global warming denial

[varwoche]

The denial of global warming, and the denial that burning fossil fuels contributes, has about the same intellectual honesty as holocaust denial.

OK, overstated slightly, but not by much. So let's grant a small degree of uncertainty...

Inaction is unacceptable when when best science indicates that disaster of biblical proportion looms as a real possibility.

Not to mention that reducing fuel consuption would be an important "weapon" in the war on terror. Unfortunately, Bush et al do not fully appreciate the multi-dimensional aspects of this war.

varwoche

[RandFan]

Originally posted by varwoche
The denial of global warming, and the denial that burning fossil fuels contributes, has about the same intellectual honesty as holocaust denial.

OK, overstated slightly, but not by much. So let's grant a small degree of uncertainty...

Inaction is unacceptable when when best science indicates that disaster of biblical proportion looms as a real possibility.

Not to mention that reducing fuel consuption would be an important "weapon" in the war on terror. Unfortunately, Bush et al do not fully appreciate the multi-dimensional aspects of this war.

varwoche If the evidence does indeed show that there is a significant risk to global warming caused by burning fossil fuels then you are right.

My understanding is that there is no such consensus. Just a fear that fossil fuel is suspected by many as being a significant factor.

Can you post data that supports the notion that burning fossil fuels has been determined to be a significant cause?

Also what if there is contradictory scientific data? Would you consider this data or dismiss it out of hand?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
If the evidence does indeed show that there is a significant risk to global warming caused by burning fossil fuels then you are right.

My understanding is that there is no such consensus. Just a fear that fossil fuel is suspected by many as being a significant factor.

Can you post data that supports the notion that burning fossil fuels has been determined to be a significant cause?

Also what if there is contradictory scientific data? Would you consider this data or dismiss it out of hand?

Read this month's Scientific American. It'll scare the you-know-what out of you.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Sundog


Read this month's Scientific American. It'll scare the you-know-what out of you.

Which I'm sure was their intent...

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Which I'm sure was their intent...

So Scientific American is now a left-wing publication?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
Read this month's Scientific American. It'll scare the you-know-what out of you. Is it the end of the discussion as far as global warming goes?

Does the magazine state categorically that humans have significantly contributed to global warming?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog


So Scientific American is now a left-wing publication?


You think left-wing publications are the only ones capable of propaganda and fear mongering?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
Is it the end of the discussion as far as global warming goes?

Does the magazine state categorically that humans have significantly contributed to global warming?

Yup. Read it.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony



You think left-wing publications are the only ones capable of propaganda and fear mongering?

Obviously Kodiak dismisses it without even reading it. Obviously if it has evidence about global warming, it's a left wing scare tactic. Must be, right?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Sundog


Obviously Kodiak dismisses it without even reading it. Obviously if it has evidence about global warming, it's a left wing scare tactic. Must be, right?

I did read it. It was written by James Hansen, who had made definitive statements about global warming before, and was then forced to back-pedal and alter his positions.



For example (http://www.ncpa.org/bothside/krt/krt081999a.html)

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I did read it. It was written by James Hansen, who had made definitive statements about global warming before, and was then forced to back-pedal end alter his positions.



For example (http://www.ncpa.org/bothside/krt/krt081999a.html)

Do you have concrete criticisms of what he had to say, or are you waiting for some good loyal Republican scientist to debunk it? ;)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I did read it. It was written by James Hansen, who had made definitive statements about global warming before, and was then forced to back-pedal end alter his positions.


For example (http://www.ncpa.org/bothside/krt/krt081999a.html)

Where's your skepticism, Sundog?

Is your need to believe affecting your objectivity?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Where's your skepticism, Sundog?

Is your need to believe affecting your objectivity?

Why on Earth would anyone WANT global warming to be true?

Not being a scientist myself, the equation goes something like this:

I see an OVERWHELMING number of scientists who are convinced global warming is real.

All the arguments against it come from people with obvious stakes in it not being true. All the "scientists" who don't believe in it seem to have clear ties to the right.

My vote goes with the vast, VAST majority of scientists who are convinced it's real. I believe in the scientific process.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Sundog


Do you have concrete criticisms of what he had to say, or are you waiting for some good loyal Republican scientist to debunk it? ;)

I only have to look at his own statements to come to the conclusion that he tends to take definitive positions hastily and then later has to withdraw them. On top of that, his Sci-Am article starts off with an anecdote - never a good beginning for a supposedly "scientific" article on HCGW.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Kodiak

On top of that, his Sci-Am article starts off with an anecdote - never a good beginning for a supposedly "scientific" article on HCGW.

Oh, piffle. Surely you've read SA long eough to know that that's quite common.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Sundog


Why on Earth would anyone WANT global warming to be true?

Why would anyone WANT Planet X to smash into the Earth?

Excitement.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Sundog
Why on Earth would anyone WANT global warming to be true?

Easy.

To use fear for political gain against capitalism, democracy, and free enterprise.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Easy.

To use fear for political gain against capitalism, democracy, and free enterprise.

Do you honestly ascribe such motives to me? :(

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog


Why on Earth would anyone WANT global warming to be true?


Well, people of your ilk for example would want to use it as another bat to beat people with which they disagree. That's the only reason certain people loose all pretenses of skepticism when the subject comes up. It comfortably fits in with their pre-conceived notions and biases.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Tony


Well, people of your ilk for example would want to use it as another bat to beat people with which they disagree. That's the only reason certain people loose all pretenses of skepticism when the subject comes up. It comfortably fits in with their pre-conceived notions and biases.

"My ilk"? Ouch. :(

Someone please explain to me how it is not being skeptical to side with the VAST majority of worldwide scientific opinion? Isn't that how we DO skepticism?

[Luke T.]

The problem with the global warming theories floating around is the predictions for the future. They make it sound like the world will end in a sudden onrush of disasters in a brief period. And it is pure guesswork. This makes them sound like every other doomsday scenario the human race has been subjected to forever.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Sundog


Oh, piffle. Surely you've read SA long eough to know that that's quite common.

It is a common fallacy used tactically to convince the ignorant and uneducated.

The fact that it is common does not excuse him.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Luke T.
And it is pure guesswork.

Science is "guesswork"?

We're lost. Shut the forum down. It's a lost cause...

You guys believe in Science as long as it's busy disproving faith healers... and then get suspicious of it when it suggests the world is in desperate trouble? How on Earth can you call that a skeptical attitude?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
Yup. Read it. Could you post any relevant data?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Sundog


Science is "guesswork"?

We're lost. Shut the forum down. It's a lost cause...

You guys believe in Science as long as it's busy disproving faith healers... and then get suspicious of it when it suggests the world is in desperate trouble? How on Earth can you call that a skeptical attitude?

The measurements which show global warming occuring are not guesswork. The prognostications of what this will do to the planet are.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Kodiak


It is a common fallacy used tactically to convince the ignorant and uneducated.

The fact that it is common does not excuse him.

Well, if we're to the point where we dismiss a scientific article because the author opens with an anecdote, I have no idea how to respond to such a silly point.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Sundog


Read this month's Scientific American. It'll scare the you-know-what out of you.

Read NEXT month's, and it will probably contradict everything.

Honestly, there's no consensus. Just a boatload of opinions and varying degrees (no pun intended) of adherence to scientific standards.

Lest we forget that not even 10 years ago, it was all about global cooling. For every oil man who says global warming doesn't exist, there's an Al Gore who would have you believe that next year Chicago won't drop below 85 in January.

The jury is still out. Listening at the keyhole won't tell you anything useful.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Luke T.


The measurements which show global warming occuring are not guesswork. The prognostications of what this will do to the planet are.

Says who? You?

You'll have to back that up.

You guys are hilarious. You believe in Science as long as it supports what you WANT to be true.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Sundog


"My ilk"? Ouch. :(


No offense. :)

By "your ilk" I mean rabidly anti GWBush.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Sundog


Do you honestly ascribe such motives to me? :(

I don't know your personal views well enough to make that charge.

However, the modern environmentalist movement is the "last bastion of socialism" and their motives are clear, as I and others have shown in related threads in the past.

Whether you agree with them or not is for you to decide.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
Could you post any relevant data?

Buy the magazine, cheapskate. :p :D

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Kodiak
However, the modern environmentalist movement is the "last bastion of socialism" and their motives are clear, as I and others have shown in related threads in the past. Yes, all those activists claiming to be concerned about lead contamination were just trying to shut down profitable industry, right?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I don't know your personal views well enough to make that charge.

However, the modern environmentalist movement is the "last bastion of socialism" and their motives are clear, as I and others have shown in related threads in the past.

Whether you agree with them or not is for you to decide.

You guys think like you're squashing play-doh together. The Left = enviromentalists = socialism = bad science = evil.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Sundog


Well, if we're to the point where we dismiss a scientific article because the author opens with an anecdote, I have no idea how to respond to such a silly point.

Who said I "dismissed" it?!?

What is silly is the way you jump to conclusions.

I was critical of the fact that he started his article with a fallacy - a reasonable cause for skepticism.

What I want to know is why it failed to trigger any sense of skepticism in you?

[shanek]

Originally posted by varwoche
The denial of global warming, and the denial that burning fossil fuels contributes, has about the same intellectual honesty as holocaust denial.

Yeah, right.

Inaction is unacceptable when when best science indicates that disaster of biblical proportion looms as a real possibility.

Except that the best science DOESN'T show that. Every real scientist I've cornered on the subject, as well as an answer given by one at TAM2 in the panel by a participant (not me), has said that the conclusions are: 1) The Earth is getting warmer (for certain definitions of "warmer," meaning global average surface temperatures, but not in other aspects like maximum temperature or troposphere temperatures), and 2) Humans may be contrubuting to it.

That's a LONG was from the gloom-and-doom scenario of the GW politicos. All other objections aside, there is one aspect that the politicos completely neglect: that while there are arguably negative aspects to GW, there are positive aspects as well: foliation growing more densely, foliation growing in places where it hasn't for centuries (both of which have a counteracting effect on CO₂ concentrations), greater productivity (several scientists have pointed out the correlation between warmer periods and the more productive periods such as the Renaissance and the Greek civilization), on and on and on. So, the first question is, are we better of on the balance? Once we ask that question, if it turns out we aren't, then the next question is, is the net detrimental effects of GW greater than the clearly detrimental effects of "solutions" such as Kyoto, which will have a devastating effect on the global economy?

These are just a couple of the numerous questions that I haven't been able to get a single GW advocate to even acknowledge, let alone answer. In my experience, the GW politicos are the ones who are the woo-woos.

Not to mention that reducing fuel consuption would be an important "weapon" in the war on terror.

Irrelevant even if true.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Sundog


So Scientific American is now a left-wing publication?

How did you get that from what he said? Thank you for admitting that your viewpoint is politically motivated, not scientifically motivated.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by shanek


How did you get that from what he said? Thank you for admitting that your viewpoint is politically motivated, not scientifically motivated.

Shanek, hush honey, go play. We're busy here.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Sundog
Yup. Read it.

"Yup"? So it IS the end of the discussion? It's a foregone, 100% conclusion? Based on ONE ARTICLE in a journal? How is this viewpoint good science?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
Do you honestly ascribe such motives to me? :( I don't but I do ascribe them to many in the evironmental movement. Such tactics have been documented by a number of skeptics not the least of which is the late great Julian Simon.

Steven Milloy Junk Science (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93466,00.html)
Houghton’s assertion that the 1990s was the warmest decade in the last 1,000 years (search) draws out the question, “Why was it so warm 1,000 years ago?”

Since there were no power plants, factories or automobiles back then, that warm period was obviously natural climate change (search). So why should we leap to the conclusion that any 1990s warming is definitely manmade?

Of course, it’s not even clear that any measurable “global warming” has really occurred, much less that it’s human-induced.

Satellite and weather balloon measurements of atmospheric temperatures since the 1970s actually indicate slight cooling to no change. To the extent any significant warming may have occurred during the 20th century, most occurred before 1940, while most greenhouse gas emissions (search) occurred after 1940 -- so there’s no apparent cause-and-effect relationship.

While it’s possible that some human-induced warming may be occurring, Virginia state climatologist Pat Michaels (search) once pointed out in a television debate with Clinton administration eco-czarina Carol Browner: “The fact of the matter is if you look at those temperature records that you keep on citing, you will see that almost all of the warming takes place in the absolute coldest, most miserable air masses in Siberia and northwestern North America … Great. We've warmed Siberia from minus 40 to minus 38. Big deal.”

If the 1990s were unusually warm, we don’t know why. Neither do the global-warming pushers.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Sundog


You guys think like you're squashing play-doh together. The Left = enviromentalists = socialism = bad science = evil.

Sorry but you are obviously unfamiliar with the modern environmentalist movement. The average teen-age "tree-hugger" or soccer mom who recycles and plants trees on Arbor Day is not who we are describing. I myself am a life member of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs (http://www.mucc.org/) . I'm all for scientific, means-tested conservation of our resources and ecosystems.

The socialists dominate the leadership of the largest "environmentalist" organizations:

The Seirra Club
The WWF
PETA
Greenpeace
ELF
ALF
EarthFirst!

[geni]

Originally posted by shanek


"Yup"? So it IS the end of the discussion? It's a foregone, 100% conclusion? Based on ONE ARTICLE in a journal? How is this viewpoint good science?


Scientific American is a journal?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Sundog
Why on Earth would anyone WANT global warming to be true?

For the same reason they "want" there to be starvation in America: It make it easier to push forward their political agenda.

I see an OVERWHELMING number of scientists who are convinced global warming is real.

If you mean they are convinced that average surface temperatures are on the rise, you are correct. If you mean they are convinced that we are headed for a global catastrophy, you are far from correct.

All the arguments against it come from people with obvious stakes in it not being true.

I haven't had any "arguments" against it; just questions I want answered. And those questions have been ignored by every single GW advocate on this forum. So who is operating with an agenda here? My only agenda is skepticism and not wanting to enable a policy that would be detrimental to the economy without sufficient evidence that those detrimental effects would be outweighed by the benefits. Where are my "obvious stakes"?

Isn't it far more likely that the people getting funding and other benefits from a Socialist agenda are the ones with the "obvious stakes"?

All the "scientists" who don't believe in it seem to have clear ties to the right.

Oh, yes, it's all a conspiracy...Or are you just defining any scientist who disagrees with it as being aligned with the right? Because I can assure you, a lot of them aren't.

My vote goes with the vast, VAST majority of scientists who are convinced it's real. I believe in the scientific process.

Argumentum ad populum and argument by authority are NOT part of the scientific process. Yet, you GW people cling to them as pretty much your only defense of GW.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Sundog
You guys believe in Science as long as it's busy disproving faith healers... and then get suspicious of it when it suggests the world is in desperate trouble?

Except that it suggests no such thing.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The measurements which show global warming occuring are not guesswork.

But the future extrapolations from it are.

Edited to add: Oops, I just realized I restated Luke T.'s second sentence, which I initially misread. Oh well; consider this an agreement, Luke. :D

[geni]

Originally posted by shanek
argument by authority are NOT part of the scientific process. Yet, you GW people cling to them as pretty much your only defense of GW.

If the person is qualified to make the statement yes they are.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Sundog
Shanek, hush honey, go play. We're busy here.

Thank you for proving you are not being at all skeptical on this subject. You now officially rank with the other GW advocates on this board who refuse to answer direct questions. Congratulations.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by shanek
All other objections aside, there is one aspect that the politicos completely neglect: that while there are arguably negative aspects to GW, there are positive aspects as well: foliation growing more densely, foliation growing in places where it hasn't for centuries (both of which have a counteracting effect on CO₂ concentrations), greater productivity (several scientists have pointed out the correlation between warmer periods and the more productive periods such as the Renaissance and the Greek civilization), on and on and on. Ecological balances being thrown off on a massive scale, as plants adapted for competition in a carbon-dioxide-poor atmosphere are suddenly exposed to greater concentrations of it. Increased desertification. Unknown effects on global climate. Major coral die-offs (although coral may be tougher than we originally feared, it's still delicate stuff).

If it does turn out that human-caused global warming helps cancel out a cooling period, that's just dumb luck on our part. We'd be saved from our own ecological excess only through an accident of history.

What next? Claims that the holes in the ozone will reduce vitamin D deficiency? Give me a break.

The best possible result of global warming studies would be that we didn't screw up the world quite as badly as we thought we might have. We're still responsible for the greatest set of mass extinctions since the end of the dinosaurs. At worst, we run the risk of triggering a major climatological collapse.

[shanek]

Originally posted by geni
If the person is qualified to make the statement yes they are.

Then why is argument by authority not asserted in any other field of science? Why is it ONLY the GW people who cling to it so?

No, sorry, but Carl Sagan was perfectly right when he said, "Arguments from authority are worthless." What matters is the data and how well it stands up to scrutiny, not who is making the argument.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
If it does turn out that human-caused global warming helps cancel out a cooling period, that's just dumb luck on our part. We'd be saved from our own ecological excess only through an accident of history.

So what if we are?

What next? Claims that the holes in the ozone will reduce vitamin D deficiency? Give me a break.

No one is making any claim that even remotely resembles this level of idiocy, at least not on the GW skeptics side. Give me a break.

The best possible result of global warming studies would be that we didn't screw up the world quite as badly as we thought we might have.

Why are you ignoring all of the potential benefits of a warmer climate that I mentioned?

We're still responsible for the greatest set of mass extinctions since the end of the dinosaurs.

I'd like to see evidence that such extinctions are even occuring, much moreso evidence that we're responsible.

No, you and the others are just preying on unknowns. And since the unknown, pretty much by definition, does allow for a catastrophe, that leaves the door wide open for these scare tactics. But is it what the EVIDENCE shows? Not right now, it doesn't.

[geni]

Originally posted by shanek
Then why is argument by authority not asserted in any other field of science? Why is it ONLY the GW people who cling to it so?

Er so what about the aninmal testing debate (both sides)? Appeal to authority turns up when either there is not really enough data or the data is way to complex for most people to understand.

[geni]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
We're still responsible for the greatest set of mass extinctions since the end of the dinosaurs. At worst, we run the risk of triggering a major climatological collapse.


Does anyone have any figuers for the extion rates in the last few ice ages.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
The best possible result of global warming studies would be that we didn't screw up the world quite as badly as we thought we might have. We're still responsible for the greatest set of mass extinctions since the end of the dinosaurs. At worst, we run the risk of triggering a major climatological collapse. Forgive me for reposting but...

Steven Milloy Junk Science (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93466,00.html)
Houghton’s assertion that the 1990s was the warmest decade in the last 1,000 years (search) draws out the question, “Why was it so warm 1,000 years ago?”

Since there were no power plants, factories or automobiles back then, that warm period was obviously natural climate change (search). So why should we leap to the conclusion that any 1990s warming is definitely manmade?

Of course, it’s not even clear that any measurable “global warming” has really occurred, much less that it’s human-induced.

Satellite and weather balloon measurements of atmospheric temperatures since the 1970s actually indicate slight cooling to no change. To the extent any significant warming may have occurred during the 20th century, most occurred before 1940, while most greenhouse gas emissions (search) occurred after 1940 -- so there’s no apparent cause-and-effect relationship.

While it’s possible that some human-induced warming may be occurring, Virginia state climatologist Pat Michaels (search) once pointed out in a television debate with Clinton administration eco-czarina Carol Browner: “The fact of the matter is if you look at those temperature records that you keep on citing, you will see that almost all of the warming takes place in the absolute coldest, most miserable air masses in Siberia and northwestern North America … Great. We've warmed Siberia from minus 40 to minus 38. Big deal.”

If the 1990s were unusually warm, we don’t know why. Neither do the global-warming pushers. Where is the evidence that humans screwed up the earth as it relates to global warming?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Ecological balances being thrown off on a massive scale, as plants adapted for competition in a carbon-dioxide-poor atmosphere are suddenly exposed to greater concentrations of it. Increased desertification. Unknown effects on global climate. Major coral die-offs (although coral may be tougher than we originally feared, it's still delicate stuff).

Sorry, but ecological balances, being complex and chaotic, are anything but "balanced". Ecology is constantly changing, and has always been changing. Oxygen was once a toxic gas in huge supply early in earth's history - life evolved to take advantage of it. Even today, those plants (weeds) and animals (man) most capable at adapting to change are the most successful, while "niche" plants (edelweiss) and animals ( the cheetah) suffer severe and sometimes dire affects from even the tiniest of changes.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by varwoche
The denial of global warming, and the denial that burning fossil fuels contributes, has about the same intellectual honesty as holocaust denial.



Originally posted by Luke T.

The measurements which show global warming occuring are not guesswork. The prognostications of what this will do to the planet are.


Originally posted by Sundog


Says who? You?

You'll have to back that up.

You guys are hilarious. You believe in Science as long as it supports what you WANT to be true.

SciAm article. (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21&catID=2)



Denying uncertainty makes life so much easier, as many have discovered when it comes to climate change. Between skeptics' insistence that global warming is just hot air and radical environmentalists' advice to start selling the beachfront property, responses to climate change tend to be predicated on claims of absolute knowledge. Who wants to deal with the messy reality? There is plenty of evidence that temperatures are rising and will continue to do so but lots of uncertainty about the details and amount of future change.


The bad news is that uncertainty still paralyzes discussion, especially in the U.S. Scientists naturally generate a range of results. Not all of these results are equally likely to be true, and none is definitive, but people tend to latch onto those that suit their preconceptions.

(edited to kind of tie things together)

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by shanek
So what if we are? Well, aside from shooting ourselves in our collective foot (the value of healthy ecosystems just in their ability to maintain basic "life support" is beyond calculation), there's always the wacky idea that life has worth beyond mere human evaluation...

Why are you ignoring all of the potential benefits of a warmer climate that I mentioned? Why are you ignoring all of the potential negative consequences of a CO₂-enriched atmosphere that I mentioned?

I'd like to see evidence that such extinctions are even occuring, much moreso evidence that we're responsible. This is a joke, right?

If you're not even familiar with the evidence of the massive loss of biodiversity presently taking place, what should cause us to think that your opinion on global warming has any value?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Sorry, but ecological balances, being complex and chaotic, are anything but "balanced". Ecology is constantly changing, and has always been changing. Oxygen was once a toxic gas in huge supply early in earth's history - life evolved to take advantage of it. Even today, those plants (weeds) and animals (man) most capable at adapting to change are the most successful, while "niche" plants (edelweiss) and animals ( the cheetah) suffer severe and sometimes dire affects from even the tiniest of changes. Well, someone doesn't quite grasp the difference between a dynamic equilibrium and a system crash...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
If you're not even familiar with the evidence of the massive loss of biodiversity presently taking place, what should cause us to think that your opinion on global warming has any value?

Ah...The ol' "You haven't even read the bible. Why should we listen to what you have to say about god and religion" remark... :rolleyes:


I'm familiar with the "claim" of the current "massive die-off", but no one has ever actually supplied evidence to back up the numbers that are thrown about.

Can you provide them?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Well, someone doesn't quite grasp the difference between a dynamic equilibrium and a system crash...

It is refreshing that you are willing to concede that about yourself. :)

I'm happy to have been of service.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Sorry, but ecological balances, being complex and chaotic, are anything but "balanced". Ecology is constantly changing, and has always been changing. Oxygen was once a toxic gas in huge supply early in earth's history - life evolved to take advantage of it. Even today, those plants (weeds) and animals (man) most capable at adapting to change are the most successful, while "niche" plants (edelweiss) and animals ( the cheetah) suffer severe and sometimes dire affects from even the tiniest of changes. There has never been stasis. Changes in environment and the ever changing "arms race" (some species of ants rule some species of trees today, those species of trees rule the ants tomorrow) ensures that there will never be a pure state of equilibrium. It has never been in the cards. However humans can have a dramatic impact on change and we can and should work to mitigate that impact.

[Earthborn]

The denial of global warming, and the denial that burning fossil fuels contributes, has about the same intellectual honesty as holocaust denial.

OK, overstated slightly, but not by much. So let's grant a small degree of uncertainty...I think that is a very unfair comparison. There is significantly uncertainty about global warming than the holocaust and there should be. The holocaust happened in the past and we have evidence that it did. The dangers of Global Warming are in the future, and I think there should always be more uncertainty about predictions of the future than about what happened in the (relatively recent) past.

You should not compare one with the other. You cannot be as certain about what is to come as you are of what has already happened.Inaction is unacceptable when when best science indicates that disaster of biblical proportion looms as a real possibility.You are correct about one thing: the best of science does indicae that disaster of biblical proportions looms as a real possibility. The problem is, the best of science indicates that climate is an incredibly complex and inherently unstable system and whatever we do disaster of biblical proportion always looms as a real possibility.Not to mention that reducing fuel consuption would be an important "weapon" in the war on terror. Unfortunately, Bush et al do not fully appreciate the multi-dimensional aspects of this war.Perhaps Bush is smarter than you think and he sees terror as an important "weapon" in the war for oil. :p

If you think that reducuing fuel consumption will benefit the war on terror, I think you'll need to provide evidence of the connection between oil and terrorists.If the evidence does indeed show that there is a significant risk to global warming caused by burning fossil fuels then you are right.The evidence does indeed show that there is a significant risk to global warming caused by burning fossil fuels, but still varwoche is incorrect. Burning fossil fuels is not the only risk, there are risks caused by nature as well. Nobody has yet figured out which ones are the most important, but they are all significant.Just a fear that fossil fuel is suspected by many as being a significant factor.As I understand it, there is pretty much consensus that it is a significant factor. The controversy is about whether other factors may even be more significant.Does the magazine state categorically that humans have significantly contributed to global warming?There is a more important issue then how much humans have contributed: can humans do anything to stop it? That's an even tougher question, but it needs to be answered, because if we can't it may be a better idea to try to adapt to the change, whether we have caused it or not.The problem with the global warming theories floating around is the predictions for the future. They make it sound like the world will end in a sudden onrush of disasters in a brief period. And it is pure guesswork. This makes them sound like every other doomsday scenario the human race has been subjected to forever.Yes, but there is a difference though: we know that such doomsday scenarios have happened in the past, we know they can happen in the future, we know that we are putting quite a bit of CO2 into the atmosphere, and we know that must have some effect, and we know that most likely that effect is warming. We also know that when the earth starts to warm, there are many factors that can increase that warming and escalate into a runaway climate shift. And we know that there factors that will resist that change and slow it down.

We just don't know which ones are going to be more important.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by RandFan
There has never been stasis. Changes in environment and the ever changing "arms race" (some species of ants rule some species of trees today, those species of trees rule the ants tomorrow) ensures that there will never be a pure state of equilibrium. It has never been in the cards. However humans can have a dramatic impact on change and we can and should work to mitigate that impact.

Exactly. Of course.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Well, someone doesn't quite grasp the difference between a dynamic equilibrium and a system crash... There have been many such anthropological "system crashes" in the history of plants and animals. The question is, are we going through one now and what real effect will this have on the human race.

Stating that "we are" and that it will be significant is insufficient. Can you supply the evidence?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Well, aside from shooting ourselves in our collective foot (the value of healthy ecosystems just in their ability to maintain basic "life support" is beyond calculation), there's always the wacky idea that life has worth beyond mere human evaluation...

What does ANY of that have to do with the comment of yours I was responding to?

This is a joke, right?

No, it's not. These things are real, and have been studied and documented. The fact that you dismiss them outright shows your obvious and incredible bias.

If you're not even familiar with the evidence of the massive loss of biodiversity presently taking place, what should cause us to think that your opinion on global warming has any value?

If you're not even willing to do even the slightest amount of effort to provide evidence either for your claims for GW or your claims about the extinction of species, what should cause us to think your opinion has any value?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I'm familiar with the "claim" of the current "massive die-off", but no one has ever actually supplied evidence to back up the numbers that are thrown about.

Can you provide them? In what way are you uncertain regarding the numbers people have given you? The rate of rainforest destruction alone is relatively easy to verify, and I see no reason to discard our estimates of new species/ unit area derived from studies of those ecosystems.

Worldwide, habitats are being destroyed to make room for human habitation. The large sea mammals are shadows of what they once were, many fishstocks are becoming seriously depleted, algal blooms from fertilizer runoff cause serious disruption of aquatic ecosystems... c'mon, it's not difficult to determine that things are going downhill fast.

I suppose all of the animals we can no longer find in the wild are just part of a massive conspiracy against democracy and industry, eh? :(

[Sundog]

Originally posted by shanek


Thank you for proving you are not being at all skeptical on this subject. You now officially rank with the other GW advocates on this board who refuse to answer direct questions. Congratulations.

Go back and read what you wrote and see if you honestly think it deserves an answer.

Now that I'm back I'd like to stay a while. The only way I can do that, I think, is to converse with people who at least understand what I'm saying and don't play silly games, and ignore the others. You are invited to be in the first group.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by shanek
No, it's not. These things are real, and have been studied and documented. The fact that you dismiss them outright shows your obvious and incredible bias. No, it just shows that I know a bit more about ecology than you do. The fact that you dismiss the negative consequences of carbon dioxide saturation outright shows your obvious and incredible bias.

If you're not even willing to do even the slightest amount of effort to provide evidence either for your claims for GW or your claims about the extinction of species, what should cause us to think your opinion has any value? I'm mostly just mocking your own claims, which seem to be mostly uneducated. We can't tell for certain what the effects of dumping millions of tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere will be, but there's no reason to think it'll be particularly beneficial.

[shanek]

Well, it looks like Tim Slagle's words still ring true:

"I think the people who warn us about Global Warming are the intellectual descendents of the people who told us that, unless we threw virgins into the volcano, a giant sea monster would come around and eat us. And then, sooner or later, there'd be an eclipse, and these people would say, 'See? We told you this would happen!' 'No, you said we'd be eaten by a giant sea monster.' 'Well, whaddya think's blocking out the sun?' "Oh! Well, we'd better throw in some virgins, then! Sure hope we can find a couple...'"

[shanek]

Originally posted by Sundog
Go back and read what you wrote and see if you honestly think it deserves an answer.

Okay:

Originally posted by me
Except that the best science DOESN'T show that. Every real scientist I've cornered on the subject, as well as an answer given by one at TAM2 in the panel by a participant (not me), has said that the conclusions are: 1) The Earth is getting warmer (for certain definitions of "warmer," meaning global average surface temperatures, but not in other aspects like maximum temperature or troposphere temperatures), and 2) Humans may be contrubuting to it.

That's a LONG was from the gloom-and-doom scenario of the GW politicos. All other objections aside, there is one aspect that the politicos completely neglect: that while there are arguably negative aspects to GW, there are positive aspects as well: foliation growing more densely, foliation growing in places where it hasn't for centuries (both of which have a counteracting effect on CO₂ concentrations), greater productivity (several scientists have pointed out the correlation between warmer periods and the more productive periods such as the Renaissance and the Greek civilization), on and on and on. So, the first question is, are we better of on the balance? Once we ask that question, if it turns out we aren't, then the next question is, is the net detrimental effects of GW greater than the clearly detrimental effects of "solutions" such as Kyoto, which will have a devastating effect on the global economy?

Yes, I think that is very much a rational, well-thought out post that deserves an honest answer.

Now that I'm back I'd like to stay a while. The only way I can do that, I think, is to converse with people who at least understand what I'm saying and don't play silly games, and ignore the others. You are invited to be in the first group.

Since you're the one who is instantly applying labels such as "left-wing" to anything he doesn't agree with, it seems to me you're placing yourself in the second group.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I'm familiar with the "claim" of the current "massive die-off", but no one has ever actually supplied evidence to back up the numbers that are thrown about.

Can you provide them?



Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
In what way are you uncertain regarding the numbers people have given you? The rate of rainforest destruction alone is relatively easy to verify, and I see no reason to discard our estimates of new species/ unit area derived from studies of those ecosystems.

Worldwide, habitats are being destroyed to make room for human habitation. The large sea mammals are shadows of what they once were, many fishstocks are becoming seriously depleted, algal blooms from fertilizer runoff cause serious disruption of aquatic ecosystems... c'mon, it's not difficult to determine that things are going downhill fast.

I suppose all of the animals we can no longer find in the wild are just part of a massive conspiracy against democracy and industry, eh?


Is that a "NO" then?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Worldwide, habitats are being destroyed to make room for human habitation. The large sea mammals are shadows of what they once were, many fishstocks are becoming seriously depleted, algal blooms from fertilizer runoff cause serious disruption of aquatic ecosystems... c'mon, it's not difficult to determine that things are going downhill fast.Oh really? Going downhill fast?

This sounds allot like what Paul Ehrlich said.

The Club of Rome had just released its primal scream, Limits to Growth, which reported that the earth was rapidly running out of everything. The most famous declinist of the era, biologist Paul Ehrlich, had appeared on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson to fill Americans with fear of impending world famine and make gloomy prognostications, such as, "If I were a gambler, I would bet even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Funny, 2000 has come and gone and England still exists.

It also sounds like the Carter administrationThe Carter administration published in 1980 its multiagency assessment of the earth’s future, titled Global 2000. Its famous doom-and-gloom forecast that "the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically. . . . and the world’s people will be poorer in many ways than they are today" received headlines across the nation. Malthusianism was now the official position of the U.S. government. Didn't quite come to pass. Not even the Y2K bug could bring us down.

The ultimate embarrassment for the Malthusians was when Paul Ehrlich bet Simon $1,000 in 1980 that five resources (of Ehrlich’s choosing) would be more expensive in 10 years. Ehrlich lost: 10 years later every one of the resources had declined in price by an average of 40 percent. Evidence Swarm, where is your data? Why do you keep making claims without backing them up with real hard data?

Edited to provide source:

Julian Simon Remembered: (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n2-1.html)

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Well, for an obvious example: Ecological Damage from Invasive Species (www.anapsid.org/invasives.html)

[Wrath of the Swarm]

This page should be simple enough for you to understand, and it has a nice bibliography:

Ecology of Overfishing (http://whyfiles.org/139overfishing/3.html)

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Here's another elementary example:

Hawaii: an Ecological Catastrophe (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nationalpac091.shtml)

[RandFan]

How do your links prove that we are going down hill fast?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
No, it just shows that I know a bit more about ecology than you do. The fact that you dismiss the negative consequences of carbon dioxide saturation outright shows your obvious and incredible bias.

Yeah, right. A study done at Duke University (actually just up the road from me) tested the effect of CO₂ concentrations of over 500ppm on loblolly pines. They found that the pines grew taller, had more leaves, produced more seeds, a greater percentage of the seeds germinated, grew more densely, etc. Not only is this beneficial for the trees (and should be considered a good thing by anyone whining about "deforestation"), but the additional trees also tend to absorb the excess CO₂ and reduce the effect on warming.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1999-05/DUMC-RHCD-140599.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1998-03/GCaT-CTBH-100398.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-08/DU-Dssc-0708100.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-11/dnl-trl112003.php

This experiment has been repeated in Florida, Canada, and (if memory serves) Denmark with similar results. And that's just one example.

And yet you claim to know more about it than I do? How could all of these studies have passed you by, then, O great purveyor of supreme ecological knowledge?

We can't tell for certain what the effects of dumping millions of tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere will be, but there's no reason to think it'll be particularly beneficial.

And there's no reason to think it'll be particularly detrimental, either. All we know right now is that there are some beneficial consequences and some detrimental consequences. What no one seems to want to do is figure out which one outweighs the other. You yourself are just doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming really loud.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

A good article discussing the implications of rapid warming:

Insect and Leaf Fossils (www.scienceblog.com/community/article1085.html)

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Sundog
Someone please explain to me how it is not being skeptical to side with the VAST majority of worldwide scientific opinion?
Exactly Sundog. That's because (presumably) none of us are climatologists; all we can do is rely on expert opinion. As for the deniers:

We could debate "vast" I suppose. Fine, let's just say majority. Does it bother you that a majority of scientific thought considers there to be a reasonable possibility that global disaster will occur? What odds do you need before you are concerned?

Someone suggested that lessening dependence on foriegn oil is off topic. This happens to be a convergence of arguably THE two great challenges facing humanity. The imperative is compounded.

varwoche

[shanek]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
A good article discussing the implications of rapid warming:

Insect and Leaf Fossils (www.scienceblog.com/community/article1085.html)

Hmmm...it seems as if this article is supporting MY point:

"The early Eocene 52 million years ago was the warmest the Earth has been in the last 100 million years, and that warming lasted for 2 million years," says Dr. Peter Wilf, assistant professor of geosciences at Penn State. "There is strong evidence for high diversity when temperatures were warm," Wilf told attendees at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Feb. 16 in Denver.

Of course, he then drops into some fear-mongering, while nothing (at least nothing mentioned in the article) is put forth to really support it. And it shouldn't take someone with twelve PhDs to tell you how much our current situation is different from the K-T boundary. The only "evidence" he seems to produce is that it was a rapid change. Therefore, apparently, making the assumption that all rapid changes are alike and therefore have the same consequences. Rubbish! Wasn't the K-T event an event of cooling, not warming?

As I pointed out in another thread and produced evidence for (which was either ignored or misrepresented by the GW side), the current rate of warming is hardly unprecedented, even in human history. In fact, there's evidence that this kind of warming at this rate occurs every 1500 years. But, I guess we can just do without all that pesky evidence that contradicts what we've already included, right?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by shanek
Yeah, right. A study done at Duke University (actually just up the road from me) tested the effect of CO₂ concentrations of over 500ppm on loblolly pines. They found that the pines grew taller, had more leaves, produced more seeds, a greater percentage of the seeds germinated, grew more densely, etc. Not only is this beneficial for the trees (and should be considered a good thing by anyone whining about "deforestation"), but the additional trees also tend to absorb the excess CO₂ and reduce the effect on warming. So what makes you think that's a good thing? Would you conclude that algal blooms created by fertilizers must be a good thing, as it involves the rapid growth of plant matter?

Grasses are highly evolved to use carbon dioxide efficiently. Ecological balances between grasses and other plants will be destroyed if the grasses' advantage is diminished. What are the consequences for existing ecologies if temperatures increase and access to carbon dioxide is also increased?

How can you be stupid enough to believe that you've made a viable point?

[Sundog]

Surely we can communicate better than this. I have work to do but let me try to honestly lay out my thoughts.

1. The default position of a skeptic should be to accept what the scientific community as a whole has decided is true for now. Certainly this consensus is proven wrong sometimes. That's the scientific process.

I don't see how you can argue with this and still call yourself a skeptic. If you have a beef with this, you have a beef with science itself. If you disagree, you will suddenly find Interesting Ian congratulating you for having the courage to challenge all the scientific charlatans.

This is not argument from authority. I don't think even Bill would call it that. The consensus of a group of people on a subject they above all others have an informed opinion on is not argument from authority.

If we can't agree on at least this, we really can't talk.

2. The consensus of the world's scientists seems to be in favor of the global warming theory. I realize that this is the most contentious point of all. Can we agree that, if this becomes clearly so even to you, that you will change your position? If not, how can you justify this if you agree with point 1 above?

3. I am honestly bewildered by people who assume our politics enter into this. Folks, I see a consensus of the world's scientists very, very worried about this. I see the US making contingency security plans based on "what if it's true". When someone asserts that I have come to my conclusions because I'm simply anti-Bush, or because I have some sort of general tree-hugger attitude, I am honestly astonished. If you have snide comments to make about this, keep them to yourself.

On the other hand, every time I have seen a "scientist" arguing against the theory, it's been some obvious blustering right-wing type on Fox or something similar. Maybe I just haven't seen all the respected scientists who don't accept the theory.

4. I am not a scientist. I am not entitled to an opinion. You are not a scientist. You are not entitled to an opinion! All we CAN do is try to follow the arguments of those who actually know what they're talking about, and to rely on point 1 above.

5. This is the most confusing thing of all to me: Why do conservatives as a block reject global warming? What possible reason can there be except political motivation? I and many others just don't get it. It seems clear to me that what unifies you is simply an overwhelming, unreasoning, blind hatred of the dreaded Environmentalists and the Left in general and anything they agree with.

Pretend we are discussing ESP instead of global warming. Really, go through the arguments. What would you call a person who used your arguments as defense of ESP?

I think you know.

Good day to you all, I probably won't have much time the rest of the day. ;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
So what makes you think that's a good thing?

Well, let's see...increased oxygen production, absorbtion of the CO₂ gasses, an increase in natural habitats for many animal species...there are all sorts of advantages to having more trees. What would make you think it's a bad thing?

Grasses are highly evolved to use carbon dioxide efficiently. Ecological balances between grasses and other plants will be destroyed if the grasses' advantage is diminished.

Oh, well, we're in luck then:

http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/greener.htm

A team of Swiss and Portuguese scientists grew ryegrass in open fields near Zurich where atmospheric CO2 levels were maintained at 350 ppm and 600 ppm. Here’s a twist: the scientists stayed with their experiment for six years. Daepp et al. found that after the first year the grass increased its dry weight by seven percent. By the sixth year, dry weight had risen to 25 percent thanks to higher CO2 concentrations. Their result suggests that all those one and two year studies we’ve cited as evidence of a benefit from higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 may in fact grossly underestimate it.

Another Swiss team (including some researchers from the experiment just described) grew various grasses in 1994 and 1995 in an open field where they maintained atmospheric CO2 concentrations at ambient and near-twice ambient levels. When the grass grew under conditions where there were low levels of nitrogen, the grassland increased its overall biomass by 13 percent. Under high nitrogen conditions, the grasses revealed a 30 percent increase in response to higher CO2. When last we checked, nitrogen was not in short supply, so our pastoral future looks mighty green.

Van Ginkel grew this same ryegrass specie for 115 days in growth chambers with atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 350 and 700 ppm, after which some chambers had their temperature increased by 2°C for 230 days. The researchers observed that elevated CO2 substantially increased root biomass and wrote, "Root biomass is the driving parameter for all subsequent below-ground processes in our plant-soil system." (Layman’s translation: Increased root biomass is good news for plants.) Further, beneficial microbial biomass increased by 46 percent under elevated CO2 conditions. Finally, increased temperature appeared to have little negative effect on the benefits resulting from higher CO2. Put another way, ryegrass grown under elevated carbon dioxide concentrations withstands higher temperature better than it does under current concentrations.

How can you be stupid enough to believe that you've made a viable point?

:rolleyes:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by varwoche
Exactly Sundog. That's because (presumably) none of us are climatologists; all we can do is rely on expert opinion. As for the deniers:

We could debate "vast" I suppose. Fine, let's just say majority. Does it bother you that a majority of scientific thought considers there to be a reasonable possibility that global disaster will occur? What odds do you need before you are concerned? Vast? Yeah, we could debate that. We could even debate majority. We HAVE been debating it. Where have you been? Did you decide to just dismiss all that has been posted?

You know, I think that you have made a testable claim? If I understand it right you are saying that a majority of experts believe that humans are significantly causing global warming and that warming will have disasterous efffects.

Is that correct?

If it is could you please substantiate that claim?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, let's see...increased oxygen production, absorbtion of the CO₂ gasses, an increase in natural habitats for many animal species...there are all sorts of advantages to having more trees. What would make you think it's a bad thing? No, there'd be a massive decrease in natural habitats. The plants that grew more quickly would begin to crowd out the other plants, and you'd quickly have clusters of monocultures popping up. That's generally not conductive to ecological diversity.

You sound rather like the conservative thinktank at www.co2science.org . Oi.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by shanek


Okay:



Yes, I think that is very much a rational, well-thought out post that deserves an honest answer.



Since you're the one who is instantly applying labels such as "left-wing" to anything he doesn't agree with, it seems to me you're placing yourself in the second group.

Well, I gave you a chance. How dishonest you are! You know perfectly well I'm referring to this:

How did you get that from what he said? Thank you for admitting that your viewpoint is politically motivated, not scientifically motivated.


This was your first comment on the subject, so don't accuse me of starting the politics. And no, it isn't worthy of a response.

Sorry, please just ignore me from now on, I don't think we have anything to talk about.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Sundog
1. The default position of a skeptic should be to accept what the scientific community as a whole has decided is true for now.

I fully and completely disagree. The default position of a skeptic should ALWAYS be "I don't know."

Certainly this consensus is proven wrong sometimes.

Which is exactly why we shouldn't base our conclusions off of it.

I don't see how you can argue with this and still call yourself a skeptic.

That's funny; I don't see how you can make an appeal to authority or appeal to popularity and call yourself a skeptic.

But you know what, let's say for the moment that you're right, a skeptic should start off with the idea that a consensus of scientific experts is probably right. Why, then, does it follow, as it seems to do in this thread, that the skeptics should not be expected to question the findings of those scientists and be able to ask questions and have a reasonable expectation of them being answered?

For the record, my beef is NOT with the only scientific consensus there appears to be on this subject: The cooler regions of the Earth are warming up, causing an increase in average temperatures, and humans are probably contributing to this effect. The parts I have been arguing against have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this consensus viewpoint.

This is not argument from authority.

Sure it is.

2. The consensus of the world's scientists seems to be in favor of the global warming theory.

But not the catastrophic ramifications many people are concluding from it. If by "global warming" you mean a rise in average global temperatures which are most likely due at least in part by mankind's actions, then you're going to get no argument from me. But people want to leap from that to global catastrophy, which just isn't warranted.

I am honestly bewildered by people who assume our politics enter into this.

Look at the Kyoto treaty and tell me how that isn't just pure politics. And many prominent climatologists who never even thought about debunking Global Warming have come out against Kyoto, saying that it will cause great harm for very little benefit.

I am not a scientist. I am not entitled to an opinion. You are not a scientist. You are not entitled to an opinion!

Total and complete bull$#!7.

This is the most confusing thing of all to me: Why do conservatives as a block reject global warming?

Don't ask me; I'm not a conservative.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by shanek


I fully and completely disagree. The default position of a skeptic should ALWAYS be "I don't know."



LOL. Must be a confusing way to go through life.

OK, no problem, we can't even agree on point 1, so we have nothing to talk about. I don't discuss science with woo-woos.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Sundog
Well, I gave you a chance. How dishonest you are!

Deceitful? I looked, at YOUR REQUEST, at my first post in this thread. Which you snipped and ignored.

You know perfectly well I'm referring to this:

That was a comment to YOUR straw-man representation of Kodiak's claim, making it out as if he thought SciAm was "left-wing." YOU injected the politics into that; I merely responded to it.

This was your first comment on the subject,

No, it wasn't. The one I quoted was my first response on the subject.

so don't accuse me of starting the politics.

I WILL, because YOU made the "left-wing" crack in the post I was responding to! YOU said:

So Scientific American is now a left-wing publication?

When Kodiak had made no comment coming anywhere near such a claim. YOU injected the politics, not me.

Sorry, please just ignore me from now on, I don't think we have anything to talk about.

Guess not. I want to discuss the EVIDENCE. You, apparently, don't.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Sundog
LOL. Must be a confusing way to go through life.

That's the skeptical way. However confusing you think it might be, it's the only way that seems to avoid being taken in by bull$#!7, to the point where you have to resort to political name-calling and strawman arguments to make your point.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Sundog:
1. The default position of a skeptic should be to accept what the scientific community as a whole has decided is true for now. Certainly this consensus is proven wrong sometimes. That's the scientific process.

And such a consensus about human induced global warming exists?

Pretend we are discussing ESP instead of global warming. Really, go through the arguments. What would you call a person who used your arguments as defense of ESP?

There's an absence of scientifically verifiable and reproducible evidence that ESP exists, thus any defense of ESP will be necessarily handicapped by this fact. OTOH questioning the novelty of global warming, it's effects and suggested remedies is a reasonable position to take, given the scientific uncertainty surrounding global warming and the effect human activity has on it.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
Vast? Yeah, we could debate that. We could even debate majority. We HAVE been debating it. Where have you been? Did you decide to just dismiss all that has been posted?

You know, I think that you have made a testable claim? If I understand it right you are saying that a majority of experts believe that humans are significantly causing global warming and that warming will have disasterous efffects.

Is that correct?

If it is could you please substantiate that claim?

I made the claim first; pick on me. :D

That's just my impression. I haven't counted heads. Just as it's your impression that a sizeable number disagree.

Let me get your position clear. Which do you agree with:

1. A majority of the world's scientists believe in GW, but they're wrong.

or

2. A majority of the world's scientists do not accept GW.

or something else?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
1. The default position of a skeptic should be to accept what the scientific community as a whole has decided is true for now. Certainly this consensus is proven wrong sometimes. That's the scientific process. Assuming that there is a consensus then that consensus should be based on testable theories, right? If we dispute these theories someone should be able to respond to the dispute, right?

I don't see how you can argue with this and still call yourself a skeptic. If you have a beef with this, you have a beef with science itself. If you disagree, you will suddenly find Interesting Ian congratulating you for having the courage to challenge all the scientific charlatans. The argument is fallacious. I have every right to question any held belief. You have the responsibility to answer those questions or bow out of the discussion. Not dismiss my arguments because you "presume" that my arguments are not reconcilable with science.

This is not argument from authority. I don't think even Bill would call it that. The consensus of a group of people on a subject they above all others have an informed opinion on is not argument from authority. The preceding is a claim. You have posted this claim in a skeptics forum. When you make such claims in such a forum it is incumbent upon you to substantiate that claim not accuse others of arguing against authority.

If we can't agree on at least this, we really can't talk. If you are so dogmatic as to not address the arguments and rely only on a supposed specious argument that there is a consensus then you are right. There is nothing to talk about.

2. The consensus of the world's scientists seems to be in favor of the global warming theory. I realize that this is the most contentious point of all. Can we agree that, if this becomes clearly so even to you, that you will change your position? Can I see the evidence first?

3. I am honestly bewildered by people who assume our politics enter into this. Folks, I see a consensus of the world's scientists very, very worried about this. That is fine, could you show us so that we can respond to what it is that you see?

I see the US making contingency security plans based on "what if it's true". Does not prove anything.

When someone asserts that I have come to my conclusions because I'm simply anti-Bush, or because I have some sort of general tree-hugger attitude, I am honestly astonished. If you have snide comments to make about this, keep them to yourself. I have great respect for you sundog. I just want evidence. I'm skeptical that way. Sorry.

On the other hand, every time I have seen a "scientist" arguing against the theory, it's been some obvious blustering right-wing type on Fox or something similar. Maybe I just haven't seen all the respected scientists who don't accept the theory.So everyone on fox is not credible?

Wow, talk about ad hominem. Sundog, an expert should be judged based on the quality of his arguments not the channel he appears on.

4. I am not a scientist. I am not entitled to an opinion. You are not a scientist. You are not entitled to an opinion! Wow, Marconi was not a scientist. By this logic Marconi was not entitled to an opinion. Yet he proved all of the scientists wrong, didn't he?

Fallacious argument.

All we CAN do is try to follow the arguments of those who actually know what they're talking about, and to rely on point 1 above. This is so wrong I can't believe it. NO, in light of the fact that there is significant scientific evidence I am entitled to form my own opinion.

5. This is the most confusing thing of all to me: Why do conservatives as a block reject global warming? What possible reason can there be except political motivation? I and many others just don't get it. It seems clear to me that what unifies you is simply an overwhelming, unreasoning, blind hatred of the dreaded Environmentalists and the Left in general and anything they agree with. You have no more reason to accuse me of politics than I do of you.

Pretend we are discussing ESP instead of global warming. Really, go through the arguments. What would you call a person who used your arguments as defense of ESP? There is NO counter evidence to ESP. There is real scientific evidence that refutes your contention.

Come on Sundog. This is not warranted.

Good day to you all, I probably won't have much time the rest of the day. ;) You have a good day also. When you have some time could you please respond to my questions and request for data and proof of your claims?

Sundog, you don't get a default position of being right. Skepticism gives me the right to question your held beliefs and those of scientists particularly when there is significant counter data.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
Sundog, you don't get a default position of being right. Skepticism gives me the right to question your held beliefs and those of scientists particularly when there is significant counter data.

:( I think I made a wrong decision after all.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog


I made the claim first; pick on me. :D

That's just my impression. I haven't counted heads. Just as it's your impression that a sizeable number disagree.

Let me get your position clear. Which do you agree with:

1. A majority of the world's scientists believe in GW, but they're wrong.

or

2. A majority of the world's scientists do not accept GW.

or something else? Thanks for the "something else"?

A significant number of credible scientists have real data that disputes or calls into question the following:

1.) That the earth is warming.

2.) If the earth is warming that it is caused chiefly or significantly by humans.

3.) If the earth is warming that it will not reverse at some point and or that it will have catastrophic effects.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog


:( I think I made a wrong decision after all. Hey, no sad faces. Which decision was wrong? There is nothing to take personally, at least not from me. This is simply a discussion. If I said something that upset you please accept my apology.

[Earthborn]

1. The default position of a skeptic should be to accept what the scientific community as a whole has decided is true for now. Certainly this consensus is proven wrong sometimes. That's the scientific process.And what if there is no consensus?2. The consensus of the world's scientists seems to be in favor of the global warming theory.I don't think this is true. It seems to me that the consensus of the world's scientists seems to be that global warming is a very serious probability, it cannot be ignored, but there are still different explanations possible, different possible future outcomes and even if the warming is permantent thing and it will get warmer in the next century, that the impact of that on the environment is uncertain.Folks, I see a consensus of the world's scientists very, very worried about this.The fact that they are worried does not mean they know of what is going to happen.When someone asserts that I have come to my conclusions because I'm simply anti-Bush, or because I have some sort of general tree-hugger attitude, I am honestly astonished.Well, aren't you? Aren't you an anti-Bush treehugger? Come on, you can tell me. I'm a bit myself! :)On the other hand, every time I have seen a "scientist" arguing against the theory, it's been some obvious blustering right-wing type on Fox or something similar. Maybe I just haven't seen all the respected scientists who don't accept the theory.Sundog, meet Philip Stott (http://www.probiotech.fsnet.co.uk/), Philip Stott, meet Sundog.

Okay, okay, I admit he is a bit of an opinionated person. But I think he makes a few good arguments, and I doubt he's a right winger.All we CAN do is try to follow the arguments of those who actually know what they're talking about, and to rely on point 1 above.Well, yes. So since the people who do know what they are talking about seem trapped in controversy, we limit ourselves to challenging those who claim they have figured it all out.5. This is the most confusing thing of all to me: Why do conservatives as a block reject global warming?Isn't it obvious. If we assume that global warming is real, caused by humans and can be solved by humans, then obviously we have to change things to solve it. Conservatives want to keep things the same, so will try to cast doubt on the necessity of change.It seems clear to me that what unifies you is simply an overwhelming, unreasoning, blind hatred of the dreaded Environmentalists and the Left in general and anything they agree with.Probably that too. :)

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
Assuming that there is a consensus then that consensus should be based on testable theories, right? If we dispute these theories someone should be able to respond to the dispute, right?

[snip]

RandFan, can I just say it's great to have you back? :D

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
RandFan, can I just say it's great to have you back? :D Thanks, but I should let you know that I'm still not prepared for that debate on minimum wage. ;)

[Wrath of the Swarm]

That was an interesting site, Earthborn, but I'll admit that I stopped reading after coming across a statement that the world's ecosystems are normally in a state of change, so we can't upset any equilibria.

Perhaps the rest of his arguments are better than that, but that's a very basic error.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Isn't it obvious. If we assume that global warming is real, caused by humans and can be solved by humans, then obviously we have to change things to solve it. Conservatives want to keep things the same, so will try to cast doubt on the necessity of change. Earthborn, you're brilliant. Concise and to the point.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I did read it. It was written by James Hansen, who had made definitive statements about global warming before, and was then forced to back-pedal and alter his positions.



For example (http://www.ncpa.org/bothside/krt/krt081999a.html)


I see that your link is to a rightwing thinktank known as the "NCPA" "National Center for Policy Analysis"


The people in the NCPA are among many organizations against the idea of gloabal warming.

They use data from "Oil Companeis" which of course is most likely to have a pro oil comany bias.

Look at people that are actually really studying the effects of global warming and are not publishing crackpot ideas like your "industry scientists" are.


Face it, give some government studies or some studies from a nonbiased institute, or make yourself look like a complete fool in front of the entire forum.


Have a nice day. :p

[Theodore Kurita]

Oh, and to justify my point, here is a antimammography rant on the NCPA's website.

Yes, they say that mammographies don't save women's lives:


http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/pd102401e.html

[shanek]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
I see that your link is to a rightwing thinktank known as the "NCPA" "National Center for Policy Analysis"

The NCPA is libertarian, NOT right-wing.

[ad hominems and conspiracy theory deleted]

[shanek]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Oh, and to justify my point, here is a antimammography rant on the NCPA's website.

That's not a rant; that's a report on a study published in Lancet. Besides, what does this have to do with the article Kodiak linked to? Or are you just fishing for ad hominems because you don't want to confront the data?

[Theodore Kurita]

And plase avoid using these sources, these are known rightwing bias organizations that been known to have ties to Oil Industry:

* Acton Institute
* American Enterprise Institute
* American Legislative Exchange Council
* The American Policy Center
* The Augustine Institute for Ethics
* Calvert Institute for Policy Research
* Cascade Policy Institute
* The Cato Institute
* Center for American Experiment
* Center for Equal Opportunity
* Center for Individual Rights
* The Center for Public Policy
* Center for Strategic and International Studies
* Center for the New West
* Center for the Study of Popular Culture
* Claremont Institute
* Competitive Enterprise Institute
* Economic Policy Institute
* Foundation for Economic Education
* Free Congress Research and Educational Foundation
* George C. Marshall Institute
* Heartland Institute
* The Heritage Foundation
* Hoover Institution
* The Independent Institute
* Institute for Contemporary Studies
* Institute for Policy Innovation
* John Locke Foundation, Inc.
* Lincoln Heritage Institute
* Ludwig von Mises Institute
* Mackinac Center for Public Policy
* National Bureau of Economic Research
* National Center For Policy Analysis
* Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs,
* Pacific Research Institute
* Policy.com
* Political Economy Research Center
* The Regulatory Policy Center
* The Smith Center for Private Enterprise Studies
* Texas Public Policy Foundation

[Tony]

Originally posted by shanek
Or are you just fishing for ad hominems because you don't want to confront the data?


Yep, what can you expect from someone with "At a Young Democratic Socialists (*cough*fascist*cough*) Club Meeting" under their name?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita:
Oh, and to justify my point, here is a antimammography rant on the NCPA's website.

Yes, they say that mammographies don't save women's lives:

:hit:

The article is entitled "Do Mammograms Save Lives?". It cites a recent study from Denmark questioning the methodology used in studies that concluded mammograms indeed save lives. There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that the NCPA has any position on mammography whatsoever.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
And plase avoid using these sources, these are known rightwing bias organizations that been known to have ties to Oil Industry:

Many of these are NOT right-wing organizations, but libertarian organizations. And I would like to see you present evidence of their "ties" to the oil industry, as well as support for your implication that this means we should somehow ignore the data they present.

(Geez...the Foundation for Economic Education is right-wing? What a laugh!!!)

[clk]

Originally posted by Tony



Yep, what can you expect from someone with "At a Young Democratic Socialists (*cough*fascist*cough*) Club Meeting" under their name?

plagiarism

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Earthborn

If you think that reducuing fuel consumption will benefit the war on terror, I think you'll need to provide evidence of the connection between oil and terrorists.

Seems pretty obvious, but if you insist: US has been reluctant to hold Saudi feet to the fire.

Originally posted by Earthborn

... still varwoche is incorrect. Burning fossil fuels is not the only risk, there are risks caused by nature as well.

Pardon me, I never said nor implied anything to the contrary.

varwoche

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by shanek


The NCPA is libertarian, NOT right-wing.

[ad hominems and conspiracy theory deleted]

No Shane, it is deffinentely a righwing organization:

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:0x-P26JZ2cMJ:www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx%3Foid%3D9545+NCPA+is+a+right+wing+org anization&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


As for evidence of the effects that global has had and wil have, I cite these studies. All of which are from database known as EBSCOHOST or Academic Search Premier:

The intensification and shift of the annual North Atlantic Oscillation in a global warming scenario simulation.

The impact of global warming on the annual North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is investigated with a global warming scenario simulation of the ECHAM4/OPYC3 coupled general circulation model. It is shown that the annual meridional pressure gradient over the North Atlantic is significantly strengthened, and the two centers of action of the NAO, the Icelandic low and the Azores high, are intensified and shifted northeastward by 10° to 20° in latitude and 30° to 40° in longitude in the global warming scenario. The shift of the centers of action leads to a failure in capturing the NAO change with the traditional definition of the NAO index. A modified index is introduced that allows for this shift, and exhibits a tendency toward the positive phase and an enhancement of its intensity. The intensification of Icelandic low is tied up with zonal mean state change, and the strengthened Azores high is related to the stationary wave change. The shift of the centers of action of the NAO is associated with the stationary wave change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=12336122&db=aph


The Impact of Cloud Feedbacks on Arctic Climate under Greenhouse Forcing.

The simulation of Arctic cloud cover and the sensitivity of Arctic climate to cloud changes are investigated using an atmosphere–mixed-layer ocean GCM (GENESIS2). The model is run with and without changes in three-dimensional cloud fraction under 2 × CO[sub 2] radiative forcing. This model was chosen in part because of its relatively successful representation of modern Arctic cloud cover, a trait attributable to the parameterized treatment of mixed-phase microphysics. Simulated modern Arctic cloud fraction is insensitive to model biases in surface boundary conditions (SSTs and sea ice distribution), but the modeled Arctic climate is sensitive to high-frequency cloud variability. When forced with increased CO[sub 2] the model generally simulates more (less) vertically integrated cloudiness in high (low) latitudes. In the simulation without cloud feedbacks, cloud fraction is fixed at its modern control value at all grid points and all levels while CO[sub 2] is doubled. Compared with this fixed-cloud experiment, the simulated cloud changes enhance greenhouse warming at all latitudes, accounting for one-third of the global warming signal. This positive feedback is most pronounced in the Arctic, where approximately 40% of the warming is due to cloud changes. The strong cloud feedback in the Arctic is caused not only by local processes but also by cloud changes in lower latitudes, where positive top-of-the-atmosphere cloud radiative forcing anomalies are larger. The extra radiative energy gained in lower latitudes is transported dynamically to the Arctic via moist static energy flux convergence. The results presented here demonstrate the importance of remote impacts from low and midlatitudes for Arctic climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=12201987&db=aph


Global Warming May Harm Timber Industry.

Focuses on a 2003 study on the potential impact of global warming on the timber production industry in North America, conducted by researchers from the Ohio State University in Columbus. Problem with the change in forest growth patterns; Possible rise in the area occupied by tree farms; Information on timber growth rates in tropical regions.

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=11586855&db=aph


Global Meltdown Underway.

Highlights the report "Warming Trends in the Arctic from Clear Sky Satellite Observations," by Josefino Comiso published in the November 2003 issue of the "Journal of Climate". Increase in the rate of warming in the Arctic and sea-ice melting season; Consequences of increases in temperature and in melting season length on the number of beetle-killed spruce trees, the Columbia Glacier and other environmental consequences.

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=12054986&db=aph

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
And plase avoid using these sources, these are known rightwing bias organizations that been known to have ties to Oil Industry:

* Acton Institute
* American Enterprise Institute, etc. Ties to Oil companies does not discredit an organization anymore than an organization is discredited by being associated with any other group.

This is just ad hominem. Can you dispute the data or the arguments they present?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
An...these are known rightwing bias organizations that been known to have ties to Oil Industry: Sounds like 2 testable claims to me. Evidence please?

This is what you call argument? Select all possible sources and dismiss them in a single swoop without any evidence?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
As for evidence of the effects that global has had and wil have, I cite these studies. All of which are from database known as EBSCOHOST or Academic Search Premier: Could you sum up what you think these sources are proving?

Oh, EBSCOHOST has ties to environmental groups. Should it be excluded?

[Zero]

Originally posted by RandFan
Ties to Oil companies does not discredit an organization anymore than an organization is discredited by being associated with any other group.

This is just ad hominem. Can you dispute the data or the arguments they present? What if they, and groups like them, comprise the vast majority of the anti-global warming groups? Doesn't the conflict of interest point a reasonable person to doubt their claims, if not dismiss them out of hand?

Imagine of the majority of scientists claimed that condoms didn't work, and 90% of the dissenting scientists were employed by condom manufacturers. Wouldn't you be skeptical in that situation?

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by varwoche
Seems pretty obvious, but if you insist: US has been reluctant to hold Saudi feet to the fire.What does this mean and how is it evidence of a link between oil and terrorism?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Zero
What if they, and groups like them, comprise the vast majority of the anti-global warming groups? Doesn't the conflict of interest point a reasonable person to doubt their claims, if not dismiss them out of hand?

Imagine of the majority of scientists claimed that condoms didn't work, and 90% of the dissenting scientists were employed by condom manufacturers. Wouldn't you be skeptical in that situation?

It's useless, zero. RandFan is one of the best and even he can't resist the urge to simply stonewall and never acknowledge a single point on the opposite side.

I didn't think I'd need another vacation quite so soon... I'm losing the urge to even TRY to communicate.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Zero
What if they, and groups like them, comprise the vast majority of the anti-global warming groups? Then it would be reasonable to question ther data. Not dismiss it out of hand. Can you establish this fact?

Doesn't the conflict of interest...What conflict of interest? Tobacco companies hired scientist to see if there products were safe. The scientists concluded that the products (cigarettes) were not safe.

Did the scientists working for the tobacco companies have a conflict of interest?

Should there data be dismissed out of hand?

Imagine of the majority of scientists claimed that condoms didn't work, and 90% of the dissenting scientists were employed by condom manufacturers. Wouldn't you be skeptical in that situation? Absolutely, I would want to see the data on both sides before I rejected it.

That is skepticism. Dismissing the data out of hand is not.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog


It's useless, zero. RandFan is one of the best and even he can't resist the urge to simply stonewall and never acknowledge a single point on the opposite side.

I didn't think I'd need another vacation quite so soon... I'm losing the urge to even TRY to communicate. Hold on Sundog,

This is entirely unfair. I am willing to acknowledge a point but you will have to give me a point to acknowledge.

I could level the same charge at you. I don't out of respect but I have not seen you acknowledge my arguments that I have backed up.

Why do you feel that you are by default right?

What points do you want me to acknowledge?

Why don't you go back to your numbered list and address the points I made?

Don't take this personal Sundog. Discussion and debate is healthy. If you are right then someone should be able to answer our questions.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Let's at least try to establish the things we agree on.

1) Human activity is returning more CO₂ to the atmosphere than would normally be present.
2) This is increasing the total percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
3) We don't know for certain what effects, if any, this will have on climate and ecology.

Do we agree so far?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Let's at least try to establish the things we agree on.


Ok. so far, I'd say we might have a rough consesus on the following:


1. Anyone who is not a degreed climatologist cannot have an opinion on this matter.

2. Conservatives, by and large, have ties to the oil industry and their opinions and facts – to the extent that they try to violate the above rule regarding degrees – can be safely ignored.

3. Conservatives are right-wing.

4. Nazi’s were right wing.

5. Nazi’s engaged in Holocaust denial.

6. The denial of global warming and the human component in that process “has about the same intellectual honesty as holocaust denial.” (this has not been as widely accepted as the others, and may not belong on the list)

7. Conservatives not accepting the human component of global warming as proven is the equivalent of denying it is the equivalent of holocaust denial. (See comment to No. 6)

8. Anyone expressing doubt about the evidence showing the importance of the human/industrial contribution to global warming simply has an overwhelming, unreasoning, blind hatred of the dreaded Environmentalists and the Left in general and anything they agree with. They can safely be ignored. (See also Rule No. 2)

9. The scientific consensus is that the human/industrial component of global warming is significant. If not, then an OVERWHELMING number of scientists accept the human/industrial component of global warming. If not that, then a majority of scientists feel that way.

10. Any scientists who don’t feel that way “have ties to the right.”

11. Anyone with ties to the right can be safely ignored (See Rule Nos. 2, 8)


That seems to cover the major points.

N/A

[Zero]

Originally posted by RandFan
Then it would be reasonable to question ther data. Not dismiss it out of hand. Can you establish this fact?

What conflict of interest? Tobacco companies hired scientist to see if there products were safe. The scientists concluded that the products (cigarettes) were not safe.

Did the scientists working for the tobacco companies have a conflict of interest?

Should there data be dismissed out of hand?

Absolutely, I would want to see the data on both sides before I rejected it.

That is skepticism. Dismissing the data out of hand is not. Show me a well-respected, non-political, and non-woowoo source against global warming. And then show me another similar source backing up the first.

BTW, the government has hired scientists, and they all(AFAIK) back up the general global warming claims. Why isn't the government going with their own scientists?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Zero
What if they, and groups like them, comprise the vast majority of the anti-global warming groups? Doesn't the conflict of interest point a reasonable person to doubt their claims, if not dismiss them out of hand?

Well, what if the vast majority of the GW advocacy groups have ties to either government agencies, or anti-corporate or Socialist groups? Doesn't the conflict of interest point a reasonable person to doubt their claims, if not dismiss them out of hand?

Y'know, this kind of thing is fun if you're playing tennis, but as a conversation among skeptics it leaves a lot to be desired...

Imagine of the majority of scientists claimed that condoms didn't work, and 90% of the dissenting scientists were employed by condom manufacturers. Wouldn't you be skeptical in that situation?

I'd be skeptical only because I'm aware of a fantastic amount of evidence that shows that condoms DO work. Whoever employed them is irrelevant. It's where the EVIDENCE takes you.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Sundog
It's useless, zero. RandFan is one of the best and even he can't resist the urge to simply stonewall and never acknowledge a single point on the opposite side.

Don't you think you'd better stop and consider WHY someone you consider to be "one of the best" would be "stonewalling" in the first place? Maybe because your side HASN'T made any points that rise above ad hominem attacks and arguments from authority?

We're here to discuss the EVIDENCE. If you can't make your case by using the evidence, then it isn't worth consideration on a skeptics' board.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Zero
Show me a well-respected, non-political, and non-woowoo source against global warming. And then show me another similar source backing up the first. Whoa, hold up there. Let's not put the cart before the horse. I made no such claims. You are the one to make the claim, ergo you are the one that will have to back it up. Why do people continue to make claims and expect their opposition to prove the claim wrong?

BTW, the government has hired scientists, and they all(AFAIK) back up the general global warming claims. Why isn't the government going with their own scientists? First off, as to this paragraph, what claim are you talking about?
[list=1]
The earth is getting warmer.

Humans are a significant cause of global warming.

Global warming will have serious negative consequences that will far ought weigh any positive aspects for humans and society.
[/list=1] Off the top of my head I would say;[list=a]
I doubt that there is such a consensus.

If there is that does not mean that government scientists are somehow special and are not infallible.

There is significant data and respected scientists who do not accept these theories.
[/list=a]

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Zero
Show me a well-respected, non-political, and non-woowoo source against global warming. And then show me another similar source backing up the first.I like how you give yourself a convenient out. Assuming that I do give you a source, why not consider the argument instead of prejudging and making an ad hominem argument?

I did make the claim that there are credible sources who dispute global warming.

I have to go to my child's recietal but I will get some sources.

To start with, how about Steven Milloy? He is the publisher of JunkScience.com (http://www.JunkScience.com), an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).

Steven Milloy Junk Science

[/b]Houghton’s assertion that the 1990s was the warmest decade in the last 1,000 years (search) draws out the question, “Why was it so warm 1,000 years ago?”

Since there were no power plants, factories or automobiles back then, that warm period was obviously natural climate change (search). So why should we leap to the conclusion that any 1990s warming is definitely manmade?

Of course, it’s not even clear that any measurable “global warming” has really occurred, much less that it’s human-induced.

Satellite and weather balloon measurements of atmospheric temperatures since the 1970s actually indicate slight cooling to no change. To the extent any significant warming may have occurred during the 20th century, most occurred before 1940, while most greenhouse gas emissions (search) occurred after 1940 -- so there’s no apparent cause-and-effect relationship.

While it’s possible that some human-induced warming may be occurring, Virginia state climatologist Pat Michaels (search) once pointed out in a television debate with Clinton administration eco-czarina Carol Browner: “The fact of the matter is if you look at those temperature records that you keep on citing, you will see that almost all of the warming takes place in the absolute coldest, most miserable air masses in Siberia and northwestern North America … Great. We've warmed Siberia from minus 40 to minus 38. Big deal.”

If the 1990s were unusually warm, we don’t know why. Neither do the global-warming pushers. [/b]Instead of attacking Mr. Milloy's credibility with ad hominem, why don't you attack his plainly worded argument?

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
To start with, how about Steven Milloy? He is the publisher of JunkScience.com (http://www.JunkScience.com), an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute

Oh, but you realize that makes him a right-wing wacko and a shill for the Big Evil Oil Companies, and therefore we don't have to examine his data and answer the questions broached by same, right?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Earthborn
What does this mean and how is it evidence of a link between oil and terrorism?
Come on, get serious. Surely you are not debating the convienent relationship that has existed for decades between USA and Saudi, the wellspring of virulent Islamic fundamentalism.

varwoche

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by shanek


Oh, but you realize that makes him a right-wing wacko and a shill for the Big Evil Oil Companies, and therefore we don't have to examine his data and answer the questions broached by same, right?


No, I am not saying that.

I am saying that the data he presents needs to be looked at more carefully.

Government studies are studies that are designed to be unbiased.

However, if the study is completely privatized, and you have special interests groups running all around you trying to get you to fudge data, and completely obscure facts, would you do it?

Would you do it if these special interests groups said that tehy would fund your entire project?

That is what has happened to most of the studies coming from conservative organizations at the moment.


And as for Steven Miller himself, he says that DDT does not have any harmful effects.

Bull f****** shi**!


Look, it is right on his frontpage.

And it goes by the tite:

The Malaria Clock:

The Green Eco-Imperialist Legacy of Death


Come on, any rational person would look at that, look at the actual data on DDT and say BULL SH**!

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

Government studies are studies that are designed to be unbiased.



Put.down.the.crack.pipe.

Wait -- did you used to be "chessmanskeptic"? Because if so, I feel silly for even replying.

N/A

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger



Put.down.the.crack.pipe.

Wait -- did you used to be "chessmanskeptic"? Because if so, I feel silly for even replying.

N/A


Nice attempt at a silly little old flame.


Now, what are you saying, are you saying that government studies are biased.


What kind of bias would it have in that case?

There is not special interest groups who are going to underhandedly fund the study.

There are no corporations pushing to fudge data in these settings.

What makes you say otherwise?

I am waiting for one logical answer to the question I have.

Just One!

[RandFan]

Warning, the following is patronizing. Sorry but I really couldn't help it. Folks, many of you need to learn at least rudimentary skills.

This is a skeptics forum for crying out loud. We can do better than this.

Take a deep breath Theodore. Anger won't solve this one for you. You are going to have to do a little thinking.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
However, if the study is completely privatized, and you have special interests groups running all around you trying to get you to fudge data, and completely obscure facts, would you do it? Not necessarily. The tobacco scientists managed to get valid data. Data that is used against the tobacco companies to this day.

Yes it is possible but beyond that your argument is specious and presumptuous in light of evidence to the contrary.

Would you do it if these special interests groups said that tehy would fund your entire project? It happens, it happens in academia, the private sector and yes, in government studies.

The sword swings both ways. Studies that support certain "ideas" receive more funding than those that don't. And there is lot's of money to be made on asbestos abatement and "super fund clean ups. Would you fudge data to give the government what it wanted to hear?

That is what has happened to most of the studies coming from conservative organizations at the moment. Another "testable" claim. PROVE IT!

And as for Steven Miller himself, he says that DDT does not have any harmful effects. Ah the death of critical thinking.

Now please, pay attention.In April 1972, after seven months of testimony, EPA Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney stated that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. ... The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. ... The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for the essential uses of DDT.”* Please note that the evidence is foot marked.

Bull f****** shi**! This is not arguing, this is simply gainsaying. Is this the best you can do to rebut Milloy's contention? "Profanity is the last refuge of the unimaginative". And a poor replacement for logic and reason.

Don't get me wrong. I can swear with the best of them but I would be very embarrassed if all I could do to rebut an argument is swear.

Look, it is right on his frontpage. OH NO!, Not his front page? Perhaps Steven Milloy had a reason to put it on his front page? Did you bother to put your thinking cap on and examine his argument. Could you find the argument?

Come on, any rational person would look at that, look at the actual data on DDT and say BULL SH**! This is what passes for argument where you come from?

Any rational person knows that aliens visited the earth.
Any rational person knows that god lives and answers prayers.
Any rational person knows that the little people keep their pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow.

Where on earth did you learn to debate?

Theodore,

I hate to be condescending but in light of such a poor showing I really have no choice.

Look, an argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition. If you are having trouble understanding the difference between "gainsaying" and arguing then please see The Argument Clinic (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-python.html). Trust me on this one. It is a Monty Python sketch and aside from the fact that it is damn funny it will help you avoid this kind of embarrassment in the future.

Ok, let's break this down.

Steve Milloy's argument,

Proposition: The banning of DDT has harmed more people than it could ever possibly help.

Premise: After 7 months of EPA hearings no evidence was ever produced that showed conclusively that DDT, when used under appropriate guidelines, "do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife."

Premise: The arbitrarily and capricious banning of DDT has caused an estimated 85 million deaths.

Conclusion: If the premises are correct we can infer that had the EPA not banned DDT 85 million people would not have died at the expense of ignorance.

To show Milloy's argument to be false you would have to show that the his premises are wrong. Either because the data is flawed or simply wrong.

Now, is that what you did? NO!

Let's take a moment to look at your argument.

Theodore's bright and shiny argument.

Statement #1 "Bull f****** shi**!"

Statement #2Look it's on his front page

Statement #3 "Come on, any rational person would look at that, look at the actual data on DDT and say BULL SH**!"

What is your data? Milloy provided data. Why can't you? Proposition, premise, inference, could you outline it for us? Where on earth is it?

One word for your argument Theodore, "fallacious".

[list=1]
Argumentum ad hominem (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem) : Anyone who disagrees is "not rational". The statement attacks the character and not the argument.

Argumentum ad populum (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#populum) : Everyone (who is rational) knows Milloys argument is wrong.

You provide no premise and no data to support your proposition.
[/list=1] Look, do us all a favor, do yourself a favor, take a moment and check out Logic & Fallacies (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html).

If you already do know this stuff ... :mad: ...don't make such a dumb mistake again, ok?

[RandFan]

Oh, one more reason your argument (if it can be called an argument) is fallacious.

Straw Man: (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman) Steve Milloy never said what you attribute to him.

Come on man :( .

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Now, what are you saying, are you saying that government studies are biased. They can be. Why do you assume they cant?

Look, more money is paid out by the government in studies than from any other source. Some ideas get more money than others.

Since Asbestos was shown to be harmful the government has spent millions in clean up. There is an entire industry devoted to syponing of the cream. Do you really think the government wants to hear your study that would deny money to all of the contractors who kick back money to the government all of the time.

I am waiting for one logical answer to the question I have.

Just One! I will answer all of the questions you have. Just keep 'em comming.

Oh, and by the way. Just because there is reason to "fudge" the data is not proof that everyone does "fudge" the data.

The argument is specious (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specious%20argument).

Oh, and another thing, since you are demanding that your questions be asked. Could you or anyone answer mine and Shanek's?

Would you please supply these government studies that you talk so much about?

[dsm]

Originally posted by RandFan
Ok, let's break this down.

Steve Milloy's argument,

Proposition: The banning of DDT has harmed more people than it could ever possibly help.

Premise: After 7 months of EPA hearings no evidence was ever produced that showed conclusively that DDT, when used under appropriate guidelines, "do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife."

Premise: The arbitrarily and capricious banning of DDT has caused an estimated 85 million deaths.

Conclusion: If the premises are correct we can infer that had the EPA not banned DDT 85 million people would not have died at the expense of ignorance.

To show Milloy's argument to be false you would have to show that the his premises are wrong. Either because the data is flawed or simply wrong.


Is it my imagination or is there something wrong with the first premise (as in an unintended double negative)? If the first premise stands, it alone would seem to be justification for EPA banning of DDT.

Did I miss something?

:confused:

[curious]

Originally posted Steven Milloy Junk Science
Houghton’s assertion that the 1990s was the warmest decade in the last 1,000 years (search) draws out the question, “Why was it so warm 1,000 years ago?”

Since there were no power plants, factories or automobiles back then, that warm period was obviously natural climate change (search). So why should we leap to the conclusion that any 1990s warming is definitely manmade? Without doubt there have been huge climate variations that were not manmade but the heart of global warming isn't some debatable interpretation of weather reports. CO2 affects global tempatures, the reason why it does this are clear. CO2 levels are rising, this is especially significant since early global warming theories (as in 19th century) were discounted in part because it was erroneously thought ocean absortion of CO2 would prevent the rising levels we are now seeing. Granted, the climate too complex to suggest just one gas is the reason for any change, but all other things being equal more CO2 will equal higher tempatures.

Originally posted Steven Milloy Junk Science
Of course, it’s not even clear that any measurable “global warming” has really occurred, much less that it’s human-induced.Hmm, maybe this article is using old data. I'm under the impression that a "warming" of .5 to 1 degree is scientifically accepted.

Originally posted Steven Milloy Junk Science
Satellite and weather balloon measurements of atmospheric temperatures since the 1970s actually indicate slight cooling to no change. I've heard this before and I honestly I am unsure of what's going on with those figures, I would think the upper atmosphere would be warming also so it does point to an area where GW or our understanding of atmopheric temps need more work. The global rise of .5 to 1 degree based upon land and sea measurements still stands. I did a quick search and found this:

Last year, the US National Academy of Sciences established an expert panel to investigate the vexed question of discrepancies between satellite and surface temperature measurements. The panel concluded that the warming trend in global mean surface temperature over the past twenty years is real, a conclusion not invalidated by the disparity between satellite and surface records. While the discrepancy could not be fully explained, the panel suggested that natural causes, including two massive volcanic eruptions during the past 20 years and depletion of stratospheric ozone, may have had a cooling effect in the mid-troposphere (8-12 km altitude) and reduced the warming in the lower troposphere compared with surface temperatures.
http://www.csiro.au/index.asp?type=featureArticle&id=GlobalWarmingAHotTopic

Originally posted Steven Milloy Junk Science
To the extent any significant warming may have occurred during the 20th century, most occurred before 1940, while most greenhouse gas emissions (search) occurred after 1940 -- so there’s no apparent cause-and-effect relationship.Here's a chart that makes the relationship between CO2 and global tempature look pretty clear.
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/millenniumCO2.htm
Originally posted Steven Milloy Junk ScienceWhile it’s possible that some human-induced warming may be occurring, Virginia state climatologist Pat Michaels (search) once pointed out in a television debate with Clinton administration eco-czarina Carol Browner: “The fact of the matter is if you look at those temperature records that you keep on citing, you will see that almost all of the warming takes place in the absolute coldest, most miserable air masses in Siberia and northwestern North America … Great. We've warmed Siberia from minus 40 to minus 38. Big deal.”I agree limited GW might not be such a bad thing, and might actually have tangible benifits in some areas, certainly warming Siberia 2 degrees is no big deal. If that were the only effect is would be a stupid concern, but the tempature changes should be evaluated because they indicate the accuracy of GW which is making more dire predictions.
Originally posted Steven Milloy Junk ScienceIf the 1990s were unusually warm, we don’t know why. Neither do the global-warming pushers. It's not an "if", the 1990s were unusually warm. I believe 1998, 2002 and 2003 are the hottest years on record. GW has a working model for what's going on while Milloy seems to still be in denial of tempature readings.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by varwoche
Come on, get serious. Surely you are not debating the convienent relationship that has existed for decades between USA and Saudi, the wellspring of virulent Islamic fundamentalism.
I am well aware that the US supports the Saudi government, which has a monopoly on Saudi oil. But you have not provided any evidence that the Saudi government funds terrorist organizations. I am pretty sure that it doesn't fund Al Qaeda, since no government in the world would fund rebellion against itself.

I like to see the evidence that they are sponsoring any other terrorist organization, or that any terrorist organization is able to sell oil to fund itself. Is too much to ask?

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by curious

I've heard this before and I honestly I am unsure of what's going on with those figures, I would think the upper atmosphere would be warming also so it does point to an area where GW or our understanding of atmopheric temps need more work.

He's using old data here, the latest results for the troposphere show a warming trend. Though there's still some question about the satellite measurements- the raw data needs to be corrected (to account for, for example, orbital drift), and this can be done in different ways. This link (http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html) might be useful:

Previous work on long time series of MSU channel 2 brightness temperatures has been performed by Christy and Spencer. This previous work has played a controversial and high-profile role in the debate over the existence and extent of anthropogenic global climate change. One of the goals of our research is to provide a second complete analysis as a check of these important results. We have found that the temperature of the middle troposphere is warming by approximately 0.126 K/decade, while Christy and Spencer find a smaller warming of approximately 0.043 K/decade.

The 0.126 K/decade result would be close to the surface record, but as your link says, there's no real reason why they should be the same anyway.

By the way, as your link says the stratosphere is cooling quite rapidly, but this is actually consistent with increases in greenhouse gases, though some of it is due to ozone depletion as well.

[Brian the Snail]

Junk Science: Of course, it’s not even clear that any measurable “global warming” has really occurred, much less that it’s human-induced.

curious: Hmm, maybe this article is using old data. I'm under the impression that a "warming" of .5 to 1 degree is scientifically accepted.

It is.

Junk Science: To the extent any significant warming may have occurred during the 20th century, most occurred before 1940

Nope. (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/)

Junk Science: while most greenhouse gas emissions (search) occurred after 1940 -- so there’s no apparent cause-and-effect relationship.

curious: Here's a chart that makes the relationship between CO2 and global tempature look pretty clear.

You have to be a bit careful here - correlation doesn't imply causation. So you have to use statistical techniques or climate model simulations to see the "fingerprint" of greenhouse gases. I think the studies that have been done pretty much conclude that the warming up to the 1940s was natural, with greenhouse gases becoming increasingly important afterwards. There's a nice summary at the page you linked to here (http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/causes.htm#solarcause).

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by shanek

As I pointed out in another thread and produced evidence for (which was either ignored or misrepresented by the GW side), the current rate of warming is hardly unprecedented, even in human history. In fact, there's evidence that this kind of warming at this rate occurs every 1500 years. But, I guess we can just do without all that pesky evidence that contradicts what we've already included, right?

Shanek,

I was rather surprised to read this. I don't feel that I ignored or misrepresented your evidence, so I'm at a loss to see how you would feel that I did. In the other thread you made claims about the concentration and rate of increase of CO₂, that I contended were not supported by the articles you cited. I also don't feel that the articles support the claim you make here that the present warming is "hardly unprecendented," though I don't think I've ever questioned that this might be true. In particular, I don't doubt that rapid climate shifts have occured in the past, and that natural variability is a factor in current climate change, I just feel that the current evidence points to humans having a significant influence too. So what is it that I've misrepresented?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

Nice attempt at a silly little old flame.

That wasn't a flame, except as a side note -- DID you previously go under that username?


Now, what are you saying, are you saying that government studies are biased.

No, I am saying the view that a government study -cannot- be biased is incredibly naive, at best. It is hard to even take such a contention seriously.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Government studies are studies that are designed to be unbiased.

That has got to be the most delusional thing I think I have heard anyone say!

However, if the study is completely privatized, and you have special interests groups running all around you trying to get you to fudge data, and completely obscure facts, would you do it?

You have your entities mixed-up. It's GOVERNMENT that is tied to the special-interest groups and is notorious at fudging data and obscuring facts.

And as for Steven Miller himself, he says that DDT does not have any harmful effects.

Citation?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Now, what are you saying, are you saying that government studies are biased.

What kind of bias would it have in that case?

Political bias. Bias in favor of politically-connected individuals and organizations. Just like in every single other thing the government does.

There is not special interest groups who are going to underhandedly fund the study.

How can you possibly be so delusional?

There are no corporations pushing to fudge data in these settings.

Hoo boy...

What makes you say otherwise?

Because that's the way it works in every single thing the government does!!!

[shanek]

Originally posted by curious
Granted, the climate too complex to suggest just one gas is the reason for any change, but all other things being equal more CO2 will equal higher tempatures.

As someone who has studied economics, I'm familiar with the highlighted concept and how important and useful it can be. I'm also aware of the dangers of using it to draw fundamental conclusions.

Hmm, maybe this article is using old data. I'm under the impression that a "warming" of .5 to 1 degree is scientifically accepted.

The amount of the warming that has been accepted keeps decreasing as more and more information comes to light.

I've heard this before and I honestly I am unsure of what's going on with those figures, I would think the upper atmosphere would be warming also so it does point to an area where GW or our understanding of atmopheric temps need more work. The global rise of .5 to 1 degree based upon land and sea measurements still stands.

The prediction of global warming is that atmospheric temperatures will rise before surface temperatures. That just isn't what we find, either from the balloon measurements or the satellite measurements.

Here's a chart that makes the relationship between CO2 and global tempature look pretty clear.

That's the long-refuted "hockey-stick" graph, where the measuring method was changed just before the rise and the Medieval Warm Period mysteriously disappeared.

I agree limited GW might not be such a bad thing, and might actually have tangible benifits in some areas, certainly warming Siberia 2 degrees is no big deal. If that were the only effect is would be a stupid concern, but the tempature changes should be evaluated because they indicate the accuracy of GW which is making more dire predictions.

I don't think anyone's really disputing that. We're disputing the claim that these more dire predictions are concluded and confirmed.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail
I just feel that the current evidence points to humans having a significant influence too.

And I am not disputing this. So what's your beef?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by dsm
Is it my imagination or is there something wrong with the first premise (as in an unintended double negative)? If the first premise stands, it alone would seem to be justification for EPA banning of DDT.

Did I miss something? If you look closely at the paragraph you will notice that it is in part quoted. The fault of the double negative is mine and is due to rewording of the paragraph.

I appologize. It was late.

In April 1972, after seven months of testimony, EPA Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney stated that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man. ... The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. ... The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for the essential uses of DDT.”*

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by shanek

That has got to be the most delusional thing I think I have heard anyone say!

sure:rolleyes:

You have your entities mixed-up. It's GOVERNMENT that is tied to the special-interest groups and is notorious at fudging data and obscuring facts.

Sure.... The government has attempted and will attempt to avoid such things.

Don't you ever wonder why so much regulation is put into government studies from the CDC, FDA, and the EPA

Citation?

It is right on the frontpage of his website. www.junkscience.com

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by shanek


Political bias. Bias in favor of politically-connected individuals and organizations. Just like in every single other thing the government does.

[b] So what, you are now accusing the FDA, CDC, and EPA of being filled with Fraud???

Evidence please

How can you possibly be so delusional?

I am not dellusional. I just think that the government should have stiffer penalties, and should hav emore regulation over Big Business with Special interest groups.

Hoo boy...
:rolleyes:

Because that's the way it works in every single thing the government does!!!

Aren't you contradicting yourself again Shanek? You say that governments studies are tainted becuase of Special Interest Groups.

Wouldn't more taxes and more money going into the government and a BAN on Special Interest Group money eliminate any sort of bias?

[Theodore Kurita]

Here is an excellent critique of Milloy straight from the Skeptics Dictionary:

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html

And PS... Ad Hominems in my posts are designed to get attention to my arguments.

Similar to Cain's style, only different.

[RandFan]

My thanks to dsm, curious and Brian the Snail.

Finally someone is bringing some meat to the table. All are good examples of "debating" the merits of global warming. As far as I can tell there is no fallacious argument.

Ok, I'll get off of my high horse now. Just because I think I'm the Master deBATER doesn't mean that I am.

Granted, the climate [is] too complex to suggest just one gas is the reason for any change, but all other things being equal more CO2 will equal higher tempatures. (edit mine)

Assuming that the earth is getting warmer, How much warming has occurred due to increases in atmospheric trace-gas levels that are attributable to humans?
How much warming will occur in the future?
How fast will this warming take place?
What other kinds of climatic change will be associated with future warming?
When will the trend of warming reverse?

[clk]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Here is an excellent critique of Milloy straight from the Skeptics Dictionary:

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html


So you start a thread on a another forum to try to get people to support your arguments, and when someone does support you, you steal their information and post it here!
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36225


And PS... Ad Hominems in my posts are designed to get attention to my arguments.


That's the funniest damn thing I've heard so far! Way to justify your poor debating style! :roll:

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by RandFan
Assuming that the earth is getting warmer,

How much warming has occurred due to increases in atmospheric trace-gas levels that are attributable to humans?
How much warming will occur in the future?
How fast will this warming take place?
What other kinds of climatic change will be associated with future warming?
When will the trend of warming reverse?




Did you not pay any attention to the links I posted earlier:

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=12336122&db=aph

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=12201987&db=aph

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=11586855&db=aph

http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp?an=12054986&db=aph


All of these are VERY current models of Global Warming. In fact, one of these was done earlier on this month.

They are all PDF files, it is a huge amount of data, and it will take a while to go through.

All of the evidence, and data is in all of these documents.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
And PS... Ad Hominems in my posts are designed to get attention to my arguments. What argument? There is no argument only gainsaying.

So, you use falacious argument to bring attention to a non-argument? That is rich.

Assuming you had an argument, fallacious is fallacious and those who engage in it while posting to a skeptics forum rightfully have no credibility. It is simply style over substance, and really, really bad style.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
They are all PDF files, it is a huge amount of data, and it will take a while to go through.

All of the evidence, and data is in all of these documents. How long have you been posting to forums such as this? Has no one called you on this kind of fallacious reasoning before?

IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!

Please note how Brian the snail quoted from his links.

"Here, read this". is NOT an argument! Please visit the logic and fallacies pages I linked.

Are you smart enough to highlight any relevant data? I'm not going to do your job for you.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I am well aware that the US supports the Saudi government, which has a monopoly on Saudi oil. But you have not provided any evidence that the Saudi government funds terrorist organizations.
I never said one way or the other that the Saudi government directly funds terrorists. It is safe to say, however, that:

1) Saudi government funds the spread of virulent fundamentalist teaching
2) Organizations that fund terrorists ("charities") operate freely within Saudi
3) Saudi is a totalitarian, fundamentalist regime
4) Most of the hijackers were Saudi

Yet we pussy foot them.

varwoche

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Here is an excellent critique of Milloy straight from the Skeptics Dictionary: The site does not "debunk" Milloys arguments as far as I can tell. It seems that it is discrediting Milloy simply because some of the things that he calls "junk science" is not really science.

Theodore, could you actually read your link and tell us why you think it discredits Milloy?

Again, "read this link" is not an argument.

[RandFan]

By the way, I have never "denied" global warming. Please note my original post in this thread.

RandFan
If the evidence does indeed show that there is a significant risk to global warming caused by burning fossil fuels then you are right.

My understanding is that there is no such consensus. Just a fear that fossil fuel is suspected by many as being a significant factor.

Can you post data that supports the notion that burning fossil fuels has been determined to be a significant cause?

Also what if there is contradictory scientific data? Would you consider this data or dismiss it out of hand? I have only been asking for 4 pages if anyone would post the relevant data.

I only claim that there is not a consensus that,

1.) There is global warming,
2.) That humans significantly contribute to global warming,
3.) That if there is global warming the effects will have an overall negative impact to humans.

I'm prepared to say that there is a greater consensus for #1 than #2 and #3.

[clk]

Originally posted by RandFan
How long have you been posting to forums such as this? Has no one called you on this kind of fallacious reasoning before?

IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!



I'm afraid that TK is a bit of a troll. When he's not plagiarizing (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34227), he's either trying to start a flame war (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18412) by attempting to piss off conservatives or by using his "here's a link, why don't you go try to debunk it" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35205) argument. It's quite funny, really. That's not even mentioning his 'CyberShaman' arguments, or his numerous attempts to impersonate a: hacker, medical student, astronomer, expert chess player, etc. I guess when can add "debater" to that list, LOL!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
All of the evidence, and data is in all of these documents. Oh yeah, prove it.

Assuming that the earth is getting warmer, How much warming has occurred due to increases in atmospheric trace-gas levels that are attributable to humans?
How much warming will occur in the future?
How fast will this warming take place?
What other kinds of climatic change will be associated with future warming?
When will the trend of warming reverse?
You have yet to answer my questions. A document dump does not constitute an answer.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by clk


I'm afraid that TK is a bit of a troll. When he's not plagiarizing (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34227), he's either trying to start a flame war (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18412) by attempting to piss off conservatives or by using his "here's a link, why don't you go try to debunk it" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35205) argument. It's quite funny, really. You are right, it is funny. But there simply is no excuse for this kind of behavior. For the record, I gave Jedi Knight hell for his inability to use logic. I don't care about a persona's ideology. I only care that individuals think and use logic to debate.

I may be wrong about the degree to which there is or isn't a consensus as to global warming and the impact or non-impact of humans as it relates to global warming but I think it only fair to expect reasoned debate.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Sure.... The government has attempted and will attempt to avoid such things.

Evidence?

Don't you ever wonder why so much regulation is put into government studies from the CDC, FDA, and the EPA

Yes, I do. You, apparently, don't.

It is right on the frontpage of his website. www.junkscience.com

No, it isn't. You wouldn't be lying, would you?

Here's what his site actually says:

"The uses of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect..." (emphasis mine) That is NOT the same thing as saying that "DDT does not have any harmful effects," which is what you claimed he said. He said that DDT can be used safely, and when it does it can result in lives being saved. If you disagree with this, then say why. But don't go making a strawman version of his claim just so you can attack him without cause.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Aren't you contradicting yourself again Shanek? You say that governments studies are tainted becuase of Special Interest Groups.

Wouldn't more taxes and more money going into the government and a BAN on Special Interest Group money eliminate any sort of bias?

No matter what you do, there will ALWAYS be individuals and corporations with political connections. Bans on special interest groups just keep people like you and me from trying to affect meaningful change. The only way to avoid this is to not give the government the ower to do these things in the first place. As Michael Cloud said, "The problem is not the abuse of power, it's the power to abuse."

[shanek]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
And PS... Ad Hominems in my posts are designed to get attention to my arguments.

Similar to Cain's style, only different.

I would submit that ad hominems detract from your arugment rather than call attention to them, and that Cain might not be the best person on this forum to emulate.

[dsm]

Originally posted by RandFan
The site does not "debunk" Milloys arguments as far as I can tell. It seems that it is discrediting Milloy simply because some of the things that he calls "junk science" is not really science.

Theodore, could you actually read your link and tell us why you think it discredits Milloy?

Again, "read this link" is not an argument.

Hold on there a minute, RandFan. You're the one that brought up Steven Milloy's argument with respect to DDT and used a "read this link" style of argument. You failed to present a valid argument of why we should accept Steven Milloy's apparent contention that DDT should not have been banned. Questions that you failed to answer in bringing that up are:


DDT is a chemical pesticide. What were (are?) the claimed advantages and disadvantages of DDT (from all claimants)?
Which of these advantages and disadvantages is Steven Milloy agreeing too?
It's been 30 years since it was banned. Were there no replacements for DDT that the chemical industry could provide?
If the advantages of DDT outweighed the disadvantages, why, after 5 Republican administrations and 2 Democratic administrations, hasn't the ban been overturned?


In other words, you seemed to think that Milloy has a case for removing the ban on DDT. Defend that proposition.


:hit:

[shanek]

Originally posted by dsm
Hold on there a minute, RandFan. You're the one that brought up Steven Milloy's argument with respect to DDT and used a "read this link" style of argument.

That is NOT true. The first mention of DDT in this thread was from Theodore Kurita in a post to me:

And as for Steven Miller himself, he says that DDT does not have any harmful effects.

Bull f****** shi**!

Look, it is right on his frontpage.

When RandFan mentioned Milloy, it was only to provide an example of someone dissenting against GW. TK brought up the DDT strawman.

You failed to present a valid argument of why we should accept Steven Milloy's apparent contention that DDT should not have been banned.

Since that is irrelevant to this thread, why should he? Why shouldn't it be on TK, who is using this as a credibility issue, to debunk what Milloy is really saying about DDT as opposed to making strawman versions of his claims? For that matter, why shouldn't TK just not even mention the DDT thing as it's completely irrelevant and focus on Milloy's arguments with regards to Global Warming?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by dsm
Hold on there a minute, RandFan. You're the one that brought up Steven Milloy's argument with respect to DDT and used a "read this link" style of argument. Hi dsm,

Thank you for the response.

This is wrong. I did not bring up Milloy's argument with respect to DDT. Theodore did. Please go back and check the record.

Theodore Kurita 02-27-2004 08:17 PM
And as for Steven Miller himself, he says that DDT does not have any harmful effects.This is the first time that DDT is brought up.

My response was not simply to tell Theodore to go back and read the home page. On the contrary. I quoted material from Milloy's web site to demonstrate that Theodore was wrong (please see my post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870337516#post1870337516)).

Now, what was my contention as it pertained to DDT? Hint: It had NOTHING to do with whether or not Milloy's argument is sound. My contention was that Theodore failed to make anything more than a fallacious argument.

I based my contention on the following points. It is ad hominem argument.

It is an appeal to the gallery.

It is a straw man.

There is no premise, data or any substance to his argument.
You failed to present a valid argument of why we should accept Steven Milloy's apparent contention that DDT should not have been banned. Whether or not "we should accept Steven Milloy's apparent contention" is not the issue.

The issue was simply that Theodore failed to make an argument.

Questions that you failed to answer in bringing that up are:... There are three problems with this assertion.[list=1]
Since the questions that you ask have no bearing on whether or not Theodore made a valid argument then I could not be said to fail in bringing them up.

If Milloys contention were at issue then your questions would not have been my responsibility but that of the opposition

DDT is not the subject of the thread but a (supposed) argument by Theodore to attack Milloy's credibility. Since Theodore failed to make an argument it is not incumbent on me to rebut it. Just demonstrate that Theodore made a fallacious argument
[/list=1] That being said I would of course be happy to answer your questions as best I can. Let me say before I do that I have said that I am not wedded to Milloy. He was the first example I could find. I do think that he has some very valid points.

Let's take a look.

Question #1: DDT is a chemical pesticide. What were (are?) the claimed advantages and disadvantages of DDT (from all claimants)?

"All claimants?" I don't know. I'm not sure that I can answer that question with out some serious research. Can you explain the importance of "all claimants" and why we are unable to come to a conclusion with out this information?

Do you believe that in every such instance we must know the claimed advantages and disadvantages of "all claimants"?

According to the EPA Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney, "“DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man"

According to Milloy 85 million have died.

you know, I made these points already.

Question #2: Which of these advantages and disadvantages is Steven Milloy agreeing too? I see no reason to presume that Milloy didn't agree with any of them. Do you?

Question #3: It's been 30 years since it was banned. Were there no replacements for DDT that the chemical industry could provide?I don't know, was there?

It's kind of hard to prove a negative. If you are saying that it is sloppy work on behalf of Milloy to not address this then I would say that you may be right. However it only proves Milloy did not address the point. It does not prove Milloy wrong.

Question #3: If the advantages of DDT outweighed the disadvantages, why, after 5 Republican administrations and 2 Democratic administrations, hasn't the ban been overturned? Presumptuous. The argument assumes that governments failure to overturn the ban proves that the ban is scientifically sound. Yet there is ample evidence that the government reularly fails to change laws and policy in the face of opposing evidence.

In other words, you seemed to think that Milloy has a case for removing the ban on DDT. Defend that proposition. "Seemed to think"?

"Seemed to think" is not equivalant to "proposition".

I'll tell you what. Milloy has made a case. He has provided argument and data. Why don't you rebut that?

[RandFan]

You beat me to it. :D

Originally posted by shanek
That is NOT true. The first mention of DDT in this thread was from Theodore Kurita in a post to me:

When RandFan mentioned Milloy, it was only to provide an example of someone dissenting against GW. TK brought up the DDT strawman.

Since that is irrelevant to this thread, why should he? Why shouldn't it be on TK, who is using this as a credibility issue, to debunk what Milloy is really saying about DDT as opposed to making strawman versions of his claims? For that matter, why shouldn't TK just not even mention the DDT thing as it's completely irrelevant and focus on Milloy's arguments with regards to Global Warming? And I get hit over the head with a mallet. :hit:

[dsm]

Originally posted by shanek

That is NOT true. The first mention of DDT in this thread was from Theodore Kurita in a post to me:


Oops, missed that one (which destroys the rest of what I said). Mea culpa.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by dsm
Oops, missed that one (which destroys the rest of what I said). Mea culpa. Not a problem.

For what it is worth, I have found an outstanding web site that deals with global warming. It is very thought provoking and done in such a way that it does not preach but rather leads the reader through various steps to help the reader make an informed decision.

The idea is that the reader is an investigative journalist and must decide what is and isn't valid information.

I don't usually refer people to sites like this but this one is done so well and also takes the time to teach critical thinking and skepticism. The information is presented in layman terms and is well organized. I realy think that everyone in the debate can really appreciate the information.

Global Warming Part 1: Detecting the Truth

Imagine yourself as an inquisitive detective. You've heard rumors and news reports about global warming, but you're just not sure whom to believe. You're going to begin with some investigative reporting, and you need to decide what your best detective's approach will be. What sorts of questions can you ask, and how will you go about finding the information you need to answer your questions? What facts would it take to convince you one way or the other?

Start your investigation by examining some false stories that have appeared in the media, like eggs standing on end only on the vernal equinox. Your investigation begins here . . .


Global Warming Part 6: The Global Warming Debate

A wealth of scientific studies suggests that humans are at least partly responsible for current global warming trends — despite this though, there are scientists, groups, and individual citizens who actively contest and debate global warming — especially the idea that humans are partly responsible. As a detective, these are important issues to consider. Is the science on climate change unsound? Do these debates suggest that you, as a detective, should not place much confidence in the climate change research (and consensus based on that scientific research) that humans are involved? Why or why not?

Objectives Understand that skepticism and debate surrounding scientific inquiry can actually be beneficial to discovering underlying truth

Recognize the importance of thinking critically about the source of information

[Theodore Kurita]

Ok. here is a good criticism of Milloy's Global Warming ideas and policy:

This one comes from the Washington Post.


If You Seek the Truth, Don't Trash the Science
By John Schwartz
Sunday, February 21, 1999; Page B01
The Washington Post

There's a coffee mug on my desk that's a daily reminder of what's wrong with science these days. It's a freebie sent to reporters like me who cover the subject, and it comes from a man named Steven Milloy who runs a popular site on the World Wide Web devoted to knocking down "junk science."

The mug gives the Web address, www.junkscience.com (motto: "All the junk that's fit to debunk"), and the rest of the mug is decorated with acronyms and phrases that exemplify Milloy's idea of debunked junk: DDT, EMFs (electromagnetic fields), Gulf War Syndrome, alar, global warming, silicone breast implants and more.

There's a huge irony at work here, of course. It's science, after all, that has effectively laid some of those controversies to rest (no authoritative study has found that EMFs from overhead power lines cause cancer, for example). But others, such as global warming, are still part of a serious ongoing debate. And so it should be. If there is one clear way in which science is abused, it is by reducing its deliberate, complex method of discovery to the kind of epigrams that you can display on a coffee mug. Yet, here is the self-proclaimed "Junkman" calling the ball dead on controversy after controversy.

When I called him up and asked him about it, Milloy emphasized that he was simply trying to attract people to his site, where they could read more. And while that might be true, the problem with terms such as "junk science"--which, like "political correctness," originated in conservative circles--is that they are used not to spark debate but to cut it short. Science, on the other hand, is in large part about keeping the conversation going.

What happens if we cut short the conversation on topics such as global warming? It is pretty well established that temperatures are on the rise. But there are huge gaps in our knowledge about whether human activity has caused that rise, and what human activity might be able to do to reverse the process. Can we afford to dismiss the topic now, putting off any study of what prudent steps we might need to take to be certain that there's nothing to worry about?

Good science is all about taking those steps, and gradually accumulating a more detailed body of knowledge along the way. The scientific method involves coming up with ways to prove that something is true, independent of politics or opinion. Each theory gets examined and tested by others in an effort to see if the results can be duplicated. The theory that the sun revolves around the Earth, for example, was disproved by observations of the motions of heavenly bodies. The idea of a flat earth could be debunked by observing the slow emergence of the mast of a ship as it comes over the horizon.

Where we run into trouble is when we demand more of science than it can rightly give us--when we demand things like absolute certainty and speed. The more complex the issues, the harder it is and the longer it takes to do the science. It's a process full of false starts and missteps.

Take just one example. In 1981, Harvard epidemiologist Brian MacMahon and his colleagues published a report in the New England Journal of Medicine suggesting that coffee might cause pancreatic cancer. The findings were unexpected, and the media went wild. But science abounds with surprises. (After all, researchers believed that ulcers were caused by stress and stomach acidity until Australian researchers ferreted out the real culprit, the bacterium helicobacter pylori. Their results were reproduced, and today, treatment has shifted from stomach-acid blockers to antibiotics.)

Scientists tried, but weren't able to duplicate MacMahon's coffee/cancer results. And subsequent studies--including a 1986 followup by MacMahon--have not found any link between drinking reasonable amounts of coffee and pancreatic cancer. The issue is all but dead now. Failure? Those who shout "junk science" might say so. But that's the scientific method at work.

The incident underscores one of the problems with press coverage of science: Science is a long movie, and the news media generally take mere snapshots. As Victor Cohn wrote in his book "News and Numbers": "The first thing to understand about science is that it is almost always uncertain." Casual readers of the news look at this back-and-forth process of thesis, refutation and discovery and can be forgiven if they conclude that these guys just can't get it right. As one epidemiologist put it, "Some people think science ought to be clean and easy. It's not. It's messy." In fact, scientific discovery moves less as the crow flies than as a sailboat tacks, first this way, then that, but edging ever forward.

The uncomfortable fact that scientific findings can be all over the map, especially in its early stages of looking at a problem, has made it ripe for exploitation in the courtroom. Trial lawyers jumped into breast-implant litigation, for example, and won multimillion-dollar judgments against the makers for claims that the devices had caused autoimmune diseases such as scleroderma and lupus. They often relied on hired "experts" whose work has not stood up to the scrutiny of their peers.

The explosion of litigation in the courtroom based on weak science was decried by commentators such as Peter W. Huber of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, who brought the phrase "junk science" to the nation's attention in a series of books that argued for reform of the nation's courts. State tort reform efforts and decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court have given judges greater responsibility for narrowing the roster of scientific experts and evidence presented to juries.

In the case of implants, however, the companies themselves had little to fight back with at first, since they had not performed the kinds of studies that could have established their products' safety. A series of studies published since the mid-1990s has found no strong link between implants and autoimmune disease, and juries that review that scientific evidence have increasingly decided cases in favor of the implant makers.

Now implants are considered the ne plus ultra of junk science by critics such as Milloy and George Mason University Law School associate professor David Bernstein. Publicist David Fenton, who trumpets to his trial-lawyer clients any study that suggests implants pose a risk, has been demonized as a spinner of junk science. The fact remains that, although recent studies undermine the wild claims of serious illness caused by implants, they do not rule out the possibility that implants increase the risk of more rare autoimmune diseases or atypical diseases, and research continues at the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and elsewhere--just as it should.

The pressure on the scientist in the lab from both the left and right has been so great that some of the people at the National Cancer Institute last year held a small seminar on doing science in controversial areas. None of them would talk to me on the record about it, though--every time their names show up in the paper, they say, they are called to give depositions in another lawsuit. As scientists on the government payroll, they realize that the public has a right to scrutinize their work. At the same time, one told me, "you have to keep your eye on the science, keep moving forward."

Thanks to attitudes like that, science still enjoys a reputation of impartiality, and we continue to look to research as the underpinning for our social policies and our legislative crusades. But, at the same time, that idealism can't help but look almost quaint in a world in which science is spun from all sides. Science is, in many ways, inherently political--it is the foundation of national policy, and the government budget processes that set research agendas are debated by lawmakers. Interest groups and disease-oriented organizations lobby for their causes, lawsuits hang on the results of studies--and scientists are left to try to do their work in a minefield.

So I wasn't surprised to see that junk science and politicized science were central to the agenda of last week's conference held by the Independent Women's Forum, titled "Scared Sick." The IWF contends that many women don't understand complex scientific issues and have developed unfounded fears about illnesses because of a cabal of liberals, environmental extremists, feminists and trial lawyers.

But the scientific foundation for those broad claims was scant--even, one might dare to say, junky. The proof that many women don't "get" science came down to a single survey cited by presenter after presenter, a report from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis that found women tended to rank the risk of a series of environmental issues as a greater hazard than did men. Only lunch speaker Marcia Angell, executive editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, pointed out that the differences between the perceptions of men and women were quite small--and that the study could just as well indicate that men underplay risk.

What's a consumer to do? How can you hope to find out whether a given product is actually safe (which is all most of us are really interested in)? Anyone hoping to make sense of the science news and the political battles surrounding it has to develop antennae for judging each new story and study. The most reliable information is likely to come from that peer-reviewed journal, though that's no guarantee. A good story should say whether a finding is new, or confirms an existing body of research--anyone who stopped drinking coffee in 1981 out of fears of getting pancreatic cancer suffered through a lot of bleary-eyed mornings for nothing. And let's hope people aren't put off eating cancer-fighting fresh fruits and vegetables by the report last week about the possible health risks of pesticide residues on those foods.

But most of all, any reader's ears should prick up when they hear phrases like "politicized science" or "junk science" being tossed about. The claim may be right--but anyone who makes it should be vetted for politics and junk as well.

John Schwartz is a science reporter for The Washington Post.



Here is a book review of Steven Milloy's most recent book, Junk Science Judo...

This review was done by Terence Hines of the Skeptical Inquirer. In other words it was done by one of the organizations that James Randi leads.


Here it is:


A blunderbus approach to criticism of statistics. (Book Reviews). (book review)
Skeptical Inquirer, Sept-Oct, 2002, by Terence Hines

Junk Science Judo. By Steven J. Milloy. CATO Institute, 2001. ISBN 1-930865-12-0. 215 pp. Hardcover, $18.95.

Junk Science Judo is an annoying and shallow book that will not provide the reader with anything like a full account of the problems with junk science and the means to combat it. The author discusses some of the usual outrages of the health hysteria mongers such as claims that cell phones cause brain cancer and that Alar was a carcinogen. But the book is oddly incomplete in this regard. Missing is any coverage of the claims that power lines cause cancer or that breast implants result in immune diseases. These are two of the clearest cases of hysteria-mongering, and their inclusion would have made the book much more compelling by giving crystal-clear examples of why the media-induced fears are unfounded. Oddly, the real target of this book seems to be a poorly defined boogeyman labeled "statistics." Certainly, sloppy use and interpretation of statistics is one of the major problems at the heart of unfounded health fears. A book that would clearly explain the often subtle statistical errors made by promoters of health fears would be a valuable contribution. Unfortunately, this is nor that book.

Milloy's crude broad-brush condemnation of statistics is nicely summed up by his oft-repeated phrase "statistics aren't science." This is like saying "tools aren't carpentry." True enough, but one is going to get damn little carpentry done without tools, even if tools can (duh!) be abused and used incorrectly. The real problem is that Milloy, as judged from his writing, simply doesn't understand statistical techniques well enough to be able to write cogent criticisms of the poor statistical techniques used to support various health scares. In most cases when he uses the term statistics" he really means "correlations." For example, on page 59 he stares, "No study that reports only statistical results can prove a cause-and-effect relationship" (emphasis added). This is a simply absurd statement and would never be made by an author who had even a basic knowledge of statistical procedures. There is an entire class of statistical analyses, called inferential statistics, which are designed precisely to allow resea rchers to draw causal inferences. Milloy's comment would be true if he substituted "correlational" for "statistical." It is certainly true that the finding of a correlation (the term doesn't even appear in the book's index) between two variables does not allow one to conclude that there is a causal relationship between the two correlated variables. But Milloy's ignorance of this fundamental difference between correlations and inferential statistics renders his argument confusing, to say the least.

At other times, Milloy uses the term statistics" in slightly different ways. While he never discusses what inferential statistics are, and how they can be used properly to draw conclusions, he does discuss (in chapter 6) the concept of statistical significance and p values. A p value is a probability value ranging from 0 to 1 that gives the probability of the obtained result being due to chance. The higher the p value, the more likely the obtained result is to have been the result of chance factors. Putting it the other way around, the smaller the p value, the greater the probability is that the results are not due to chance factors--that they are due to the factors manipulated in the experiment. By general agreement, a p value of .05 or less is accepted as a "significant" result. When discussing p values (p. 108) Milloy makes another absurd statement: "How researchers calculate the p-value is not important." This is like saying, going back to the tool and carpentry analogy, that it doesn't matter how a carp enter makes a hole in the wall--a bulldozer is as good as a skill saw. In fact, there are hundreds of different statistical procedures that can be used to calculate a p value. Deciding which one to use on a particular set of data is far from a trivial problem. It is a problem that those of us who teach statistics probably spend more time on in class than anything else. If you do use the wrong procedure, you'll get a p value that is simply wrong. And you will often be badly misled as to what your results really mean. I have found (Hines 1998, 2001) that using the wrong procedure to calculate a p value is very common in experiments that claim to support various pseudosciences.

The author's ignorance of the real nature of, and problems with, statistics time and again prevents him from making his arguments against various health scares as effective as they should be. In chapter 11, "Tricks Are for Kids," he discusses studies that claim to show that exposure to this or that substance causes cancer. A common procedure in such studies is to examine the relationship between exposure and the rate of numerous different types of cancers (or other ailments). When one, or maybe two, significant relationships are found, the "fact" that substance X "causes" cancer type Y is certified. This is the problem of multiple comparisons. If we accept a p value of .05 as indicating significance, we are also accepting that 5 percent of the time, a result will be "significant" simply by chance alone. So, if you look at the effects of exposure to, say, postage stamps on 120 different types of cancer even if postage stamps do not cause cancer, for 5 percent of the cancer types examined there will be a "sign ificant" relationship. Now, of course, on average three of these relationships will show that postage stamp exposure increases the risks of the cancers and three will show that exposure decreases the risks. The decreased risk findings just never get any press. This sort of serious statistical blunder is especially serious in studies claiming to link power lines to various cancers and PCB pollution to developmental disorders (Hines 2002). But Milloy barely mentions this problem.

In another instance, Milloy simply seems not to have read the relevant literature. On page 118 he is properly critical of estimates of the economic costs of cigarette smoking by noting that the claims that "differences in medical expenditures between smokers and nonsmokers are due only to smoking" are "probably not true" due to other differences between smokers and nonsmokers. But those huge estimates of the economic "costs" of smoking can be criticized on much more serious grounds. Reports of smoking-related costs are just that--reports of the costs only. They do not take into account the cost savings that result from smoking. Unfortunately, us non-smokers aren't immortal. We're going to die of something. The fact is that lung cancer, the major fatal disease of smokers, kills you relatively young and relatively fast, and thus relatively cheaply. So smokers generally die at a time when they have lived a productive life but before they have a chance to develop many of the chronic and debilitating, to say noth ing of extremely expensive, diseases of old age such as Alzheimer's disease. Dead smokers are also less likely collect social security payment and retirement benefits. The point is not that it is "good" that smoking kills people. The point is that any rational economic analysis of the effects of a behavior like smoking must take into account both the real costs and the real cost savings associated with the behavior. For example, a recent Dutch study (Barendregt et al. 1997) estimated that the lifetime average health care costs for smokers is $83,700 and for non-smokers $97,200.

The numerous serious flaws in the logic and coverage of this book render it essentially useless as a guide to the detection of junk science. This is a real shame as the book does contain interesting and important nuggets of information. I was unaware, for example, that in studies of the risks of secondhand smoke the EPA arbitrarily changed the p value for significance from .05 to .075, thereby shifting a finding of the risks from "non-significant" to significant." It appears that secondhand smoke isn't a health risk-- though in my view that doesn't mean smoking shouldn't be banned. Secondhand smoke is still annoying, and that is sufficient grounds for a ban--just as we would feel no compunction about banning drinkers at a bar from spitting part of their bourbon and water on the folks around them. As the book stands, it comes across as little more than an ill-thought-out temper tantrum against those damn "statistics."

References

Barendregt, J.J., L. Bonneux, and P.J. van der Maas. 1997. The health care costs of smoking. New England Journal of Medicine 337, 1052-1057.

Hines, T.M. 1998. Comprehensive review of biorhythm theory. Psychological Reports 83, 19-64.

-----. 2001. The Doman-Delacato patterning treatment for brain damage. Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 5, 80-89.

-----. 2002. Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. 2nd edition. Amherst NY: Prometheus Books.

Terence Hines is in the psychology department, Pace University, Pleasantville NY 10570-2799. A second edition of his book Pseudoscience and the Paranormal is being published by Prometheus this year.
COPYRIGHT 2002 Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group




Now do you understand what I meant by Steven Milloy's industry bias.

[dsm]

Originally posted by RandFan
Not a problem.

For what it is worth, I have found an outstanding web site that deals with global warming. It is very thought provoking and done in such a way that it does not preach but rather leads the reader through various steps to help the reader make an informed decision.

The idea is that the reader is an investigative journalist and must decide what is and isn't valid information.

I don't usually refer people to sites like this but this one is done so well and also takes the time to teach critical thinking and skepticism. The information is presented in layman terms and is well organized. I realy think that everyone in the debate can really appreciate the information.


Ummm, there's something missing here -- like the address of the web-site...:eek:

:wink:

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
You beat me to it. :D

Just gettin' your back, guy.

[Theodore Kurita]

Look at this lengthy article on Global Warming.

Loads of statistics, datagroups, variables, and equations used for the models on this:


http://weblinks3.epnet.com/externalframe.asp?tb=0&_ug=sid+E3FB1665%2DEB26%2D456B%2DAEC4%2DDEA4AF933D A7%40sessionmgr2+72CF&_us=or+Date+sm+KS+EFFF&_uso=db%5B0+%2Daph+hd+0+op%5B0+%2D+st%5B0+%2DAN++1 2201987+tg%5B0+%2D+F2FA&fi=aph_12201987_AN&tp=CP&bk=C&tn=1&lpdf=true&pdfs=277K&es=cs%5Fclient%2Easp%3FT%3DP%26P%3DAN%26K%3D122019 87%26rn%3D1%26db%3Daph%26is%3D08948755%26sc%3DR%26 S%3DR%26D%3Daph%26title%3DJournal%2Bof%2BClimate%2 6year%3D2004%26bk%3DC&fn=1&rn=1&

[dsm]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Look at this lengthy article on Global Warming.

Loads of statistics, datagroups, variables, and equations used for the models on this:


http://weblinks3.epnet.com/externalframe.asp?tb=0&_ug=sid+E3FB1665%2DEB26%2D456B%2DAEC4%2DDEA4AF933D A7%40sessionmgr2+72CF&_us=or+Date+sm+KS+EFFF&_uso=db%5B0+%2Daph+hd+0+op%5B0+%2D+st%5B0+%2DAN++1 2201987+tg%5B0+%2D+F2FA&fi=aph_12201987_AN&tp=CP&bk=C&tn=1&lpdf=true&pdfs=277K&es=cs%5Fclient%2Easp%3FT%3DP%26P%3DAN%26K%3D122019 87%26rn%3D1%26db%3Daph%26is%3D08948755%26sc%3DR%26 S%3DR%26D%3Daph%26title%3DJournal%2Bof%2BClimate%2 6year%3D2004%26bk%3DC&fn=1&rn=1&

Ummm, EPnet seems to require a subscription, so I cannot see your link. What was your point in posting it?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by dsm


Ummm, there's something missing here -- like the address of the web-site...:eek:

:wink: OOoooooops.

Global Warming (http://www.studyworksonline.com/cda/content/explorations/0,,NAV2-79_SEP605,00.shtml)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Now do you understand what I meant by Steven Milloy's industry bias. Theodore,

Is it possible for you to read the articles and provide a synopsis? What in the article do you think is the most damaging?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by dsm
Ummm, there's something missing here -- like the address of the web-site...:eek:

:wink: "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by RandFan
Theodore,

Is it possible for you to read the articles and provide a synopsis? What in the article do you think is the most damaging?

The article done by the Skeptical Inquirer is the best done.

You have to read the article for yourself.

The stuff that is elaborated upon is in so much detail.

To put it bluntly, both articles explain how shallow he is, and how shallow his arguments are.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
To put it bluntly, both articles explain how shallow he is, and how shallow his arguments are. Theodore,

I know this is going to come off as patronizing and I apologize for that. My intentions however are sincere. I would like to get you to formulate an argument. You have some real good information to work with.

Ok, you say the articles explain how shallow Milloy is. This is your proposition, that Milloy is shallow. To support that proposition we need one or more premises. Can you quote at least one premise (sentence, statement) that shows that Milloy is shallow?

Could I suggest a better proposition? How about, Milloy is misleading. I think that is a simpler proposition based on the evidence provided. Understand that a proposition can be itself a premise. So the fact that Milloy is misleading could be part of an argument that he is also shallow. Can you quote at least one premise (sentence, statement) that shows that Milloy is misleading?

I have read the articles. I would like to know why you think they say what they say.

[epepke]

Originally posted by varwoche
The denial of global warming, and the denial that burning fossil fuels contributes, has about the same intellectual honesty as holocaust denial.

The problem is that the issue of global warming, even compared to the generally abysmal way in which scientific issues are dealt with publically, is unusually and stupidly polarized.

Basically, there's Group A, who is absolutely convinced of a package deal. Not only does global warming occur, but it spells immediate disaster in the near future. They know exactly what do do about it, are sure exactly how to go about it, and know that they're smarter and more politically conscious than anybody else.

The there is everybody else who, regardless of their actual views and perceptions, are variously described by Group A as Randroid capitalists intent on chuckling while they stripmine the entire planet, baby-eating monsters, or as you have put it, holocaust-deniers.

This destroys science, because science thrives on questioning, and the polarization makes it impossible to question anything about it without immediately being branded as Dr. Evil and Mini Me combined.

(edited to fix typo)

[shanek]

Originally posted by epepke


The problem is that the issue of global warming, even compared the the generally abysmal way in which scientific issues are dealt with publically, unusually and stupidly polarized.

Basically, there's Group A, who is absolutely convinced of a package deal. Not only does global warming occur, but it spells immediate disaster in the near future. They know exactly what do do about it, are sure exactly how to go about it, and know that they're smarter and more politically conscious than anybody else.

The there is everybody else who, regardless of their actual views and perceptions, are variously described by Group A as Randroid capitalists intent on chuckling while they stripmine the entire planet, baby-eating monsters, or as you have put it, holocaust-deniers.

This destroys science, because science thrives on questioning, and the polarization makes it impossible to question anything about it without immediately being branded as Dr. Evil and Mini Me combined. :clap:

[dsm]

Originally posted by epepke


The problem is that the issue of global warming, even compared the the generally abysmal way in which scientific issues are dealt with publically, unusually and stupidly polarized.

Basically, there's Group A, who is absolutely convinced of a package deal. Not only does global warming occur, but it spells immediate disaster in the near future. They know exactly what do do about it, are sure exactly how to go about it, and know that they're smarter and more politically conscious than anybody else.

The there is everybody else who, regardless of their actual views and perceptions, are variously described by Group A as Randroid capitalists intent on chuckling while they stripmine the entire planet, baby-eating monsters, or as you have put it, holocaust-deniers.

This destroys science, because science thrives on questioning, and the polarization makes it impossible to question anything about it without immediately being branded as Dr. Evil and Mini Me combined.

You forgot to mention Group B. Group B is absolutely convinced that Group A is wrong regardless of the data presented and, thus, labels Group A as scare-mongers, doomsayers, or (shudder) environmentalists.

Then there is everyone else who, regardless of their views, is described as either "one of them" or "one of us".

Of course, the above are blatant generalizations that the people in between Group A and B learn to look beyond so that they can get back to working on issues that are important to them.

[dsm]

Originally posted by shanek
:clap:

:nope:

[epepke]

Originally posted by dsm
You forgot to mention Group B. Group B is absolutely convinced that Group A is wrong regardless of the data presented and, thus, labels Group A as scare-mongers, doomsayers, or (shudder) environmentalists.

That's the problem, isn't it? There are any number of things that the people in Group A could be wrong about without being wrong about the whole kit-and-caboodle. Some of the people in Group B might reasonably consider themselves environmentalists as well but just question some of the particulars.

But those people must necessarily be judged as reacting to Group A as, in your own words, (shudder) environmentalists. Because people in Group A know for certain that they can be the only real environmentalists, right?

Thank you for clarifying my point.

[b]Of course, the above are blatant generalizations that the people in between Group A and B learn to look beyond so that they can get back to working on issues that are important to them.

Of course. Most people know enough to stay out of it. Which is a shame, because it is an important issue, and we need more thinking people on the problem.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
If the evidence does indeed show that there is a significant risk to global warming caused by burning fossil fuels then you are right.

My understanding is that there is no such consensus. Just a fear that fossil fuel is suspected by many as being a significant factor.

Can you post data that supports the notion that burning fossil fuels has been determined to be a significant cause?

Also what if there is contradictory scientific data? Would you consider this data or dismiss it out of hand?

The evidence supports it, and the vast majority of scientists in that field believe it. You can find scientists who don't believe it, but I can also find you scientists who don't believe in evolution.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The evidence supports it, and the vast majority of scientists in that field believe it. You can find scientists who don't believe it, but I can also find you scientists who don't believe in evolution. Very bad analogy.

Scientists who don't believe in the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution have no falsifiable theories. They can only rely on faith and mythology to provide an alternate answer as to the origins of the universe and the contents therein. While it is true that they can attack the evidence they are left with nothing "scientific" to answer the questions of, "ok what then?"

Scientists who are skeptical of all or part of the global warming scenario can provide competing theories that can be tested. Furthermore the reason for the skepticism is based in real world data and evidence.

Comparing the two is to be ignorant of the position of the skeptics. Instead of putting your fingers in your ears and humming loudly why don't you take the time to find out what that those ideas are?

Global Waffling: When Will We Be Sure? (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/10/weekinreview/10REVK.html?ex=1078203600&en=c3c065677cbcc94f&ei=5070)

Still, the subtleties have allowed warming skeptics ample opportunity to challenge the idea. Some, like Richard S. Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have built durable counterarguments, saying the links connecting the earth's oceans, air and "cryosphere," its frozen places, are impossible to elucidate with sufficient confidence to predict much beyond next week's weather.

In an interview, Dr. Lindzen acknowledged the arctic warming trend and slight global warming measured in the last century, but said it all is well within the realm of natural variation or measurement error — and not yet within our power to understand.

"This is a field that was in a primitive state when it assumed a policy importance a few years ago," Dr. Lindzen said. "Suddenly we've declared thousands of people in a primitive field as world experts, and they're trying to have their day." And reports last week that boats had traversed the normally frozen Northwest Passage and northern rivers and lakes were freezing later and thawing earlier were countered with the response that this seeming meltdown could still be ascribed to natural wiggles in temperature or ocean currents.

Global Warming Part 6: The Global Warming Debate (http://www.studyworksonline.com/cda/content/explorations/0,,NAV2-79_SEP754,00.shtml) Understand that skepticism and debate surrounding scientific inquiry can actually be beneficial to dicovering underlying truth

[dsm]

Originally posted by epepke
Of course. Most people know enough to stay out of it. Which is a shame, because it is an important issue, and we need more thinking people on the problem.

No, the people who are doing the thinking are in between Group A and Group B.

[peptoabysmal]

According to Al Gore, global warming will bring about a new ice age, and it's all George Bush's fault.

Al Gore’s Untimely Global Warming Speech (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14563)

[dsm]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
According to Al Gore, global warming will bring about a new ice age, and it's all George Bush's fault.

Al Gore’s Untimely Global Warming Speech (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=14563)

You're (intentionally?) misreading what the article says (and there are a number of questionable points in the article), but what is your point?

:confused:

[epepke]

Originally posted by dsm


No, the people who are doing the thinking are in between Group A and Group B.

Oh, sure. I agree with that. However, most of them know enough to keep quiet about it, except in a strict research context.

In all seriousness, I did real research on environmental issues for five or six years. My specialty was in computational science and visualization, so I collaborated on a lot of projects. Maybe five or six years out of thirteen were spent on environmental issues, if they actually happened in a block, which they didn't. Mostly meteorological stuff, from local thunderstorms to El Niño to global climatology. The rest was in quantum chemistry, QCD, economics, etc., even the formation of glial cells and neurons and rat brains. But I digress.

I'm actually proud of some of this. Once I worked with two other people on oil spills. We were the first group to show that an oil spill actually threatened coral reefs on the continental shelf, that there were inverse "plumes" of contaminants that went all the way down, hundreds of feet. We were also the only group that predicted the direction of an oil spill in Tampa Bay when it was happening. That's because we had a full 3-D model of the ocean with 30 layers. Again I digress.

But boy howdy have I learned my lesson. Even in an ostensibly intelligent forum like this one, I can't say anything, even in general, about the state of actual research without some Group A dipweed telling me I'm a Nazi or something.

So I mostly keep quiet about it.

[curious]

Originally posted by shanek
As someone who has studied economics, I'm familiar with the highlighted concept and how important and useful it can be. I'm also aware of the dangers of using it to draw fundamental conclusions. I agree, but I was pointing out that Milloy was drawing fundamental conclusions without addressing the highlighted concept.

The amount of the warming that has been accepted keeps decreasing as more and more information comes to light.
You sure about that? Everything I've seen falls within the .5 to 1 degree range.

The prediction of global warming is that atmospheric temperatures will rise before surface temperatures. That just isn't what we find, either from the balloon measurements or the satellite measurements. Brian the Snail's link put this in better perspective for me. http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
^Based on that study temp readings done at 4-7km are actually going up, at 10-12km they are close to even, and at 17-20 they are going down. Besides the already menitoned effects of ozone depletion and volcanic eruptions wouldn't it make sense that warming would be detetected at the lower levels first? CO2 is more concentrated at lower altitudes and since it reflects back (more of) the earths radiated heat the higher altitudes would be getting less heat from below than before. (For the record, I just made that up, but I think it makes sense. :p )

That's the long-refuted "hockey-stick" graph, where the measuring method was changed just before the rise and the Medieval Warm Period mysteriously disappeared. I was actually just focused on the last (light blue) section of the graph as a direct response to Milloys comments about GW and CO2 in the 20th century. Here's a nice chart of various temp studies that includes Mann's and Esper's:
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/millennium.htm
^Hmm, a psychedelic hockey-stick maybe?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by epepke
But boy howdy have I learned my lesson. Even in an ostensibly intelligent forum like this one, I can't say anything, even in general, about the state of actual research without some Group A dipweed telling me I'm a Nazi or something.

So I mostly keep quiet about it. "Ego, aint it a bitch?" Not your ego of course. People are too dogmatic. I left the forum for an extended period of time in part because I was tired of people bullying others to accept a point of view. Being a rather passionate person I tend to lash out at those who I think are unfairly attacking ideas that I care about. This of course brings me down to their level. My only saving grace is the recognition of my ego and I invariably am forced to apologize.

I agree that the questioning of science is important and I think everyone should educate themselves about environmental issues This discussion can be an opportunity for some to see the issue in a new light. In fact, my participation in this discussion has led me to rethink some of my previously held beliefs as it concerns global warming.

Hopefully, some people, in spite of their egos will consider the opposing arguments and become less rigid in their thinking and perhaps understand science a little better. And ego, well, it does have its purpose.

[clk]

Originally posted by dsm


You're (intentionally?) misreading what the article says (and there are a number of questionable points in the article), but what is your point?

:confused:

The point is to hijack this thread and turn it into a political discussion.

[varwoche]

I'm appreciative for the arguments on all sides. I started this thread (fwiw!) and would like to return my earlier statement/question...
------------------
varwoche:
We could debate "vast" I suppose. Fine, let's just say majority. Does it bother you that a majority of scientific thought considers there to be a reasonable possibility that global disaster will occur? What odds do you need before you are concerned?
------------------

I'm not sure this has been answered. Several of you have asked that claims like this be substantiated. (And rightly so.)

Any climatologists reading this? OK then, we're dependent on experts. Hence, we're not debating the facts per se; the facts are far too complex for lay people; we're having a metadebate -- how do the experts stack up, and which experts are unbiased?

As to finding non-biased expertise: First, there are many scientists with an opinion, not all are climatologists. Second, given the volume of information available, it only makes sense to discount the sources where there is potential conflict of interest, i.e. scientists who work for the Sierra Club or for the Cato Institute.

That said, here is an interesting article:

msnbc article (http://www.msnbc.com/news/106332.asp?cp1=1)

It states:
-----------------------------
Scientists by and large accept that Earth’s climate is changing because of the amount of so-called greenhouse gases humans are pouring into the atmosphere. Most of those gases come from fossil fuels, particularly carbon dioxide, or CO2.
And much of the scientific community thinks these gases are causing unnatural climatic warming that could have unimaginable effects on life.
...
Some 2,000 scientists, experts and government officials prepared and signed off on the broadest international consensus ever on the issue: a 1995 report by what’s known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.
Based on 133 scientific publications, the report delivered a widely quoted conclusion: “The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”
-------------------------------

Seeing that burning fossil fuel impairs local air quality, and seeing that it is clearly in US interest to reduce dependence on foriegn fuel, and seeing that it is possible (probable?) that humans are contributing to global warming, and seeing as the impact of global warming could be biblical in severity... Where is the patriotic call from the bully pulpit for Americans to be conservation-minded?

varwoche

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


No matter what you do, there will ALWAYS be individuals and corporations with political connections. Bans on special interest groups just keep people like you and me from trying to affect meaningful change. The only way to avoid this is to not give the government the ower to do these things in the first place. As Michael Cloud said, "The problem is not the abuse of power, it's the power to abuse."

When scientists only get funding from business, then they will not be totally either. Business is there to make money, not fund scientists doing research that has no bearing on their business, or even worse, indicates that their business is not acting in the interests of the human race.

[a_unique_person]

Try this logic. We know that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has warmed the earth by 60 degrees, and without it there would not be life as we know it. Why then would more CO2 not increase the temperature.

http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199606/0229.html

[a_unique_person]

Lindzen = Liar



The IPCC report states that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years" is of human origin. It says that late 20th-century temperatures shot up above anything the earth had experienced in the previous 1,000 years. Michael E. Mann, a geologist at the University of Virginia and a lead author of the IPCC's past-climate chapter, calls the spike "a change that is inconsistent with natural variability." Lindzen dismisses this analysis by questioning the method for determining historical temperatures. For the first 600 years of the 1,000-year chronology, he claims, researchers used tree rings alone to gauge temperature and only those from four separate locations. He calls the method used to turn tree-ring width into temperature hopelessly flawed.

Mann was flabbergasted when I questioned him about Lindzen's critique, which he called "nonsense" and "hogwash." A close examination of the IPCC report itself shows, for instance, that trees weren't the sole source of data--ice cores helped to reconstruct the temperatures of the first 600 years, too. And trees were sampled from 34 independent sites in a dozen distinct regions scattered around the globe, not four.



http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00095B0D-C331-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21&pageNumber=2&catID=2

[shanek]

Originally posted by dsm
You forgot to mention Group B. Group B is absolutely convinced that Group A is wrong regardless of the data presented and, thus, labels Group A as scare-mongers, doomsayers, or (shudder) environmentalists.

:rolleyes:

Perhaps you'd care to review this thread and defend the proposition that any of us here fit that category? And look at all of the doomsaying that HAS been going on here, with NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER. And when we ask them to provide evidence for their gloom-and-doom predictions, we just get evidence for increasing surface temperatures and CO₂ concentrations, which is NOT the data being contended!

And for the record, I consider myself an environmentalist. I'm just not part of the environmental movement, which has been coopted by anti-corporate Socialists as a disguise for their true agenda. BTW, the founder of Greenpeace agrees with me on this one.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The evidence supports it,

Whenever I have heard ANY GW scientist pressed on the issue, they say that the evidence shows that average surface temperatures are getting warmer, and that humans may be contributing to it. I've never heard any of them say it's a foregone conclusion that we're heading for disaster in the near future.

There are people like YOU who claim that they do, yet when you mentioned a scientist you were in contact with who believed that way you REFUSED to post any of his arguments or pass along any of our questions to him.

and the vast majority of scientists in that field believe it.

There's that combination of argumentum ad populum and argument from authority again. Why don't you present the EVIDENCE that you say supports a global disaster in the near future?

[shanek]

Originally posted by clk
The point is to hijack this thread and turn it into a political discussion.

You do realize that this is the POLITICS forum, don't you?

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
When scientists only get funding from business, then they will not be totally either. Business is there to make money, not fund scientists doing research that has no bearing on their business, or even worse, indicates that their business is not acting in the interests of the human race.

Then explain why it was research funded by the tobacco companies that conclusively proved the health dangers of smoking.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Try this logic. We know that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has warmed the earth by 60 degrees, and without it there would not be life as we know it. Why then would more CO2 not increase the temperature.

Who's claiming it wouldn't?

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Lindzen = Liar

There's a good skeptical rebuttal. :rolleyes:

The IPCC report states that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years" is of human origin. It says that late 20th-century temperatures shot up above anything the earth had experienced in the previous 1,000 years.

Let's see...1000 years ago, we were already into the Medieval Warm Period, after which was the Little Ice Age which we are still coming out of. So OF COURSE temperatures are increasing above anything experienced in the last 1000 years! "Cherry-picking," anyone?

"The post-1860 natural warming was the most recent in a series of similar warmings spaced at roughly 1500-year intervals throughout the present interglacial, the Holocene." —Wallace S. Broecker, “Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?” Science, 291: 1497-99, February 23, 2001

Don't you think, then, that we need to be looking at the last 2,000 years instead of the last 1,000?

[clk]

Originally posted by shanek


You do realize that this is the POLITICS forum, don't you?

Does that justify the hijacking of threads?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


:rolleyes:

Perhaps you'd care to review this thread and defend the proposition that any of us here fit that category? And look at all of the doomsaying that HAS been going on here, with NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER. And when we ask them to provide evidence for their gloom-and-doom predictions, we just get evidence for increasing surface temperatures and CO₂ concentrations, which is NOT the data being contended!

And for the record, I consider myself an environmentalist. I'm just not part of the environmental movement, which has been coopted by anti-corporate Socialists as a disguise for their true agenda. BTW, the founder of Greenpeace agrees with me on this one.

One of the founders of Greenpeace thinks that the Chicken Little movement is wrong. He was still a founder of Greenpeace and wants to care for the environment.

Anti-corporate Socialists have tried to take over the Green movement as theirs. I also saw these people in the anti-war march. Considering their miniscule numbers, the fact that over 100,000 people turned out in Melbourne for a the march indicates that the depth of anti-war sentiment was much deeper than they can take credit for. Ditto with the environmental movement. I am not an anti-corporate Socialist, and the thought of the scientists who study GW being socialist puppets is laughable.

My friend tells me about how they have to apply for funding for their research. The current Australian government, and the current Minister for the Environment, are deeply conservative and could not more pro-business and pro-free market. He keeps funding the research, because they justify it to him.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Who's claiming it wouldn't?

It appears to me that there is only one thing you do deny, that anything that affects business is involved in this.

[dsm]

Originally posted by shanek


:rolleyes:

Perhaps you'd care to review this thread and defend the proposition that any of us here fit that category?

:nope:

Now, now. No need to get touchy -- I didn't point the finger at you (or anyone else). My statement was a reaction to the quote I made it against -- nothing more. I don't like hearing people characterize a group with such broad strokes -- they're invariably wrong. My point was that, one may believe the quote, but others may believe my statement and both are overly broad.

[dsm]

Originally posted by shanek
Whenever I have heard ANY GW scientist pressed on the issue, they say that the evidence shows that average surface temperatures are getting warmer, and that humans may be contributing to it. I've never heard any of them say it's a foregone conclusion that we're heading for disaster in the near future.


And, when pressed, what do the GW scientists (who, by the way, would probably not consider themselves to be scientists who only specialize in GW) say should be done about it?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


There's a good skeptical rebuttal. :rolleyes:



Let's see...1000 years ago, we were already into the Medieval Warm Period, after which was the Little Ice Age which we are still coming out of. So OF COURSE temperatures are increasing above anything experienced in the last 1000 years! "Cherry-picking," anyone?

"The post-1860 natural warming was the most recent in a series of similar warmings spaced at roughly 1500-year intervals throughout the present interglacial, the Holocene." —Wallace S. Broecker, “Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?” Science, 291: 1497-99, February 23, 2001

Don't you think, then, that we need to be looking at the last 2,000 years instead of the last 1,000? [/B][/QUOTE]

I called him a liar based on his misrepresentation of data from the quote I provided.

The 'hockey stick' curve is still accepted by the majority of scientists.

[epepke]

Originally posted by RandFan
Hopefully, some people, in spite of their egos will consider the opposing arguments and become less rigid in their thinking and perhaps understand science a little better. And ego, well, it does have its purpose.

Agreed, but in many cases, of which "global warming" is a particular, arguments aren't even opposing; they're simply, well, you know, science. But are deemed to be opposing on the basis of how the lines have been drawn in the sand by dumbskis. Even Scientific American has done a lot of stupid things in this regard, but that magazine has been for fecal matter ever since they decided to stop right-justifying the captions to their illustrations.

I've studied climatology and chaos in mathematical systems extensively, and I could go on all day what a bitch the Navier-Stokes equations are to solve and what interesting (to me) things we found out when trying to solve them, but people just want to hear, you fer' it or agin' it?

(Edited for clarity. With any luck, a positive delta.)

[epepke]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Let's see...1000 years ago, we were already into the Medieval Warm Period, after which was the Little Ice Age which we are still coming out of. So OF COURSE temperatures are increasing above anything experienced in the last 1000 years! "Cherry-picking," anyone?

Also, carbon dioxide levels during the Roman period were higher than today. This is very easy to test. People have been making crimped brass buttons for thousands of years. Get one, drill a little hole in it, and do spectrometry on the gas inside.

This is corroborated by arctic and antarctic ice cores. Little bubbles get trapped.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Let's see...1000 years ago, we were already into the Medieval Warm Period, after which was the Little Ice Age which we are still coming out of. So OF COURSE temperatures are increasing above anything experienced in the last 1000 years! "Cherry-picking," anyone?

"The post-1860 natural warming was the most recent in a series of similar warmings spaced at roughly 1500-year intervals throughout the present interglacial, the Holocene." —Wallace S. Broecker, “Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?” Science, 291: 1497-99, February 23, 2001

Don't you think, then, that we need to be looking at the last 2,000 years instead of the last 1,000?

I called him a liar based on his misrepresentation of data from the quote I provided.

The 'hockey stick' curve is still accepted by the majority of scientists.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by epepke


Also, carbon dioxide levels during the Roman period were higher than today. This is very easy to test. People have been making crimped brass buttons for thousands of years. Get one, drill a little hole in it, and do spectrometry on the gas inside.

This is corroborated by arctic and antarctic ice cores. Little bubbles get trapped.

That was shane's quote, not mine. The tags got messed up. Can you provide a source for that data?

[shanek]

Originally posted by clk


Does that justify the hijacking of threads?

I'm denying your assertion that the thread HAS been hijacked.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
One of the founders of Greenpeace thinks that the Chicken Little movement is wrong. He was still a founder of Greenpeace and wants to care for the environment.

And I want to care for the environment, too. What's your point? Unless you're trying to pretend that everyone who dares ask questions of the Holy GW Scientists about their Sacred Writ doesn't care for the environment?

I am not an anti-corporate Socialist,

Sure could have fooled me, given your stance on just about every thread in this forum...

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It appears to me that there is only one thing you do deny, that anything that affects business is involved in this.

When have I said ONE F*CKING WORD about business in this thread, or ANY of the other GW threads? Geez...

Nooooo, you're not an "anti-corporate Socialist," oh, nooooo....... :rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by dsm
And, when pressed, what do the GW scientists (who, by the way, would probably not consider themselves to be scientists who only specialize in GW) say should be done about it?

When pressed, they all seem to maintain that more research is required. In other words, we're not sure yet!

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The 'hockey stick' curve is still accepted by the majority of scientists.

Instead of falling back on this tired old combination of argument from authority and argumentium ad populum, why don't you provide a scientific response to the point about the changing proxy just as the line curves upward, and a scientific explanation as to why the Medieval Warm Period disappeared?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Instead of falling back on this tired old combination of argument from authority and argumentium ad populum, why don't you provide a scientific response to the point about the changing proxy just as the line curves upward, and a scientific explanation as to why the Medieval Warm Period disappeared?

And while I'm at it, why don't I invent nuclear fusion. I don't know all the answers to GW, and I can't. Sooner or later, I have to go to authorities, just as you do.

The argument from authority is only a fallacy if those making the claim are not experts in their field. The scientists behind the IPPC are all recognised experts, following the scientific process. We have no better recourse to authority than those who do. The fact that the majority of scientists, who are experts in this field, following the scientific method, make these claims, makes me think that this is the most plausible scenario.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


And I want to care for the environment, too. What's your point? Unless you're trying to pretend that everyone who dares ask questions of the Holy GW Scientists about their Sacred Writ doesn't care for the environment?



Sure could have fooled me, given your stance on just about every thread in this forum...

As I have said before, paraphrasing Winston Churchill, the western model of the market economy is the worst economic system, except for all the others. I feel no need to pull my punches in criticising it's shortcomings, but I think that we have no better solution at the moment.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
And while I'm at it, why don't I invent nuclear fusion.

I'm hardly asking you to do any such thing. I just want you to back up your side of the argument.

I don't know all the answers to GW, and I can't.

Then don't go pretending that certain conclusions are foregone just because you like them. There ARE problems with the hockey-stick graph, and until I see a reasonable response to those problems, I am going to be skeptical of them.

Sooner or later, I have to go to authorities, just as you do.

No, we don't. Not when there are problems with the graphs the authorities are using that no one can seem to come up with an answer for. This is just more of this pathetic and ANTI-SKEPTIC tactic you and others on your side use whenever someone asks a tough question that you don't want to deal with. It has NO PLACE in skeptical discourse.

[a_unique_person]

I started a thread very early on, asking, are we all wankers. Everytime I raise one of the points that was put here as debunking GW, he just laughs and says they had an answer for that years ago. I asked him if he wants to answer questions here, and he laughs again, and asks me why I am wasting my time with people on the internet who do not follow the scientific method, and have already made up their minds.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
As I have said before, paraphrasing Winston Churchill, the western model of the market economy is the worst economic system, except for all the others. I feel no need to pull my punches in criticising it's shortcomings, but I think that we have no better solution at the moment.

What does any of that have to do with what I asked you?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


What does any of that have to do with what I asked you?

I will criticise the parts of the economy that I believe exploit it's failings. Commonly, big business and special interests. That does not mean I am just a raging socialist.

[epepke]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That was shane's quote, not mine. The tags got messed up. Can you provide a source for that data?

I'm still looking for an online source for the bit about drilling into brass buttons, which I found particularly fascinating, but it was on a NOVA program some years ago and I have so far been unable to dig it up.

In the mean time, there's a thread here with a reference to the Little Ice Age: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36244

Here's some detail on the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age: http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node5.html

I also came across this, which is kind of interesting--it's a 160,000 year graph: http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node5.html This, oddly enough, is the same as the number of people some say die from global warming every year: http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,60640,00.html

[dsm]

Originally posted by shanek
When pressed, they all seem to maintain that more research is required. In other words, we're not sure yet!

Exactly the answer I was hoping for and I am in agreement with it.

[epepke]

Originally posted by dsm


Exactly the answer I was hoping for and I am in agreement with it.

I'd love to see more research. Hell, I'd love to see some basic, public research, but that dried up in the mid-1990s.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


When pressed, they all seem to maintain that more research is required. In other words, we're not sure yet!

It is not their call, you mean. They can only say what the science tells them. The realm of politics is where policy is made. Cutting GW gases, however, appears to be one proposal.

Their research cannot tell the future, what is does do is say what is likely to happen. We cannot prove exactly what will happen with GW, and no one claims that. Now, a person presenting with cancer, say, cannot be given any guarantees for the treatment or the outcome. However, what they are told is what the odds are. Ditto with this case.

[dsm]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Their research cannot tell the future, what is does do is say what is likely to happen.

Not to beat Shanek to the punch, but what do you suppose their "confidence factor" is for "what is likely to happen"?

(You can answer that, too, Shanek).

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by dsm


Not to beat Shanek to the punch, but what do you suppose their "confidence factor" is for "what is likely to happen"?

(You can answer that, too, Shanek).

It appears to be pretty confident. You can read it on the IPCC web page.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I did read it. It was written by James Hansen, who had made definitive statements about global warming before, and was then forced to back-pedal and alter his positions.

For example (http://www.ncpa.org/bothside/krt/krt081999a.html) From your referenced article:

"It showed that 12,500 years ago global temperature rose by more than 20 degrees in approximately 50 years."

Surely this is wrong? From the IPCC: (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/072.htm)

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig2-22.gif

I don't see any 20 degree change.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Zero
What if they, and groups like them, comprise the vast majority of the anti-global warming groups? Doesn't the conflict of interest point a reasonable person to doubt their claims, if not dismiss them out of hand? LOL, don't you see the circularity of your argument there? Of course the "anti-global warming groups" will be presenting data that doesn't support GW. That's why they are "anti-global warming groups".

[RichardR]

Originally posted by shanek
Let's see...1000 years ago, we were already into the Medieval Warm Period, after which was the Little Ice Age which we are still coming out of. So OF COURSE temperatures are increasing above anything experienced in the last 1000 years! "Cherry-picking," anyone? There seems to be some dispute over whether the MWP was a global phenomenon or a local one. The IPCC again: (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm)

Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia (Grove and Switsur, 1994). However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation (see Bradley, 1999). Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries.

…

viewed hemispherically, the “Little Ice Age” can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels

…

The evidence for temperature changes in past centuries in the Southern Hemisphere is quite sparse. What evidence is available at the hemispheric scale for summer (Jones et al., 1998) and annual mean conditions (Mann et al., 2000b) suggests markedly different behaviour from the Northern Hemisphere. The only obvious similarity is the unprecedented warmth of the late 20th century.

…

Medieval warmth appears, in large part, to have been restricted to areas in and neighbouring the North Atlantic. This may implicate the role of ocean circulation-related climate variability.

[curious]

Originally posted by RichardR
I don't see any 20 degree change.
I don't see Roman times having higher CO2 levels than now either (about 375ppm).

According to these charts (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm) the last time CO2 was as high as it is now was 23 million years ago.

Originally posted by shanek
Let's see...1000 years ago, we were already into the Medieval Warm Period, after which was the Little Ice Age which we are still coming out of. So OF COURSE temperatures are increasing above anything experienced in the last 1000 years! "Cherry-picking," anyone?

"The post-1860 natural warming was the most recent in a series of similar warmings spaced at roughly 1500-year intervals throughout the present interglacial, the Holocene." —Wallace S. Broecker, �Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?� Science, 291: 1497-99, February 23, 2001

Don't you think, then, that we need to be looking at the last 2,000 years instead of the last 1,000?
I would think going back a little further than 2,000 years would be prudent. (http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm):D

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Try this logic. We know that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has warmed the earth by 60 degrees, and without it there would not be life as we know it. Why then would more CO2 not increase the temperature.



Over simplifying a little here aren't we?


Additional CO2 might only increase temp a little. It may not increase it at all.

Want a real world analogy where the causality isn't linear?


Run a bath and leave out the plug. You will need increase the rate of flow into the bath to maintain a higher water level.

Without scientific evidence that the global climate is a simple as you say, your logic is worth nothing.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita



I see that your link is to a rightwing thinktank known as the "NCPA" "National Center for Policy Analysis"


The people in the NCPA are among many organizations against the idea of gloabal warming.

They use data from "Oil Companeis" which of course is most likely to have a pro oil comany bias.

Look at people that are actually really studying the effects of global warming and are not publishing crackpot ideas like your "industry scientists" are.


Face it, give some government studies or some studies from a nonbiased institute, or make yourself look like a complete fool in front of the entire forum.


Have a nice day. :p

Ah...welcome young socialist. :)

Care to address what the article had to say about Mr. Hansen, or are you simply going to attack the site presenting the information?

[Bottle or the Gun]

I recall seeing in the news last month about the jokes and ribbing when some big global warming conference here in the US was snowed-out. Isn't 'global warming' a wide brush for dramatic climate changes? For instance, getting extreme temps both ways, not necessarily everything getting hot?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by RichardR
From your referenced article:

"It showed that 12,500 years ago global temperature rose by more than 20 degrees in approximately 50 years."

Surely this is wrong? From the IPCC: (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/072.htm)

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig2-22.gif

I don't see any 20 degree change.

The article states that a study presented Oct. 2nd, 1998 in Science made that determination.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
And plase avoid using these sources, these are known rightwing bias organizations that been known to have ties to Oil Industry:

* Acton Institute
* American Enterprise Institute
* American Legislative Exchange Council
* The American Policy Center
* The Augustine Institute for Ethics
* Calvert Institute for Policy Research
* Cascade Policy Institute
* The Cato Institute
* Center for American Experiment
* Center for Equal Opportunity
* Center for Individual Rights
* The Center for Public Policy
* Center for Strategic and International Studies
* Center for the New West
* Center for the Study of Popular Culture
* Claremont Institute
* Competitive Enterprise Institute
* Economic Policy Institute
* Foundation for Economic Education
* Free Congress Research and Educational Foundation
* George C. Marshall Institute
* Heartland Institute
* The Heritage Foundation
* Hoover Institution
* The Independent Institute
* Institute for Contemporary Studies
* Institute for Policy Innovation
* John Locke Foundation, Inc.
* Lincoln Heritage Institute
* Ludwig von Mises Institute
* Mackinac Center for Public Policy
* National Bureau of Economic Research
* National Center For Policy Analysis
* Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs,
* Pacific Research Institute
* Policy.com
* Political Economy Research Center
* The Regulatory Policy Center
* The Smith Center for Private Enterprise Studies
* Texas Public Policy Foundation

Then of course you must have no problem with this site (http://www.green-watch.com/news/monitor.asp) or this site (http://www.envirotruth.org/) , right? :)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
I recall seeing in the news last month about the jokes and ribbing when some big global warming conference here in the US was snowed-out. Isn't 'global warming' a wide brush for dramatic climate changes? For instance, getting extreme temps both ways, not necessarily everything getting hot?

"Weather Events" is the technical term. And that does mean extremes in both directions.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Drooper



Over simplifying a little here aren't we?


Additional CO2 might only increase temp a little. It may not increase it at all.

Want a real world analogy where the causality isn't linear?


Run a bath and leave out the plug. You will need increase the rate of flow into the bath to maintain a higher water level.

Without scientific evidence that the global climate is a simple as you say, your logic is worth nothing.

If there was a hole it all disappeared into, never to be seen again. However, the scientists are using methods to determine if this is in fact a valid conclusion to make. They appear to be saying it is, based on the evidence.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


If there was a hole it all disappeared into, never to be seen again. However, the scientists are using methods to determine if this is in fact a valid conclusion to make. They appear to be saying it is, based on the evidence.

Good, back to the research.

The problem is that the research, in the form of global climate models, has not yet satisfactorily accounted for all the various injections (e.g. solar forcing), leakages (e.g. CO2 consumption/carbon sinks)and feedback (both positive and negative; e.g. evaporation, clowd cover etc.) that may drive the global climate. Hence the results that drive the conclusions that drive the recommendations that drive the policies (Kyoto) are very very debatable.

It is certainly debatable enough to avoid for a while the extremely high cost of implementing policies as envisaged under Kyoto or any other subsequent prescription.


[edited for spelling]

[shanek]

Originally posted by epepke
I'd love to see more research. Hell, I'd love to see some basic, public research, but that dried up in the mid-1990s.

If this is such a big issue for so many people, why don't they all contribute their own personal funds for basic research?

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It is not their call, you mean. They can only say what the science tells them.

Thank you for finally admitting that the science DOES NOT tell them that we're headed for disaster. Thread over. We've won.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It appears to be pretty confident. You can read it on the IPCC web page.

Why do you always refer to a government panel and not, say, peer-reviewed journal articles? We KNOW what the politicos are saying. What we want to know is the scientific basis for it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RichardR
From your referenced article:

"It showed that 12,500 years ago global temperature rose by more than 20 degrees in approximately 50 years."

Surely this is wrong? From the IPCC: (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/072.htm)

I don't see any 20 degree change.

Perhaps because the x-axis covers hundreds of thousands of years, and it doesn't have the resolution to show such a change over a 50-year period?

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
"Weather Events" is the technical term. And that does mean extremes in both directions.

In other words, no matter what happens, it confirms Global Warming. Sounds like an unfalsifiable nonscientific claim to me. I even heard one of these GW guys refer to "extremely moderate" weather. Apparently, if previous extremes are no longer present, that's considered an extreme, too. :rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If there was a hole it all disappeared into, never to be seen again.

Did you read my sources showing that increased foliage (based on experimental data with both trees and grasses) absorbs much of the excess CO₂?

[Kodiak]

Climatologist and member of intergovernmental board says Don't Fear Global Warming. (http://www.oudaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/01/21/400e034ec0ec8)

[RichardR]

Originally posted by shanek
Perhaps because the x-axis covers hundreds of thousands of years, and it doesn't have the resolution to show such a change over a 50-year period? Why wouldn't it show on the Y axis?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Did you read my sources showing that increased foliage (based on experimental data with both trees and grasses) absorbs much of the excess CO₂?

Yes, I have asked him about this point too. It is all factored into the models. Do you really think they are stupid?