View Full Version : The Great Global Warming Swindle
PsychoI3oy
03-19-2007, 09:33
A 1+ hour BBC produced documentary about how human CO2 emissions have little/nothing to do with current trends in temperature worldwide.
Google Video (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle)
Not that most of you didn't disagree with the theory before, I'm sure.
PsychoI3oy
03-19-2007, 09:35
My Comments:
It's nice to see something speaking out about the subject. It's even nicer to see not only scientists from around the world but even one of the co-founders of Greenpeace speak about the subject.
Now. I'm all for not polluting. I currently drive a 16+ year old car that gets 30-35MPG and wouldn't mind riding a bike to work if it didn't mean arriving all sweaty. One of my ideal cars is a VW Golf TDi that gets 40+MPG on diesel (and I'd love to brew my own biodiesel, but that's more for the cost savings than anything else).
My Christian upbringing tells me that we [humans] are stewards of this Earth and everything on it. My moral compass says that the less we do to damage it, the better. I would mind nothing less than not depending (as a nation [the US]) on foreign oil for energy.
BUT MY GOODNESS THE GLOBAL WARMING CRAP HAS TO STOP!
I watched (in the theater, paying $8/ticket, no less) "The Day After Tomorrow" and regret every second of it. I should send Art Bell a bill for the 2 hours of my time and $16. As much as I loved listening to Coast-to-Coast last year, Art (nor anyone else on that show, ever) is not and should not be taken seriously as a scientist. The single most annoying line in the movie had to do with air coming down from the stratosphere and not warming up due to increase in pressure because "it's coming down too fast". I haven't watched "An Inconvenient Truth" for the same reasons I haven't watched "Fahrenheit 911" and regret watching "Bowling for Columbine": I don't like wasting my time with inaccurate hippie-s4 reactionary emotional appeals for things I otherwise disagree with.
The parts in this documentary about developing countries in Africa are perhaps the saddest of all. I can't think of a continent that needs some form of modernization and development more than sub-Saharan Africa. The audacity of these 'environmentalists' to tell them that they need solar/wind or nothing instead of using the resources they have (oil/coal) is just... mind boggling.
I just hope that more people realize that 'global warming' is just cheap sensationalist fodder for the media.
Pistol Packing Preacher
03-19-2007, 09:49
PsychoI3oy
My Christian upbringing tells me that we [humans] are stewards of this Earth and everything on it. My moral compass says that the less we do to damage it, the better. I would mind nothing less than not depending (as a nation [the US]) on foreign oil for energy.
BUT MY GOODNESS THE GLOBAL WARMING CRAP HAS TO STOP!
and
I just hope that more people realize that 'global warming' is just cheap sensationalist fodder for the media
I could not have said it better...
Central to the film was the testimony of the MIT oceanographer Carl Wunsch. Wunsch’s own account of how his material was edited and presented so as to give a misleading account of his actual views is here: http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2359057.ece
Smokers like to rely on tobacco industry scientists for their science. It makes them feel better. They should ask the 99% of peer-reviewed experts who have devoted their lives to the study of the issue, but they don't.
Regardless of which science is right, the real question is, who should have the burden of proof? With smokers, it’s their body. With global warming, it’s everyone’s body.
My 2 cents.
DAMN The ENVIORMENT, FULL SPEED AHEAD!
[pirate] [pirate] [pirate]
Sorry, I just had too.
:mrgreen:
Take a look at what Al Gore spends each month in utilities. This is more than I pay in a year.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/eye-of-the-electrical-storm/2007/02/28/1172338709247.html
It's those damn Americans in their SUVs!!! It's the industrialized nations that must screw up their economies to solve the problem!!!
The anti-capitalist pinkos have found a new home in the environmental movement. There are coal seam fires that have been burning out of control in China for decades that emit more noxious gasses than all of the cars in the US, but you don't hear a peep from the likes of Algore. A single large volcanic eruption puts out more noxious gasses than all of the industrialization in recorded history. The Exxon Valdez was "an environmental catastrophe", yet more oil leaks directly through the earth's crust into the oceans...and has been doing so since before man knew how to make implements from stone.
This human caused global warming crap stems from a belief in humanism. When one realizes how insignificant we beings are in the grand scheme, you realize how powerless you are to solve the problem...and how powerless you were to create the problem in the first place. It's the sun's fault, the earth will respond accordingly as it always has, and life will go on.
Now why in grade school in southern California in 1972 was I being taught in my ecology class that there was an impending ice age and that we'd be out of fossil fuels in 15 years? Do you mean somebody lied to me? :mrgreen:
NY Times: From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html)
Other critics have zeroed in on Mr. Gore’s claim that the energy industry ran a “disinformation campaign” that produced false discord on global warming. The truth, he said, was that virtually all unbiased scientists agreed that humans were the main culprits. But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.
“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.
Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”
In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.
Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”
Pardon me, Mr. Gore, but true "science" is not based on "consensus".
Regardless of which science is right, the real question is, who should have the burden of proof? With smokers, it’s their body. With global warming, it’s everyone’s body.
Don't you think its convienient that the "global warming is caused by CO2" debate is hosted by those who hate things that "emit" CO2? And Al Gore, he has absolutly no political motivations for scaring thousands of people on the coastlines, hes just an all around great guy, that selflessly cares about the world warming up less than two degrees before he is six feet under.
Look up the dictionary definition of "bias" please, and be careful where you get your conspiracy theories. While the earth may well be on a warming trend, the "link to man made CO2" emissions and "greenhouse gasses" is nothing more then a political parasite, would make a great episode on "scare" tactics.
Remember, PETA claims via their accredited scientific research that COWS account for more then 30% of global warming, more then all cars combined just by crapping so often. Its scientific research done by scientists, so it must be correct right?
Science is not science when its funded by a commercial or political entitiy - they are paid to find research that supports that specific entity, ignoring anything that contradicts it.. and yes, this applies to the "global warming" debate as well.
Not to mention, pro-Global scientists have only looked at two variables. Temperature and "greenhouse" gas levels. At what point did they consider the other millions of variables affecting the equation? How the hell did they get a control sample? Sun, Clouds, Wind, Water, pavement/concrete coverage, cows farting, air conditioners, fish with fevers, really hot women, etc all have the potential to "warm" up the earth [pirate] I think you get my drift.
Also remember, "scientists" in the 70's claimed the world was going into the next ice age after a slight global cooling trend if we didnt take drastic steps to save it.
Another point is please use your logic process. The "Scientists" that support global warming use grossly exaggerated temperature charts dating back over 3000 years. Now I dont know about you, but I'm pretty damn sure the NOAA didnt have 30,000 weather stations around the globe in 800 B.C, and even if a monk in France recorded the daily temperature in 1100 A.D, how does that qualify for accuracy on a global scale?
Dont fall into the myth that they can record temperature from ice cores by the way. They *can* get a few ideas, such as *general* gas composition, but temperature is impossible to determine, regardless of if you use density, gas measurements, ice crystals or anything.
So, the basis of their report that CO2 is the cause of global warming is based on about 100 years of accurate temperature recording, on a semi global scale and based on "gas deposits" in ice cores that do not have the ability to show temperature correlations, matched up against "inferred temperatures" that correspond to the global warming theory, and on a side note, the ice cores themselves could be open to debate. Where are their control samples? Sounds like a foolproof theory to me [roll]
Dont believe me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming Notice the scale on the right covers a single degree (exaggerated by more then a factor of 100), and assumes they had perfect global accuracy (and the capability to measure global temperature) in before 1860. Scroll down, and you see their temperature "reconstructions" from the middle ages, from "before man" and over 500 thousand years ago.
Doesnt take a genious to realize the scope of scientific "bias" and fact invention first hand.
Lastly, how does the earth warming 2 degrees fahrenheit over your lifetime (assuming you live until your over 100) affect your life? There are probably far more people killed each year on snow and ice then heat exhaustion, and the vast majority of people cannot even feel a two degree change in temperature (it takes three minimum, four to five for most)
Always remember who funds the mass media "experiments" you get suckered into.
My .02
Don't you think it's convenient that those who deny global warming are hosted by those most interested in convenience? i.e. us? You look up the dictionary definition of "bias" please, and be careful where you get your science. Try using scientists first.
Also, if you are going to follow the money on science, then I'm afraid you just trashed your own argument. The money lies in petroleum hydrocarbons and the same pocketbooks that fund the house of Saud: yours and mine.
You begin to argue you science yourself, but unless you can demonstrate your bona fides, I suspect you are just parroting what you've heard in the press, blogs, and what have you. I choose to rely upon the BTDT, Real Deal scientists, the vast, overwhelming majority of which agree that global warming is real, man contributes to it, the earth is round and cigarettes cause cancer. If you read their science, you will find they do consider many more variables than you suggest. But since I do get your drift, I bring you back to the question of burdens of proof. If you want to smoke, that’s your business, but if you blow your smoke in my face, that is my business, the business of my children and everyone else. If you can prove it won’t hurt, then fine, but that is your burden and on global warming, you’ve failed miserably and no credible (peer-reviewed) scientist agrees with you.
The scientists in the 70s argued global cooling because they analogized to volcanoes and particulate reflection, rather than green house holding of heat. But the process of peer reviewed science is one of progress, not regress, unless you get selfish, greedy protection of vested interests involved. Science is a process of learning, not staying the same. You’re argument comparing the 70’s to today is proof of that. Your argument is not unlike saying “Hey, we used to drag things so there can be no such thing as a wheel.”
I am using logic, and you are not. The science does not use grossly exaggerated temperature charts. Further, when you become a scientist and quit relying on Limbaugh logic, you will find there are other ways to determine temperature without NOAA stations. Do a little research. When you get your science peer reviewed, come back and tell me your expert opinion on ice gas readings, etc. It will be a myth when you can prove it’s a myth. But you can’t. That’s what I love about science.
Another thing you forget about science, when you sarcastically mention full-proof, is that science does not claim to be full-proof. It is a process that is under way. At this point in time, science is using that process, impeded only by those who don’t understand or participate in it. Right now, the vast, overwhelming majority of science has shifted the burden of proof to those who would deny global warming or it’s cause by man.
Did you just cite wikipedia?
[roll]
If you don’t think a small change in temperature matters, then just move north to the perma frost country and watch your house sink. Try hunting polar bears in 50 years.
Always remember who funds the mass media “experiments” you got suckered into.
The actual electric bill (cant whine about conservative reporting)
http://www.news2wkrn.com/goreelectricbill.pdf
Regardless of where the power is drawn, 1KWH of "green power" used at house A is 1KWH of "green power" that cannot be used at house B.
He seems so genuinly worried, and again - $30,000 in utility bills and a 10,000 sf house has no motivation in raising thousands of dollars for yourself in a scare campaign. Hes just such a nice guy that hes doing you a favor to pay him to tell you why hes doing you a favor.
The lazy greed, selfishness and fear of inconvenience of many Americans is manifest in the this argument about Gore’s electric bill.
Gore is a hypocrite for using too much power. Carter is a laughing stock for turning down the heat in the White House and wearing sweaters. I guess no matter what one does, they will be dragged down by small minds, interested in their own convenience.
The simple fact of the matter is this: The Tragedy of the Commons dictates group action or tragedy. One man can do nothing good if his slack will be taken up by another bad man. All men must agree to protect the limited resource together. It’s the social contract. It’s the “enlightenment” in enlightened self interest. It’s the “properly understood” in self-interest properly understood.
Pardon me, Mr. Gore, but true "science" is not based on "consensus".
That is the most intelligent thing said on this thread. The problem is, true science demonstrates global warming and man's contribution to it. It's those SUV drivers who want to vote on it. They know they will win because it would be inconenient to do anything about it. They have no faith in the ability of their vaunted economy to grow in response to a problem. They are more inclined the "sky is falling" argument if they have to actually grow, change, and progress.
If you don’t think a small change in temperature matters, then just move north to the perma frost country and watch your house sink. Try hunting polar bears in 50 years.
Always remember who funds the mass media “experiments” you got suckered into.
Who got suckered?
Interestingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an international organization that has worked for 50 years to protect endangered species, has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. However, their own research seems to undermine their fears. According to the WWF, about 20 distinct polar bear populations exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. As the figure shows, population patterns do not show a temperature-linked decline:
Only two of the distinct population groups, accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing.
Ten populations, approximately 45.4 percent of the total number, are stable.
Another two populations — about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears — are increasing.
The status of the remaining six populations (whether they are stable, increasing or decreasing in size) is unknown.
Moreover, when the WWF report is compared with the Arctic air temperature trend studies discussed earlier, there is a strong positive (instead of negative) correlation between air temperature and polar bear populations. Polar bear populations are declining in regions (like Baffin Bay) that have experienced a decrease in air temperature, while areas where polar bear populations are increasing (near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea) are associated with increasing air temperatures. Thus it is difficult to argue that rising air temperatures will necessarily and directly lead to a decrease in polar bear populations.
Polar Bears on Thin Ice, Not Really! (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba551/)
If you don’t think a small change in temperature matters, then just move north to the perma frost country and watch your house sink. Try hunting polar bears in 50 years.
Always remember who funds the mass media “experiments” you got suckered into.
Who got suckered?
Interestingly, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an international organization that has worked for 50 years to protect endangered species, has also written on the threats posed to polar bears from global warming. However, their own research seems to undermine their fears. According to the WWF, about 20 distinct polar bear populations exist, accounting for approximately 22,000 polar bears worldwide. As the figure shows, population patterns do not show a temperature-linked decline:
Only two of the distinct population groups, accounting for about 16.4 percent of the total population, are decreasing.
Ten populations, approximately 45.4 percent of the total number, are stable.
Another two populations — about 13.6 percent of the total number of polar bears — are increasing.
The status of the remaining six populations (whether they are stable, increasing or decreasing in size) is unknown.
Moreover, when the WWF report is compared with the Arctic air temperature trend studies discussed earlier, there is a strong positive (instead of negative) correlation between air temperature and polar bear populations. Polar bear populations are declining in regions (like Baffin Bay) that have experienced a decrease in air temperature, while areas where polar bear populations are increasing (near the Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea) are associated with increasing air temperatures. Thus it is difficult to argue that rising air temperatures will necessarily and directly lead to a decrease in polar bear populations.
Polar Bears on Thin Ice, Not Really! (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba551/)
You got suckered.
This is just another example of some guy in Colorado saying “It’s cold outside, there can be no global warming.” Or “I’ve smoked for seventy years, and I ain’t got cancer.” Anyone can go to the web (democracy, and voting on science?) and find articles they can spin in their direction. That does not make it science. Besides, if there were any credence to your interpretation of the figures, then why would the Bush Administration bury the discussion of it? Especially considering their stance on Global Warming? http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070308/ts_nm/polarbears_scientists_dc
You got suckered. Go see what the World Wildlife Fund has to say about the stats you cite. http://www.worldwildlife.org/polarbears/ Remember the burden of proof. You want to play Russian Roulette with polar bears. I don’t.
You know what’s sad about this whole debate: the initial post in this thread discusses a made for T.V. movie created by a hack who cites a certain scientist for authority in proving his position. The scientist’s work actually undermines the hack and it was proven the hack took the scientist work out of context, spun it, and omitted critical portions of it. That is proof of the hackery. Hack is not ad homonym when it is true.
Yet people want to believe the hack instead of the scientist.
You don’t have to be a scientist to know how science works. I see it working on the global warming debate, among the scientists. One side is winning; the other is losing, badly.
You wouldn’t go to a gun control advocate to discern the history, operation and use of the M-16. You’d go to the experts. Those experts on global warming suffer the same frustration listening to the hacks, that we suffer listening to some gun control nut trying to speak intelligently about weapons.
But if you want to come in here announcing a THEORY is a UNDENIABLE FACT THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN WITHOUT A DOUBT BY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH you may want to crack open a dictionary and stop getting ahead of yourself.
Don't go putting words in my mouth. By doing so, you are doing the same damn thing the author of the T.V. show did (proven wrong by the scientists upon which he relied), and that which those who mistate the data and the position of the WWF did (proven wrong by the those upon whom they relied). YOu are also making my point. You are telling me what I said, but you are wrong. I didn't read your post beyond that because it is clear I'm not dealing with someone who has any analytical or critical reading skills. Doubt me? Then you show me where I ever said Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE FACT THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN WITHOUT A DOUBT BY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.
To correct you, what I did say, is that I choose to rely upon the scientific experts in the field, the peer-reviewed scientists who have devoted their lives to science and scientific theory. You know, virtually every scientist in the world who has ever wieghed in on the subject. UNLESS AND UNTIL you can alter their positions, then I'll choose to rely on them, thank you. I am not a scientist. And, since you are not one of them either, not even one of the one in a thousand who disagree with them, then your position is not credible and it's based upon belief, faith and supposition.
Now, I would read on and see what else you said, but since you put words in my mouth, mistated my position, and appear to be doing exactly what the doubters of global warming do when faced with overwhelming evidence, I won't bother. They should at least stick to the science. It can be done. It is being done. By scientists. Global warming is being challenged daily, by scientists, but so far they keep coming up with global warming and our participation in it. I don't see scientists putting words in other scientists mouths. I see them utilizing the scietific process to challenge ideas. So far, the overwhelming wieght of the evidence is against your "scientists."
[You wouldn’t go to a gun control advocate to discern the history, operation and use of the M-16. You’d go to the experts. Those experts on global warming suffer the same frustration listening to the hacks, that we suffer listening to some gun control nut trying to speak intelligently about weapons.
Should I point something out? Its the other way around. First off, a M16 is a tangable object that doesnt need to be proven, and its existance is undeniable. Secondly, calling global warming activists the *only* side of the issue, and the only people that know what they are talking about is pretty sad, not to mention from my perspective, global warming activists would probably fit better into the "anti gun activist" category.
Comparing them to seasoned gun veterans with decades of experience is even worse.
Prime example of bending things to make them more appealing to people. Lets make the latest world ending fad a "gun expert", the ones opposing it "evil communist gun grabbers", make a un-proven theory a "m16" all in the hope it will appeal to people on a firearms board.
That said, I'm going to stop posting in this thread, despite my love for educated arguments.
An analogy, by definition, is not the thing itself. It is incumbent upon those who wish to defeat it to show a distinction with a difference. You failed to do so. I referenced the history, use and operation of the M-16, not it's existence. Would you rely upon a gun control advocate to discuss those issues? Why not? You rely upon spin doctors to refute global warming. I go to the experts. It's not bending things to make them more appealing, it's trying to use an analogy you might understand. It stands, unimpeached.
Oh, and you are the one trying to shift the subject with your rants about commies and all that crap. That is not educated argument.
Proof that global warming causes birth defects...
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o86/Atrain_dlp/post-404-1111435461.jpg
The problem is, true science demonstrates global warming and man's contribution to it. It's those SUV drivers who want to vote on it.
You know, virtually every scientist in the world who has ever wieghed in on the subject. UNLESS AND UNTIL you can alter their positions, then I'll choose to rely on them, thank you. I am not a scientist. And, since you are not one of them either, not even one of the one in a thousand who disagree with them, then your position is not credible and it's based upon belief, faith and supposition.
Breaking my own rule by posting one more time, but I wanted to clarify where "Undeniable" comes from.
I dont have to put words in your mouth. You do a wonderful job. It can be inffered that statement A: means you think that the only real science is on your side of the theory, all other science is a hack.
It can be inferred in statement B: that you think every scientist, save one or two who has an opinon on global warming, supports it. You invent a statistic that .1% (one one-thousandth) of people disagree with global warming. You also state postions against global warming are not fact based, and are based on mythology.
Now, It doesnt take someone with a science degree to realize you are about as far away from saying global warming is undeniable as a gun expert saying a M16 is tangable. After all, 1/1000 people probably think an M16 is a figment of their imagination, but we can throw away their opinon because the general consensus - despite one ever being taken - says m16's are real.
If thats not the point you wanted to make, it certainly isnt very far off the mark. I can edit it if you like: "The theory of global warming is not a proven fact, but 99.9% of people (despite a poll being taken) believe it is real, and the .1% that does not bases their opinon solely on Mythology, so we can infer that it is, undeniable by overwhelming public opinon.
That suit your fancy?
Adding that the general public should have absolutly no say in something unproven that has purely financial & moral, and not mortal consequences is very disturbing as well.
With that clarified, I wont post again. Promise. I'll stop foaming.
Twice, you "infer" something from what I said. You are mistaken. Again, don't infer. Just try to focus on what I actually said; not what your baseless assumptions and inferences would have me say.
After your mistaken inferences, you again mistate my position regarding the analogy between global warming and M-16s. I said nothing about M-16s not existing. I referenced their history, use and operation. Would you ask a gun control nut about these issues, or would you ask an expert? Why don't you do the same regarding global warming? Ask an expert. Don't rely upon lay opinion with no expertise in the area.
Further, the consenus data has nothing to do with "people." Other than arguing against the idea of voting on the matter, or democratizing science, I've said nothing about "public opinion" or "the general public." It has to do with scientists. I'm sure more people than 1 in 1000 believe as you do. A great number of people think global warming is a myth. But they are not scientists and they are not relying upon science.
Finally, go look at the statistics on the scientists and you will find the ratio is indeed around 1 in 1000 who deny global warming is occuring and that humans play some roll in it. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any peer-reviewed science which demonstrates global warming is not occuring and that humans have nothing to do with it.
HunterCO
03-21-2007, 00:55
Proof that global warming causes birth defects...
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o86/Atrain_dlp/post-404-1111435461.jpg
My lawyer will be contacting you about the impending lawsuit for posting my baby pics on the net. [pirate]
Zak Smith
03-21-2007, 13:45
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html
I just saw a show and they said the un will release there findings ion globale warming 1000 scientests they also said there were 17000 apposing the un stance and then some of the Dr said because of there opposition to the reports they we reciving death threats and there funding was being cut ,Global warmming is false religon that the greens follow and they thry to make it fact when its not ,THE EARTH WILL NOT GO DOWN BY GLOBAL WARMMING ! [postal]
Card hangs most of his hat on alleged miss-use of a single bristlecone pine tree ring study that ends up in a U.N. report? His arguments are not unlike Creighton. There are only a few scientists who actually study global warming and the rest all mislead lap dogs? :roll: It’s a classic case of “The best defense is a good offense.” Forget bringing forth your own science.
Yeah, Card, it's all a world wide conspiracy lead by the Bush Administration, working hand in hand with his favorite people at the U.N. to limit petroleum hydrocarbon emissions based on feel-good science. Bush has caved in to Greenpeace and the press is burying the truth. [roll]
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
Even if Card was right, his analysis of the burden of proof issue is lacking. Imagine all the money, misery and lives that would have been saved if asbestos study occurred on the front end. That's just one example of thousands.
In any event, as I said before, people can run to the web and find anything they want to support any position they want (contrary to Card's assertion of burial of the truth). It's all out there, it's just that the case for global warming is trouncing the case against it. As Card would say about his own case, and deny to the rest of the world: The evidence IS out there and no one is hiding it.
"Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the Earth, so truth be in the field. We do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; for whoever knew the truth to be put to the worse than in a free and open encounter." John Milton, Areopagitica.
No offense, but should everyone believe you because you say so?
No offense, but right back at you. Should everyone believe you because you say so?
I never said anyone should believe me because I say so. I said people should apply science, and in doing so, they might want to look to the scientists instead of those who like Cheighton and Card (non-scientists) who spin the science.
Id suggest actually reading the contents of that link as well. It doesnt say what you think it does.
First folks tell me I say something I didn't say, then they are telling me what I think now? Priceless.
Evidence of co2 caused global warming is trouncing the case against it because you say so? 999/1000 scientists support global warming because you say so?
No. The evidence speaks for itself, regardless of what I have to say about it. When interpreting that evidence, I tend to rely upon those who know more about it than I, they are pretty much of one mind, so far.
And this is the best, using every link you posted:
Link #1: http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2359057.ece
Regarding: Mis-interpreted scientist
Author: Not named, supposivly professor of Physical Oceanography
Oceanography: A scientist who studies the ocean, its topography, and its inhabitants (source, Google definitions)
shouldn't have to point out this field of science is not, nor has any relation to climatology
Website Bias: Far Left
Proof: http://www.independent.co.uk/
Just read the headlines:
Voice for homosexuals: A hero in the fight for gay rights
Open skies pact will worsen climate change
Household waste may be taxed to encourage recycling
Freedom of Information Act Misused, says Falconer
Schools & Colleges: Big boost for education spending to improve training for teenagers
Oil Rich Kirkuk at melting point as factions clash
(could go on) Id say fully 1/3 of its headlines are far left leaning, with 2/3's either no political relation or not a modern political issue.
What the hell are you talking about? NOT NAMED? His name is Carl Wunsch. I gave you his name. His name heads the article in the link. Further, he is the guy that was relied upon as the basis for the channel 4 show that started this whole thread! So the channel 4 show cites him for authority but he doesn’t support the channel 4 show positions. Don’t you see the link between so much of the anti-global warming theory positions? It’s non-scientist, without their own science, claiming that scientists support them when those scientists don’t support them. It’s non-scientists telling other people what they said and what they think, just as you do here with me.
Then you claim his field is unrelated to the issue of climatology (you are wrong, by the way) while at the same time you attack the media in which his response is found on grounds that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. It’s totally illogical. It would be like me attacking Card because he is LDS and doesn’t believe in Darwinian theory of evolution, not to mention some of his other “out there” ideas.
Link #2:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070308/ts_nm/polarbears_scientists_dc
Regarding: Memo to tell people on foreign government business not to discuss polar bears.
Note: Doesnt tell them what side to take or what opinons to have, simply says not to discuss it - which applies to both sides of the issue.
Despite the fact its the long standing (decades old) policy for government entities not to let individual peons dictate for the government what its official stance is, it fully allows them to speak on behalf of themselves.
Also Note: People that speak on behalf of the government represent the government that they are speaking for. Speaking on either side of the "polar bear" issue would represent our government has taken sides on it, which they have not. It is standard practice not to officially discuss anything your parent organization (corperation, government, employer) etc does not have an official stance on, unless you have the authority to make the parent organizations official opinons for it. Which, thank god, a single person does not have the right to do in this country.
Author: Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent
Bias: Far Left, based on the article stating repeatedly the Bush administration is trying to censor everything, in more or less words, and making a decades old policy and moral code sound like its a gop conspiracy, along with "greenhouse gas emissions spur global warming" quote, not a balanced article.
Mention of Greenhouse Gas Involvement: "might spur debate about tougher measures to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming"
Proof of Greenhouse Gas Involvement: "Somebody named hall said so"
Again, you stick your foot in your mouth. If you don’t want to use a certain science or data set, then don’t cite it for authority. First, the WWF polar bear opinion is raised to show I was suckered. Then I cite the real WWF opinion to show that is not the case. It’s another example of the anti-global warming theory folks trying to pretend data and sources support their position when it clearly does not. Are you beginning to see a pattern here?
Oh, and as to the government position on these matters, especially the Bush Administration, go look at what it is. Global warming and man’s contribution to it has been accepted. Not under “feel-good” pressure, but because they kept getting bitch-slapped by the science at every turn, notwithstanding their best efforts to refute the science with science.
Link #3: http://www.worldwildlife.org/polarbears/
Regarding: Polar Bears
Author: Not named
Site Bias: General Left
Mention of Greenhouse Gasses as the Cause: None
Mention of Man made cause of global warming: None
And I quote:
Climate change is causing the disappearance of sea ice from which polar bears hunt their prey. Research funded by WWF found that with less time on the ice to hunt for food and store it leaves polar bears hungry and hinders reproduction. If current climate trends continue unabated, polar bears could become extinct by the end of this century.
Sounds like a rock solid scientific statement implicating man made global warming to me.
Again, if one side of an issue does not accept the position of the other side, they should not cite the other side for authority. Get that? As to the merits of your claim, I can only give you another analogy that you might understand. You know when someone is prosecuted for a crime and the state must prove something beyond a reasonable doubt? Well, that burden can be met by cumulative evidence. Each piece of evidence, in and of itself, may not make the case, but when you add up all the many factors, all the evidence going toward, time, motive, opportunity, etc. you can make your case. So, when you, or Card, or Creighton, or whoever try to hang your hat on one piece of evidence that won’t prove global warming by itself, you are nothing more than defense attorneys spinning hard when they don’t have a defense.
Link #3: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
Regarding: Climate Change
Author: Various
Site Bias: Government Agency, mostly unbiased
Official Stance: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
Derived:
What We know: Humans have contributed to greenhouse gas
What we do not know: What contribution to global warming humans and natural causes have made.
Mention of Man made cause of global warming: It hasnt yet been determined
Now, im pretty sure if "virtually every scientist" that has weighed in on this subject, 999/1000 according to your made up statistics, has stated anywhere that global warming is caused wholly, majorly, or even significantly by humans, the EPA (un-biased, slighly left government agency) site would at least make mention of that.
Dont you think the EPA would make an official statement supporting "greenhouse gas" caused global warming if even a decent majority of scientists support its thesis?
They dont.
The only proof you have posted is that there is no proof.
I guess you don’t read so well. Hell, forget the EPA (which is in the Bush Administration); maybe you should check with the Bush Administration.
Suggestions:
Read your links before you post them, to see if they actually support what your saying
Please look for unbiased, fact based data
Stop inventing statistics, supporting them up with "if you check, its probably close"
Sorry for posting this last time, but I felt it was necessary to prove a point.
Suggestions: take your own advice. As for my links and what I said about them, the record speaks for itself. Each of those links submitted in response to a post in this thread that pretended to state the position of the primary source. The primary source refuted the proposition for which it was submitted.
Also, try to focus on what was said and not on who said it. It's more logical and you are less inclined to start waiving the "commie, pinko, liberal" bullshit which has nothing to do with the merits of a claim by some scientist who might be published in some journal you don't like.
I certainly hope you are not appologizing to me for your continued posting. No appologies necessary.
Time to hit the rack. Good night.
Again, you stick your foot in your mouth. If you don’t want to use a certain science or data set, then don’t cite it for authority. First, the WWF polar bear opinion is raised to show I was suckered. Then I cite the real WWF opinion to show that is not the case. It’s another example of the anti-global warming theory folks trying to pretend data and sources support their position when it clearly does not. Are you beginning to see a pattern here?Yeah, I see the pattern. The WWF has a stated position that conflicts with the evidence, but you are seemingly blinded to it. Their hypothesis is in contradiction to the evidence.
Following the true scientists, they will tell you that they have some theories, but there have been no direct links to CO2, solar variation, or industrialization. The environmentalists are still looking for a smoking gun. The assertions of those that support global warming caused by man are simply that. Their "evidence" does not follow the scientific method, as any evidence that contradicts the hypothesis renders the hypothesis as invalid. You explain your way out of that inconvenient truth by suggesting an unprovable conspiracy.
Yeah, I see the pattern. This is a religious argument for you.
You said:
Dont you think the EPA would make an official statement supporting "greenhouse gas" caused global warming if even a decent majority of scientists support its thesis?
The EPA said:
"What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
. . .
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet."
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
I’ll not put words in your mouth, but I suspect you meant to say “climate change” and not “global warming.” You can help me out here. In any event, it would be funny to see the side that is challenging the shift in terminology from “global warming” to “climate change” start hanging their hat on that very distinction.
Again, you stick your foot in your mouth. If you don’t want to use a certain science or data set, then don’t cite it for authority. First, the WWF polar bear opinion is raised to show I was suckered. Then I cite the real WWF opinion to show that is not the case. It’s another example of the anti-global warming theory folks trying to pretend data and sources support their position when it clearly does not. Are you beginning to see a pattern here?Yeah, I see the pattern. The WWF has a stated position that conflicts with the evidence, but you are seemingly blinded to it. Their hypothesis is in contradiction to the evidence.
Following the true scientists, they will tell you that they have some theories, but there have been no direct links to CO2, solar variation, or industrialization. The environmentalists are still looking for a smoking gun. The assertions of those that support global warming caused by man are simply that. Their "evidence" does not follow the scientific method, as any evidence that contradicts the hypothesis renders the hypothesis as invalid. You explain your way out of that inconvenient truth by suggesting an unprovable conspiracy.
Yeah, I see the pattern. This is a religious argument for you.
First, your wrong about the “true scientists”:
What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
Second, you cite a falsehood as an inconvenient truth and suggest a conspiracy. That is in line with Card and "the best offense is a good defense" method of argument. Unfortunately, the fallacy is made apparent in your suggesting this is a religious argument for me. In fact, religion has little, if anything to do with science and relies mostly on unsupported belief. Nice try, though, in taking your greatest weakness and attributing it to the opposition. The WWF’s interpretation is in accord with their own data. Had you followed up on their link you would have seen it. You’re like the guy who argues 1+1 = 2 when the teacher is talking procreation. :roll:
Do you have a clue as to what the word "virtual" means?
Here's the definition courtesy of www.m-w.com ;
Main Entry: vir·tu·al
Pronunciation: 'v&r-ch&-w&l, -ch&l; 'v&rch-w&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, efficacious, potential, from Medieval Latin virtualis, from Latin virtus strength, virtue
1 : being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted <a virtual dictator>
2 : of, relating to, or using virtual memory
3 : of, relating to, or being a hypothetical particle whose existence is inferred from indirect evidence <virtual photons> -- compare REAL 3
4 : being on or simulated on a computer or computer network <print or virtual books> <a virtual keyboard>: as a : occurring or existing primarily online <a virtual library> <virtual shopping> b : of, relating to, or existing within a virtual reality <a virtual world> <a virtual tour>
"Virtual" when referring to "science" is an oxymoron...and that highlights precisely why this is a religious argument for you.
If anthropogenic global warming was true science, it wouldn't be subject to opinion, consensus, or interpretation.
I'll just leave this link for those willing to understand that what we're dealing with in this conversation is far from scientific fact;
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=14429&cid=18&cname=Opinion
Do you have a clue as to what the word "virtual" means?
Here's the definition courtesy of www.m-w.com ;
Main Entry: vir·tu·al
Pronunciation: 'v&r-ch&-w&l, -ch&l; 'v&rch-w&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, efficacious, potential, from Medieval Latin virtualis, from Latin virtus strength, virtue
1 : being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted <a virtual dictator>
2 : of, relating to, or using virtual memory
3 : of, relating to, or being a hypothetical particle whose existence is inferred from indirect evidence <virtual photons> -- compare REAL 3
4 : being on or simulated on a computer or computer network <print or virtual books> <a virtual keyboard>: as a : occurring or existing primarily online <a virtual library> <virtual shopping> b : of, relating to, or existing within a virtual reality <a virtual world> <a virtual tour>
"Virtual" when referring to "science" is an oxymoron...and that highlights precisely why this is a religious argument for you.
If anthropogenic global warming was true science, it wouldn't be subject to opinion, consensus, or interpretation.
I'll just leave this link for those willing to understand that what we're dealing with in this conversation is far from scientific fact;
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=14429&cid=18&cname=Opinion
I do know what virtual means, but as usual, your use of terms in this debate is innopposite. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when you say: "If anthropogenic global warming was true science, it wouldn't be subject to opinion, consensus, or interpretation." Since when is true science immune from opinion, consensus or interpretation? You, of all people, referencing the polar bear/WWF issue, should no that. :roll: Oh, and if we are going to attack sources (which I am not inclined to do), you should do a little research into the NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS. Also find out if Exxon Mobile is funding Sterling Burnett (polar bear fame).
As for your citation, again, anyone can run to the web for support for any position they want. The guy you cite is responding to a guy who responded to others. Too bad, as your author suggests, none of them are part of the scientific process. He is right, and should get back in his lab and start doing science. Right now he's nothing more than you and I arguing on the internet.
Zak Smith
03-22-2007, 10:17
You, in summarizing what scientists know with virtual certainty (where virtual is a cop-out), have juxtaposed A and B. This does not show A causes B.
To show A causes B, or that A causes 90%, 75%, 50%, or 25%, or 1% of B requires a lot more data than is present and analysis that has not been done. The climate has been changing forever due to collosal factors and these have a complex interplay that is not understood.
Cherry picking a data set for a single-variable analysis over a short period of time will simply not yield a meaningful conclusion in this kind of system. For example, if the latest warming trend was already underway before the industrial revolution, then disambiguating a human component vs. the "natural" chaotic component is impossible because we simply do not understand, in a predictable way, that chaotic system.
The very short data-set used to "prove" human impact on warming is not even a blink in the eye of time-scales involved in warming and cooling trends, and its magnitude is dwarfed changes from the chaotic system.
You, in summarizing what scientists know with virtual certainty (where virtual is a cop-out), have juxtaposed A and B. This does not show A causes B.
To show A causes B, or that A causes 90%, 75%, 50%, or 25%, or 1% of B requires a lot more data than is present and analysis that has not been done. The climate has been changing forever due to collosal factors and these have a complex interplay that is not understood.
Cherry picking a data set for a single-variable analysis over a short period of time will simply not yield a meaningful conclusion in this kind of system. For example, if the latest warming trend was already underway before the industrial revolution, then disambiguating a human component vs. the "natural" chaotic component is impossible because we simply do not understand, in a predictable way, that chaotic system.
The very short data-set used to "prove" human impact on warming is not even a blink in the eye of time-scales involved in warming and cooling trends, and its magnitude is dwarfed changes from the chaotic system.
Now, I can agree with that, and I am glad you brought it up.
The Earth’s capacity for additional green house gasses, natural or man made, without catastrophic results, is 100%. Clearly the catastrophic results have not occurred so we have not exceeded 100% capacity. Further, the atmosphere contains *some* green house gasses, so we are not at 0%. We are obviously somewhere in between.
You can plug in ANY figures you want, but the following analysis still remains valid.
Let’s say, without mankind, the Earth is currently at a 50% capacity baseline, with a 30% natural variability, up or down, fluctuating over the millennia, with a high of 80% and a low of 20%. Now, along comes man and adds 21%. That puts us at 71% and reduces the room for natural variability by 21%. If nature comes along with her 30%, then catastrophic results occur.
In other words, Earth’s tremendous ability to take a punch is reduced each time she gets punched. Sooner or later, she punches back. Of course, she will always win, but some of us would like to win with her, and be around to share the *relative* stasis which she has provided for the last 500,000 years that we’ve been wandering around with all the critters we have come to know and love. The fact the Earth will continue on was no consolation to the dinosaurs and it won’t be to me, my child or anyone else I know. I am very conservative in that regard.
Only the Earth and God know how much she can take, and that is what scientists are currently trying to understand. I say place the burden of proof on those who want to tinker with a system that ain’t broke. Let them first do no harm, and prove they won’t. Since we are all in this boat together, we can’t rely upon individuals to carry all the freight. Working together is the key to avoiding the Tragedy of the Commons. Ask any public land cattle grazer from the late 1800s and early 1900s.
So, while you would demand certainty (instead of virtual certainty) of man-caused global warming, before man-caused global warming is accepted, I would demand certainty (instead of virtual certainty) of no harm, before we are permitted to continue dumping green house gasses into the atmosphere. If you can find a way to internalize your costs in our free market system, and accept personal responsibility for the outcome of your actions, then post a bond.
Oh, and if you try, remember not to cherry pick your data or use a cop-out of "virtuality."
The fact is, we are doing the best we can, and the science on your side is losing, badly.
Zak Smith
03-22-2007, 11:33
Anthropomorphic analogies are fun, but are not science. That post contains no scientific analysis, but speculation.
The burden of scientific proof is on the party who makes the claim. Period.
You've basically agreed, through your last two posts, that it is not proven.
Anthropomorphic analogies are fun, but are not science. That post contains no scientific analysis, but speculation.
The burden of scientific proof is on the party who makes the claim. Period.
You've basically agreed, through your last two posts, that it is not proven.
First, I am not a scientist. The science speaks for itself and you are losing, badly. In fact, by your own standards, your post is lacking any science.
Second, you are wrong about burdens of proof. As you yourself admitted, the status quo (natural baseline and fluctuation) existed long before our present impact. It is us who wish to change it and the burden is on us. If the claim is that man's actions cause no harm, then the burden is on you.
Third, no burden of proof has been established on proponents of global warming theory (preponderance of the evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt? etc.) and science, by it's very nature, soundly trounces your self-appointed demand for conclusive evidence. Proponents don't have to meet your subjective requirements of satisfaction. The political leadership has determined that any burden has been met and calls for changes. See Bush, the scientists and everyone who is not in denial.
Zak Smith
03-22-2007, 11:53
Until the scientists can connect A and B by disambiguating the large chaotic system, the thesis that A causes B is not proven. The burden of proof is always on the one proposing the thesis-- that's how a robust epistemology (and rational debate) works.
Nothing subjective, nor is it "about me." That is simply the epistemology of the scientific method.
Politics has nothing to do with science and knowledge. Appealing to a political figure to determine truth is the logical fallacy of false authority. Calling us in denial is ad hominem, another logical fallacy.
Do you have a clue as to what the word "virtual" means?
"Virtual" when referring to "science" is an oxymoron...
This is where you need to bring your critical and analytical reading and reasoning skills into play. The EPA was not referring to the science; they were referring to the scientific level of certainty; i.e. scientists are vitually certain that the science demonstrates global warming and our contribution to it. Don't confuse the science with their opinion of it.
Until the scientists can connect A and B by disambiguating the large chaotic system, the thesis that A causes B is not proven. The burden of proof is always on the one proposing the thesis-- that's how a robust epistemology (and rational debate) works.
Nothing subjective, nor is it "about me." That is simply the epistemology of the scientific method.
Politics has nothing to do with science and knowledge. Appealing to a political figure to determine truth is the logical fallacy of false authority. Calling us in denial is ad hominem, another logical fallacy.
First, scientists have connected A and B. The level of disambiguation of the large chaotic system is the question. They have come forward with a level which has been challenged. However, it is this level that you seek to be "proven" before it is accepted. These levels of *proof* (certainty) are a continuum, often catagorized as burdens.
We always start with a baseline, or status quo. In analyzing our contribution of green house gasses and the effects thereof, the baseline, by definition, is pre-human contribution. The burden is upon those who want to move beyond the baseline.
Now, as often happens, and as you are doing now, the proponents of an action prefer to shift the burden of harm to those who challenge the action. But that is not science. The burden is upon those who wish to go forward. So, rather than demand your subjective level of proof of harm, science (and the policy that comes from it) dictate a level of proof of no harm. That burden has not been met.
As much as you hate analogy, let me put it this way: YOu are going to take a revolver, point it at my head and pull the trigger. If anyone should have a burden of proving no harm will come, who should that be? I suggest the burden is upon you. If you can't prove your theory of no harm, don't be pointing revolvers at people and pulling the trigger. That is a political and policy decision that springs from sound science.
Finally, you don't understand argumentum ad vericundium. I did not appel to Bush for authority on the subject of global warming. I appealed to Bush to show you were the burden of proof had been placed, based upon sound science, and not upon your subjective demand for certainty.
As to the ad hominem allegation, denial is a state people can be in when they refuse to engage in that scientific process you so eloquently described. For instance, anyone who thinks politics has nothing to do with science and knowledge is living in denial.
I've gotta run to town. I will return and re-engage later. Thanks.
Zak Smith
03-22-2007, 12:56
Everything we do has an effect on the world.. by definition.
But that is separate from the question of truth, where the burden of proving a thesis falls solidly on those responsible for its claim.
Everything we do has an effect on the world.. by definition.
But that is separate from the question of truth, where the burden of proving a thesis falls solidly on those responsible for its claim.
Hear is where your reasoning fails you: You claim that the complex chaotic ambiguity has not been adequately addressed by global warming science. But it has been. It was done pursuant to a method that science uses all the time. It’s called the “even if” argument. All your chaotic ambiguity was addressed in my post regarding the 30% natural variation. Now, you can plug any numbers you want into that analysis, and make sure they are the most favorable to your case. It does not change the outcome. The only way to defeat it is to prove that man does not contribute anything beyond baseline.
Even if you were to try and argue that his contributions were magically offset by some aspect of the ambiguity, the laws of physics argue that such an offset would, in turn, have an impact elsewhere in the systems ability to respond.
But, nonetheless, the burden of proof in science, as elsewhere, is not now and never has been absolute certainty. The burden has shifted from the proponents of the theory, if there ever was one.
Zak Smith
03-22-2007, 14:29
Your "even if" example is tautologically true, but does not connect A to B.
If you need everyone to dumb there posts down to a second grade, english as a second language level im sure everyone would be happy to do so.
No need, they’ve been dumbed down below comprehension.
Unless you despise the American system, the burdon of proof rests to *prove* a theory or scientific thesis. The status quo is innocent until proven (without a reasonable doubt) guilty. That "burden of proof" is nowhere near being met.
Your poor use of the English language makes it unclear as to whether you are using an analogy, or if you actually think the burden of proof in this debate is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Just in case you are serious, you should know there are a great number of burdens, from preponderance of the evidence (51%) all the way up to “actual certainty.” You might be surprised to know that in science, many an “actual certainty” has fallen. Of course, when it does, the apologist for science look back and merely say: “Well, that wasn’t really science.” LOL!
The argument that it is the burden to disprove global warming is pure fallacy. Im going to make a thesis saying aliens landed on the other side of the moon, left a juicy fruit wrapper laced with a new kind of plauge that will someday whipe out the earth if we dont take care of it. Is it my burden to prove it, or your burden to disprove it? How do you disprove their isnt a juicy fruit wrapper on the other side of the moon? After all, this plauge thing could kill us all, its not your body your messing with, its mine. Dont put the revolver to my head and pull the trigger please, its the burden of proof to act on this before this plague spreads. You can smoke if you want, but you dont have the right to infect me with alien plague.
Remember when I told you that an analogy is not, by definition, the thing itself? And that it simply is no argument to point that out? And that he who wishes to defeat it must draw a distinction with a difference? Watch me destroy your analogy with a single probative difference: We are not messing with your body. The aliens are. Compare that with the global warming debate and see if you can see how that simple distinction makes all the difference in the world.
Also I'd like to point out, you are doing as many do: Only represent the facts that support your cause, thesis, or argument. I caught you in the act:
"What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
. . .
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet."
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
I’ll not put words in your mouth, but I suspect you meant to say “climate change” and not “global warming.” You can help me out here. In any event, it would be funny to see the side that is challenging the shift in terminology from “global warming” to “climate change” start hanging their hat on that very distinction.
I asked you to help me out if that was not your meaning. You cited an EPA position and said they not say “X.” I quoted your EPA position where they said “X.” I assumed you were not stupid and asked for your clarification. A logical response would have been reference to EPAs distinction between global warming and climate change.
Why is it, you choose to show only the statements that support your argument, the very definition of a bias, when I make a true summary of what the article actually represents?
The article speaks for itself. Your summary was patently inaccurate and, regardless of the merits of EPAs position, I proved it.
Call the theory what it is. Global. Warming.
On this, you and I agree. I fail to see the distinction, not that there isn’t one. It has just not been explained to me. However, if we accept this position, then it makes your statement about EPA’s position even more incorrect, if that is possible. Hell, I was just trying to help dig you out of the hole you had dug yourself.
Calling it climate change is just an attempt to associate it with "nicer words" since "climate change" is something that happens every day, you can also dissociate the title from a "yet proven theory". If they renamed evolution to "growing up", the result would be that if you discussed it on negative terms, people would be slightly less inclined to believe you because they grew up at one point in their lives.
Coming out against "climate change" sounds worse than coming out against "global warming" which is the exact reason they use that verbage.
I agree with most of what you’ve said, but I think I’ve read where it was those who oppose the “global warming” theory who have started using “climate change,” as a more difficult burden to prove. i.e. Not regional climates, but the Earth’s whole climate. I could be wrong and if I am, I’m sure you will point me in the correct direction.
Your "even if" example is tautologically true, but does not connect A to B.
You are correct. The "even if" argument disposes of the chaotic ambiguity, but it does not connect A to B.
A to B is connected by the evidence that both sides agree on; i.e. We emit greenhouse gases and, all other things being equal, green house gases create a green house effect. The "even if" is designed to dispose of the fact that not all other things are equal, and indeed, they are chaotic and ambiguous.
It's sole purpose is a policy/political decision to shift the burden of proof. Kind of a "better safe than sorry" catch all until all (or more) data is in.
Zak Smith
03-22-2007, 15:05
Your "even if" example is tautologically true, but does not connect A to B.
You are correct. The "even if" argument disposes of the chaotic ambiguity, but it does not connect A to B.
A to B is connected by the evidence that both sides agree on; i.e. We emit greenhouse gases and, all other things being equal, green house gases create a green house effect. The "even if" is designed to dispose of the fact that not all other things are equal, and indeed, they are chaotic and ambiguous.
Which brings us back to exactly what I said before-- that the effect of emissions on the global climate IS NOT KNOWN:
Cherry picking a data set for a single-variable analysis over a short period of time will simply not yield a meaningful conclusion in this kind of system. For example, if the latest warming trend was already underway before the industrial revolution, then disambiguating a human component vs. the "natural" chaotic component is impossible because we simply do not understand, in a predictable way, that chaotic system.
The very short data-set used to "prove" human impact on warming is not even a blink in the eye of time-scales involved in warming and cooling trends, and its magnitude is dwarfed changes from the chaotic system.
It's sole purpose is a policy/political decision to shift the burden of proof. Kind of a "better safe than sorry" catch all until all (or more) data is in.
In other words, it does not support the scientific thesis; the global warming "conclusion" is a political tool.
Thank you.
Your "even if" example is tautologically true, but does not connect A to B.
You are correct. The "even if" argument disposes of the chaotic ambiguity, but it does not connect A to B.
A to B is connected by the evidence that both sides agree on; i.e. We emit greenhouse gases and, all other things being equal, green house gases create a green house effect. The "even if" is designed to dispose of the fact that not all other things are equal, and indeed, they are chaotic and ambiguous.
Which brings us back to exactly what I said before-- that the effect of emissions on the global climate IS NOT KNOWN:
Cherry picking a data set for a single-variable analysis over a short period of time will simply not yield a meaningful conclusion in this kind of system. For example, if the latest warming trend was already underway before the industrial revolution, then disambiguating a human component vs. the "natural" chaotic component is impossible because we simply do not understand, in a predictable way, that chaotic system.
The very short data-set used to "prove" human impact on warming is not even a blink in the eye of time-scales involved in warming and cooling trends, and its magnitude is dwarfed changes from the chaotic system.
It's sole purpose is a policy/political decision to shift the burden of proof. Kind of a "better safe than sorry" catch all until all (or more) data is in.
In other words, it does not support the scientific thesis; the global warming "conclusion" is a political tool.
Thank you.
As one who has at least a rudimentary understanding of logic, I’m surprised. Are you arguing that the presence of any political decision renders all the science which purports to support it, non-existent, or cherry picked, or not meaningful? Or are you arguing that is just the case here, in the global warming debate? And if so, are you arguing that there is NO science here? I’m perplexed.
Politics and policy do not support global warming theory. Rather, global warming theory supports the politics and policy.
Next, you say: “that the effect of emissions on the global climate IS NOT KNOWN.” You appear to be getting metaphysical on me here. What IS known, pray tell? Nothing. Science will be the first to admit that absolute certainty is not required for reasonable men to come to reasonable conclusions for the purposes of policy. Politics and policy not only reside outside of science, but within it. People use the best information they have and do what they can with it. The burden has been shifted to your side to trounce the policy and you and yours have failed to do it.
You are demanding your own subjective level of proof, kind of like an O.J. juror. Give me a reasonable articulable burden of proof that global warming science must meet. Not yours, but some objective criteria set down by the community. It's not what burden would make you happy, or anyone else for that matter. I'm just asking at what point the community would decide it IS KNOWN? Ask Bush. Ask scientists. The burden is on you.
Zak Smith
03-22-2007, 15:39
Nope, you specifically stated the "even if" tool was a political/policy decision. It does not serve to prove a scientific thesis in this case.
As for the rest, it is not metaphysical at all. Simply put, the observations about actual temperate change since the industrial revolution cannot be used as evidence for man-made climate change because closed and chaotic system is not understood well enough in a predictable (ie, scientific way) as to separate collosal historical trends which have pruduced in the past changes dwarfing anything observed in the last 200 years, from components directly attributable to human behavior.
In other words.. that A causes B.
Zak Smith
03-22-2007, 15:48
Hell, even Carl Wunsch writes, in his rebuttal to the C4 piece, that the science is not mature enough to give definite answers. He characterizes taking precautions as "insurance" the same way "we take out homeowners insurance against fire."
The former is a statement about the thesis about global warming. The latter is a policy/political statement about hedging a bet about something that may or may not happen.
Nope, you specifically stated the "even if" tool was a political/policy decision. It does not serve to prove a scientific thesis in this case.
As for the rest, it is not metaphysical at all. Simply put, the observations about actual temperate change since the industrial revolution cannot be used as evidence for man-made climate change because closed and chaotic system is not understood well enough in a predictable (ie, scientific way) as to separate collosal historical trends which have pruduced in the past changes dwarfing anything observed in the last 200 years, from components directly attributable to human behavior.
In other words.. that A causes B.
Don’t confuse my use of the “even if” tool (a tool commonly used in science) with the science that does exist and which does address, in part, some of the chaotic ambiguities. The 30% figure I used (for man or nature) can be corrected to address, at least at some percentage, the data that we do have. Simply put, the science that does exist does not rise to your subjective level of proof. It does, however, not only meet the level of proof required by policy makers, but it also meets the level of proof required by the scientific community at large.
When you say “closed and chaotic system is not understood well enough” you have to understand that you don’t get to decide what “well enough” is for any given decision, be it scientific or politic.
Since I am not a scientist, I will defer to them on the merits of you unsubstantiated claims. In fact, even if you were to trot out a million web citations in support of your position, I could do little more than snipe at them like you have with the science in support of global warming. If you deny that green house gasses create a green house effect (A causes B), all other things being equal, then you are in denial. That’s cool. As I said before, the operative question relates to those other things that are not equal and those things have been addressed; perhaps not to your satisfaction, but that does not mean they have not been addressed.
Hell, even Carl Wunsch writes, in his rebuttal to the C4 piece, that the science is not mature enough to give definite answers. He characterizes taking precautions as "insurance" the same way "we take out homeowners insurance against fire."
The former is a statement about the thesis about global warming. The latter is a policy/political statement about hedging a bet about something that may or may not happen.
More proof of my point that, barring the metaphysical, science does not mandate a certain level of proof or "definite answers." And, not withstanding my request, you have failed to articulate a level necessary. It seems you must have absolute scientific certainty, and if it does not exist, then there is no science at all. That is illogical. Just because a decision is made does not mean everything is settled. Science does not require it.
When you fire your weapon, you don't know, with a "definite answer" that it will discharge a round. Just because you don't know it doesn't mean all the science that says a round will fire somehow must not exist. There is science out there that says it will. Good science. Good enough that you don't fire at people unless you intend to kill them.
Zak Smith
03-22-2007, 16:07
But I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars' because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.
But I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars' because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.
On that we can both agree. Although I suspect it was penned by one of "your" boys, it still cuts both ways. I see the above referenced distinction getting lost primarily due to the noise coming from outside of the community, and particularly from those who claim that somehow those scientists within the community are engaged in a world wide "feel good" conspiracy against real science. Even if you write well, like Crieghton and Card, it's still noise. Policy wonks on both sides spin the science but at this point the policy wonk in the White House has made a call, albeit against his gut. Science can do that sometimes. I'm sure better arguers than you and I have given it their best shot.
In the end, we don't "know" anything "firmly" we just suspect firmly. Science has stepped on it's dick too many times in the past to think otherwise, hence the author's reference to "being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise."
Zak Smith
03-22-2007, 16:27
Wunsch wrote that. :mrgreen:
On that happy note, I'm outa here. Time to shoot some paper. [postal]
Zak Smith
03-22-2007, 16:34
After this entertaining flame war, I do plan to follow up with some additional reading on the subject.
If the weather holds, I'm off to Logan NM for two days of LR shooting this weekend, but there's also a Pueblo tac-rifle match on Sunday.
[postal]
After this entertaining flame war, I do plan to follow up with some additional reading on the subject.
If the weather holds, I'm off to Logan NM for two days of LR shooting this weekend, but there's also a Pueblo tac-rifle match on Sunday.
[postal]
I'm going to try to make it to one of those, one of these days. I have a RR Lower and an MGI QCB upper that needs some exersize. Just hope I don't get shot for my "strange" politics. :mrgreen: Have fun in Logan.
A burden of proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt, and you still have yet to prove that. You responded with not why global warming has proven itself beyond a resonable doubt, but what requires other science thesis' to prove the "lowest" burden. Are you *actually* implying that it isnt necessary to rule out resonable doubts to consider a theory a fact?
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard in criminal cases. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the standard in most civil cases. There are many other standards used in different venues. You have yet to demonstrate the standard to be used in the global warming debate, by scientists themselves, or by politicians. In any event, whatever the standard is, it was met in the eyes of the Administration from a policy perspective.
Snip
My analogy was in relation to a thesis being proven on the basis it cannot be disproven, not aliens killing you instead of humans. The analogy still stands, because you repeatedly have made the statement it is the responsiblity of everybody to disprove greenhouse gas induced global warming. That intended meaning cannot be accidentally construed if you read the text before it and following it, so essentially your responding with yet another un-related argument to weasel out of answering the original question. Again, is it my burden to prove my alien thesis, or is it your burden to disprove it?
You are clearly in over your head here. Your analogy was defeated because WE (yeah, that’s us, you and me, human beings) are the one’s dumping green house gasses into the atmosphere. Thus, we have the burden of proving no harm. I, on the hand (along with us, you and me, human beings) did not put the wrapper on the other side of the moon. If I had put it there, or if humanity was responsible for it, then your analogy would hold, but it does not.
Not to mention I destroyed your original analogy with a single probative difference: An m16, and the history and operation of such are not, nor will not be questioned by anyone. Hence "tangable" object. You on the other hand, state that the analogy fails because aliens infect you with plague and not humans? Are you that naive?
Again, you obviously are in over your head. The issue in the analogy was not whether any one would question the history operation (or use) of the M-16. The issue was who you would go to for information on those matters, an expert or a gun control nut. Based upon your postings, I’m sure you don’t get that but there is not much else I can do for you. I can hold your hand and walk you through these things but you have to have some modicum of reasoning skills and logic.
Snip
Fall back onto the definition of sarcasm please, because you obviously cant tell the difference. You obviously have trouble reading beyond the literal subject. I can make just as powerful of an example and use SARCASM to make an irony of the statements you have made that your life is threatened by global warming which MAY increase the temperature of the earth maybe two degrees over the course of your lifetime, which you claim is similar to someone else putting a revolver to your head and pulling the trigger;
On that notion, your analogies have miserably failed. Explain one way "global" warming is going to lead to your death. Explain one way avoiding a small amount of global warming will save a positive net value of lives.
Try to focus. Think before you post. The operative point in the analogy is not that death will result from either or both comparisons, but, rather, that the burden of proof regarding results is on those who would alter the status quo. i.e. the world before man’s green house gas influence and me and you standing around minding our own business before you decide to point a gun at me and pull the trigger. I could have used any of a thousand other analogies that would not result in death or bodily harm. Like diverting a stream above your fields, or condemning a road through your property, or whatever. Burdens are assigned to those who would take action altering the baseline to the possible detriment of another, or society as a whole.
Not only that, but I can use "Humans" in the example. Just replace "Aliens" with Buzz Aldrin. Happy?
Yes. Now you can see: the burden of proof should be on Buzz to prove his leaving of the wrapper will cause no harm.
Want another kicker? SARCASM in my analysis of your M16 analogy, coupled with a metaphor. Yes, an analogy is not a thing itself. I pointed out, that comparing a half proven theory with a tangable object is flawed, comparing a half proven theory to the history and operation of a tangable object is flawed, and that, THROUGH SARCASM, showed how you were attempting to appeal to people on a firearms board. But, its ever so apparent everyone needs to speak to you LITERALLY.
You don’t understand analogy. It is clear. When you say “analogy is not A thing itself” you miss the point. Analogy is not THE thing itself. i.e. It is not the thing that it is analogized to. If I say a A is like B, I mean they are both letters of the alphabet, I don’t mean that A=B. And for you to try and defeat the analogy by saying A does not equal B is fallacious. The analogy A is like B is not offered for the proposition that they are equal. Nor does it matter that they are not equal. The fact is, they are both letters of the alphabet. Get it? I hope so. Now go back and rethink your faulty reasoning.
Do I need to point out the scientists making opinons about a yet proven theory cannot be held on the same level of seasoned experts teaching about history? Two, completely unrelated subjects that have no similarities in your analogy, and again, you twisted the relative postions in said analogy. Explain, how global warming activists "proposing" a theory has anything remotly similar to a seasoned "expert" veteran of the M16. The main difference? Every "expert" verteran of the M16 is going to know its operation and history. Every climatologist "expert" is not going to support global warming. Not even a major, severe, or vast majority do, and your invented statistics that they do need citation before you continue with more bs. Stating to learn about global warming you would need to go to a "global warming activist" (expert is misused) is extremely short sighted.
Again, you miss the meaning of analogy. We are not talking about experts “on the same level” or proponents of a theory versus seasoned experts on the M-16. We are talking about who you would seek out for information on any subject: An expert or someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about? In the case of the M-16 it would be the expert versus the gun control nut; in the case of global warming it would be the scientist versus the policy wonk (Card, Creighton, etc.) or you or me.
On the same note, to learn about radical Islam you must you go to a radical muslim, resulting in your head cut off on an internet video by the same logic. Your analogy fails. Your analogies of smoking and someone shooting you in the head also fails, due to the element of human mortality not evident in the global warming debate.
I wish you wouldn’t say things like that. It reinforces my already cynical view about the state of education in this country. You really don’t get it, do you? Honestly? You really think that element of human mortality is a relevant variable in the analogy, don’t you? I’m sorry.
You are naive if you think only the global warming activists know what they are talking about, and can be considered the *only* experts on the issue.
Not activists; scientists. And no, they are not the only ones who know what they are talking about. They are just the ones who have come forward with evidence (regardless of whether that evidence meets your standard of proof) and those on the other side have failed to successfully rebut it. The burden should actually be on the latter, but whatever, it’s moot now that burden is back on those who wish to defeat the science in support of the theory.
You still have yet to tell anyone why global warming is worth diverting resources away from programs that actually save *real* lives, you simply ignored that portion of one my posts with another "nah nah nah" plug your ears argument.
No, I didn’t ignore it. I suspect I never even noticed it because it was buried in all your ranting nonsense. Either that, or it was in the balance of one of your posts that I did not even finish reading because you had ruined any intellectual integrity you might have had by putting words in my mouth, misstating my position and otherwise using dilatory argument. Now that you’ve brought it to the surface, I will summarily dismiss it with reference to my prior, un-rebutted arguments on the burden of proof. Remember asbestos? Remember the revolver? Remember the argument regarding cost internalization, personal responsibility, the tragedy of the commons, smoking, and, most importantly, the argument regarding punching the Earth and it’s impact on her ability to absorb another punch? That is why resources should be diverted. Just as we prioritize our use of resources in all other areas, so too our government has chosen to take steps to reduce our contributions to global warming. People’s lives can be saved by reducing the speed limit, but we make a conscious decision to accept some deaths for the convenience of speed. Similar decisions have been made, and more should be made regarding global warming.
snip
I asked you to help me out if that was not your meaning. You cited an EPA position and said they not say “X.” I quoted your EPA position where they said “X.” I assumed you were not stupid and asked for your clarification. A logical response would have been reference to EPAs distinction between global warming and climate change.
Reeeeeeeeaaaaaaaallly.
That has to be the best quote of inserting "words into peoples mouths" in this entire thread. A: I never cited an EPA position and said they did not say "X". B: You never cited me and asked for clarification of what I said and C: Nowhere in my original citation did I make an issue, or even mention global warming and climate change verbage, so it did not need clarficiation, nor is it an issue D: You brought up global warming/climate change verbage as a response, to avoid having to actually reply to points brought up.
Show me where I said "not X" or where you can infer, imply, or otherwise assume I said "not X" or are you inventing posts as well as you invent statistics?
Now, watch my lips and prepare to eat your words.
You said:
Link #3: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
Regarding: Climate Change
Author: Various
Site Bias: Government Agency, mostly unbiased
Official Stance: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
Derived:
What We know: Humans have contributed to greenhouse gas
What we do not know: What contribution to global warming humans and natural causes have made.
Mention of Man made cause of global warming: It hasnt yet been determined
Now, im pretty sure if "virtually every scientist" that has weighed in on this subject, 999/1000 according to your made up statistics, has stated anywhere that global warming is caused wholly, majorly, or even significantly by humans, the EPA (un-biased, slighly left government agency) site would at least make mention of that.
Dont you think the EPA would make an official statement supporting "greenhouse gas" caused global warming if even a decent majority of scientists support its thesis?
They dont.
The only proof you have posted is that there is no proof. Emphasis added in bold so you can eat your words. The article you just cited, above (yes, YOU) says this, the relevant portion in bold, and in direct contradiction to your statement above:
“What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.”
Get it? No? I didn’t think so.
Its not my obligation to prove why greenhouse gas induced global warming is false. It is the obligation of its supporters to prove why it is true, and thus so far you have failed miserably.
Actually, I just defer to the scientists and let the science speak for itself. I know you don’t speak the language, but that’s okay. Whatever.
I am going to let you have the last word. I have tried to be somewhat civil, and I have tried to explain things that you clearly cannot grasp, but since I am not a teacher, and since you clearly are not a student, it really makes me look like a bully when I try to converse with you. It's not fair to you and it demeans me. So hey, guess what, you win! Global warming does not exist and even if it does, humans have nothing to do with it. All will be fine. Carry on.
HunterCO
03-23-2007, 01:04
I am all for global warming I like the heat and think it's great as long as it don't cause Karl to show up to a shoot in speedo's. [roll]
Out of all of the CO2 on the planet, only about 4% has anything to do with human activity. If Algore got his wish and cut US CO2 by half, you're only talking about a fraction of a percentage point. If all human beings on the planet stopped breathing, you'd only make a change of about 1%.
I believe part of the problem is how theory is taught in public school as fact, such as the theory of evolution. There are many theories. Until these theories become scientific fact, that can be reproduced by anyone, they are just speculation.
The earth has warmed before and cooled before.
...and we didn't have anything to do with it. Sorry, but we're just not that significant in the grand scheme.
Just as Islamic fundamentalism is blamed on the US, whose fault was it before the US existed?[wink]
Stingray
03-27-2007, 23:23
I like global warming.
Look how nice the weathers been for the past few weeks. Especially after this past winters severity and duration. I wish we could hurry things along a bit.
hey check this out this has the science view http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467&hl=en
Like I said, it's the sun's fault.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.