If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Canada.com)   One of the founding prophets of the Church of Global Warming questions his own faith   (tinyurl.com) divider line 174
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

2003 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Mar 2007 at 6:41 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



174 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-03-05 01:39:03 PM
I wonder how long it will be before he is brought before the Inquisition.
 
2007-03-05 01:49:17 PM
Wow this guy is dumb. Apparently he is under the impression that every single household wants a pet and can afford to take care of one. The fact of the matter is that there are not enough good homes for the existing population, let alone any more. What exactly does he think happens to all these cute puppies and kittens when there's no one around to adopt them?
 
2007-03-05 01:49:46 PM
His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l' Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."

It seems that all he's saying is that climate change is taking place, but that the cause is unknown, which is what most of the rational people who discuss the issue are saying. The science is largely settled as to what is happening, just not how or why.
 
2007-03-05 01:51:14 PM
Somebody's been reading Prickly City.
 
2007-03-05 01:51:50 PM
kronicfeld: It seems that all he's saying is that climate change is taking place, but that the cause is unknown, which is what most of the rational people who discuss the issue are saying

I don't think rational people discuss the issue.

Just saying.
 
2007-03-05 01:58:16 PM
I wonder how long it will be before he is brought before the Inquisition.

Is it inquisitorial to point out that the man is not a climate scientist?

Or that he has spent most of the last decade as a politician, not a scientist?

Or that the single concrete example brought up in the article (Antarctica gaining ice) is based on faulty data (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060308.html)
 
2007-03-05 01:58:25 PM
Kyranis: Wow this guy is dumb.

Up until September he was one of the 1500. Now he's a Judas.
 
2007-03-05 02:01:44 PM
Also, why do we feel compelled to apply clever negatively framed titles like "Denier" to groups of people who hold certain opinions?
 
2007-03-05 02:02:13 PM
Dancin_In_Anson: Up until September he was one of the 1500. Now he's a Judas.

Actually, commented on the wrong thread, obviously (first time I've ever done that). I actually went to read this link earlier, but it came up ugly due to ad-blocking software and I decided I was too lazy to fix it.
 
2007-03-05 02:02:45 PM
ryarger: Is it inquisitorial to point out that the man is not a climate scientist?

This mattered when he was on board?

Then why does it now that he is questioning?

The Inquisition has begun.
 
2007-03-05 02:04:58 PM
kronicfeld: It seems that all he's saying is that climate change is taking place, but that the cause is unknown, which is what most of the rational people who discuss the issue are saying. The science is largely settled as to what is happening, just not how or why.

Did you manage to get that out with a straight face?
 
2007-03-05 02:06:02 PM
Or, are you saying that there are *very* few "rational" people?
 
2007-03-05 02:06:09 PM
The Inquisition has begun.

Yes yes yes. It's an inquisition. Everyone's dumb except you and a very few others. It's a personal crusade and has nothing to do with impassionate science.

Your self-flaggelating is most impressive.

Save it for next year's Ashura celebrations and you'll be the belle of the ball.
 
2007-03-05 02:07:00 PM
Gecko Gingrich: Or, are you saying that there are *very* few "rational" people?

I think that's an accurate statement. An even more accurate statement would be this:

All people are rational and irrational some of the time. The ratio varies per person but is never close to 0.00 or 1.00.
 
2007-03-05 02:07:38 PM
Bill_Wick's_Friend: It's a personal crusade and has nothing to do with impassionate science.

When did we start doing science with robots?
 
2007-03-05 02:11:35 PM
Gecko Gingrich: Or, are you saying that there are *very* few "rational" people?

There are probably more than there appear to be from the coverage and the debate, but still a relatively small number.
 
2007-03-05 02:12:33 PM
Marge: There's a man here who thinks he can help you.
Homer: Batman?
Marge: No, he's a scientist.
Homer: Batman's a scientist.
 
2007-03-05 02:15:06 PM
Dancin_In_Anson
ryarger: Is it inquisitorial to point out that the man is not a climate scientist?

This mattered when he was on board?


Of course it matters. If he was previously cited for evidence of global warming caused by man, then the opponents would be well within their rights to point out that he isn't a climate scientist. Now he's switched sides in the debate and the same point is still relevant. I see how you also conveniently ignored ryarger's link refuting the antartic ice claim.

kronicfeld
It seems that all he's saying is that climate change is taking place, but that the cause is unknown, which is what most of the rational people who discuss the issue are saying. The science is largely settled as to what is happening, just not how or why.


Actually part of the why is what this so-called debate is all about. A broad consensus of scientists say that humans are a significant part of the problem. The right wing has been trumpeting the very small number of dissenting scientists and turned that into skeptical views in more than half the stories published in mass media.
 
2007-03-05 02:15:32 PM
This mattered when he was on board?

Of course it did. Anyone with the ability to think should be able to figure this out.

If 95% of the specialists in XX agree on something, many rational people will trust them. (As long as XX is a reputable field, of course... Get 95% of astrologers to agree on something astrology related, and that really doesn't mean much.)

Given that, the idea that 1500 scientists from a variety of fields would endorse this idea that 95% of the experts agree on is not far fetched at all.

When 95% of doctors say smoking is bad, I trust them even though I myself have never died of lung cancer.

When 95% of mechanics tell me to change my oil regularly, I trust them even though I myself have never burnt out an engine.

When 95% of climate scientists tell me that human-influenced climate change endangers our way of life and we can fix it without ruining our economy, I trust them even though I've never wandered a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

This guy was another name on the list of 1500. Now he's another name that's not on the list.

It doesn't change the *fact* that a very, very large majority of climate scientists agree on this issue. A fact greatly aids rational thinking laypersons in making an informed decision.
 
2007-03-05 02:15:41 PM
This kind of thread makes me feel so much better about the future. If someone with family and an interest in outdoor activities couldn't give a fark about the environment then I sure as hell don't have to.

This opens up a few more options in finding a new exhaust for my 02 Z28 to see if I can get one even more aggressive than the 94 has.
 
2007-03-05 02:16:29 PM
ThatDevGuy: I think that's an accurate statement. An even more accurate statement would be this:

All people are rational and irrational some of the time. The ratio varies per person but is never close to 0.00 or 1.00.


My personal ratio is (√2)/2.
 
2007-03-05 02:16:56 PM
Dancin_In_Anson: The Inquisition has begun.

See, anthropogenic climate change at this point has an overwhelming scientific consensus. While I understand the viewpoint that certain measures may be economically foolish (like the Kyoto Protocol), I do not understand why the right has embraced climate change "skepticism", nor do I understand why right-wing pundits feel that debunking "skeptics" amounts to an "Inquisition".

At this point in the "debate", the belief that global climate change is not caused by man is akin to believing that the Earth is flat or hollow, or that evolution by natural selection is a hoax designed to debunk Christianity.
 
2007-03-05 02:18:22 PM
Mordant: If someone with family and an interest in outdoor activities couldn't give a fark about the environment then I sure as hell don't have to.

FACT: The largest contributor to environmental conservation causes in America today is the National Rifle Association, well known for their devotion to the Liberal Church of Environmentalism.
 
2007-03-05 02:21:20 PM
Mordant: This opens up a few more options in finding a new exhaust for my 02 Z28 to see if I can get one even more aggressive than the 94 has.

Provided that the cats aren't changed, emissions won't be either. Sound, more often that not, has to do with resonators, mufflers and tubing dimensions, so the cats shouldn't have to be changed if all you are looking to do is "get a more aggressive sound". Ergo...well, I'll let you figure out the rest.
 
2007-03-05 02:21:25 PM
bboy: nor do I understand why right-wing pundits feel that debunking "skeptics" amounts to an "Inquisition".

I think it's the ferocity of the attacks. Question the consensus cause of global warming? That's a stabbin'! Don't even give the guy five minutes to state his viewpoint, or a million dollars to do some research.

Personally, I would prefer that we caused global warming. If it's a natural process, then the climate is going to change whether we like it or not, and it's not going to be pretty.
 
2007-03-05 02:22:06 PM
People who supposedly value religion then ridicule people they disagree with as being religious. It makes as much sense as global warming contrarians.
 
2007-03-05 02:24:38 PM
ThatDevGuy

I think it's the ferocity of the attacks. Question the consensus cause of global warming? That's a stabbin'!

Problem is the so called skeptics choose newsmedia and political outlet to do their questining, instead of publishing their "findings" on peer-reviewed journals.

Don't even give the guy five minutes to state his viewpoint, or a million dollars to do some research.

Any support for this position?

The scientific communities spent millions of dollars researching the correlation between the solar activities and the global warming, which could have destroyed the current consensus. At the end, it turned out solar activities are insufficient to account for the current temperature changes.
 
2007-03-05 02:26:23 PM
bboy: I do not understand why the right has embraced climate change "skepticism", nor do I understand why right-wing pundits feel that debunking "skeptics" amounts to an "Inquisition".

At this point in the "debate", the belief that global climate change is not caused by man is akin to believing that the Earth is flat or hollow, or that evolution by natural selection is a hoax designed to debunk Christianity.


I am a "Global Warming" skeptic, inasmuch as its causes are concerned. Ask many of our resident "right wing pundits" if I am a "right winger" and you'll likely be surprised by the answer.
 
2007-03-05 02:26:27 PM
I really have a hard time following the denier's talking points. Seriously. Someone help me. Is it:

A). There is no consensus.
B). Consensus only exists because GW=research dollars.

Then there's:
A). Doesn't matter how many scientists agree, it's still junk science.
B). Here's a list of all the guys who agree GW is junk science.

Lately it's:
A). Environmentalism is the new religion.
B). Environmentalism is distracting us religious people from being religious.

Oldie but a goodie:
A). Climate scientists are corrupted by research dollars
B). Exxon-mobil's scientists can be trusted

On the IPCC:
A). The panel report was written by non-scientists and political people
B). Here's a quote from junkscience.com

On Gore:
A). What does he know? He's just a former 10th-level vice-president.
B). "State of Fear" will answer all your questions.

On terrorism:
A). We've got to be less dependent on mideast oil! Glass parking lot! The turrists!
B). Alternative energy is for America-haters.

On the politics:
A). I would side with the GW crowd if this issue weren't so political.
B). Only hippies and liberals believe in any of this stuff.

I could go on ... but this kind of contradiction makes me dizzy.
 
2007-03-05 02:26:38 PM
Manfred Richthofen: At the end, it turned out solar activities are insufficient to account for the current temperature changes.

A week or so ago, somebody said "That's the one thing I've never seen the alarmists address" and I posted a lengthy debunking of the "It's the sun, stupid" argument with citations and statistics and all that jazz. Then the guy never responded. I ought to save stuff like that in a text file for easy cut-n-paste.
 
2007-03-05 02:27:39 PM
Manfred Richthofen: People who supposedly value religion then ridicule people they disagree with as being religious. It makes as much sense as global warming contrarians.

I am a devout atheist.
 
2007-03-05 02:28:03 PM
Manfred Richthofen: At the end, it turned out solar activities are insufficient to account for the current temperature changes.

We would have a bizarre star if solar activity was enough to account for all of the crazy temperature changes in the past 2000 years.

Problem is the so called skeptics choose newsmedia and political outlet to do their questining, instead of publishing their "findings" on peer-reviewed journals.

The problem isn't that. The problem is that there's no public reasoned debate anymore. Instead of sitting down in a small auditorium or theater with an audience and a moderator, people fire off articles at one another declaring their viewpoint to be correct for a variety of reasons.

Like all flamewars, the argument degrades into semantics.

All of the foundations of our modern science have been examined, decided, and accepted through roundtable discussions, not peer-reviewed articles. Consensus doesn't come from reading something that already has consensus (because it was published).
 
2007-03-05 02:28:47 PM
Ask many of our resident "right wing pundits" if I am a "right winger" and you'll likely be surprised by the answer.

My guess is he's a "libertarian" ... which translates into "temporarily ashamed republican."
 
2007-03-05 02:29:24 PM
Gecko Gingrich

I am a devout atheist.

What's the basis for your skepticism?
 
2007-03-05 02:32:47 PM
ThatDevGuy

Manfred Richthofen: At the end, it turned out solar activities are insufficient to account for the current temperature changes.

We would have a bizarre star if solar activity was enough to account for all of the crazy temperature changes in the past 2000 years.


Well, the issue is why the temperature changes over the past 200 years are off the mark from the past cyclic climate changes.

Solar activities sure is not enough to be responsible for that.

The problem isn't that. The problem is that there's no public reasoned debate anymore. Instead of sitting down in a small auditorium or theater with an audience and a moderator, people fire off articles at one another declaring their viewpoint to be correct for a variety of reasons.

That's why peer-reviewed journals should be the source of information, not political articles.

All of the foundations of our modern science have been examined, decided, and accepted through roundtable discussions, not peer-reviewed articles. Consensus doesn't come from reading something that already has consensus (because it was published).

Publication does not mean consensus. It merely means that the experiment procedure was sound and the conclusion defensible, judged by the scientific standards.

Consensus takes more--pursuasion of the scientific communities.
 
2007-03-05 02:32:51 PM
towatchoverme: My guess is he's a "libertarian" ... which translates into "temporarily ashamed republican."

Yes, by all means, pigeonhole me if you think that bolsters your argument. BTW, "right" is a political slant; "libertarian" and "republican" are political parties. "Slant" and "party" are not synonymous.

Manfred Richthofen: What's the basis for your skepticism?

Same reason I'm an atheist.
 
2007-03-05 02:35:50 PM
Manfred Richthofen: It merely means that the experiment procedure was sound and the conclusion defensible, judged by the scientific standards.

There are many published articles that do not contain an experiment. The vast majority of modern scientific findings in fields other than chemistry were not determined by any experimental procedure.
 
2007-03-05 02:37:30 PM
Gecko Gingrich: Ask many of our resident "right wing pundits" if I am a "right winger" and you'll likely be surprised by the answer.

I know you pretty well, actually. We both post in these threads all the time!

By "right wing pundits" I'm really talking about the talk radio crowd. I have certainly heard Steve Gill (local guy), Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity deliver remarkably similar diatribes about the horrible mistreatment of "Global Warming Skeptics", analogous to some sort of inquisition.

Here's a good example. It even calls global warming to a "religion" with a "gospel" and rails against "Hollywood stars" and their "inquisition" against "skeptics", etc.

Here's another one about the enviro-Inquisition, etc.

Also, Here's another interesting article entitled "The Denial Industry" while I found while Googling around...
 
2007-03-05 02:38:03 PM
Gecko Gingrich

Same reason I'm an atheist.

Except that there is a plenty of evidence that
1) CO2 is a greenhousing agent;

2) men are pumping a large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere;

3) the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has significantly increased;

4) the average aggregate global temperatures have increased in a manner corresponding to the increased
levels of CO2s in the atmosphere;

5) other factors, such as natural cycles and solar activities, are not adequate to explain the temperature changes

Besides that, I guess GW theory is just like a religion.
 
2007-03-05 02:39:16 PM
Manfred Richthofen: men are pumping a large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere

Isn't there also evidence that a single volcanic eruption puts as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere in five minutes as man produces in a decade?
 
2007-03-05 02:39:18 PM
ThatDevGuy

There are many published articles that do not contain an experiment. The vast majority of modern scientific findings in fields other than chemistry were not determined by any experimental procedure.

You seem to know very little about the actual scientific community.
 
2007-03-05 02:41:07 PM
Yes, by all means, pigeonhole me if you think that bolsters your argument. BTW, "right" is a political slant; "libertarian" and "republican" are political parties. "Slant" and "party" are not synonymous.

You gave the appearance of denying the charge, yet didn't.

Well spun.
 
2007-03-05 02:42:59 PM
Manfred Richthofen: You seem to know very little about the actual scientific community.

Let's take this article, for instance, which calls for experiments to "increase our knowledge further" (right above figure 2), rather than reporting on an experiment to begin with. This is one of three "Free" articles on the front page of nature.com. (One of the others is chemistry and the third is network topology, which I can't access.)
 
2007-03-05 02:44:06 PM
I'm starting to wonder if literally anything the "Libs" stand for will be soundly rejected by the hardcore right.

You know, I understand that many Democrats advocate against sticking a fork in the nearest electrical outlet... are we just going to let them push us around like that ?
 
2007-03-05 02:44:10 PM
ThatDevGuy: Isn't there also evidence that a single volcanic eruption puts as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere in five minutes as man produces in a decade?

No.
 
2007-03-05 02:44:19 PM
ThatDevGuy

Manfred Richthofen: men are pumping a large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere

Isn't there also evidence that a single volcanic eruption puts as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere in five minutes as man produces in a decade?


No.

While volcanoes may have raised pre-historic CO2 levels and temperatures, according to the USGS Volcano Hazards Program, human activities now emit 150 times as much CO2 as volcanoes (whose emissions are relatively modest compared to some earlier times).

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html
 
2007-03-05 02:44:41 PM
Manfred Richthofen: CO2 is a greenhousing agent;

I don't deny that.

men are pumping a large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere;

Nor that.

the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has significantly increased;

I...kind of...agree with that. It depends on how broadly you apply the term "significantly".

the average aggregate global temperatures have increased in a manner corresponding to the increased
levels of CO2s in the atmosphere;


Nor that.

other factors, such as natural cycles and solar activities, are not adequate to explain the temperature changes

Well, 3.5 out of 5 ain't bad.


One question for you:

Is $10000000 a large amount of money?
 
2007-03-05 02:44:55 PM
Mordant: I'm starting to wonder if literally anything the "Libs" stand for will be soundly rejected by the hardcore right.

Yes.
 
2007-03-05 02:48:38 PM
ThatDevGuy

Let's take this article, for instance, which calls for experiments to "increase our knowledge further" (right above figure 2), rather than reporting on an experiment to begin with.

I have no idea what you are saying, but calling for more experiment != The vast majority of modern scientific findings in fields other than chemistry were not determined by any experimental procedure.

Just ask any graduate student of any scientific discipline how important experiments are in modern sciences. Anyone will tell you it's what they spend 50% or more of their time on.

I studied in physics lab that cost millions of dollars designed to conduct experiments on laser and quantum physical mechanics. So you haven't persuaded me.
 
2007-03-05 02:50:23 PM
Mordant: I'm starting to wonder if literally anything the "Libs" stand for will be soundly rejected by the hardcore right.

...which is why I mentioned the NRA earlier. I'm not sure when the Powers That Be decided that environmental conservatism was a liberal idea. I believe it was at some point quite recently. Ronald Reagan considered himself an "environmentalist".
 
Displayed 50 of 174 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report