanced natural world, the phrase "global warming" turns out to be a misnomer --a euphemism, even, for a cluster of trends so catastrophic that without dramatic human counteraction will, in a matter of decades, threaten food and water supplies and much of the natural and technological infrastructure that we humans have developed to support ourselves.

It is unfortunate Solomon doesn't turn his Institute for Public Accuracy eyes on one of his own groups.

edited to change Accuracy in Media to Institute for Public Accuracy. My bad.

[Luke T.]

What's the phrase I'm looking for with regard to Solomon's "Working for Change" organization? It is right on the tip of my tongue. Wait. I'll get it. Here it comes. Ahhhhh, yessss.

"Simulated rationality."

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


While I'm not partial to Mr. Solomon's politics, his journalistic integrity is impeccable. If the truth show's your conservative buddies in a bad light, is it really fair to shoot the messenger?

If the messenger is barking mad, then he needs to be shot.

According to you, of course it is!

Like I said.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.

Yes, it is. Shall we wager a one year JREF membership on whether September and October will be hotter next year?


Sorry, I don't speculate in volcano futures.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.

Woooo! Perhaps it is you who needs to examine the truth again. Where are the melted ice caps? Where are the famines? Where is your evidence this year was exceptional for hurricanes, wild fires, etc., etc.???????

Nice strawman, Puke. I never made claims the ice caps would melt by 2003. I don't recall any scientists that have either.
If you accept that AGW this century is a real phenomenon, which claim to, then it has contributed to the severity hurricanes and dry spells. Thats what happens when you increase the energy in a non-linear system.

How about that wager?

How about you try posting some science instead of oil company propaganda?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.
EvilYeti, you'll have to excuse me if I am completely underwhelmed if Solomon (who is described as a "progressive" and uses catch-phrases like "imperialism" and says that it is obvious to him that the police have infiltrated environmental groups and they are the ones who provoke riots) doesn't like a corporate-funded, conservative think tank and spends a lot of energy making sure no one else likes them either.

That doesn't change the fact that Cato is funded by energy companies to write propaganda on their behalf. Why don't you do some research of you own, since you obviouslly think Solomon is a liar.

You are starting to slip. You are on the edge. Cherry picking, rambling on about hurricanes and wild fires. You are just a nudge away from losing it and starting to rant about the next Ice Age being only 50 years away and it's Exxon's fault. I can smell it.

The only thing you smell is your own ********. Don't you find it a bit hypocritical to start making predictions, especially regarding othe peoples behavior?

edited to add: Solomon is the kind of guy who won't be happy until there is no Right, and we all march lockstep into the fields of our collective farms. I wonder what they will do to keep warm? Can't burn wood. No sir. That's bad! Bad!

Now who's gloom and doom? Oh, the irony. You righy-wing whiners are so insecure about your own dogma that you are obsessed with slandering and silencing your critics.

Christ, I swear you conservative nutballs are no more than spoiled crybabys. No wonder you still need a tobacco pacifier.

:cry:

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Let me use your logic here based on that data...

OH NO! Since 1998 we have been cooling down, it's global cooling!!! Quick, lets change the world economy and the way companies operate without investigating any further. What? No I'm not being alarmist, I'm just giving you reasonable conclusion here!!

More cherry picking from EvilYeti

1999 CLOSES THE WARMEST DECADE CENTURY OF THE LAST MILLENNIUM (http://www.wmo.ch/web/Press/Press644.html)

Wow, warmest decade and warmest century in last 1000 years! Those cherries are getting pretty friggen big!

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.


If the messenger is barking mad, then he needs to be shot.


This is coming from a guy that links to John Daly's site?

Your calling for the murder of you critics is noted. Typical conservative tyranny.

[Luke T.]

Just saving some classics for any future viewers Yeti might want to impress with a link to "EvilYeti vs. Luke T."

After posting a link showing September and October were the "warmest on record," along with some statements about this year's hurricanes and wildfires and somesuch as evidence that global warming is already doing major damage, I offerred to put my money where my mouth is and suggested a wager of one year membership to JREF that September and October 2004 won't be even warmer, to which Yeti eventually replied:

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Sorry, I don't speculate in volcano futures.

???

While I'm not partial to Mr. Solomon's politics, his journalistic integrity is impeccable.

If you are tuning in late, I used a link early in the topic to an organization called Cato, among many other links to other sites, all of which question the predictions related to global warming. EvilYeti came in guns ablazin, claiming Cato is an "oil industry lackey" and mixed in some nonsense about second hand smoke. This prompted an ad hominem battle between he and Grammatron. So I said I would drop Cato in the interest of bringing some order back to the conversation. But Yeti couldn't let it go. So I looked into his source which claimed Cato was "an oil industry lackey." It turns out his source is run by Norman Solomon. Very easy searches on the internet show Solomon to be on the extreme Left, and that he is very selective with his inquiries into accuracy of claims, which destroys any claims of integrity. A simple search on his name will more than prove this out.

I would say Cato and Solomon cancel each other out. That leaves a pile of other links and evidence I have provided which show the scientific community is split on what the implications of global warming are.

About Solomon and my uncovering of his background, Yeti asked:

If the truth show's your conservative buddies in a bad light, is it really fair to shoot the messenger?

My response:

If the messenger is barking mad, then he needs to be shot.

To which Yeti replied:

Your calling for the murder of you critics is noted. Typical conservative tyranny.

Note away, yeti. Note away.

Nice strawman, Puke.

Nice. Very nice. A powerful banner carrier for the skeptic movement.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


More cherry picking from EvilYeti

1999 CLOSES THE WARMEST DECADE CENTURY OF THE LAST MILLENNIUM (http://www.wmo.ch/web/Press/Press644.html)

Wow, warmest decade and warmest century in last 1000 years! Those cherries are getting pretty friggen big!

Anyhow...tell me, do you agree that current instrument stations for taking weather readings are better equipment and in more locations in the world and thus would make an impact on the type and quality of data that is being collected or am I completely offbase here?

[Luke T.]

I hate it when a topic sinks to the level of name calling, especially when I allow myself to get sucked into it.

I am going to outline my broad views of the environmentalist movement now, and show why I think it is appropriate that the topic is in the political section of this forum rather than the scientific one.

There appear to be some parallels between the environmentalist movement and the paranormal community. One example being that both have hijacked the hard work of scientists and twisted it to fit their belief systems. I don't know if anyone else has seen what the psychic believers have done to quantum mechanics, but it is a wonder to behold.

At the very core of the environmentalist movement is an anti-capitalist sentiment. A very powerful one. These are the last gaspers of the extreme Left. Political marxist ideals corroded and finally collapsed with the corrosion and final collapse of the Soviet Union. So when global warming came along, with its implications that it was being caused by factories, and the fact that the greatest economic successes were those of the capitalist West, well, it was just too irresistable.

And like the paranormal community, the environmental movement published wild and zany predictions for the future. And despite time having passed and none of these things coming to pass, they continue the habit, because like paranormal icons, they realized that the public has a short memory and will fall for it again and again and again.

The science has been left behind. It is not even a certainty that any of these predictions will come to pass, but there is much clamor for corporations to tie their own hands anyway. "Just in case." As someone said earlier in this topic; Pascal's wager.

Getting involved in this topic has actually caused me to begin to doubt that global warming is even caused by humans. I am more inclined to think that a political ideology is behind that belief more than a scientific one, and it has filtered down from the peaks of the hysterical icons down to the masses the way a widespread belief in paranormal events can be traced back to a hysterical few.

Now in no way have I said global warming is not occuring. But I am fairly confident that up until this paragraph, there are readers who were in full pounce mode to attack me for saying in this post that global warming is not occurring. I would ask these people to re-read what I have said again.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Luke T.


So what does a climatologist know about the effect of global warming on insects, animals and crops and so on?

Climatologists aren't completely convinced by the AGW theory yet.

I've posted this before, but it just seems to become more and more relevant.

I thought I might add this to the thread. I posted this on a related thread in a political forum:

Everyone seems to have a view on what climatologists think about AGW. Why don't we consult some??

American Association of State Climatologists (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/aasc/AASC-Policy-Statement-on-Climate.htm)

Climate prediction is complex with many uncertainties – The AASC recognizes climate prediction is an extremely difficult undertaking. For time scales of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such predictions – called “verification” – is simply impossible, since we have to wait a decade or longer to assess the accuracy of the forecasts.

OK, they seem to be saying that we should be a little bit cautious about climate predictions. Essentially, the climate is far too complex for us to be sure we are modelling developments with any accuracy at all.

This is really interesting. Let's read on......

The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction.


Human activities have an effect, that sounds sensible. Errr, but I think they are saying there that there are other things that we might be doing that give an illusion of GW. I assume they mean things like urbanisation, deforestation etc, that can lead to localised climate change.

What else do they say..???

Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends.

Let's see. It's that warning about lack of accuracy again. But what is that. I think they are saying that all the regular predictions of natural disasters due to AGW are spurious.

There is lot's of interesting reading here. What else...?

Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future.

What????? I don't believe it???? Did they say that the difficulty of prediction (they seem to go on on about that don't they??) AND the impossibility (strong word that!) of verification decades into the future allow for competing views of the long-term climate future.

Let's read that again.

allow for competing views of the long-term climate future.

Well, it seems that this group of climatologists aren't that convinced about the AGW debate. They are definitely keeping an open mind and continuing to investigate.

[Luke T.]

AGW. That reminds me of another trait of the paranormal community. The invention of scientific sounding terms in an attempt to sound more plausible.

Anthropogenic Global Warming.

"AGW" is a nice way to conceal what it is actually saying. Throw it around until it becomes common usage. Very clever.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Luke T.
AGW. That reminds me of another trait of the paranormal community. The invention of scientific sounding terms in an attempt to sound more plausible.

Anthropogenic Global Warming.

"AGW" is a nice way to conceal what it is actually saying. Throw it around until it becomes common usage. Very clever.

Personally, I prefer "HCGW"...(for the laymen and all)

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.

After posting a link showing September and October were the "warmest on record," along with some statements about this year's hurricanes and wildfires and somesuch as evidence that global warming is already doing major damage, I offerred to put my money where my mouth is and suggested a wager of one year membership to JREF that September and October 2004 won't be even warmer, to which Yeti eventually replied:

This is misrepresentation of the facts, a typical rhetorical cheat employed by junk science blowhards. Anyone who wants to can read back and see that I said last year was an "appetizer" of things to come. AGW contributes to all weather effects, great and small, as weather is nothing more than a manifestation of energy retained by our atmosphere. The more energy it retains (due to the sensitivity of the carbon dioxide molecule to infrared radiation) the more extreme weather events we are going to have. This year happened to have a siginifigant number of extreme weather events across a broad spectrum, hence I felt it was a good example of things to come. I never said that AGW was the proximate cause.

???

Puke, being perfectly ignorant of all think climatological, is unware of the strong role vulcanism has in global cooling. A single large eruption next year would release enough aerosols to effect a short-term cooling trend. Hence, the bet is basically on whether a volcano will erupt within the next 9 months. I have no idea what that has to do with the current debate, other than smoke-blowing.

Those that wish to learn more can read a primer here:

http://maps.unomaha.edu/Maher/climateseminar/week6/lecture6.html

I would say Cato and Solomon cancel each other out. That leaves a pile of other links and evidence I have provided which show the scientific community is split on what the implications of global warming are.

Except pointing out that Cato is a mainly coporate funded think tank is hardly a statement of opinion. For example:

Examples of Mainly Corporate Funded Think Tanks: Cato Institute (http://www.world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611704/100438658297?opmode=contents)

Unless Puke is claiming that I, along with Solomon and the WIO are liars?

About Solomon and my uncovering of his background, Yeti asked:

Yeah Puke, you are a crack undercover journalist! You really blew Solomon's cover! Quite the McSkeptic you are!

Nice. Very nice. A powerful banner carrier for the skeptic movement.

I'm the standard bearer for the neo-skeptic movement. We wear leather jackets, drive motorcycles and eat egg McSkeptics like yourself for breakfast.

[Luke T.]

I guess all we have to do to reverse global warming and save the planet is uncork a few volcanoes.... :rolleyes:

Sorry. You cherry picked and don't have the guts to put your money where your mouth is.

buh bye

[MoeFaux]

Oh man, do I really want to get into this?

I think most environmentalism is bull.
And maybe I should read a little more, but in the past I've agreed with Cato.

But, I don't read all those studies and I honestly just don't give a crap about the environment. So maybe I should just stay out of this.

Carry on, you angry posters.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I hate it when a topic sinks to the level of name calling, especially when I allow myself to get sucked into it.

Your choice of avatar and name are unfortunate, to say the least.

There appear to be some parallels between the environmentalist movement and the paranormal community. One example being that both have hijacked the hard work of scientists and twisted it to fit their belief systems. I don't know if anyone else has seen what the psychic believers have done to quantum mechanics, but it is a wonder to behold.

Now this is odd, 100% of my references regarding GW are from peer-reviewed science journals, not wacko environmentalist sites. Yet you provide links to sites that employ astrologers? Who's the woo-woo here?

At the very core of the environmentalist movement is an anti-capitalist sentiment. A very powerful one. These are the last gaspers of the extreme Left. Political marxist ideals corroded and finally collapsed with the corrosion and final collapse of the Soviet Union. So when global warming came along, with its implications that it was being caused by factories, and the fact that the greatest economic successes were those of the capitalist West, well, it was just too irresistable.

That the anti-globalization folks have latched onto AGW has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the scientific reality of it. Again, notice that 100% of my references are coming from scientists with little, if any, political motivations. Climatologists (and scientists in general) are not "pro" or "anti" anything, other than doing science. Of course all individuals have biases, which is why we use a very strict peer-review process and focus so much on replicating each others work.

I'm sure you think all academics are left-wing socialists, but I'll care to remind you that the postmodernist movement was deflated by a liberal physicist, not a right-wing conservative think tank.

And like the paranormal community, the environmental movement published wild and zany predictions for the future. And despite time having passed and none of these things coming to pass, they continue the habit, because like paranormal icons, they realized that the public has a short memory and will fall for it again and again and again.

And many times the scientific community has made predictions and they HAVE come to pass! You have everything completely ass backwards, you are confusing the real science with environmental nut jobs and taking non-scientific research from questionable sources at face value. No one in the climatological community is making apocalyptic predictions, they are just pointing out that based on current trends there are very likely going to be rproblems down the road. Thats their job.

The science has been left behind. It is not even a certainty that any of these predictions will come to pass, but there is much clamor for corporations to tie their own hands anyway. "Just in case." As someone said earlier in this topic; Pascal's wager.

Again, you have astutely ignored the science in this debate. If you are interested in the science of AGW, I suggest you start reading what the climatologists, not the Cato institute, have to say about it.

Getting involved in this topic has actually caused me to begin to doubt that global warming is even caused by humans.

Hey, its a free country. Go ahead and doubt evolution and the moon landing as well. You might want to consider finding a new forum though, as this one caters to critical thinking.

I am more inclined to think that a political ideology is behind that belief more than a scientific one, and it has filtered down from the peaks of the hysterical icons down to the masses the way a widespread belief in paranormal events can be traced back to a hysterical few.

Thats a true statement, if you are discussing the efforts of the petroleum industry to discredit scientific research.

Now in no way have I said global warming is not occuring. But I am fairly confident that up until this paragraph, there are readers who were in full pounce mode to attack me for saying in this post that global warming is not occurring. I would ask these people to re-read what I have said again.

Since you claim to be so interested in science, why don't you read what some of the top climatologists in the world are saying about AGW? Don't you think they would have a better idea than Cato and John Daly?

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=Karl+and+Trenberth&sa=N&tab=wn

These aren't wacko leftists enviro-nazi's. These are Phd scientists, at the top of their field, with a career of sucessful research behind them.

Why won't you listen to what they have to say?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.
AGW. That reminds me of another trait of the paranormal community. The invention of scientific sounding terms in an attempt to sound more plausible.

Anthropogenic Global Warming.

"AGW" is a nice way to conceal what it is actually saying. Throw it around until it becomes common usage. Very clever.

I know this might be hard to understand for a guy that swabbed decks instead of going to college, but "anthropogenic" is a real scientific word used by real scientists!

Scientists have a word we use to distinguish changes that people have introduced to the environment from processes which are natural -- anthropogenic. Consider the very fine particles of dust or smoke suspended in the atmosphere which we call aerosols. If we are talking about aerosols originating from, say, industrial pollution, we would call them anthropogenic aerosols. This indicates how they are different from aerosols originating in dust storms, volcanoes or natural burning.

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/edu/anthropodef.html

You really have no idea what science is, do you?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I guess all we have to do to reverse global warming and save the planet is uncork a few volcanoes.... :rolleyes:

Ooops, except GHG emissions from vulcanism contribute to GW in the long term. The cooling effects are only temporary.

Isn't science fun?

Sorry. You cherry picked and don't have the guts to put your money where your mouth is.

buh bye

Here's a tip for future reference, taunts are more effective if you are not running away when you say them.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
Oh man, do I really want to get into this?

Depends, would you like to learn about the science behind AGW and the politics of the current debate?

I think most environmentalism is bull.
And maybe I should read a little more, but in the past I've agreed with Cato.

You should keep in mind that Cato is not a scientific research body but a conservative think tank. They are paid money to write position papers portraying their corprate backers in a positive light. For example, their recent "studies" that claim tobacco related deaths are over-estimated in American and that there is little compelling evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. As a skeptic you should be concerned that these were sponsored by special interests and are rife with questionable and in some case, fraudulent, conclusions.

I agree that the environmental movement is rife with whackos, but there is still such a thing as environmental science. Considering we only have one environment, its in all of our best interests to listen to what the experts on it have to say.

But, I don't read all those studies and I honestly just don't give a crap about the environment. So maybe I should just stay out of this.


As a skeptic and potential future scientist you should be concerned about how propaganda and junk-science can influence public policy decisions, regardless of the outcome.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


I know this might be hard to understand for a guy that swabbed decks instead of going to college, but "anthropogenic" is a real scientific word used by real scientists!

Aw. Shucks. You gots me. I's just an ignint fool.

"Planetary" and "grid" are also words used by real scientists. That doesn't make the Planetary Meditation Grid real! Just cause you say AGW is real, doesn't make it so.

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/edu/anthropodef.html

You really have no idea what science is, do you?

And you seem to thing scientists are immune from being influenced by politics. Worse, you think only scientists who disagree with your position are being political. Your scientists are perfect. Immune.

A story about your pal, Trenberth here. (http://www.mtdemocrat.com/articles/2003/11/21/columnists/larry_weitzman/2000/g510_w.txt)


``The entire report was `skewed and spun' by the Environmental Defense Fund and Dan Rather.'' The entire environmentalist community is ``very antagonistic toward the satellite data,'' said Christy. The panel also had as members global warming proponents Dian Geffen, James Hansen, Benjamin Santer and Kevin Trenberth. Trenberth has attempted to denigrate the satellite data set for years and has been said by some colleagues to be ``arguing for the ridiculous.'' Another member of the panel, Frank Wentz, has his own research company and may be trying to exploit the situation, i.e. more research grants, etc.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Here's a tip for future reference, taunts are more effective if you are not running away when you say them.

Here's a tip for you. Taunts are ineffective at best, and damaging to the taunter's case at worst.

[Luke T.]

Another quality similar to paranormalists. Claim the ability of one's talent by saying they had predicted a past event.


The White House will announce on Monday that according to an analysis by government scientists, El Niño joined the Earth's continuing overall warming trend to break global temperature records in each of the first five months of 1998.

And then before anyone can challenge you to make a prediction for the future, hedge your bet:


El Niño has faded, drastically so in the last three weeks, so it is questionable whether the records will hold up for the rest of 1998.



1998 New York Times article. (http://www.junkscience.com/news2/stevens.htm)

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.

A story about your pal, Trenberth here. (http://www.mtdemocrat.com/articles/2003/11/21/columnists/larry_weitzman/2000/g510_w.txt)



Except it turns out Trenberth was right about criticizing the satellite data. Even Dr. John Christy, the original author, admits this now.

Ooops!

http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1069027124192_2003/11/18/19GLOBAL_WARMING,1.jpg

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/18/1069027115562.html

That's what you get for posting three year old stories. Scienctific progress moves quick these days, blink and you'll miss it!

Thanks for the propaganda anyways, the "Dan Rather" consipiracy was news to me.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Another quality similar to paranormalists. Claim the ability of one's talent by saying they had predicted a past event.

And then before anyone can challenge you to make a prediction for the future, hedge your bet:

1998 New York Times article. (http://www.junkscience.com/news2/stevens.htm)

Wow, you have an UNCANNY ability to single out the crank websites on the internet! Lets read what "The Skeptic's Dictionary" has to say about junkscience.com:

In short, the Junk Science page has some valid analyses sprinkled amongst its propaganda, but overall the page is deceptive. There's nothing wrong with having a political agenda, and there is certainly nothing wrong with being concerned that the government is spending its resources on the wrong projects, and there is nothing wrong with being critical of the work of scientists, but there is something wrong with pretending to care about science and truth, while labeling scientists who produce work contrary to your agenda as doing junk science. But don't take my word for it. Just look at the list of scientists that Mr. Milloy considers to be junk scientists: nearly every person on his hit list has done a study with potential political implications that offend his political agenda.


Oooops! Is it impossible for you to produce any reference that doesn't come from a right-wing propaganda mill?

And, as usual, science moves quick and much progress has been made in predictiong El Nino's, which you would know if you bothered to research anything.

El Nino Predictions Up To Nine Months Ahead (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/pacific-01g.html)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Wow, you have an UNCANNY ability to single out the crank websites on the internet! Lets read what "The Skeptic's Dictionary" has to say about junkscience.com:


Oooops! Is it impossible for you to produce any reference that doesn't come from a right-wing propaganda mill?

And, as usual, science moves quick and much progress has been made in predictiong El Nino's, which you would know if you bothered to research anything.

El Nino Predictions Up To Nine Months Ahead (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/pacific-01g.html)

Uh, Yeti? That was a New York Times article....that happens to reside on that site.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Even Dr. John Christy, the original author, admits this now.

The one who says in the article, "We've had enough years of this human-induced forcing to get some boundaries on it, and it's just not going in the dramatic and catastrophic direction."


Ooops!

[Luke T.]

As much as I would like to keep this topic going until the September and October 2004 temperature figures come out, Yeti, I think we passed the line of diminishing returns two or three pages ago. I'm walking away. You can spin that to mean whatever you want.

I stand by my very first post in this topic.

Auf Weidersehen.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.

The one who says in the article, "We've had enough years of this human-induced forcing to get some boundaries on it, and it's just not going in the dramatic and catastrophic direction."


Christy also venhemently endorsed specious data and slandered Trenberth for having problems with it. He said, and I quote, that Trenberth had been "arguing for the ridculous". And it turns out he was right all along!

You'll forgive me if I take his further opinion with a large grain of salt.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I'm walking away. You can spin that to mean whatever you want.

How about, "throwing in the towel"?

I stand by my very first post in this topic.


The hallmark of the extremist conservative, an absolute inability to modify one's behavior and beliefs despite being faced with overwhemling evidence.

This is why you can never be a skeptic and will never quit smoking.

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by EvilYeti




This is why you can never be a skeptic and will never quit smoking.

Oh, EY, that's a little low.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by MoeFaux


Oh, EY, that's a little low.

You're right, as usual.

Luke, I apologize, that was out of line. I tend to get a little carried away in the political discussions.

Do consider that the compulsive smoking may be a symptom of a deeper problem and consider some form of counseling. Not all of addiction in physiological in nature.

[DanishDynamite]

Luke:At the very core of the environmentalist movement is an anti-capitalist sentiment. A very powerful one. These are the last gaspers of the extreme Left. Political marxist ideals corroded and finally collapsed with the corrosion and final collapse of the Soviet Union. So when global warming came along, with its implications that it was being caused by factories, and the fact that the greatest economic successes were those of the capitalist West, well, it was just too irresistable.I'm curious. What exactly is this "environmentalist movement"? Does it include any environmental advocacy group? The World Wildlife Federation? The Sierra Club?

Who is the spokesman for the "environmentalist movement"?

EvilYeti:Not all of addiction is physiological in nature. Not to derail this thread, but do you have any evidence for this?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

EvilYeti:Not to derail this thread, but do you have any evidence for this?

There is much debate in the psychological community over "behavioral addictions". Some prefer to diagnose any addiction without a chemical dependency (like chronic gambling) as a kind of compulsive behavior and not a true addiction. I find the difference to be largely academic, as the symptoms and treatment (and lack of effectiveness) are shared among both. That said, the DSM-IV still does not acknowledge behavioral addictions, so keep that in mind.

In my opinion, the vast majority of substance addictions have both a physiological and psychological component. I do believe behavioral addictions exist and similar to chemical addictions, albeit without a well-defined physiological mechanism.

Its and interesting subject and well deserving of a thread in the Science forum, if you would like a more in-depth discussion.

[DanishDynamite]

EvilYeti:In my opinion, the vast majority of substance addictions have both a physiological and psychological component.But aren't psychologic components also physiological? I mean, isn't it a given that anything that happens in your brain is physical in nature, and hence physiological?
Its and interesting subject and well deserving of a thread in the Science forum, if you would like a more in-depth discussion. Indeed. Sorry for interrupting the flame-fest.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Luke:I'm curious. What exactly is this "environmentalist movement"? Does it include any environmental advocacy group? The World Wildlife Federation? The Sierra Club?

Who is the spokesman for the "environmentalist movement"?

If you look to who makes the wildest doomsday predictions about the future of the environment, I think you will find a pattern of politics that are well to the Left. I don't know about where you live, but here in the U.S., the Greens are considered a faction of the left.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


You're right, as usual.

Luke, I apologize, that was out of line. I tend to get a little carried away in the political discussions.

No problem. I'm on Wellbutrin, so I don't care. :D

Do consider that the compulsive smoking may be a symptom of a deeper problem and consider some form of counseling. Not all of addiction in physiological in nature.

I would consider it except for the fact that I am an alcoholic and have been sober for over 8 years. So it is within my power to beat an addiction.

My spiritual program, if you will, is quite solid. I have stated on this forum more than once I am the happiest man I know, perhaps one of the happiest on Earth. :D

Nicotine appears to be more addictive than even alcohol.

I would say that an alcoholic is more in need of counseling than a cigarette smoker. Cigarettes aren't really all that mood altering, whereas it could be argued an alcoholic is self-medicating.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
EvilYeti:But aren't psychologic components also physiological? I mean, isn't it a given that anything that happens in your brain is physical in nature, and hence physiological?


In psychology, "physiological" refers to actual physical changes in brain chemisty. A heroin or alcohol addiction is considered "physiological" because the addicts actual brain chemistry is altered. Another term would be "chemical dependency".

There may be brain chemistry changes in a behavioral addiction, this is an ongoing field of study in fact. But there is no physical interaction between the brain and the activity. I see your point, but the common usage in the medical community is a little different.

[Luke T.]

THis would be a good topic over in Science. Addiction topics always interest me as a recovering alcholic.

My contributions to such a topic would be purely anecdotal, however.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by LukeT
If you look to who makes the wildest doomsday predictions about the future of the environment, I think you will find a pattern of politics that are well to the Left. I don't know about where you live, but here in the U.S., the Greens are considered a faction of the left. And if you look to who makes the greatest squeals of denial in the face of environmental concern I think you'll find a pattern of politics that are well to the right. Pouring scorn upon the environmental movement is a feature of conservative thought. Much of big business and many political conservatives have a vested interest in not buying into the environment...after all, they make lots of money out non-environmentally friendly activities, so the prejudices are not on one side. Trying to label environmentalism as some sort of leftist conspiracy is just a political tactic and a huge distraction from the problem. It could just as easily be argued that environmental disregard /denial is a rightist conspiracy propogated by vested interest. So what does this political stereotyping serve?

Despite your links Luke, if you take Creightons advice and look past left and right politics and go direct to the science, the overwhelming weight of credible evidence is on the side of environmental concern. BIG concern.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
... if you take Creightons advice and look past left and right politics and go direct to the science, the overwhelming weight of credible evidence is on the side of environmental concern. BIG concern.


How can that be so, when the political environmental groups have such an appalling record.

I think the problem we have today is that the big well funded political envirnmental groups have so much power. Years ago, groups like Greenpeace could be as contriversial as they liked. They performed a useful function as the conscience of society. They had sufficient profile to bring issues to the public, but not the power to push policy. Now it is a different story. WWF and Greenpeace are hugely wealthy organisations that swing a lot of political clout. However, they are still at the extreme of many issues. I think this is dangerous combination.

[Jessica Blue]

How can that be so, when the political environmental groups have such an appalling record.What do you mean? I'm talking about evidence from the scientific community, not political organizations.


I think the problem we have today is that the big well funded political envirnmental groups have so much power.Are you saying you wish environmental groups were just *token* spokespeople for a lost cause...powerless and ineffectual?

Speaking of powerful organizations, the funding for these environmental groups doesn't come close to the vast sums of money spent in spreading confusion and undermining initiatives to address environmental concern. For example, consider the power, money and influence exerted by industry just in the lead-up to Kyoto:


In the lead up to the Kyoto conference on global warming the fossil fuel industries in the US and Australia stepped up their campaign to prevent a treaty being signed that involved greenhouse gas reduction targets for both countries. A US consortium of 20 organisations launched an anti-climate treaty campaign in September this year. These industry groups representing oil, coal and other fossil fuel interests spent an estimated $US13 million on television, newspaper and radio advertising in the three months leading up to the Kyoto conference to promote public opposition to the treaty...

In 1998 the New York Times reported on internal American Petroleum Institute (API) documents showing that fossil fuel interests intended to raise $5 million over two years to establish a Global Climate Science Data Center as a non-profit educational foundation to help with their goal of ensuring that the media and the public recognise the uncertainties in climate science. The documents state that victory will be achieved when climate change becomes a non-issue and those promoting the Kyoto treaty using existing science appear "to be out of touch with reality".

This was just the latest phase in a corporate funded campaign to discredit global warming predictions and undermine the political will necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


Various front groups have been formed to oppose measures to prevent global warming, particularly in the US. They include the Global Climate Information Project which was formed just before the Kyoto meeting and spent millions on newspaper and television advertising aimed at scaring the public about what an agreement at Kyoto might mean in terms of increased prices for everything. The Coalition for Vehicle Choice, which is funded by car manufacturers including Ford, GM and Chrysler, also ran advertisements in the lead up to Kyoto.

Sharon Beder

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/index.html

Drooper if you're going to talk about environmental groups having "so much power", you have to recognize there's another side to that coin.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by Tony


Hey Luke, This was before my time, but I heard that enviromentalists were up in arms about global cooling in the 70's. Is that true? In Carl Sagan's Cosmos there was an entire episode, "Who Speaks for Earth?" devoted to the various problems facing the environment. Sagan was of course one of the people whose research determined that the greenhouse effect was responsible for Venus' lead-melting temperatures. He regarded then (circa 1980) that the risks of global cooling and warming were equally dire. Of course in 1980 we weren't watching pieces of Antarctica drop into the ocean.

16 years later, by the time he published his last book Billions and Billions the pattern had been more clearly established: we were entering a period of warming. Whatever climate change means most, it means that our weather is being disrupted. People seem to think that it's simply that we will have more expensive air-conditioning bills in the summer; it's a lot worse than that. Sagan pointed out that insurance companies are starting to become alarmed at the amount of damage seasonal storms are causing -- more violent tornadoes, more violent hurricanes and tropical storms, more violent everything. Global warming is pumping more energy into our weather system, and so far it seems to be equalizing itself through more destructive weather. This has reprecussions far beyond what setting you make on your thermostat. There is an economic component to our careless habits with regard to the environment. It will catch up with us someday.

A final point, which I don't remember if Sagan made or not, but which is highly pertinent, is that with a couple of rare exceptions, the fall of almost every civilization in history has been strongly assisted by a long-term change in the local climate.

[Kodiak]

Consider:

Envirotruth (http://www.envirotruth.org/)

and

Still Waiting for Greenhouse (http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/)

and

New Hope Environmental Services (http://www.nhes.com/home.html)

and

Greehouse Warming: Fact, Hypothesis, or Myth? (http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/index.html)

and

SEPP (http://www.sepp.org//pressrel/petition.html)

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Consider:
Envirotruth (http://www.envirotruth.org/)

a front organization for the National Center for Public Policy Research.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=National_Center_for_Public_Policy _Research

Still Waiting for Greenhouse (http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/)

John Daly is a junk science nobody that employs an astrological consultant to "disprove" AGW. Mention him to any earth scientist and they will laugh at you.

New Hope Environmental Services (http://www.nhes.com/home.html)

Curious you didn't spell out their full title, "New Hope Environmental Services for Western Fuels Association and Basic Electric Power Cooperative". Why is that?

Greehouse Warming: Fact, Hypothesis, or Myth? (http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/index.html)

Hoyt's a self-admitted amateur who's conclusions are drastically different from careerists in climatology.
Sorry, but Science and Nature hold more weight for me than an erols customers web page. If he is really onto something, there are better places to publish his work. The fact that he hasn't and no one else is building on his work, is a clear indicator of specious research.

SEPP (http://www.sepp.org//pressrel/petition.html)
Another front organization with ties to the fossil fuel industry and the Moonies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Environmental_Policy_Project

So your evidence against AGW includes front organizations, oil industry propaganda, astrology, an erols webpage and the Moonies.

I see your references are as high caliber as Luke's. :rolleyes:

Are you SURE you're a skeptic? "Conservative Creduloid" would seem a better title!

[DialecticMaterialist]

Another thread questioning Global Warming?

Alright I know the drill.

First off quoting a sci-fi author and some highly-charged political sites with titles like "Still waiting for Global Warming?" is hardly convincing. You may as well quote the Institute for Paranormal studies to support Uri Geller, or Chrichton again on the dangers of NASA bringing home alien viruses from outer space.


And since this has obviously been reduced to "battle of the links" I will now present mine:

First off we have The National Academy of Sciences (http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/44bf87db309563a0852566f2006d63bb/f6335bf011038bb185256a84005838c7?OpenDocument).



Then Nature Journal (http://www.nature.com/nature/links/030102/030102-3.html).


Followed by
Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0008C7B2-E060-1C73-9B81809EC588EF21).



The
Royal Society (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/templates/search/websearch.cfm?mainpage=/events/discussion_meetings/reps/feb_clim03.htm).


And just for good measure leading scientists like Jared Diamond (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond03/diamond_p4.html).




Kodiak, Luke, if you show me a source stronger then all the above, I will admit you have raised a reasonable doubt. Until then, I will assume your doubts are less based on reason, and more based on ideology. If the Royal Society, National Academies, Scientific American AND NATURE journal can't convince you of something--- just what in the world can? The apocalypse, or would that itself be labled by such scholarly sources as the CATO Institute as "junk science" guided by pseudoscientists (like the National Acadmies and Royal Society) of course, to take our mind off the "real problems" of crypto-socialism?


But like I said, present some stronger sources then the above, and I'll listen to you. Until then, stop presenting your political dogma as legitimate science.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Statement from the Director of the Skeptics Society Michael Shermer:

All the scientific evidence points to the fact that global warming is real and that it is most likely human caused.

And:

The geometric growth trend of environmental destruction and species extinction is equally remarkable and frightening. There is a very real possibility that humanity will not survive to the year 3000 unless sustainable technologies are developed within the next 50 years. In my opinion the next half-century will determine rest of the millennium



Last:

Will we be like the Easter Islanders standing there staring at the last palm tree, and say "screw the future, let's cut the damn thing down"? Or will we heed the lessons of history and find a solution to our own Eco-Survival Problem? There is a difference between us and all those who failed to find this solution. We are the first to realize the consequences of our actions in time to do something about them. The question is, what will we do?


This is in a speech promoting free markets (hardly making Shermer a fan of socialism.)


http://www.futurefoundation.org/humanity3000/2pg_shermer.html

[Kodiak]

You guys seem lazy-minded to me.

A questionable source is a good reason for skepticism, but not to automatically disregard the content completely.

So if Saddam or John Edward told you the Earth is round, you'd just criticize the source a disregard the content of the claim?

I am well aware of the questionable sources on both sides of this issue, but I come down as a HCGW skeptic after looking at all the content from both sides, not scoffing at my opponents sources and walking away without addressing the content.

This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem.

This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well."

It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Statement from the Director of the Skeptics Society Michael Shermer:

The fallacy here is Appeal to Authority: This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that a well known or prestigious person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the mere fact that such a person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

Mr. Shermer might be right, and he might be wrong. He isn't automatically right just because he heads the Skeptic Society.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Kodiak
You guys seem lazy-minded to me.

Considering you have not fact-checked A SINGLE ONE of your sources, I would say that title would apply to you in spades.

A questionable source is a good reason for skepticism, but not to automatically disregard the content completely.

No, it will remain a questionable source up and until they prove themselves otherwise. The burden of proof is not on me, or anyone else, to prove them wrong. It's up to them to prove their case in a clear and scientificaly verifiable fashion. Publishing anonymous rants on the internet is not a valid way to accomplish this.

So if Saddam or John Edward told you the Earth is round, you'd just criticize the source a disregard the content of the claim?

False analogy. We already know the earth is round, so their opinion either way is irrelevant. A better analogy would be if Saddam or John Edward's said global warming was a myth. According to your logic, we should hold their opinion equal with those of the experts. It's easy to see that with your world view, AGW can never be proven as long as their is one person alive who does not accept the evidence.

I am well aware of the questionable sources on both sides of this issue, but I come down as a HCGW skeptic after looking at all the content from both sides, not scoffing at my opponents sources and walking away without addressing the content.

No, you've already made up your mind regarding AGW due to your conservative ideology. You then researched data that reinforced your particular dogmatic belief system. Unsurprsingly, 100% of this came from front organizations of oil interests and other junk-science sources. Not a single authentic science source.

This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well."

How is pointing out that oil industry pundits and astrologers may not be the best source for climate science "poisoning the well"? I'm not name calling here, I'm just stating the facts. The sources you named are not science organizations. They are propaganda mills.

It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.

But the burden of proof is still on them to make their case. Their lack of experience, education, credibilty, special interest funding and known biases does nothing to help that.

They are free to author papers and submit them for review and publishing in the appropriate journals. When they chose to do so, as my sources have, then I will examine them. Until then, they are not even worth considering. Thats the way science is done in the modern world.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Kodiak

The fallacy here is Appeal to Authority: This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that a well known or prestigious person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the mere fact that such a person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

But Mr. Shermer is not making a direct claim regaring AGW. He is basing his opinion on the work of others who ARE experts! And considering his background, he is perfectly qualified to determine the integrity of science research.
No one is saying that the AGW valid hypothesis is valid because Schemer says so, that is a strawman of your creation. We are saying that since a luminary such as Schermer endorse the work of the climatologists researching the global warming problem, it is highly likely their methodology is sound. It just one more piece of a now very large puzzle.

Mr. Shermer might be right, and he might be wrong. He isn't automatically right just because he heads the Skeptic Society.

Considering his qualifications, do you have any evidence that he is incompetent to judge the validity of scientific research? Or that you are even competent to render such an opinion?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Kodiak that is utter nonsense. First off, your own links would be nothing more then "appeals to authority" given your reasoning.


Secondly there is a difference in logic between a false appeal to authority and expert testimony. The former is dubious, the latter is perfectly acceptable.


To quote a logic reference:

While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal toauthority is inappropriate if:
(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
(ii) experts in the field disagree on this issue.
(iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious

A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.




http://www.savagemind.com/encyclopedia/logicalfallacies/AppealtoAuthority


Basically my authorities are qualified, as they represent the world's leading experts in science. Kodiak's authorities are not, as they are political groups, not science.