The American Thinker Slaps Down Global Warming

Don, Do you really want an explanation of mass extinctions and adaptive radiation, or are you just trying to make a blind-faith dig at biology, geology, and systematic ecology as well as climatology, atmospheric science and oceanography? What do you know about these areas? Do you have any education in them past the high-school level? What sort of reading or other self-education have you done in them? I'm asking because it will be difficult to have a meaningful discussion if we can not have a meeting of minds on the fundamental terms and definitions.

So far, I'm sorry to say, you have not exhibited a very thorough understanding of any aspect of the physical or biological sciences. You seem unable to come to grips with the basics of scientific inquiry, its methods or philosophy. And you have difficulty with matters of settled history - cf. our discussion on the history of sexual and marriage mores and practices during the 18th and 19th centuries - when they contradict what you believe.

The fundamental principle of the sciences is that what is, is. If belief and the evidence are in irreconcilable conflict the beliefs must change. The late Richard Feynman (ztl) called it "A way of keeping ourselves honest with ourselves". Now like anything else that involves human beings it is imperfectly practiced. But generally scientists do a very good job of following that dictum.

What follows from this? It's quite simple. What you want is not important. What is true is important. If your cherished belief or pet theory is not substantiated it must be modified or abandoned. That sort of radical honesty is how scientific progress is made and how we get a better understanding of the world.

You seem to argue from faith. And your version of science is to find search for anything that might contradict theories you do not like, whether it be ad hominem attacks against people who espouse them, false dichotomies, cherry-picked research regardless of or provenance, the appeal to authority or the fact that you find the conclusions, as you told me concerning the prevalence of prostitution in the past "offensive". What has been remarkably absent is a statement of precisely what you believe much less evidence for it. Those are not the signs of an intellectually mature argument. It is very difficult for fact or reason to have a place at such a table.

Your intellectual stance is not uncommon. It is typical of those whose beliefs are based on inarguable religious faith whether the religion is based on a Supreme Being, Marxist Dialectical Materialism or The Omnipotent Market. All of these and their kin are characterized by a ratchet mentality, intellectual inflexibility, and a tendency to shoot the arrows and then draw circles around them. That is one reason why I firmly believe that revealed religion of any sort is fundamentally incompatible with scientific inquiry. The basic honesty is lacking. That includes my own religion which is a source of much soul searching on my part. But that's a different topic better suited for a philosophy of science forum.

Your entire laundry list of beliefs may be true. But since they are inarguable matters of faith it is impossible for those of use who aspire to argument from reason and evidence to address them.
 
Go ahead, hurl some more insults young man.
Thanks.
It may be true that the keeling chart is very popular in some circles, but...

I just want to let you know, I did read this post.

Good Day.
 
ATTENTION ALL USERS - SECOND WARNING

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful. Stick to debating the topic at hand and avoid personal attacks.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator
 
However, a 2003 survey of 530 international climate scientists from 27 different countries by two German environmental scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, tell a different story.http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=72914&src=
To the question "Are humans causing climate change", 55.8 percent agreed but 14.2 percent were unsure and 30 percent disagreed.
Tellner, please explain how 44.2 percent being unsure or outright disagreeing with the idea is a consensus? Please explain why when some groups are clearly distorting the facts of global warming, they should be trusted because they believe man has harmed the climate. Please explain why industry, who, yes, has a vested interest in global warming cannot be trusted but, those, who buy carbon credits from companies they own stock in are implicitly trustworthy and above reproach, even when the "documentaries" they make have blaring errors and glaring distortions? No, I am not a scientist, nor am I well versed in scientific theorums. I am, however, able to see when someone is full of crap, and the lies and misdirections, double talk and squashing of dissent by the global warming activists is ten pounds of BS in a two pound bag...
Science says there are 206 bones in the human body, that is a fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with consensus. Science says humans have a four chambered heart, that is also a fact and not open to consensus.
 
Tellner, please explain how 44.2 percent being unsure or outright disagreeing with the idea is a consensus?

Don,

You and your wife (girlfriend, whatever) are having a baby. The first time you go in for an ultrasound the ultrasound tech says you are having a boy. Yahoo! The second time a different ultrasound tech says that you are having a girl. Yahoo! but what the hell? You run 100 ultrasounds on your wife/girlfriend because the two of you really want to know. 70 think its a boy, 20 think its a girl, 10 don't know. The fact is you are having a boy or girl, but you won't know for sure for another four months. You need to paint the room blue or pink, the wife/girlfriend has got some hormones flowing and is nesting, and unless you want your next four months to be a living hell, this needs to get done today. What color do you paint the room?

With regard to the Bray/Storch survey, if you look at the original paper:
http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf

You'll see that they weren't directly examining what was quoted in your linked newspaper opinion piece. They were examining trends in climate scientists beliefs in the underlying knowledge about global warming and the differences in those beliefs between years. Their main findings can be summarized to say that climate scientists in 2003 compared to 1996 were significantly more likely to beleive that given the current state of scientific knowledge we can make accurate predictions for: inter-annual variability, climate variability on a decadal scale, climate variability on a 100 year scale, and climate variability on a >100 year scale.

Bray/Storch released a blog about what some people were interpreting their paper to mean:
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/08/climate_scientists_views_on_cl_1.html

I'm excerpting a pertinant paragraph or two.
On the skeptical side, the survey has often been used to create the impression that most scientists were not in support of anthropogenic causes of ongoing climate change: Specifically, it was noted that “For example more climate scientists ‘strongly disagree’ than ‘strongly agree’ that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” This interpretation is certainly biased.
We had requested responses on a scale from 1-7 to the question “Climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” – with 1 representing “strong agreement” and 7 “strong disagreement”. Thus, scales 1-3 signal agreement, 4 an ambivalent position, and 5-7 disagreement. The frequency distribution for the two surveys in 1996 and 2003 are:
chart.JPG

Thus, the statement, that more respondents strongly disagree than strongly agree is technically correct (10% vs. 9%), but highly misleading. If we pool the 1-3 positive responses to “agreement”, and 5-7 to disagreement, then the ratio in 1996 was 41:45 in favor of disagreement; in 2003, however, this ratio has become 56:30 in favor of agreement; all scales 1-3 have seen strong increases in frequency, while 5-6, with the notable exception of scale 7, have seen marked reductions.

Furthermore the question refers to “climate change” in general. We intended to ask for responses to the statement "Ongoing climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes", but some respondents may have considered Holocene climate change in general. Thus, “disagreement” with the statement does not necessarily signal doubt about the perspective of a dominantly man-made climate change in the coming decades, but it mostly reveals an assessment of presently emerging climate change.

Lamont
 
I just find it interesting that a those who believe in human caused global warming are so desperate to shut down any discussion of other causes, or scientists with differing views.
That seems a little too much like faith, and faith, surely cannot have anything to do with legitamate science.
 
I just find it interesting that a those who believe in human caused global warming are so desperate to shut down any discussion of other causes, or scientists with differing views.
That seems a little too much like faith, and faith, surely cannot have anything to do with legitamate science.

Don't go to activists (on either side) and attempt to get an unbiased response, thats just stupid, activists aren't scientists. I'm not saying scientists are completely unbiased, they aren't, but do you really believe that the entire climate science community is doing this as some vast hoax on the rest of us? That there is discussion and that there is controversy, indicates that hypothesis testing should still be in effect. Skepticism is encouraged in science, we can't prove anything, we can only disprove it.

Lamont
 
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570002/Ice_Ages.html

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570002_2/Ice_Ages.html

From
"Ice Ages," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2007
http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Future Ice Ages

The record of previous glacial activity is the best indicator for future ice ages. Scientists examine the evidence for the numerous 100,000-year glacial-interglacial cycles within the present ice age to attempt a forecast of future ice ages. Since all previous ice ages lasted tens of millions of years, our present ice age will likely continue for a considerable amount of time. Each glaciation begins slowly and may take 80,000 years or more to reach its maximum extent. A rapid melting of these expanded glaciers within just a few thousand years follows. Then the next glaciation begins to build, only 10,000 to 20,000 years after the maximum of the previous glaciation occurred.

Evidence from both land and sea environments indicates that, at least prior to the human-induced global warming of the last two centuries, the worldwide climate has been cooling naturally for several thousand years. Ten thousand years have already passed since the end of the last glaciation, and 18,000 years have passed since the last maximum. This may indicate that Earth has entered the beginning of the next worldwide glaciation.

Technically speaking we are suppose to be in a cooling trend, but here is an interesting side effect of warming if it goes on long enough, more water vapor in the atmosphere which reflects sunlight and causes cooling. Mess with the climate and it will casue you problems

More info on warming and cooling

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/03_1.shtml

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/stories/nojs.html

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/why_4_cool_periods.html

EDIT:

OOPS sorry forgot one

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
 
Technically speaking we are suppose to be in a cooling trend, but here is an interesting side effect of warming if it goes on long enough, more water vapor in the atmosphere which reflects sunlight and causes cooling. Mess with the climate and it will casue you problems
I believe we've just come out of a mini-cooling (tiny ice age) period.
 
I believe we've just come out of a mini-cooling (tiny ice age) period.

There was the mini ice age that possibly was in part was brough on by a rather large volvanic eruption but in geological terms we should be in an over-all cooling stage heading towards the next big ice age, not a rabid warming phase.

But as I said a rapid warming phase can cause a cooling phase too.

There are lots of reasons for warming and CO2 is one of them and you have to admit we produce one heck of a lot of CO2.
 
I am far from an enviornmentalist or an activist.

The latest flavor of the month doomsday apocalyptic theory is "Global Warming"


Here is a blast from the past......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

There will always be a big bad wolf or monster in the closet for all to be worried about.

I wonder what's next?

-Marc-
 
I’m not calling it a monster or the big bad wolf, it is simply a fact it is getting warmer, ice is melting and sea level is rising.

As to cooling we are suppose to be in a cooling phase heading towards the next ice age, but that does not mean the next ice age is suppose to be here next Tuesday, we are talking thousands of years.
 
I think people have such a hard time with this because it is being made into a political game. The proponents and opponents of global warming both seem to be using it as a platform for their own agenda and to make money off of it.

Al Gore's documentary was seen by opponents of global warming as nothing more than a political manuever to put himself in the spotlight again. Then you have all this data that supposedly "refutes" the claims of his movie, and guess what it's funded by the oil companies, who obviously want their product and profits to keep increasing.

In the time of the dinosaurs it was supposedly very hot and tropical on earth than we had the ice age. Is global temperature a cyclical thing and we are now slowly going back up regardless of what we are doing as humans?

It's interesting to note how throughout history man has ALWAYS blamed weather pattern changes on his own behavior. Ancient times, if man "sinned" the gods punished him by causing a drought and he had to make amends. Now modern man thinks that he is still causing the drought by his actions and he has to make amends.
 
I’m not calling it a monster or the big bad wolf, it is simply a fact it is getting warmer, ice is melting and sea level is rising.

As to cooling we are suppose to be in a cooling phase heading towards the next ice age, but that does not mean the next ice age is suppose to be here next Tuesday, we are talking thousands of years.


Personally, I like it a little warmer...:wink1:

One would hope that in a thousand or so years if we don't kill ourselves off, we would have the knowledge, technology and means to fix the problem if there is one. Or who knows, settle another planet?

By no means am I condoning needless polluting and wasting of resources, just implying that we tend to worry and over-politicize everything as long as it can help ones own personal agenda.

-Marc-
 
Personally, I like it a little warmer...:wink1:

One would hope that in a thousand or so years if we don't kill ourselves off, we would have the knowledge, technology and means to fix the problem if there is one. Or who knows, settle another planet?

By no means am I condoning needless polluting and wasting of resources, just implying that we tend to worry and over-politicize everything as long as it can help ones own personal agenda.

-Marc-

Personally I like it colder, which could be why I'm complaining so much.... :)

But I do whole heartedly agree when it comes to things get overly politicized and ends up being a tool for someone’s personal agenda.

It’s getting warmer and a lot of ice is melting, Ok let’s find out, if at all possible, the reason or reasons. I do believe that CO2 emissions are a contributing factor but are they the only cause :idunno:

Introduce a lot of fresh water into the ocean and you mess up the climate big time, a large volcanic eruption can mess up the climate big time too. So if it is CO2 what can we do? Can we do anything or is it already to late?

But instead it ends up a political debate not a scientific study.

Who cares its and election year we have better and less inflamatory things to debate.

I am also not a big fan of politics either... dem or rep...
 
All those who hate the amount of CO2 going into our athmosphere can make one simple change to permanently halt their carbon footprint...

Don't exhale.

Animals exhale CO2 into the environment, now we're down to fourth grade science. Hunting and meat eating and capital punishment, then, must help the environment by removing living animals, little CO2 pumps that they are, from the equation... Shoot, if you really want to take that to extremes you can say Saddam was a great environmentalist, look at all the people he whacked and put in mass graves (Composting?) Likewise Hitler, Stalin and Mao were way ahead of their time. Maybe that is why they aren't appreciated...
 
All those who hate the amount of CO2 going into our athmosphere can make one simple change to permanently halt their carbon footprint...

Don't exhale.

Animals exhale CO2 into the environment, now we're down to fourth grade science. Hunting and meat eating and capital punishment, then, must help the environment by removing living animals, little CO2 pumps that they are, from the equation... Shoot, if you really want to take that to extremes you can say Saddam was a great environmentalist, look at all the people he whacked and put in mass graves (Composting?) Likewise Hitler, Stalin and Mao were way ahead of their time. Maybe that is why they aren't appreciated...

Believe what you will but I might suggest not buying property in low lying areas. Just as an example if the Laurentide ice sheet melts completely, and it is melting, Florida has a lot to worry about as to a lot of other areas. Also if I remember correctly it may be enough to reverse flow on the Hudson river and oh won’t that be fun. And that is just one source of melting ice.

Point fingers, deny, argue, label, come up with reasons and agendas whatever you want but it is still getting warmer and ice is still melting and arguing and politicizing does nothing to make it better or to REALLY understand what is happening and why. There are a multitude of reasons for change in weather patterns, it is just no other appear to be evident at this time

Note: I also said I believe CO2 is a factor not the sole cause.

And even if it is only a factor will stopping it do anything to make it better at this point in time, I am certainly not sure if it will or not. We may just have to huddle together on the hot high ground and hope for the best.

But warming does not mean everywhere is hot. Some places that were hot will remain hot some will get colder, some will get hotter. Some places that are cold will remain cold some will get colder and some will get warmer. There will just be fewer cold places than there are now and there will be less above water land mass too. And just to note I believe under Antarctica there are at least 6 volcanoes that are currently dormant. Remove the ice and the ground pushes back up and it is likely before the ice is fully melted at least one may become active. Quick melt and a lot of fresh water enter the system and a lot of ash enters the atmosphere.

This is a rather interconnected system we have on old planet earth and it is a lot to think about that many do not even consider because they are to busy arguing over mans impact on the planet instead of trying to figure out if we can stop it the warming or not.
 
:standing ovation:

Ordinarily I have a heavy distaste of "Me too!" responses to well constructed posts but that one was a good example of how to comprehensively and intelligently argue a point without being contentious or antagonistic. Well done, sir :rei:.
 
Point fingers, deny, argue, label, come up with reasons and agendas whatever you want but it is still getting warmer and ice is still melting and arguing and politicizing does nothing to make it better or to REALLY understand what is happening and why.

I agree, with you, and there in lyes my stance and frusteration with the issue.

People are too focused on 'why,' and to me that is ridicules. I wouldn't ask "why" if I was defending myself from an attacker, for example. The why isn't important when a problem is occuring; "How will it effect us" and "how do we fix it" and "what do we do" should be the real discussion. But instead, we are left with various opinions on whether or not it is our fault.

Seems nutty to me...
 
Back
Top