Gorebot 2008! - Page 3

The story you quote is from a biased source. I was hoping to see something from a respected body of scientists (for example the WMO, etc etc), rather than conveniently aligned individual opinions cherrypicked by some partisan political rag. Anyway, how the hell has the topic of global warming, whether the cause is natural cycles, human activity (or a combination of the two) become an ideological or partisan political topic? This affects everyone. We all live here, and the Earth is all we've got.

Would it not be better for us all to assume that human activity is either a cause, or at least aggravating an existing underlying cyclical condition? If so, then we get a head start on mitigating it, rather than being in denial and running the risk of facing dire consequences. The Earth and its physical geography and climate systems being so interactively complex, it is impossible to forecast how a small change in one area can drastically affect another larger aspect of the system... and this can happen rapidly and on a drastic scale... that is the nature of complex dynamics; everyone is aware of that these days. By assuming the worst, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Which ever way the reality is, large scale investment in sustainable/clean energy technologies starting right now can only be good for business. No? Yes?

Why is it that (so many) political conservatives have taken up the battle to debunk "human causes of global warming" when there is plenty of solid science out there that suggests that the two are linked? Why are so many conservatives alienated by environmentally conscious activity, whether it be green technology, activism, anti-pollution measures etc., even when there are so many profitable business opportunities that come with sustainable energy technologiers etc? One keeeps on hearing epithets like "$#@%ing treehugging hippies" etc. What the hell is that BS about? Surely the powers-that-be are not that addicted to supporting the continuance of fossil fuel consumption and exploiting nuclear energy at the exclusion of everything else, while brushing off the possibility (or probability?) of largescale future problems for the human species, in order to protect the current vested interests of a few, well connected and privileged parties?

Are they really that small minded?

Are you planning to refute any of the article's claims or simply reject the article because it comes from (as you perceive it) a "biased source" (classic ad hominem fallacy)?


No. Why would it be? Oh, wait, here it is...


Completely fallacious conclusion. If you assume a certain cause of some thing in order to "get a head start on mitigating it", and your assumption is wrong, you have gained nothing, and quite possibly lost much. NOTE: This reasoning is true independent of "global warming" or what-not...so don't try and come back at me with some mis-direction crap about how I am "anti-science" or "ignoring the facts"...I am simply pointing out that your statement (summarzied as: "The best thing is to just assume what we think it might be so we can get started on a solution.") is fallacious thinking.

Do you hold the same level of skepticism about this article:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

Just stop now. You found an article that sort of mucks around with unsubstantiated figures about what "consensus" actually means, and goes on to cite a couple of contrarians.

From the above linked article:






If there are "other perspectives", they are coming from outside of the scientific community. I guess there's no point in getting into it with you again about concepts like "peer review" and "evidence" and "the scientific method", but that's what this is about. The odd crank doesn't have any bearing on that at all.

And no, Chris, the odd crank isn't a lonely voice in the wilderness bravely holding to their views despite the slanders and attacks of the intolerant "official" science, any more than the Holocaust denier is a brave historian. It is about preponderance of evidence and peer review.

Well okay...if you say so.


Are you planning to refute any of the article's claims?


Are each of the people referred to in the article "outside of the scientific community"?

I'm not familiar with all their credentials, but based on the sciencemag article, it would seem the canadian article's scientists represent a minority opinion within the scientific community.

But:

a) They are "within the scientific community".

b) "a minority opinion" != wrong

c) It doesn't really matter of they are Bozo the Clown...the argument they are making is what matters. It is a common tactic is to dismiss an argument because, well, they "represent a minority opinion within the scientific community" or they are crazy as as loon.

The question is-- are they ready to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming through publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals? Given that analysis posted by addabox showing *no* such articles, the answer is no.

These aren't credible scientists, Mr. Cuilla.

This is your big source?

Scientists who aren't even capable enough on the subject to get their work published?

So far...no actual attempts to refute the arguments or claims only the people. Ad hominem.

Got it.

Okay.

I'll refute the arguments with the last 900 or so peer-reviewed scientific journal articles.

What do you got?

Ladies' Home Journal?

Go ahead.

Pssst! He doesn't have anything! That's why you hear all the bluster.


Don't you just love it when you link to something and they dismiss it because it's not from a widely accepted source like CNN etc. But when they do it it's just ok.

What is interesting is that I did post an article, but so far, rather than actually refute any of the claims made by the people in the article, all we have is:






Curious.

Yes curious.

Hey guys! If we do everything within our power to stop global warming, even if it is completely unrelated to mankind's carbon emission, the earth will be a better place for our efforts! There is no excuse not to lower CO2 emissions, invest in alternative energy, and push for stricter fuel economy standards. None at all.

So basically, all of you conservative bastards just want an excuse to continue the world reliance on fossil fuels and resultant carbon emission, because the concept of global warming will force us to reform the way we produce and consume energy as humans.

Have fun arguing with the incontrovertible truth I just laid out for you.

The claims are refuted by the last dozen or so years worth of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. You're quoting scientists who *do not* have peer-reviewed articles that challenge the scientific consensus on global warming and climate change. Their arguments are not considered scholarship worthy enough for publication.

They are not credible.

You obviously don't care about the credibility of your sources.

Such as? They shouldn't be hard to find.


You just don't get it (or care, I guess) do you?

Exactly so. See similar at the top of page.
And I have never seen any reason with which conservatives are comfortable, as to why they loathe (or profess to loathe) environmentalism and environmentalists so. The "anti-business" slant is utterly bogus.. so it can't be that.

I'm sorry, I'm not getting this. You link to an article in the Canada Freepress that makes unattributed assertions about the levels of consensus around human activity driving global warming, and quotes a few scientists. When we roll our eyes you demand that we "refute" the claims.

I link to an article in Science Magazine that notes that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, The American Meteorological Society , the American Geophysical Union , and the American Association for the Advancement of Science are all on board with human driven climate change, further notes that a careful study of over 900 peer reviewed articles shows no contrary claims, and you demand we produce the studies?

Is your thinking that Science Magazine is making this up? That they are part of the "mainstream science" conspiracy to muffle dissenting voices?

I assure you, if Science Magazine took to making shit up, especially on a topic as current as client change, we would hear about it.

You see Chris, the article I linked to is the refutation of the article you linked to. It spells it out in black and white, but apparently you're so used to operating in a faith based reality simple declarative statements of fact cut no mustard with you. It's all opinion and semantics.

That being the case, what would be the point of linking to the studies themselves? You could just wonder aloud if they were real studies, if the organizations that did them were real organizations, if the science they used was real science, and if the web site cited was really a web site.

Ah, hell, I don't know why I bother. I googled "American geophysical union climate change", right up top Human Impacts on Climate

First graph:


But, you know, that silly American Geophysical Union is just a bunch of tree hugging hippies that want to throttle the expansion of the West, so it means nothing. Certainly not as authoritative as the Canada Freepress, so I can see where you would be unconvinced.

Now I think I'll go look for some of those classic tobacco industry doctors that kept telling us that the harmful effects of smoking were by no means a settled issue and the idea was "controversial" within the "medical establishment".

See...you are attacking the source...but not the content.

If you cannot see the fallacy of this, I don't know what else to say.

No one's buying this, Chris.

The CONTENT is unattributed.

Where are the scientific studies to support the CONTENT of the quotes from the scientists? Where are the peer-reviewed, published, scientific articles or studies supporting the CONTENT of the article?

Show us where "Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia" (the most-quoted scientist in the article) has published anything that makes him a "climate expert", as the CONTENT of the article asserts.
All I've been able to find by Carter is articles on sedimentary marine geology, such as this:
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.co...lts,1:111322,1
and this:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...s+from+...%22+

The CONTENT of the article is completely unsupported, and parts are demonstrably false (ie, the claim of Carter's area of expertise).

Please - try to prove otherwise.

I think it is important that we laypersons continue to debate this issue. I mean, who needs climatologists??

This debate in America is hysterical.

Scientist: "Global warming is real."

Average Joe: "But my neighbor Bob who has an 8th grade education and works at the Jiffy Lube made a damned fine argument about why it's not."

Scientist: "Rhetoric does not make global warming go away."

Average Joe: "Refusing to address the content!!!"

Scientist: "There is no content!"

Average Joe: "Typical tactics! Dodge the issue! Attack the source!"

And then suddenly we're talking about rhetorical fallacies.

I'm itching for the great debate on this. A bunch of "Global Warming Is Real" scientists on one side; a bunch of "Global Warming Is Not Real" folks on the other.

And someone gives the scientists a few drinks beforehand and tells them to take the damned muzzle off. Just tell people that they don't know what they're talking about if they don't know what they're talking about.

Yup. Non-scientists. That's who needs to be discussing this.

--

At any rate, it's funny that no one noticed that this discussion shifted from "what constitutes consensus" to "attacking the content, eh?!"

Simple questions:

1) Have the arguments presented by your illustrious Canadian Free Press article been advanced in *scholarly* publications-- that is, *peer-reviewed* journals?

2) If the expert scientific community does not consider those arguments publication worthy, why do you believe so given your utter lack of expertise on the subject?

Chris what the heck is your major?

There's no polite way of saying this--You're simply out of your league.

I'm sorry, but global warming is occurring. Why? CO2, CH4, and some other stuff that factories and cars make is going up, and absorbing IR. The end.

Debate OVER.

Oh, you're still there?

Read: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/

Debate OVER.

Still there?

Watch this.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...92711442224485

Of course, nothing in science is an absolute, so if you've done some climate research that can shed light on this issue Chris, please present it. I'd recommend submitting it to Science. It would go nice with the recent issue focusing on this topic precisely, with the Overpeck research on glaciers.
Good question. It most certainly effects anyone that cares at all about their kids, or their kids' kids. It's actually a really simple issue to boil down, with immensely complex scientific underpinnings. I just think the media/Democrats and/or environmentalists need to up it a notch to reach Joe Sixpack. But I think the point can be made. Hell, that's kind of what I wanna do when I grow up, and why I got in to this business (environmental science.)

I mean you're either a greedy evil prick, or you care about other people now and in the future. It's really black and white. Hey ol' Scott'd love that sentiment! Wonder where he went...

Can I restate the fact that even if global warming turns out to be a bullshit phenomenon, trying to stop it, even if we can't/it's a non-issue/it's not caused by humans bears no risk whatsoever, and the potential for improvement on a worldwide scale.

Shawn is quite right when he says that you don't care about the credibility of yours sources, since the sources you are citing are not credible.

Rather than claiming this is an ad hominem attack, get your hands dirty by demonstrating your knowledge of the science and the nature of peer-reviewed research by defending the credibility of your sources.

The onus is on you Chris, since your position is anchored, here, on sources that are not credible.

And it continues.

If I cited a source that was not credible, you would be entitled to question it.

If I were to make an argument based on a source that WAS NOT A GOOD SOURCE you would be entitled to point that out. I would then have to defend my source for the conversation to continue.

This has been the way it is for anyone who ever defended their PhD during a viva, published their research or wrote a book on geography, history, physics, maths, game theory, pyschology, meterology, the science of mining, juggling or climate change for many hundreds of years.

It is the way it is done. It's been like this for hundreds of years. The rules haven't changed just because one's argument is a) politically-motivated or b) made on the internet.

Sorry, Chris. Sorry about that.

You don't get a 'free pass'.

Now engage with the fucking debate or stop posting in this thread.

Hey Hassan,

I found your garage in Rabat. I will post a picture later....

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe" ~ Dr. Carl Sagan

Also interesting to note, Sagan believed [along with the majority of the current scientific community] global warming was a mad-made danger.

Mocking a potential global catastrophe simply because you can not understand a phenomena that occurs slowly and works through complex mechanisms is not something to be proud of Chris.

As someone once said, ""Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit."

Now I'm mocking it.

So true...isn't it.

Troll.

And it continues.

How about a stroll down memory lane:





Gosh that was fun.

OK everyone let's just stop. Clearly Chris is an idiot troll, but let's stop before this thread, now partially derailed, gets locked.

So back to Al Gore...as I was saying earlier...I like him because he's green.

Other thoughts? Should he try to grow crazy facial hair again? Discuss.

From the posting guidelines:

Gore is a bad bad man. He wears earth color suits.

Oh. And he's a liar. Ok, well, no not really. But it's fun to believe.

And Charles Krauthammer says he's mental.

Off with his head.