Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Wall Street Journal)   Apologists: "Global warming will cause catastrophes--we have scientific data." Skeptics: "But what about this scientific data that suggests otherwse?" Apologists: "Science schmience"   (opinionjournal.com) divider line
145
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

1091 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Oct 2007 at 10:19 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



145 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
Cewley [TotalFark]
2007-10-21 5:38:57 PM  
wall street journal: fair and balanced like fox.
 
HansensDisease
2007-10-21 5:44:56 PM  
FTA: "Yet, during the past 2.5 million years, a period that scientists now know experienced climatic changes as rapid and as warm as modern climatological models suggest will happen to us, almost none of the millions of species on Earth went extinct"

Ooh! Look! I can cherry pick climate change events too!

And also "almost none" is not exactly a scientific term, unless it means hundreds and hundreds.

After that point I read no further.
 
Mordant
2007-10-21 5:45:56 PM  
So the solution is easy for you, submitter. Do nothing. Do nothing at all to make any positive influence on thee environment and just sit drooling in front of Fox News, which is about all you're good for.

See ? Nobody (except your fellow neocon retards) expects anything at all from you. We've set the bar that low.
 
FlyingPig
2007-10-21 5:46:22 PM  
Exactly. "The scientific community" supports the idea of global warming...well, until a scientist disagrees, then he's not allowed to be part of "the scientific community" anymore. For a group of people who ostensibly claim to respect the scientific method, they can be bigger dogmatists than most religions.
 
Weaver95
2007-10-21 6:04:21 PM  
A recent article in the well-respected journal American Scientist explained why the glacier on Mt. Kilimanjaro could not be melting from global warming. Simply from an intellectual point of view it was fascinating--especially the author's Sherlock Holmes approach to figuring out what was causing the glacier to melt. That it couldn't be global warming directly (i.e., the result of air around the glacier warming) was made clear by the fact that the air temperature at the altitude of the glacier is below freezing. This means that only direct radiant heat from sunlight could be warming and melting the glacier. The author also studied the shape of the glacier and deduced that its melting pattern was consistent with radiant heat but not air temperature. Although acknowledged by many scientists, the paper is scorned by the true believers in global warming.


Read that one again. Consider the implication.
 
oldebayer
2007-10-21 6:05:37 PM  
The obvious error in this is the assumption that the same data must be interpreted in the same way by all scientists. Sorry, but things don't work that way. Even the "dogmatist" religionists interpret the Bible in so many different ways that we have dozens of Christian sects. And Islamic. And Jewish. And so on ad farking infinitum.

So far, there are precious few scientists who've been "drummed out" of the scientific community for interpreting data differently from the majority. There are a lot, however, who have failed to get jobs, or been fired from jobs, with various business interests because they did not interpret the data in a way that benefited the bottom line.
 
FlyingPig
2007-10-21 6:07:04 PM  
oldebayer: The obvious error in this is the assumption that the same data must be interpreted in the same way by all scientists. Sorry, but things don't work that way. Even the "dogmatist" religionists interpret the Bible in so many different ways that we have dozens of Christian sects. And Islamic. And Jewish. And so on ad farking infinitum.

So far, there are precious few scientists who've been "drummed out" of the scientific community for interpreting data differently from the majority. There are a lot, however, who have failed to get jobs, or been fired from jobs, with various business interests because they did not interpret the data in a way that benefited the bottom line.

This is a more eloquent version of what I was attempting to say.
 
HansensDisease
2007-10-21 6:34:24 PM  
Weaver95: Read that one again. Consider the implication.

That he forgot to mention indirect effects of global warming...like rainfall patterns?
 
Bucky Katt [TotalFark]
2007-10-21 6:48:16 PM  
Well, duh. Of course we can continue to pump billions of tons of carbon into the atomosphere and have zero effect. I mean DUH!
 
rush22
2007-10-21 6:48:45 PM  
Weaver95

A recent article in the well-respected journal American Scientist explained why the glacier on Mt. Kilimanjaro could not be melting from global warming. Simply from an intellectual point of view it was fascinating--especially the author's Sherlock Holmes approach to figuring out what was causing the glacier to melt. That it couldn't be global warming directly (i.e., the result of air around the glacier warming) was made clear by the fact that the air temperature at the altitude of the glacier is below freezing. This means that only direct radiant heat from sunlight could be warming and melting the glacier. The author also studied the shape of the glacier and deduced that its melting pattern was consistent with radiant heat but not air temperature. Although acknowledged by many scientists, the paper is scorned by the true believers in global warming.


Read that one again. Consider the implication.

Please just tell us the implication, we beg of you! Reveal the secrets of climate change to us, oh wise one, oh master that is so learned in the ways of climatology, you who know the ways of the Earth, the path of the natural cycles, the measured magic in the cracks of the wayward climatologists! Oh I prostrate myself before you! Oh please, oh Lord, oh master, reveal to us the implications! Reveal them so I may revel in your genius and your fertility!
 
r-u-n-n o-f-t
2007-10-21 6:53:32 PM  
[image from runn.smugmug.com too old to be available]
 
flaEsq
2007-10-21 6:54:45 PM  
Weaver95: Read that one again. Consider the implication.

First thing I thought of was a change in cloud coverage over time, but Slopinion Journal's whinge didn't satisfy.
 
r-u-n-n o-f-t
2007-10-21 6:56:18 PM  
Video: Experts explain why Gore and his Global Warming believers are dumber than a box of rocks
 
Mugato [TotalFark]
2007-10-21 6:58:45 PM  
...so people who believe that global warming is real are the apologists? Or is "apologist" just the go to word for people who disagree with you?
 
Weaver95
2007-10-21 7:00:20 PM  
Bucky Katt: Well, duh. Of course we can continue to pump billions of tons of carbon into the atomosphere and have zero effect. I mean DUH!

Krakatoa did just that. We got a little chilly for a year, then snapped right back to normal.
 
HansensDisease
2007-10-21 7:05:38 PM  
Weaver95: Krakatoa did just that. We got a little chilly for a year, then snapped right back to normal.

Did Krakatoa keep pumping CO2 into the air for hundreds of years?
 
Digeratus
2007-10-21 7:06:59 PM  
Wow, yeah. Wow, you skeptics sure have convinced me. I've talked to climatologists at top universities, but damn, Weaver95's sharp eye over a couple words in an article is so hard to resist.
 
FormlessOne
2007-10-21 7:15:05 PM  
Weaver95: Bucky Katt: Well, duh. Of course we can continue to pump billions of tons of carbon into the atomosphere and have zero effect. I mean DUH!

Krakatoa did just that. We got a little chilly for a year, then snapped right back to normal.

Oh, good. You had me worried at that whole "little chilly" part, but the "right back to normal" part was reassuring.

Oh, crap. Science tells me that "right back to normal" was relative. Krakatoa affected the climate for about a century afterwards.

Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic again. We can argue about causes, point fingers, postulate wild guesses on how bad it'll be, but that doesn't change the simple fact that the climate is changing, right now, and that we're already feeling the effects.

I don't give a rat's rectum what caused the big hole in the boat, nor will I argue about it while the seawater rushes in. I'd like to just patch the damn hole, please. Or, at the very least, slow down the sinking long enough to figure out how to either swim or get rescued.
 
r-u-n-n o-f-t
2007-10-21 7:17:22 PM  
Doesn't the Global Warming Crisis have to wait it's turn, which is after the 1970's Next Ice Age Crisis?
 
DistendedPendulusFrenulum
2007-10-21 7:19:16 PM  
Isn't it odd how vested interests are reacting so strongly to the idea of global warming.

I wonder when someone who isn't connected to the coal industry pipes up. . .


.
 
djkutch [TotalFark]
2007-10-21 7:22:07 PM  
I get so confused by this debate. Do I need to up the SPF in my sunblock, again, while I sip martinis by a poolside built out of materials raped from the earth on the blood of the labor from the less fortunates?
 
Mugato [TotalFark]
2007-10-21 7:29:37 PM  
I'm not an enviro-but and I'm not a denier. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle but the most amusing thing to me about the whole debate is how the deniers can completly ignore the financial reasons big business have to ignore global warming but repeatedly cry "grant money!" at the scientists who believe in it. It's just such a non-sensical argument.
 
leperboy69
2007-10-21 7:30:49 PM  
HansensDisease: Did Krakatoa keep pumping CO2 into the air for hundreds of years?

Krakatoa actually pumpted sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, which produces a bit of a chilling effect (along with awesome sunsets) because the particulate matter is actually blocking the sunlight. Two different kettles of fish.

/ I could be completely and utterly wrong on this
 
Bucky Katt [TotalFark]
2007-10-21 7:38:23 PM  
djkutch: I get so confused by this debate. Do I need to up the SPF in my sunblock, again, while I sip martinis by a poolside built out of materials raped from the earth on the blood of the labor from the less fortunates?

Nope. You're in the clear.
 
BuckTurgidson
2007-10-21 7:41:47 PM  
In before the 1975 Newsweek article!
 
BuckTurgidson
2007-10-21 7:42:22 PM  
Damn.
 
NeverDrunk23
2007-10-21 7:48:43 PM  
As long as people see global warming as something where you have to pick a side in the issue to be 'right,' nothing will be done.

/Once something goes political, its all talk and no action.
 
Tatsuma
2007-10-21 7:51:19 PM  
Yes, humanity is polluting the earth. Yes, we should do something about it. Yes, Global Warming appears to be true.

Sell your farking car, stop using so much electricity, recycle and just shut the fark up about it.
 
Tatsuma
2007-10-21 7:53:35 PM  
Oh, and if you think that harrassing people on the internet about this can make a change, then learn Hindi and Mandarin, because THAT'S where the real work lies.
 
DistendedPendulusFrenulum
2007-10-21 7:58:42 PM  
AFUE was good for business. Could you imagine going back to a 45% AFUE furnace now? Same with CAFE. Let's go back to the carburetor!

Lowering Co2 emissions will create new industries, and make transportation better. Very probably, Big Money just wants to avoid paying for a little R&D.

Of course, someone somewhere is doing the R&D, and if they put cars and trucks on the market that are better and cheaper to run than these Detroit Irons, then. . .

.
 
Lionel Mandrake
2007-10-21 8:10:43 PM  
cue the "Awww, not this shiat again" guy.

Seriously...yawn...

Minds have been made up. The "Global warming is BS" guys lost. Deal with it.
 
Bucky Katt [TotalFark]
2007-10-21 8:22:36 PM  
Tatsuma: Oh, and if you think that harrassing people on the internet about this can make a change, then learn Hindi and Mandarin, because THAT'S where the real work lies.

I am studying Hindi, but devanagari is a biatch.
 
HansensDisease
2007-10-21 8:36:21 PM  
leperboy69: Two different kettles of fish.

That was my implication, yes.
 
leperboy69
2007-10-21 9:00:48 PM  
HansensDisease: That was my implication, yes.

That went completely over my head. I fail.
 
Digeratus
2007-10-21 9:14:22 PM  
Bucky Katt: Tatsuma: Oh, and if you think that harrassing people on the internet about this can make a change, then learn Hindi and Mandarin, because THAT'S where the real work lies.

I am studying Hindi, but devanagari is a biatch.

And I'm taking up Mandarin. Guess we have that covered!
 
HansensDisease
2007-10-21 9:21:31 PM  
leperboy69: That went completely over my head. I fail.

There can be only one leprosy-infected poster in GW threads!!!!oneoneone11!one
 
Ambitwistor [TotalFark]
2007-10-21 9:56:22 PM  
RealClimate posted some commentary on this article a few days ago.

By the way submitter, with the exception of the tropical disease issue, Botkin's article doesn't actually give any data that suggests that global warming is not going to cause problems. He incorrectly pretends that warming out of ice ages or the Medieval Warm Period are analogous to current warming. He notes that species like birds respond to factors other than temperature and precipitation, but ignores the impacts that temperature and precipitation do have on species. He brings up Kilimanjaro and ignores the effect that warming has on any other glacier in the world. He correctly notes that habitat loss is the greatest threat to species while ignoring the exacerbating effects of climate on the viability of habitats.

In short, most of what he writes is true, but doesn't support the Fark headline, and does little to establish his central point that global warming will have serious effects on life.
 
Bevets [TotalFark]
2007-10-21 10:15:58 PM  
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. ~ Michael Crichton

I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. ~ Michael Crichton
 
towatchoverme
2007-10-21 10:22:52 PM  
Gee .. posted in a politics thread. Nice.

The planet doesn't care a whit for the US right or left ...
 
that_other_internet
2007-10-21 10:27:38 PM  
"apologists"? I thought that was the name for people who voted for Bush.
 
Bored Horde
2007-10-21 10:28:03 PM  
Please note, political commentators, that your complete lack of technical understanding of the field of climatology does not add strength to your arguement.

Would you respect the opinion of a layperson over a Doctor, an Engineer, or a Lawyer? I think not.

Why then do you rush to take the word of a journalist or a single, rogue researcher over the second most established scientific consensus ever (right behind Evolution)?
 
OXO
2007-10-21 10:28:44 PM  
Bevets: ~ Michael Crichton

Nortorious science-hater
 
LocalCynic
2007-10-21 10:30:55 PM  
Bevets 2007-10-21 10:15:58 PM

God himself has only ever been his own simulacrum. Had they been able to believe that images only occulted or masked the Platonic idea of God, there would have been no reason to destroy them. One can live with the idea of a distorted truth. But their metaphysical despair came from the idea that the images concealed nothing at all, and that in fact they were not images, such as the original model would have made them, but actually perfect simulacra forever radiant with their own fascination. But this death of the divine referential has to be exorcised at all cost.

--Jean Baudrillard

Are, however, the terrorist fundamentalists, be it Christian or Muslim, truly fundamentalists? There is a feature that clearly distinguishes all authentic fundamentalists, from Tibetan Buddhists to the Amish in the US: the absence of resentment and envy, the deep indifference towards the non-believers' way of life. Since they really believe they found their way to Truth, why should they feel threatened by non-believers, why should they envy them? When a Buddhist encounters a Western hedonist, he is far from condemning him; he just benevolently notes that the hedonist's search for happiness is self-defeating. The contrast cannot be stronger to the terrorist pseudo-fundamentalists who are deeply bothered, intrigued, fascinated, by the sinful life of the non-believers - one can feel that, in fighting the sinful other, they are fighting their own temptation. A so-called Christian or Muslim "fundamentalist" is a disgrace to true fundamentalism.

--Slavoj Zizek
 
Heroin For Peace
2007-10-21 10:31:02 PM  
wow, bevets, you're quoting sci-fi authors now? As if that means anything?

everybody else

I never understood how some people can suck Al Gore's dick so much that anybody that even questions anything about us causing Global Warming is a "denier" or "oil-industry shill" or similar.

Is it beyond your realm of imagination, global warming fanatics, that one can question the propaganda of Al Gore and still think we should reduce pollution?

/global warming is from increased solar output, not CO2
//using clean nuclear energy is better in ANY case
 
Obdicut
2007-10-21 10:31:17 PM  
Bevets

Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.

Very obviously wrong. If you wrote those talking points yourself, I see why you normally just post quotes from smarter people.
 
Lionel Mandrake
2007-10-21 10:31:28 PM  
Bevets

Weak, dude...even for you.
 
Mugato [TotalFark]
2007-10-21 10:31:40 PM  
Bevets, which side are you trying to support by quoting Michael Crichton? Don't bother answering, I know you're anti-science but quoting him hardly gives credibility to your dark age cause.
 
Sum Dum Gai
2007-10-21 10:37:34 PM  
Weaver95
Krakatoa did just that. We got a little chilly for a year, then snapped right back to normal.

Volcanoes are a bad model for human CO2 emissions. Firstly, they pump quite a lot less CO2 than humans do into the atmosphere. Secondly, they pump SO2 and dust into the atmosphere, both of which cause cooling, in addition to CO2 which causes warming. Overall they tend to have a net cooling effect.
 
Bored Horde
2007-10-21 10:39:04 PM  
Heroin For Peace: wow, bevets, you're quoting sci-fi authors now? As if that means anything?

everybody else

I never understood how some people can suck Al Gore's dick so much that anybody that even questions anything about us causing Global Warming is a "denier" or "oil-industry shill" or similar.

Is it beyond your realm of imagination, global warming fanatics, that one can question the propaganda of Al Gore and still think we should reduce pollution?

/global warming is from increased solar output, not CO2
//using clean nuclear energy is better in ANY case

Perhaps that without fail the funding for speakers that claim Global Warming is overhyped (yet their papers support it) always seems to come from an industry interested in keeping the laws the way they are regarding pollution?
 
84Charlie
2007-10-21 10:39:46 PM  
For me, all that global warming represents is government taking more money away from me with global warming taxes. Global warming may or may not be true, but every proponent of it seems to think that taxes are the only way to stop it.

Go bug China and India and leave me the hell alone, hippies.
 
Displayed 50 of 145 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

More Fark for your buck

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.