Question
June 20, 2007
When does a discussion become a debate and that debate become an argument and that argument become futile fight?
Posted in Christopher Lee
Soldiers’ Angels
Tiara Media
Stats
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Who Blogs Here
Suicide Prevention Lifeline
Veterans Press "1"
Resources
Cleaker 2.1 Theme created by Adam Walker Cleaveland with Widget support added by ckwebb.com 
content rss | comments rss
June 21st, 2007 at 6:19 am
A discussion entails relevant facts, a debate involves competing opinions about those facts, an argument leads to irrelevant opinions and a futile fight means that persuasion is no longer the goal – personal attacks are.
Why the question?
June 21st, 2007 at 8:08 am
In less than 20 words you have summarized the blogosphere.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:04 am
Global warming has become a futile argument on this blog. We’re rehashing the same old points over and over with each post and comment. I no longer read the comments on GW posts because I’ve already seen them before. Yet I still do posts on it. Huh. It’s become tiresome, at least to me. Silke, you and Reasic never get Teach or I to believe that man is main cause of the planet warming and we’ll never get you to believe that it’s due mostly to natural causes. And it’s always us four who keep spinning our wheels.
I guess the same could be said for the war as well.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:46 pm
It’s too bad you don’t read the comments anymore. I thought we were having a useful discussion but I guess when you’re only interested in posting your own selected facts and opinions without listening to others’ it really is the definition of a “futile fight.†Do me a favor, Chris – just read this one link:
Frequently Asked Questions
June 21st, 2007 at 1:16 pm
I never said I wasn’t interested in others opinions, only that nothing new is being said. But it’s kind of ironic that you would say that when so many people on your side of the argument refuse to even listen to the scientists who say claim that it’s caused by natural events.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Chris, whatever you do, don’t mention this article.
June 21st, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Chris said: But it’s kind of ironic that you would say that when so many people on your side of the argument refuse to even listen to the scientists who say claim that it’s caused by natural events.
I think that is happening on both sides of the debate. I’m curious. What information would persuade you that human causes are primarily responsible for climate change?
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:32 am
Chris, I listen to every claim made by everyone I encounter. Then, I compare it to competing claims and make a determination as to which is more accurate. I’ve discussed this here before. I think you and Teach confuse our refusal to accept as fact that which skeptics say based on an understanding of climate science with a refusal to listen to those claims in the first place.
I provided two specific rebuttals to claims made by Teach in the last climate change post and he never responded, actually avoiding the issue twice. You were noticably silent also. Did you compare the claims I made with his, or do you simply trust Teach’s claims and therefore feel no need to look into my rebuttals?
Let’s do a debate and do it correctly. You provide one specific claim about climate change that you find to be particularly convincing that humans do not cause global warming. Then, I’ll provide a rebuttal, assuming I have one. Then, you actually respond either with a counter argument, or with a concession that my point is correct. How about it?
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:56 am
I’m curious. What information would persuade you that human causes are primarily responsible for climate change?
Honestly, I don’t know. I won’t say nothing because somewhere down the line something might come up that convinces me. But right now, when heating and cooling is a natural process the planet goes through, I believe it’s it’s that and that man may be giving a nudge. I’ve never said that man plays no part, only that it’s primarily the Earth’s normal warming cycle.
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:30 am
Reasic, you ask for one point, which you will then counter. OK here is my point.
There was a point in time called the Medieval Warm Period, lasting from about the tenth century to about the fourteenth century, when the earth was warm enough that many crops were growing in Greenland (that is why the country got that name), and at the same point in time the area around London was ideal for growing grapes. The warm climate overlaps with a time of high solar activity called the Medieval Maximum. This was before the Little Ice Age (1350-1850), a time of particularly cool climate in Europe and other places around the world.
The earth seems to have transitioned through both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age by natural causes. Why should we believe that a temperature change of a fraction of a degree suddenly can be extrapolated to be continually increasing to the point where it will be a disaster for the entire world, when right now it is many degrees cooler than it was during the Medieval Warm Period, and the world survived that, and cooled back off in the Little Ice Age.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:24 am
Chris said: I never said I wasn’t interested in others opinions, only that nothing new is being said.
You said you weren’t reading the comments anymore so how do you know nothing new is being said?
Chris said: Honestly, I don’t know. I won’t say nothing because somewhere down the line something might come up that convinces me. But right now, when heating and cooling is a natural process the planet goes through, I believe it’s it’s that and that man may be giving a nudge. I’ve never said that man plays no part, only that it’s primarily the Earth’s normal warming cycle.
But there has to be a known, quantifiable reason for this “natural†change. If a change in solar output is responsible then both the troposphere and the stratosphere would have warmed. But that’s not the case.
Frequently Asked Question 6.1: What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era?
What information do you have that provides quantities and comparisons between natural and human causes?
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:50 am
I’m interested to know, what would it take to convince the global warming as caused by Man disciples that Man is not the primary cause?
I can provide all sorts of factual, scientific research and data. I can show the fallacies in the GW reports and data. The disciples provide political and cherry picked reports, which have little in the way of hard facts.
Quite frankly, it is incumbent on those who believe man is the sole cause to provide undisputed proof of their assertion.
And, sorry, Realistic, but, life happens. My company has a major project launching next week, which I have been working 6 days a week for, along with training multiple new sales reps and such. Plus, golf
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:54 am
Oh, and, back to your main question, Chris, when it comes to politics, pretty much everything between left and right is an argument. There is little discussion or debate, whether facts are included or not. Especially since, from my point of view, those on the left are spoon fed their talking points, and can never get beyond their hate of Bush, Republicans, Conservatives, or anyone who doesn’t agree with their point of view 100%.
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:12 am
Teach said: I’m interested to know, what would it take to convince the global warming as caused by Man disciples that Man is not the primary cause?
First, I would need to see the values assigned (i.e. radiative forcings) to the natural and human factors that would show how natural factors are more important. Also, if a majority of the experts in climate change as well as the major prominent scientific organizations stated that natural causes are very likely the cause of the current warming trend then I would be convinced.
Teach, you have stated before that you believe humans may be contributing 10-15% to global warming. Where did you get this figure? And if this is true, couldn’t that mean that humans are tipping the balance? The analogy I’ve heard before is a seesaw. If you have a system (the seesaw) that is essentially in balance and you add even 10-15% to one side then that addition IS THE CAUSE.
What would it take to change your mind, Teach?
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I have yet to see any of it, but would absolutely love to. Please provide just one example of such “factual, scientific research and data”. Or, maybe show just one “fallacy in the GW reports and data”. You did make two points in a prior post, but I refuted them and you have failed to respond. It wasn’t for lack of time, either, because you provided two lengthy responses that avoided the issue, rather than addressing my specific rebuttals.
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Teach said: There is little discussion or debate, whether facts are included or not. Especially since, from my point of view, those on the left are spoon fed their talking points, and can never get beyond their hate of Bush, Republicans, Conservatives, or anyone who doesn’t agree with their point of view 100%.
I think the same could be said about some on the “right†– don’t you? That’s why I’m so disgusted with partisan politics and the level of political discourse these days.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:49 am
I was wondering why no one addressed my post from June 22nd, 2007 at 9:30 am, and I found ourt why. It was caught in the moderation queue. I released it, and await your responses.
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Okay, Don. Here goes:
There are many misconceptions about the supposed “Medieval Warm Period”, so I’ll try to clear up as many as I can as succinctly as I can here. First, the Medieval Warm Period was a regional event, not a global one. The idea for the MWP originated from a graph that was published in the first IPCC report in 1990, which was only an estimate of the climate history for central England by a man named H. H. Lamb. At that time, there were no large-scale temperature reconstructions. Since that time, another man named E. G. Beck has taken the IPCC’s old graph and manipulated it in several ways to make it look as if the MWP was much warmer than right now. Meanwhile, Mann and others have produced several different robust temperature reconstructions for the entire northern hemisphere using various temperature proxies such as tree ring data. These reconstructions clearly show that the planet is currently much warmer than it was in at least the past millennium. These temperature reconstructions have been tested and verified by many other climate scientists.
There are also several examples of anecdotal evidence being used to support the idea of a warmer MWP. One of those is the story of vineyards in England. I’ve covered this in a post at my blog. The first problem with this “evidence” is that it is anecdotal. There is no scientific evaluation, correlating the quality or quantity of vineyards in England to temperature changes. As I pointed out in my post, the wine business could just as easily have declined economic or political reasons, which is why it is imperative that we rely on scientific evaluation rather than anecdotes. Second, vineyards are actually more widespread in England now than in the past:
Finally, even if vineyards in England were a valid proxy for temperature and if they really were less widespread now, they wouldn’t represent a robust reconstruction of temperature for the entire globe.
You also mentioned Greenland. A very common misconception about Greenland is that it was actually “green”:
The vikings did not live an easy life on Greenland. It was a very difficult, meager existence. And besides, this too, is anecdotal. How warm is “warmer”? How green is green? These are not scientific figures. This is simply an invalid comparison.
About the Sun:
I’m not going to say that the Sun has never had any effect on our climate, because that wouldn’t be true. It definitely has an effect. The question is: how much? You can perform a rough calculation to see what the contribution of the Sun is. Quickly, the Sun’s solar constant is about 1366 W/m^2. This fluctuates in cycles that occur every 11 years or so. The total fluctuation in energy emitted by the Sun during one of these solar cycles is about 1 W/m^2. So most of the fluctuation is a wash, but if the cycles become longer or shorter, there might be some change in total output, but that change would only be about 0.1 W/m^2, if that. For comparison, the estimated radiative forcing value for CO2 alone (not considering other anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions) is 1.66 W/m^2. This number is arrived at by evaluating several studies on the radiative effect of different forcing components based on their ability to absorb or deflect infrared radiation.
So, in conclusion, Don, much of what you’ve based your opinion of global warming on is unfortunately not true. There was no global Medieval Warm Period. Sure, there may have been a time when temperatures increased a little, but the idea that they were much higher than today is nonsense, based on manipulated graphs and anecdotal evidence, rather than verifiable scientific research. The truth of the matter is that the planet is warming mainly due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. As these emissions continue to increase, we can only expect temperatures to continue to rise.
Thank you for your time.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:57 am
I’ve responded to Don and it’s been stuck in the moderations queue for almost a full day now. Could someone release it?
June 24th, 2007 at 5:57 am
I’ve responded to Don and it’s been stuck in the moderation queue for almost a full day now. Could someone release it?
June 24th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Reasic
the Medieval Warm Period was a regional event, not a global one…. was only an estimate of the climate history for central England by a man named H. H. Lamb
What about Greenland? At the same time Europe was experiencing a regional warm period, Vikings were growing crops in Greenland.
the wine business could just as easily have declined economic or political reasons
Can they grow wine grapes in London, or has the world not warmed up enough yet?
vineyards are actually more widespread in England now than in the past:
Really. I have heard wine drinkers talk about French and German wines, but not British ones.
The vikings did not live an easy life on Greenland.
They grew crops. Can they grow crops there now?
The sun …. fluctuates in cycles that occur every 11 years or so.
Does an 11 year cycle preclude a second longer cycle on the order of thousands of years?
There was no global Medieval Warm Period.
Both sides of the Atlantic seems more “global” than regional.
manipulated graphs and anecdotal evidence, rather than verifiable scientific research.
graphs and anecdotal evidence can be manipulated by both sides. True scientific research would require using numbers collected at the time, and we did not have curent instrumentation back then. Tree ring data is not a very accurate measurement of temperature.
If there was no global Medieval Warm Period, was there a global Little Ice Age, and is it reasonable to assume that if we are coming out of it, that there would be warming? Or is it consistent with the scientific method to just dismiss evidence that does not agree with one’s theory? I won’t even ask what happened to the hockey stick.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Don,
If that’s your version of a logical, scientific, convincing argument, I can see why you believe what you do. Your steadfast reliance on anecdotal evidence and hyperbole versus scientific research is mind boggling. I must say I was hoping for more of a comprehensive response to my claims, rather than nitpicking short phrases and responding to those. However, I’d still like to address some of your misconceptions in hopes that you’ll understand.
Your statements about crops in Greenland are questionable. However, even if I grant you that, it’s anecdotal. How warm was it for there to be crops? Were there crops year round? If you look at pictures of Greenland now, you will see that there are “green” areas along the coast. I’m sorry, but it’s just not scientific evidence.
Also, I’d like you to look at a map of the world and circle the small portion of Greenland that the Vikings settled to the south and west and the UK. Now, tell me how much of the globe does that make up? Certainly you don’t contend that it is global.
I’m confused here. As I stated in my earlier response, there are currently vineyards well north of London, so what’s your point?
Once again, this is anecdotal evidence. Just because some people you know haven’t talked about something doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. I’m sure if you had enough true skepticism and curiosity you would Google “English wine” and find plenty of hits. Maybe you could buy some and let me know how you like it.
Again, this idea that the Vikings grew crops is circumstantial. Do you have any reliable sources on this? Can you provide some specifics on what crops, and how long they were grown? Just saying “they grew crops” does not make it so.
Don, it would really help if you gave some more detailed responses. These little cryptic ones don’t help explain anything. I have no idea what you’re talking about, unless it’s cosmic ray flux theory, in which case you’re talking hundreds of thousands of years, which would be way too slow to explain our recent fluctuations in temperature.
I’m skipping your next one because I already addressed it in my response to your first (Greenland + UK does not equal global).
Actually, true scientific research only requires applying the scientific method to a hypothesis. Then, if the results are verifiable, the research is considered to be valid. I also find it interesting that now you seem to be concerned about using valid scientific research when earlier, you were willing to accept questionable anecdotal evidence about Greenland and English vineyards sans any scientific method whatsoever. You’re kind of shooting yourself in the foot there. Either you value true scientific evaluations or you don’t. If you do, then you can’t accept as fact circumstantial evidence about Vikings and vineyards.
You can simply assume that there was a LIA and so all of our current warming is natural, but that wouldn’t be very scientific either, would it? There has been so much research that has been done to establish the effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which I’ve already discussed in my previous response, and yet you would rather assume our warming is natural? Then, you claim that I’m the one who “dismisses evidence that does not agree with one’s theory”?
Ask away on the hockey stick graph. Mann’s research has been validated by plenty of other scientists’ work, and I’d be more than happy to discuss those with you, also.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Please check the moderation queue. Thanks.
June 26th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Reasic. I released it, and here is my response.
Your steadfast reliance on anecdotal evidence and hyperbole versus scientific research is mind boggling.
We did not have a worldwide matrix of temperature recording devices during the Midevial Warm Period.
Now, tell me how much of the globe does that make up? Certainly you don’t contend that it is global.
No but there is a really big “pond” between them.
I also find it interesting that now you seem to be concerned about using valid scientific research when earlier, you were willing to accept questionable anecdotal evidence about Greenland and English vineyards sans any scientific method whatsoever.
As indicated above, we did not have modern day instrumentation back then. I doubt many trees lived all that time, and tree ring measurement is not much better than anecdotal evidence.
You can simply assume that there was a LIA and so all of our current warming is natural, but that wouldn’t be very scientific either, would it?
And assuming there was no MWP or LIA so you don’t have to explain them is not that scientific either.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Ugh.
The idea that we must have modern temperature recording devices involved in order for a study to be considered to be “scientific” is absolutely absurd. Mann and many others have undertaken a systematic scientific evaluation of different proxies for past temperature including tree ring data. What matters is the method applied and whether the results are replicable and therefore, verifiable – check and double check. You’re going to need to do better than simply saying “tree ring data is not a very accurate measurement of temperature”.
I’ll accept that as just a “no”, which is accurate. Anecdotal evidence from a regional area may hint at a warmer time in the past, but scientific evaluations of proxies from around the world indicate otherwise.
I’m not assuming, Don. I’ve studied this issue. I understand the science behind the “hockey stick”. I’m trying to explain the lack of a global MWP to you, not trying to avoid explain it.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Reasic
Mann and many others have undertaken a systematic scientific evaluation of different proxies for past temperature including tree ring data.
I am sure there are others that have spent a systematic study of the shape of tea leaves also, but I would not place much more faith in them. Many things affect tree growth besides the temperature.
I’ll accept that as just a “noâ€, which is accurate.
That “pond” is the North Atlantic Ocean. The Atlantic Ocean is the second-largest of the world’s oceanic divisions; with a total area of about 106.4 million square kilometres (41.1 million square miles), it covers approximately one-fifth of the Earth’s surface. The climate of the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent land areas is influenced by the temperatures of the surface waters and water currents as well as the winds blowing across the waters. And if a region on one side of the “pond” is experiencing warmer than normal climate, and at the same time a region on the other side is also experiencing a similar warming period, then it is reasonable to assume that the huge heat sink between them is also warmer than normal. Even though there are not any trees growing in it whose rings we can examine.
I understand the science behind the “hockey stick”.
Then go ahead and explain it, because you are not going to convince me that the MWP is just a regional event.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
If you have no faith in a replicable, systematic scientific evaluation, no matter the subject, you basically do not value science. In a subject like this one, having a respect for the scientific method is paramount. You can come to any number of illogical conclusions if you do not understand or accept the verifiable conclusions of scientists. This is a trend I’ve noticed with those who are “skeptical”. Science is not held in high regard, which is unfortunate. There is no other way to understand our climate than through scientific evaluations.
You’re statement about tree rings demonstrates a lack of understanding of the process involved with evaluating tree ring data. Of course there are other factors. Part of the scientific process involves weeding out the other factors in order to determine just the temperature’s effect.
I also understand how big the Atlantic is, but we’re talking a small portion of it. Uncertainty over the oceans does not negate the conclusions derived from a study of temperature proxies from around the world. Mann and others have scientific research to determine past temperatures. You and other skeptics have anecdotes. This goes right back to my previous statements about a general lack of respect for science. It’d be one thing if any skeptical scientist had performed some scientific study of his own proxies, which pointed to a global MWP, but this has not happened. I wonder why.
Interesting. You’re just going to come out and admit that your mind is made up and cannot be changed, regardless of the facts that are presented to you? What’s the word for that?
June 29th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
If you have no faith in a replicable, systematic scientific evaluation, no matter the subject, you basically do not value science.
Faith applies to religion; proof applies to science.
In a subject like this one, having a respect for the scientific method is paramount.
The scientific method has four steps, the first of which is “observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.” How many scientists do we have who were alive during the MWP? The fourth of which is “performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.” Do they use time machines?
Part of the scientific process involves weeding out the other factors in order to determine just the temperature’s effect.
In other words discarding any data that does not agree with your hypotheses, like marginalizing the MWP or flattening out the hockey stick.
I also understand how big the Atlantic is, but we’re talking a small portion of it.
It is all connected, and if there is warming on both sides of the northern portion, where normally it would be the coldest, then the southern portion was likely to be even warmer.
You’re just going to come out and admit that your mind is made up and cannot be changed, regardless of the facts that are presented to you? What’s the word for that?
Democrat???
And the name for your arguments is Ad Hominem
July 1st, 2007 at 7:05 am
“Faith” was your word, not mine. Science has provided proof, in the form of verified scientific research. However, you have already said that you don’t trust or value or have “faith” in such research.
This is getting ridiculous, Don. What you’re saying is that we can’t study the past using the scientific method. I don’t think you realize the implications of your theory. For your argument to be true, there would have to be an enormous cover up, resulting in a crazy kook conspiracy theory.
You’re saying that the results of research conducted by Mann and other climate scientists involving proxies for temperature such as tree rings are obviously false simply because tree ring data is not a valid proxy. What would have been valid instead, would have been either scientists with time machines or maybe modern temperature recording equipment being used back then. These obviously being impossible, Mann’s research is invalid and should be discarded.
However, if this is true, why have so many in the scientific community embraced Mann’s research? There have been several other similar studies, which have arrived at results similar to Mann’s “hockey stick”. Also, Mann’s research was published in a very prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal. Plus, many other climate scientists agree with Mann’s work. Now that I think about it, I haven’t even heard any skeptical scientists make the argument you’re making. McIntyre and McKitrick’s argument against Mann involves the statistical methods he used to verify his results. Could it be that you’ve stumbled upon such a simple argument against Mann’s hockey stick that no one else, not even the skeptics, have yet thought of? The only other option I can think of is that you’re subscribing to a ludicrous conspiracy theory in which everyone in the scientific community has conspired to agree with a blatantly false study, thus rendering the entire system invalid and useless. Think about that for just a minute and let me know if that’s what you really believe.
Baseless accusations. Let me know when you’ve actually examined Mann’s data and can explain how he “discarded any data that does not agree with [his] hypothesis”. I see you have no respect for the scientific process.
I’m just speechless, Don. We’re talking about relative warming. Due to a phenomenon known as polar amplification, global warming would actually be more pronounced at the poles, mainly due to the albedo feedback. Also, I’ve not conceded that Greenland was warmer. You have no scientific study that verifies such a claim, just anecdotal evidence. Remember the scientific method you mentioned before? It started with observations and included three additional steps. Anecdotal evidence stops at step one: “based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation.”
Did you actually follow the link that you provided? I don’t recall making “an ‘argument against the person’ (and not against the ideas he or she is presenting).” I’m trying to discuss climate science with you.
July 1st, 2007 at 10:05 am
“Faith” was your word, not mine
I may have used it first in this thread, in discussing reading tea leaves, but the item I responded to was your use of the word. Or have I offended the “scientists” that study tea leaves?
What you’re saying is that we can’t study the past using the scientific method.
If the scientific method, as I quoted, requires “observation of a phenomenon” and “performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experimentsâ€, no you can’t. You can study the past and use what you think you observed to form theories, but you can’t say that someone that does not accept your observations is not accepting the scientific method.
why have so many in the scientific community embraced Mann’s research?
Because they want their research program funded, and most of the European countries, together with many on the left wing here, want to hurt the US, and if they can just prove their Global Warming theory we may be forced to destroy our own economy.
Why did so many researchers take money from the tobacco industry to turn out studies that showed tobacco smoking could not be linked to various health hazards?
I don’t recall making “an ‘argument against the person’ (and not against the ideas he or she is presenting).” I’m trying to discuss climate science with you.
You said “If you have no faith in a replicable, systematic scientific evaluation, no matter the subject, you basically do not value science.” Was that not an argument against the person?
July 1st, 2007 at 11:59 am
You haven’t offended any scientists. You’re only confusing the meaning of “observation”. It is simply the gathering and observing of data. It doesn’t mean one would have to travel back in time to actually feel the temperatures. That argument is absurd. So, while you may claim to accept the scientific method, you seem to demonstrate a lack of understanding about it.
Are you serious? The world’s top climate scientists have devoted their life’s work in studying our climate for the sole purpose of the destruction of the United States? Do you have any idea how silly that sounds?
It’s funny you bring that up. Let’s see… big business buying scientists. Seems to be more of a parallel to Exxon funding think tanks which funnel money to skeptics, rather than mainstream scientists. I think you’ve got that one backwards.
No, it is not an “emotional reaction” to who you are as a person. I don’t know you. I’m still arguing against “the ideas [you are] presenting”, which seem to show a lack of respect for the scientific process. Ad hominem would be something like “I can’t trust anything you say, because you’re a stupid conservative fascist.” I obviously haven’t said anything of the sort.
July 1st, 2007 at 2:51 pm
You’re only confusing the meaning of “observation”. It is simply the gathering and observing of data.
And very few things exist to day that were here during the MWP.
The world’s top climate scientists have devoted their life’s work in studying our climate for the sole purpose of the destruction of the United States?
No they devoted their life’s work to study, so they would not have to go out and get a real jpb. But most of the sources of research grants are either governments or foundations, both of whom would love to destroy our economy. Just like the scientists that took money from tobacco industries.
July 1st, 2007 at 4:29 pm
That doesn’t matter. There are scientific methods for determining past climate from proxies:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/18/18_355_slide.html
This is a very arduous process that is accepted by the scientific community. Please don’t tell me that this, too, is part of the big conspiracy to ruin the US economy.
As I pointed out earlier, your analogy is faulty. The accurate analogy would be the few skeptical scientists, who disagree with the mainstream viewpoints, and are funded by big business today (i.e., Exxon).
Your argument is still absurd. Now you’re saying that the science is faulty, and yet the scientists somehow go along with it because their funding sources pay them to do their work. How about the many scientists who are funded by the United States government? Is the US also bent on ruining the US?
Finally, I’d like to point out that the IPCC has recently found that the cost of taking action to stop global warming would not break the bank. They’ve estimated that it would fall between a “3% decrease of global GDP and a small increase”, hardly worthy of the economic doom and gloom scenario that you’re talking about:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf (page 16)
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:03 am
There are scientific methods for determining past climate from proxies
How many trees did they find from the MWP?
How about the many scientists who are funded by the United States government? Is the US also bent on ruining the US?
Only the Democrats, and they just want to get governmental control of a major portion of our economy, and are foolish enough to think that they can use the GW hysteria to do so, and still have something left to control.
They’ve estimated that it would fall between a “3% decrease of global GDP and a small increase”, hardly worthy of the economic doom and gloom scenario that you’re talking about:
Give me control of 3% of the GDP and I will promise you world peace.
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Don,
Believe it or not, there are some very old trees still alive in the world. However, as the link I provided shows, one old tree is not the only way to trace the history of climate through tree ring proxy data, so your question is bogus.
This is not about what you’d do with the money. It’s about whether it would ruin the US economy, as you’ve claimed. I’m arguing that it would not.
Don, look at what your arguments have come to. You’re talking conspiracy theory nonsense. Do you really believe this stuff? Do you really think that everyone’s out to get us? Who else is involved in this diabolical plan to destroy the US? I accept that human activity is causing global warming. Does that mean I’m in on it too? I certainly hope you don’t think so, because I can assure that I want nothing of the sort. If you could make a convincing scientific argument that this is untrue, I’d gladly agree, but you’ve strayed far from the science at this point.
What can I do to prove to you that there is no conspiracy?
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:54 pm
as the link I provided shows, one old tree is not the only way to trace the history of climate through tree ring proxy data
I saw no explanation of how a current tree ring shows what happened 8 centuries earlier to entirely other trees
I’m arguing that it would not.
And because you argue it would not hurt anything we should give you 3% of GDP
I accept that human activity is causing global warming.
I don’t. Contributing to, yes. Causing, no. And we can certainly stand some warming.
July 4th, 2007 at 2:51 am
[...] So, as I see it, we can think of ourselves as the fish in the Klamath River. Bush administration policies have continually laid waste to our environment, and could eventually kill much more than just fish. I think the key here is education. There are so many people out there who are completely suckered into the idea that our current climate change is natural and that there is nothing we can do about it. Some are simply misled, but most believe it because it falls right in line with their already held beliefs on the subject, and especially plays on their fears of government regulations gone awry. The only way I’ve found that these people can come to understand the truth is through a patient, knowledgeable discussion. Let them throw all of their anti-global warming talking points out, and then fire right back with facts and figures, each supported with quotes, links, and most importantly, citations to scientific research whenever possible. I ended up engaged in one such conversation recently at a blog called Hooah Wife and Friends. The skeptic, named Don, displayed an acceptance of some very shocking conspiracy theories about how this is all just a global attempt to ruin the United States’ economy. However, I stuck with him, no matter how irrational his arguments, and tried to continually steer the discussion back to science, even through all of the logical fallacies, accusations, conspiracies, and just plain silliness. If done correctly, I think the result of this approach can only lead to a logical elimination of the skeptical arguments until none are left, at which point, assuming the debate has remained civil, the skeptic should have no choice but to rethink his or her previously held beliefs. Remaining civil and professional is paramount, because one is much more likely to let down their guard and concede if they feel they’ve been treated fairly, as opposed to having been ridiculed the entire time. [...]
December 10th, 2007 at 5:47 am
Yhanks youc55f7ad118f9a1d4ae61952a44f9435b