pacodelahoya
Member
Why don't they just ban global warming? It should work about as good as banning guns right?
Global Warming and Gun Bans?
- Thread starter TX1911fan
- Start date
- Status
agricola
Member
Bowline,
Nice try, except that NAS report didnt say anything like that. A summary:
from the introduction:
That lack of knowledge was reflected even in the Newsweek report, the author of which chose to bury it in the usual media doom-and-gloom hype:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/misc-non-science.html
So we see another oft-repeated skeptic argument disproved by the facts. Surely a pattern should be emerging here?
Nice try, except that NAS report didnt say anything like that. A summary:
from the introduction:
That lack of knowledge was reflected even in the Newsweek report, the author of which chose to bury it in the usual media doom-and-gloom hype:
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/misc-non-science.html
So we see another oft-repeated skeptic argument disproved by the facts. Surely a pattern should be emerging here?
Looks like we are as passionate about GW as we are about RKBA. Glad to have provoked a debate. It seems that many who believe GW is man made want to stifle debate. I've heard "the science is in" so many times, I want to puke. The science of the sun orbiting the earth was in once, the science of mercury being a cure all was in, the science of the flat earth was in, the science of cigarette smoke being healthy was in, the science of GLOBAL COOLING was in too. Debate and being open to skeptics is the only way science works. Otherwise, its dogma. That's what Al Gore has now, only dogma--and propaganda.
Read the original article. An MIT climatologist scoffs at the idea of man made global warming. But Al Gore knows more? That would be a joke in any other context. But, I forgot, the science is in, so disregard the scientists.
Read the original article. An MIT climatologist scoffs at the idea of man made global warming. But Al Gore knows more? That would be a joke in any other context. But, I forgot, the science is in, so disregard the scientists.
agricola
Member
TX1991Fan,
Except that Dr Lindzen doesnt "scoff at the idea of man made global warming". His main problems are with the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report (which, by the way, he took part in creating). One of these objections was with the changing of a draft passage (from a section of the report he helped write):
to the rather more unequivocal:
The relevant text, which disproves your statement, has been emboldened. A fuller discussion on Lindzen can be found on the Wikipedia below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Except that Dr Lindzen doesnt "scoff at the idea of man made global warming". His main problems are with the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report (which, by the way, he took part in creating). One of these objections was with the changing of a draft passage (from a section of the report he helped write):
to the rather more unequivocal:
The relevant text, which disproves your statement, has been emboldened. A fuller discussion on Lindzen can be found on the Wikipedia below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
gc70
Member
The investigation of global warming has long since moved from pure science to a fad, a very big business, and power politics. What was an honest scientific endeavor has been perverted. A kernel of scientific truth exists, but good luck finding it in the extreme amount of noise generated in the rush to satisfy a variety of agendas.
Nice try?
You did read my entire post, right?
Which fits in well with
My point was, and is, that a lot of folks are substituting hyperbole for data, rhetoric for scientific method, socialist political tricks for debate, and ad-hominem attacks for standing.
Yep, I see a pattern here.
You did read my entire post, right?
Which fits in well with
My point was, and is, that a lot of folks are substituting hyperbole for data, rhetoric for scientific method, socialist political tricks for debate, and ad-hominem attacks for standing.
Yep, I see a pattern here.
LubeckTech
Member
One simple fact.
The Earth's climate has always been in a state of change and will continue to change. Sometimes there have been very rapid changes even before anyone was burning fossil fuels and there have been mass extinctions bringing on changes in the food chain, No matter what man does the climate WILL change and one day in the futrue will no longer be able to support life. Enter the socialists and their king Al Gore with his Kyoto treaty here to save us all from ourselves. Pay no attention to that big bright thing in the sky whcih is getting hotter we must join the UN, Hillary and all of Europe to bring about a socialist paradise and save the planet. The socialists and collectivists WILL use any means fair or unfair (including character assination and outright lies about their opponents) to accomplish their ends. Don't doubt they will scarf up any issue and use it to promote their cause. That is what the GW thing is about nothing more than a propaganda campaign pushed by the EVIL United Nations. For those of you swallowing it hook, line and sinker congradulations on being duped!
The Earth's climate has always been in a state of change and will continue to change. Sometimes there have been very rapid changes even before anyone was burning fossil fuels and there have been mass extinctions bringing on changes in the food chain, No matter what man does the climate WILL change and one day in the futrue will no longer be able to support life. Enter the socialists and their king Al Gore with his Kyoto treaty here to save us all from ourselves. Pay no attention to that big bright thing in the sky whcih is getting hotter we must join the UN, Hillary and all of Europe to bring about a socialist paradise and save the planet. The socialists and collectivists WILL use any means fair or unfair (including character assination and outright lies about their opponents) to accomplish their ends. Don't doubt they will scarf up any issue and use it to promote their cause. That is what the GW thing is about nothing more than a propaganda campaign pushed by the EVIL United Nations. For those of you swallowing it hook, line and sinker congradulations on being duped!
agricola
Member
Bowline,
I did, that was the only part of it that met what was actually said, which is why you used it.
They are, almost all of which comes from the skeptical side.
I did, that was the only part of it that met what was actually said, which is why you used it.
They are, almost all of which comes from the skeptical side.
Agricola,
You are saying that those climatologists who are saying that the models are wrong, the data doesn't support the conclusions, and there is as of yet no universal agreement...
Are the same people who are saying that those who deny the 'truth of global warming' are equatable with Holocaust deniers.
Are the same people who are saying that anyone who disagrees with the party line should be thrown out of the profession.
Are the same people who are saying that skeptics are either tools of big oil, or just stupid.
Are the same people who have re-defined concensus to be 'everyone on this side of the debate agrees with me, whats' wrong with the rest of you?'
You're just saying this for fun, right?
You are saying that those climatologists who are saying that the models are wrong, the data doesn't support the conclusions, and there is as of yet no universal agreement...
Are the same people who are saying that those who deny the 'truth of global warming' are equatable with Holocaust deniers.
Are the same people who are saying that anyone who disagrees with the party line should be thrown out of the profession.
Are the same people who are saying that skeptics are either tools of big oil, or just stupid.
Are the same people who have re-defined concensus to be 'everyone on this side of the debate agrees with me, whats' wrong with the rest of you?'
You're just saying this for fun, right?
scout26
Member
Did I hear something recently about the Climatologist for Oregon being fired by the Governor because the Climatologist said that man-made GW is a load of carp ???
So it cuts both ways......
Sorry, we don't have enough data (or history of the earth's climate) to say that we (humans) are causing global warming or cooling. Plus, IMNSHO, anything that Al Gore is so postive about is probably wrong.
--Scout26 (who vividly remembers his science teachers in middle and high school in the mid-late '70's scareing the heck out of him with predictions of global cooling, but who now actively buys whale-oil futures.....
)
So it cuts both ways......
Sorry, we don't have enough data (or history of the earth's climate) to say that we (humans) are causing global warming or cooling. Plus, IMNSHO, anything that Al Gore is so postive about is probably wrong.
--Scout26 (who vividly remembers his science teachers in middle and high school in the mid-late '70's scareing the heck out of him with predictions of global cooling, but who now actively buys whale-oil futures.....
)Charles Martel
Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2007
- Messages
- 71
Sometimes I wonder if ANYONE gets it. LubeckTech, YOU get it.
agricola
Member
Bowline,
Its remarkable how little you have grasped even the basics of the argument:
The only people who are making the comparison are skeptics themselves.
The people who cite this are skeptics, of which only a very few cases have been identified by name, and we have no information about those dismissals that would allow us to say "they were dismissed for opposing GW".
More than a few of the skeptics identified here have been shown to have such links, and while "stupid" is a bit much, "wrong" would be a better word to use - as has been evidenced on this and the previous thread.
Except that consensus usually means scientific agreement, shown by the IPCC report (which, by the way, Dr Lindzen took part in and agreed with). There are skeptics, of which remarkably few are actually climatologists, who achieve rather more prominence in the media that there numbers or their facts deserve.
Hardly, but it would be remiss not to point out the basic flaws in some peoples positions here.
Its remarkable how little you have grasped even the basics of the argument:
The only people who are making the comparison are skeptics themselves.
The people who cite this are skeptics, of which only a very few cases have been identified by name, and we have no information about those dismissals that would allow us to say "they were dismissed for opposing GW".
More than a few of the skeptics identified here have been shown to have such links, and while "stupid" is a bit much, "wrong" would be a better word to use - as has been evidenced on this and the previous thread.
Except that consensus usually means scientific agreement, shown by the IPCC report (which, by the way, Dr Lindzen took part in and agreed with). There are skeptics, of which remarkably few are actually climatologists, who achieve rather more prominence in the media that there numbers or their facts deserve.
Hardly, but it would be remiss not to point out the basic flaws in some peoples positions here.
Anyone recall Galileo?
He had the temerity to disagree with the Vatican about the well known fact that the universe revolved about the earth.
For this disagreement, he faced the inquisition.
Of course, he was a tool of big.... well, he was a tool of something.
Agricola, from where I sit, two things are apparent.
Your conclusion that global warming is a serious climatological trend, definitely caused by man, is more religion than science.
Your debating skills could use some improvement. Ad hominem attacks aren't conclusive evidence.
He had the temerity to disagree with the Vatican about the well known fact that the universe revolved about the earth.
For this disagreement, he faced the inquisition.
Of course, he was a tool of big.... well, he was a tool of something.
Agricola, from where I sit, two things are apparent.
Your conclusion that global warming is a serious climatological trend, definitely caused by man, is more religion than science.
Your debating skills could use some improvement. Ad hominem attacks aren't conclusive evidence.
Last edited:
Charles Martel
Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2007
- Messages
- 71
You are absolutely correct. There is NO, I repeat NO valid scientific data conclusively determining man's impact on the global climate patterns one way or the other. I now accept as axiomatic that ANY "scientist" or individual so proclaiming is either a dupe or a charlatan.
You are being too kind. It cannot be stated emphatically enought these folks are dupes or charlatans, quacks and poseurs. And I am not engaging in ad hominem attacks here. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming they may be dupes.
Actually, Charles, I could have phrased it better.
I'm willing to listen to fact, theory, and hypothesis. All these are elements of scientific method.
The well known "I know you are, but what am I" method of debate lost currency after about the 5th grade, though.
Everything I've seen on the internet and the rare times I catch the boob tube supports the allegations I made concerning the debating tactics of the "Church of Global Warming".
Global Warming - Our conclusions are inarguable
Skeptic - well, thats' an interesting theory, but...
Theory? Theory? Its' Fact, you tool of big oil and stinky person.
Gun Banners - Guns in the home are 47 times more likely to...
Skeptic - Actually, that study was disproved years ago.
Gun Banners - Yeah, well, you're a liar, and a tool of the NRA.
Islamic Fundamentalists - Ours is the one true religion. You must submit.
Everyone else - Ummm, I don't think so....
Islamic Fundamentalists - Aluha Akbar! Juba juba! Boom!
I'd say the poster that started this thread has a valid point. Debating with GW true believers feels a lot like debating the benefits of CCW with the VPC.
I'm willing to listen to fact, theory, and hypothesis. All these are elements of scientific method.
The well known "I know you are, but what am I" method of debate lost currency after about the 5th grade, though.
Everything I've seen on the internet and the rare times I catch the boob tube supports the allegations I made concerning the debating tactics of the "Church of Global Warming".
Global Warming - Our conclusions are inarguable
Skeptic - well, thats' an interesting theory, but...
Theory? Theory? Its' Fact, you tool of big oil and stinky person.
Gun Banners - Guns in the home are 47 times more likely to...
Skeptic - Actually, that study was disproved years ago.
Gun Banners - Yeah, well, you're a liar, and a tool of the NRA.
Islamic Fundamentalists - Ours is the one true religion. You must submit.
Everyone else - Ummm, I don't think so....
Islamic Fundamentalists - Aluha Akbar! Juba juba! Boom!
I'd say the poster that started this thread has a valid point. Debating with GW true believers feels a lot like debating the benefits of CCW with the VPC.
Last edited:
Actually you guys are the ones trying to make things nasty and personal. I can't see any ad hominem's from agricola.
So far you haven't begun to address any of the science, you've made mere assertions about how there is no scientific evidence, yet I wonder if you've begun to look for it. I suspect not, otherwise you'd have done better than you have in this debate so far. The only religiously dogmatic fervour displayed is from those making assertions, resorting to the Galileo position and then conspiracy theories.
The only parallel I can see with firearms would be the derision that would rightly be heaped upon anyone without firearms experience venturing into THR's Rifle Country and proceeding to spout stuff they have no experience with and then insisting that one or two sources back them, despite the massive preponderance of sources that would not.
So far you haven't begun to address any of the science, you've made mere assertions about how there is no scientific evidence, yet I wonder if you've begun to look for it. I suspect not, otherwise you'd have done better than you have in this debate so far. The only religiously dogmatic fervour displayed is from those making assertions, resorting to the Galileo position and then conspiracy theories.
The only parallel I can see with firearms would be the derision that would rightly be heaped upon anyone without firearms experience venturing into THR's Rifle Country and proceeding to spout stuff they have no experience with and then insisting that one or two sources back them, despite the massive preponderance of sources that would not.
ForeignDude
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2006
- Messages
- 133
You Know...
I debated whether or not to jump into this mess again. Frankly, I don't care anymore.
However, let me say a few things.
First, it is a fact, not an allegation, that climate change skeptics have been likened to Holocaust deniers and that their jobs have been threatened.
The latest iteration of the "climate change skeptic = Holocaust denier" was enunciated only a few days ago on the Boston Globe by Ellen Goodman: “I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/
An earlier article, by the UK Guardian’s George Monbiot, presented the same “argument”: “Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial.”
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/09/21/how-much-reality-can-you-take/
Let me also say, as a professional research scientist: It is difficult to see the debate on climate change, to see one side assert itself so intolerantly as Truth, to see those who claim the mantle of agnosticism be persecuted so virulently and remorsely. It is one thing to laught at skeptics, to ridicule them (as is done with those who believe in a flat earth), but when skepticism evokes anger and rage, one cannot help but be disturbed. It is difficult to be empathic with the stance of climate change advocates when prominent individuals who are skeptical of the climate change consensus are threatened with termination from their jobs (Greg Taylor, Oregon’s state climatologist; David Legates, Delaware’s state climatologist). It is difficult to watch the spectable of a prominent Weather Channel meteorologist, Heidi Cullen, who calls for AMS de-certification (i.e., ex-communication) for anyone who dissents from the party line. Since the only “scientific” stand on climate change is to accept the consensus, anyone who has any doubts about any aspect of that consensus is ipso facto not a scientist, or “anti-Science” as someone noted in the last thread that dealt with this issue.
It is difficult to read the thoughts of someone like George Monbiot, who suggests that CO2 emissions from airlines validate considering the following exchange: "every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned."
Forget the science, forget the statistical modeling, forget the micro-climate experiments, forget all that for a moment. Focus on this: For the average man and woman of this country, there comes a point when climate change advocacy starts to smell an awful lot like an Inquisition, like a witch hunt, like a coordinated persecution of climate change "infidels" (i.e., non-believers). If the average person has doubts about climate change because of how it is being defended, then don't blame us skeptics -- I was taught by my professors that it is the ideal of scientific practice to be a skeptic, to be dispassionate, to be agnostic. Since when is it "anti-Science" to question, to test, to challenge? Whatever this climate change consensus is, folks, it is certainly a strange type of scientific practice, wholly alien from the dispassionate journey of discovery that I was taught was the highest ideal of the scientific profession.
As for me, I'm done with this: I'm going to the range.
I debated whether or not to jump into this mess again. Frankly, I don't care anymore.
However, let me say a few things.
First, it is a fact, not an allegation, that climate change skeptics have been likened to Holocaust deniers and that their jobs have been threatened.
The latest iteration of the "climate change skeptic = Holocaust denier" was enunciated only a few days ago on the Boston Globe by Ellen Goodman: “I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/
An earlier article, by the UK Guardian’s George Monbiot, presented the same “argument”: “Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial.”
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/09/21/how-much-reality-can-you-take/
Let me also say, as a professional research scientist: It is difficult to see the debate on climate change, to see one side assert itself so intolerantly as Truth, to see those who claim the mantle of agnosticism be persecuted so virulently and remorsely. It is one thing to laught at skeptics, to ridicule them (as is done with those who believe in a flat earth), but when skepticism evokes anger and rage, one cannot help but be disturbed. It is difficult to be empathic with the stance of climate change advocates when prominent individuals who are skeptical of the climate change consensus are threatened with termination from their jobs (Greg Taylor, Oregon’s state climatologist; David Legates, Delaware’s state climatologist). It is difficult to watch the spectable of a prominent Weather Channel meteorologist, Heidi Cullen, who calls for AMS de-certification (i.e., ex-communication) for anyone who dissents from the party line. Since the only “scientific” stand on climate change is to accept the consensus, anyone who has any doubts about any aspect of that consensus is ipso facto not a scientist, or “anti-Science” as someone noted in the last thread that dealt with this issue.
It is difficult to read the thoughts of someone like George Monbiot, who suggests that CO2 emissions from airlines validate considering the following exchange: "every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned."
Forget the science, forget the statistical modeling, forget the micro-climate experiments, forget all that for a moment. Focus on this: For the average man and woman of this country, there comes a point when climate change advocacy starts to smell an awful lot like an Inquisition, like a witch hunt, like a coordinated persecution of climate change "infidels" (i.e., non-believers). If the average person has doubts about climate change because of how it is being defended, then don't blame us skeptics -- I was taught by my professors that it is the ideal of scientific practice to be a skeptic, to be dispassionate, to be agnostic. Since when is it "anti-Science" to question, to test, to challenge? Whatever this climate change consensus is, folks, it is certainly a strange type of scientific practice, wholly alien from the dispassionate journey of discovery that I was taught was the highest ideal of the scientific profession.
As for me, I'm done with this: I'm going to the range.
Charles Martel
Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2007
- Messages
- 71
Foreign dude just *****slapped the GW religious zealots whose educations seem to have revolved around self esteem enhancement rather than the virtues of the scientific method.
Davo
Member
This is an EXCELLENT way to spend a half hour, if your interested...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4480559399263937213&q=penn+and+teller
Im loving this debate more and more. Some think that if everyone yells loud enough that it must be true. When I refer to global warming as a religion you should see the reactions! First global cooling, then warming, now its global climate change...*** does climate change mean? Did the climate change BEFORE I didn't carpool?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4480559399263937213&q=penn+and+teller
Im loving this debate more and more. Some think that if everyone yells loud enough that it must be true. When I refer to global warming as a religion you should see the reactions! First global cooling, then warming, now its global climate change...*** does climate change mean? Did the climate change BEFORE I didn't carpool?
agricola
Member
He was attacking the scare, not the idea of GW (which is what you said he was scoffing at).
Foriegndude,
Which is yet another bunch of straw-men from yourself. Yes, some commentators (albeit ones that are largely irrelevant) have equated skeptics with holocaust deniers.
With regards to the threats to peoples jobs, I note that in both the cases of Legates and Taylor they were employees of a University (not the State, though the State created the office), and in Legates case there were questions about his impartiality, given his (surprise!) links to organizations funded by Exxon and others (though through a trawl on the internet I cannot actually find a story that says he was threatened with losing his job). If he is making statements and claims that are not backed up by science, but are instead motivated by personal gain, then questions should be being asked.
With regards to Taylor the problem was that selection for Taylor's post was going to be taken off the University and instead given to the State governor, which if it is a state office makes rather more sense.
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070206/NEWS/702060367/1006/NEWS
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54092
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html
Finally you make a whole load of nonsense statements that suggest that GW isnt being questioned, or tested, or challenged - it is, and its entirely false for you to suggest that it isnt (though this is of course something you did on the other thread).
longrifleman
Member
longrifleman said:
I can't and won't apologise for the idiots who adopt similar positions to me. All I can suggest is that the web is a massive and decent resource, just read more widely than the list of sceptics that always recur. Sure read them, but read more than just them. You'll quickly note that most contrarian* pieces are op-ed's and rarely contain scientific references.
Most adopting extravagantly contrarian positions seem to cite the same contrarian figures, some of whom are scientists and some of whom are somewhat tarnished (being careful here, at least one has a tendency to sue and has a big court case pending). In the last few weeks I've read a good number of articles like the one in the initial post, as I said the IPCC report has just come out so the timing is not coincidental.
I'll accept that at times certain figures on the AGW 'side' come across as somewhat messianic, but many of these articles are repetitive, ill informed and absolutely sure they are right based on nothing but that certainty and a reliance on a tiny tiny tiny number of favourable quotes and sources, plus the odd deliberate misquote of other scientists.
The most disappointing thing for me, and this applies across the whole spectrum, is the failure to separate the science of this matter from the politics. These conspiracy theories rely on equating and refusing to separate the two. I have problems with proposed solutions, but I separate this from inquiry into the science.
* - I use the word contrarian because scepticism is 'an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity', and I see no evidence of doubt or incredulity in these articles. Rather the exact opposite.
Agricola
Are you now stating that the doctrine of scientific method is actually a straw man argument? Apparently so. ForeignDude provided links to demonstrate assertions I made in an earlier post, and pointed out the inherent problems with the methods used by GW adherents. I didn't see any 'straw man' arguments in his post, and I don't think that means what you think it means.
Your position is untenable. You are reversing yourself on appeal, so to speak.
I point out that I am debating the ethics of the debating tactics that GW adherents are using.
If you are at all familiar with the scientific method you will certainly recognise in ForeignDudes' post that healthy skepticism is a vital tool of science.
Please, and I mean this with all charity and good will, re-examine his post, your post, and the position you have assumed.
Alternately, remember the 1st law of holes...
Doesn't sit well with
Are you now stating that the doctrine of scientific method is actually a straw man argument? Apparently so. ForeignDude provided links to demonstrate assertions I made in an earlier post, and pointed out the inherent problems with the methods used by GW adherents. I didn't see any 'straw man' arguments in his post, and I don't think that means what you think it means.
Your position is untenable. You are reversing yourself on appeal, so to speak.
I point out that I am debating the ethics of the debating tactics that GW adherents are using.
Yes. GW is being questioned. The questioners (hereinafter known as 'skeptics') are being villified by GW adherents. They are subjected to ridicule and threat. I believe that was my position to start with. Are you now saying you were against it, before you were for it?
If you are at all familiar with the scientific method you will certainly recognise in ForeignDudes' post that healthy skepticism is a vital tool of science.
Please, and I mean this with all charity and good will, re-examine his post, your post, and the position you have assumed.
Alternately, remember the 1st law of holes...
- Status
