Login |
New User
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
How Many Scientists?
by Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times
Reposted from:
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/opinion/28friedman.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=login
Sometimes you read something about this administration that is just so shameful it takes your breath away. For me, that was the March 20 article in this paper detailing how a House committee had just released documents showing "hundreds of instances in which a White House official who was previously an oil industry lobbyist edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming or play down evidence of such a role."
The official, Philip A. Cooney, left government in 2005, after his shenanigans were exposed in The Times, and was immediately hired by, of course, Exxon Mobil. Before joining the White House, he was the "climate team leader" for the American Petroleum Institute, the main oil industry lobby arm.
The Times article, by Andrew Revkin and Matthew Wald, noted that Mr. Cooney said his past work opposing restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions on behalf of the oil industry had "no bearing" on his actions at the White House. "When I came to the White House," he testified, "my sole loyalties were to the president and his administration." (How about loyalty to scientific method?) Mr. Cooney, who has no scientific background, said he had based his editing on what he had seen in good faith as the "most authoritative and current views of the state of scientific knowledge."
Let's see, of all the gin joints. Of all the people the Bush team would let edit its climate reports, we have a guy who first worked for the oil lobby denying climate change, with no science background, then went back to work for Exxon. Does it get any more intellectually corrupt than that? Is there something lower that I'm missing?
I wonder how Mr. Cooney would have edited the recent draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, written and reviewed by 1,000 scientists convened by the World Meteorological Society and the U.N. It concluded that global warming is "unequivocal," that human activity is the main driver, and that "changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent."
I am not out to promote any party, but reading articles like the Cooney one makes me say: Thank goodness the Democrats are back running the House and Senate — because, given its track record, this administration needs to be watched at all times.
But I also say thank goodness for the way Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has built a Republican-Democratic coalition in California to blunt climate change. The governor is not only saving the Republican Party from being totally dominated by climate cranks, like Senator James Inhofe, and hacks-for-hire, like Cooney, but he also is creating a bipartisan template for dealing with climate change that will be embraced by Washington as soon as the Bush team is gone. I went out to Sacramento to interview the "Governator" a few weeks ago.
"The debate is over," he said to me. "I mean, how many more thousands and thousands of scientists do we need to say, 'We have done a study that there is global warming?' "
What is "amazing for someone that does not come from a political background like myself," said Governor Schwarzenegger, is that "this line is being drawn" between Democrats and Republicans on climate change. "You say to yourself: 'How can it be drawn on the environment?' But it is. But the great thing is more and more Republicans are coming on board for this. Seeing how important this is. And more and more Democrats and Republicans are working together. ... I said in my inaugural address: 'There isn't such a thing as Republican clean air or Democratic clean air. We all breathe the same air.' Let's get our act together, fix this problem and fight global warming."
Last September, Governor Schwarzenegger signed the Global Warming Solutions Act, requiring California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent by 2020.
"Everybody recognized that it was so important that we should not argue over philosophy — that we Republicans believe in this and we Democrats believe in this and get nothing done," he said. "We did it carefully. ... We gave it enough ramp-up time to start in the year 2012 and by the year 2020 we want to hit that level. I am a business-friendly guy. I'm all about economic growth. I am not here to harm businesses. I am here to make businesses boom, but let's also protect our environment. Let's make our air clean. Let's make our water clean. And let's fight global warming because we know now that this is a major danger, that this is not a debate anymore."
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/opinion/28friedman.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=login
Sometimes you read something about this administration that is just so shameful it takes your breath away. For me, that was the March 20 article in this paper detailing how a House committee had just released documents showing "hundreds of instances in which a White House official who was previously an oil industry lobbyist edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming or play down evidence of such a role."
The official, Philip A. Cooney, left government in 2005, after his shenanigans were exposed in The Times, and was immediately hired by, of course, Exxon Mobil. Before joining the White House, he was the "climate team leader" for the American Petroleum Institute, the main oil industry lobby arm.
The Times article, by Andrew Revkin and Matthew Wald, noted that Mr. Cooney said his past work opposing restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions on behalf of the oil industry had "no bearing" on his actions at the White House. "When I came to the White House," he testified, "my sole loyalties were to the president and his administration." (How about loyalty to scientific method?) Mr. Cooney, who has no scientific background, said he had based his editing on what he had seen in good faith as the "most authoritative and current views of the state of scientific knowledge."
Let's see, of all the gin joints. Of all the people the Bush team would let edit its climate reports, we have a guy who first worked for the oil lobby denying climate change, with no science background, then went back to work for Exxon. Does it get any more intellectually corrupt than that? Is there something lower that I'm missing?
I wonder how Mr. Cooney would have edited the recent draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, written and reviewed by 1,000 scientists convened by the World Meteorological Society and the U.N. It concluded that global warming is "unequivocal," that human activity is the main driver, and that "changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent."
I am not out to promote any party, but reading articles like the Cooney one makes me say: Thank goodness the Democrats are back running the House and Senate — because, given its track record, this administration needs to be watched at all times.
But I also say thank goodness for the way Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has built a Republican-Democratic coalition in California to blunt climate change. The governor is not only saving the Republican Party from being totally dominated by climate cranks, like Senator James Inhofe, and hacks-for-hire, like Cooney, but he also is creating a bipartisan template for dealing with climate change that will be embraced by Washington as soon as the Bush team is gone. I went out to Sacramento to interview the "Governator" a few weeks ago.
"The debate is over," he said to me. "I mean, how many more thousands and thousands of scientists do we need to say, 'We have done a study that there is global warming?' "
What is "amazing for someone that does not come from a political background like myself," said Governor Schwarzenegger, is that "this line is being drawn" between Democrats and Republicans on climate change. "You say to yourself: 'How can it be drawn on the environment?' But it is. But the great thing is more and more Republicans are coming on board for this. Seeing how important this is. And more and more Democrats and Republicans are working together. ... I said in my inaugural address: 'There isn't such a thing as Republican clean air or Democratic clean air. We all breathe the same air.' Let's get our act together, fix this problem and fight global warming."
Last September, Governor Schwarzenegger signed the Global Warming Solutions Act, requiring California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent by 2020.
"Everybody recognized that it was so important that we should not argue over philosophy — that we Republicans believe in this and we Democrats believe in this and get nothing done," he said. "We did it carefully. ... We gave it enough ramp-up time to start in the year 2012 and by the year 2020 we want to hit that level. I am a business-friendly guy. I'm all about economic growth. I am not here to harm businesses. I am here to make businesses boom, but let's also protect our environment. Let's make our air clean. Let's make our water clean. And let's fight global warming because we know now that this is a major danger, that this is not a debate anymore."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 78 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #28135 by BaronOchs on March 28, 2007 at 5:46 am
Perhaps all climate change reports should end with Revelation 22:18-19.then again perhaps not . . .
Other Comments by BaronOchs
3. Comment #28155 by scooternyc on March 28, 2007 at 6:52 am
In the interest of research and hearing both sides, this is worth watching before making up one's mind with regard to motive. It is easily considered that the potential of GW being the religion of the left is not far fetched.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU
If you think about it, GW really does have all the characteristics of religion, even down to the "consensus" of scientists, nothing less than a "consensus" of people believing in god.
Quite before you attack the idea, think about what I'm saying; watch the show; make the comparisons and decide for yourself.
Don't play to the "sound-bite-headline-citizen" catch phrases that wish to suck you in, offer little and compel you to make assertions unfounded.
Other Comments by scooternyc
4. Comment #28157 by wendelin on March 28, 2007 at 7:01 am
Scooter, the consensus of *scientists* is leagues apart from the consensus (supposed) of laymen.Other Comments by wendelin
5. Comment #28160 by Helios on March 28, 2007 at 7:12 am
Scooter the particular film you link to has been widely discredited and the director is somewhat notorious for having made something along similar lines about 10 years ago. That programme forced Channel Four into an abject apology for the blatant distortions deliberately inserted by the director.So caution is the word when dealing with this particular character.
Other Comments by Helios
6. Comment #28165 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 28, 2007 at 7:29 am
Scooter, please don't be naive enough to play the role these people are desperate for you to embrace. Think about the many conversations you'd had with Theists, and apply the same standards. Do we have evidence that GW is occurring, yes, mountains and mountains of it. Do we have perfect knowledge? No. Is there room for doubt? Yes, but only about timings and scale, not the overall principle. Just replace GW with evolution and you'll get what I'm saying.
Use source watch to review every source that engages in GW denial, they are a small, incestous notorious group, exactly like the engineers and biologists that promote "intelligent design", this is really more of the same.
In summary, we are rational lay people, we go with the evidence and advice we get from experts in the relevant fields. This is now overwhelmingly in one direction, and we have a responsibility to the planet, our children and or own intellectual integrity to act on the sceintific consensus as it is now. No argument that it might change, and kudos to people who convince their peers to change their minds, that is how sceince operates. However we are where we are NOW, and need to act accordingly.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
7. Comment #28187 by amazeen on March 28, 2007 at 9:19 am
Before anyone takes the film scooternyc posted seriously I recommend reading this:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
Read the comments, and read comment 109!!
Other Comments by amazeen
8. Comment #28316 by Arcturus on March 28, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Although it wants to be a scientific documentary, "swindled" has a flawed logic and visits ideas that climatologists have considered. Some of the data they use in this movie is wrong and some graphs are purposefully skewed. This is noting more than propaganda based on already discarded ideas.I have great confidence in the scientists working on the subject and more importantly on the SCIENTIFIC METHOD !!! We don't need propaganda movies to influence the lame public.
Other Comments by Arcturus
9. Comment #28353 by scooternyc on March 28, 2007 at 11:12 pm
If it's science you like then the book, Unstoppable Global Warming by Avery/Fisher is a great book replete with valid information debunking all this hysteria. Truly, it is nothing less than the religious right pushing their agenda. It would be a mistake to not understand how our earth makes natural changes as all species, including us, evolve throughout time.
Those of you that are attacking the film, that's fine, you should. But you should also be questioning EVERYTHING regarding this subject.
Why is your criteria for questioning EVERYTHING regarding religion yet you would easily accept this Global Warming hysteria? With arguments on both sides thus far, why would you be so naive?
And what research have you personally done for yourself on this subject? Are you just taking the latest sound-bite?
Other Comments by scooternyc
10. Comment #28356 by Arcturus on March 29, 2007 at 12:07 am
Scooter, I have read a thing or two, even though I'm not a researcher in this field. Like I said, I trust the system that is in place more than the "media" take on this problem. You are right, one should look at all the arguments, but I don't have the time/resources to look into detail. But I feel safe, because I know that that's what a good scientist does, and there are many out there. Other Comments by Arcturus
11. Comment #28400 by jlharvey on March 29, 2007 at 4:37 am
I support Scooter on this issue (though I know nothing about the film he refers to). GW is an important topic, but there is an undeniable hysteria surrounding GW that's not a sound basis for decision making. The consensus of scientists is not what's leading the political change. Scientists have been screaming in the attic for twenty years. The political change is being led by laymen - voters - who the politicians (also scientific laymen) pander to.For Arcturus, I suggest you not take "scientific research" at face value. Scientific researchers, like everyone else, have a constituencies to please: the grant commitees. They are also notably poor at understanding the shortcomings of what they do. For example, 50 yrs ago, scientists thought that the best way to restore NW US fish populations was through massive fish-hatchery programs. These programs have had the exact opposite effect, and are now deemed a gigantic mistake. Yet today's fishery scientists are just as sure as the generation before them that they have all the answers to the problems created by their forebearers.
j
Other Comments by jlharvey
12. Comment #28415 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 29, 2007 at 5:52 am
Yet today's fishery scientists are just as sure as the generation before them that they have all the answers to the problems created by their forebearers.Guys don't you see you are playing the same game as the evolution deniers? Holding up the ability of sceince to correct itself as some kind of flaw, when this is it's greatest strength!!! Sceince is an uncertain enterprise, as is life. There are no absolute certainties to be had, if you are looking for that, try a church.
Unless you yourself are a climatologist, with a peer reviewed study of your own, what could your speculations possibly have to add to the discussion?
Besides what is the downside to action? Using less oil, improving energy efficiency? The only people that loose are a few corporations, for the rest of us we see an improved environment, and a surge in high quality employment opportunities. In effect it's like a major war without all the unpleasent screaming and being shot at.
The consensus among sceintists is clear and dissenters are almost without exception oil industry stooges or republican hacks. If that is not enough for us to take some limited action on, we are truly screwed.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
13. Comment #28453 by scooternyc on March 29, 2007 at 8:46 am
My apologies, I've been quoting the wrong authors of the book I'm reading and refer to in my posts on this issue. Here is a link with an interesting synopsis:
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2007/01/30/20070130_150908_flash2.htm
Again, what will you say in 2 years or more when these catastrophes don't happen? What will we say then? What excuses will we make to justify the hysteria?
Certainly I admire and like the idea of recycling, finding new ways of utilizing energy (nuclear for example) and other ways of improving our use of consumer goods, but to jump on the religious bandwagon of political agendas regarding this issue is suspect at the very least.
I remember being in 5th grade and getting our Weekly Reader (I think that was the name of it) with the big scare of another ICE AGE is coming...it never happened. Yet, what hysteria.
Yes, we should all be considerate and conscious of our behavior in our use of that which is around us, but cautious of those whose political agenda is to create something from nothing to further themselves in the eyes of the voting public.
Lastly, someone mentioned the movie The Great Global Warming Swindle as being highly discredited. Fine. By whom. Why? What were they exactly discrediting? On what basis? What evidence did they have to make this claim of discredit?
I'm willing to look at evidence of fact, not opinion of evidence.
There is no opinon on evidence, it either is or is not a fact based on evidence.
Other Comments by scooternyc
14. Comment #28454 by Helios G2V on March 29, 2007 at 8:47 am
Scooternyc and jlharveyPlease do not emigrate to the Southern Hemispere when the Northern Ice Age begins. Keep telling yourselves it's a natural phenomenon.
Other Comments by Helios G2V
15. Comment #28457 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 29, 2007 at 8:57 am
Scooter have a read through this, it does a good job of answering the questions you raise : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/I'm not sure what disaster to occur in 2 years you refer to, perhaps we are arguing at cross purposes? My own convictions relate to the timeframes outlined in the recent IPCC report, and they range fairly widely. Can we agree that this is something to be taken notice of?
Let me also take another tack. Why do you dismiss creationists out of hand? Have you read everything written by the hundreds of engineers, doctors and lawyers that promote it? Have you parsed all the arguments of the dissenters? Why is your stance different here versus GW?
What about stem cell research, can we be certain that the blastocyst is not ensouled? Why are you convinced (if you are) that destroying a blastocyst for research harms no one?
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
16. Comment #28467 by scooternyc on March 29, 2007 at 9:44 am
briancoughlanworldcitizen you make my point exactly when making reference as to what criteria do we make these decisions. I ask the same of those making the GW claims. How is it that some scientists say the ice cores are an indication of something and others say it's an indication of nothing? I'm fine with these arguments, I want to see what comes of the evidence as it reveals itself, and I'm not willing to jump on the hysteria bandwagon until we have more information.
My position is nothing less than that of science itself and the models of its precepts. Theory. Evidence. Proof. Falsifiable. Done.
We're not at that point as of yet with regard to this subject. I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Yes, let's be cautious of our use of the world around us; yes, let's find alternatives where we can; but let's not create situations out of fear and hysteria - the very thing that religion does again and again, their hysteria is built on nothing! It should really give one pause.
I will give the article you posted a read, but I will have the questions in my mind: who are the writers of this article? What are their agendas? How do they stand to benefit? Where are they gathering their refuting data? How much do they know on their own and how much is delegated to others? How much have they read on the subject? What are their credentials? What are the credentials of those from whom they have taken their data to make the claims of refutation?
To blindly trust an article, book, review, show, etc. just because it supports our internal agenda isn't a basis for truth. As Richard often says, I care about the truth; about what is true.
Other Comments by scooternyc
17. Comment #28470 by scooternyc on March 29, 2007 at 9:53 am
So here is an article refuting GW with a scientist of credential, does he not understand the problem just because his research doesn't agree with the "consensus"? Again, I don't want my science from consensus I want it from facts and if those facts on both sides need further investigation until something is found, so be it. I DO want my politicians out of the mix, though. They should be nowhere until science has made the best possible hypothesis/solution oriented foundations solidified. We should ask for nothing less. We should expect nothing less.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
If we are discrediting scientists then what is the criteria for doing so? On what basis do we lend credential to those who agree or perhaps not agree with our own internal agenda?
Other Comments by scooternyc
18. Comment #28471 by Arcturus on March 29, 2007 at 10:02 am
jlharvey, yes, scientists have to please grant committees but also keep in mind that every researcher is trying his best to come up with new ideas and goes through a peer reviewing process. The most sucessful researcher is the one with the most inovative ideas, and not the one that conforms with the orthodoxy. So I don't think that there is a "conspiracy" that works for pushing the human induced global warming.The IPCC report says that there is 90% prob. that the present day global warming is due to human produced C02. With today's knowledge this is the best we can say. I trust this answer, there is no better way, other than science, to explain these issues.
Now politics ... well ... that's a completely different problem :)
Other Comments by Arcturus
19. Comment #28473 by Arcturus on March 29, 2007 at 10:16 am
scooternyc, from the article you suggested by Timothy Ball:"Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. "
Now that's a ludicrous exageration :). The MOST DOGMATIC? hahaha
Other Comments by Arcturus
20. Comment #28477 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 29, 2007 at 10:32 am
scooter, please do try and respond specifically to my questions, I genuinley want us to understand each other, and I'll try and do the same for you. So here goes:-)If we are discrediting scientists then what is the criteria for doing so? On what basis do we lend credential to those who agree or perhaps not agree with our own internal agenda?
Here is how I operate. I know the consensus, so that biases me towards being skeptical of GW dissenters. This is I think reasonable. I dismiss out of hand evolution deniers, flat earthers, UFO buffs and the like using much the same process.
OK so I'm skeptical of GW deniers, but I do not (always) dismiss them out of hand. In the last 18 months or so, I've frequently checked out reports and people. I use a site called source watch to do this, and I'd recommend you use it too. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch. If they have a bad rep with references, that is red flag.
I have already read the article you reference,here is what source watch has to say about Tim Ball.
Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. [4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations. [5]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball
I'd recommend you reference the following list, most of your dissenters will be on it.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_controversy
Short of redoing every bit of climate research, reading every damn paper, on every damn subject from GW to quantum physics, what can a sensible lay person do due diligence on important subjects and go with the consensus, at least where it is overwhelming?
There is nothing hysterical about insisting on the current evidence that governments take action, this is just good sense. Is your position that given he current evidence we should do nothing at all?
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
21. Comment #28479 by Fishpeddler on March 29, 2007 at 10:38 am
"there is an undeniable hysteria surrounding GW ..."Hardly. Guess how many people in my office were talking about global warming today. That's right, zero. On the bus? Zero again. At the grocery store last night? As far as I could tell, zero. I cannot name one person who I would describe as hysterical on the subject. Heck, I have trouble finding anyone I would describe as 'exercised' about it.
We have finally reached the energy of reaction necessary for this topic to be taken seriously by people other than climate scientists. Are a lot of people concerned, asking questions, and writing articles? Sure. That's a completely rational response upon learning that there is a strong scientific consensus that we are likely making the world much less hospital for ourselves.
I must admit that I'm becoming upset with the The-jury-is-still-out-on-GW crowd. Are we supposed to just sit on our hands until every naysayer on the planet has been convinced? The cost of doing nothing and GW being true is far greater than the cost of doing something and GW being false.
Call me lazy, but there are a limited number of topics in which I can become an expert. Climatology is not one of them. I rely on astronomers for my belief that Pluto is cold. I rely on chemists for my belief that air, water, earth, and fire are not basic elements. And I'm going to rely on the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community for my belief that global warming is a real threat.
Again, call me lazy, but to insist on absolute certainty rather than reasonable weight of evidence before acting on any belief is to condemn oneself to stasis.
Other Comments by Fishpeddler
22. Comment #28483 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 29, 2007 at 11:08 am
The cost of doing nothing and GW being true is far greater than the cost of doing something and GW being false. Not only that, the cost of doing something has been vastly overstated. A gradual two decade migration to renewables and energy efficiency will put no more strain on the global economy than the move from horses to cars, typewriters to computers, TV to internet, or any of a 100 technology generational shifts that have occurred in the last century.
The real hysteria and fear mongering is on the other side.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
23. Comment #28485 by scooternyc on March 29, 2007 at 11:25 am
briancoughlanworldcitizenForgive me; I didn't see a direct question to me so my apologies if I've overlooked it. I appreciate your articles of research and upon returning from work will read them diligently as I wish to be informed on both sides of this issue.
One aspect about Tim Ball that I found interesting, in contrast, it was said that those who oppose GW often don't get funding from government sources and end up doing research through private donation, in this case oil companies, perhaps others.
If shining the spotlight on oil companies is the only reason for discrediting a scientist, then should we discredit Gore for his interest in the "footprint" company he's created where he stands to make millions on this particular controversy? If that is a criterion, then where are the other scientists getting their funding from? Should we not investigate and consider they motives based on funding sources?
People often get angry with oil companies but fail to realize the many people who have their 401k funds, retirement investments, teacher's unions, labor unions, union investments from which individuals benefit, college funds for their kids; among other ideas, that are all benefiting from these investments by which to live the comfortable life they, now or will, enjoy.
An example of contradiction, which lends itself to suspicion, Barbra Streisand just announced her new album is going to have an "extra song" added to those who purchase their item from Barnes and Noble.
Many, in New York especially, spew vitriol toward B&N for their capitalistic ways in our world, seeking profits, seeking brand recognition everywhere, not giving back to the little guy; putting the small business out of business. YET, there she is benefiting and utilizing the VERY system that makes her rich. It's such hypocrisy.
You could say it's Sony making the decision, but Streisand doesn't have a say? Is she not responsible for the contracts she engages in and signs? Is she not the one who made the decision to be with Sony? Did she not have any other choices? How important is this issue to her?
It's interesting to see what people are doing; it speaks far much more than what they are actually saying.
My point in that example is what are the motives on the person; what are they doing and saying that is incongruent; are they accepting personal responsibility and being accountable for those choices; are they being transparent in their motives or are we allowing them to bring the veil of denial upon us because we have some feel-good-emotional fuzzy going on.
Again, I look at these motives and agendas behind the curtain because often times they reveal something about the "show" going on the stage. I'm not negating either side at this point, just watching the revealing of it all, which will speak more about the people, involved than the evidence itself.
Other Comments by scooternyc
24. Comment #28487 by scooternyc on March 29, 2007 at 11:28 am
"Guess how many people in my office were talking about global warming today. That's right, zero."You wouldn't believe it were it not for your own eyes/ears since the media seems to throw hysteria-ridden headlines into their newsmedia source wherever it lays.
Other Comments by scooternyc
25. Comment #28488 by WilliamP on March 29, 2007 at 11:29 am
A good explanation for Bush's motivations might be his faith. He is a strict Christian, and although I don't think he follows Christian teachings very closely, I do think that his thinking is similar to that associated with faith. It seems that when people have faith in something, they seek evidence for it, but ignore or dismiss evidence against it.I think that Bush does this when it comes to climate change, since he seems to only listen to people who agree with him on the subject. It seems even more clear that he did so leading into the Iraq war when he was only interested in evidence that confirmed his belief that Saddam had WMD's. I doubt that he lied to go to war in Iraq, I don't think he even knew how to consider the evidence.
Other Comments by WilliamP
26. Comment #28489 by scooternyc on March 29, 2007 at 11:33 am
"And I'm going to rely on the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community for my belief that global warming is a real threat."Do you then believe all science should be decided by consenus? All medicine? All ideas relating to laws of the universe?
If not, what criterion do you eliminate those that you do?
Is anyone getting the relation of my questions to those that Richard Dawkins asks regarding religion?
The very words of his ideas relating to religion are easily related to this topic. Yet you are willing to believe a "consensus" rather than actual facts to have been proven.
Whose proven facts? Which scientists should we listen to and believe? Which evidence should we glean as perfected on this topic?
Ask yourself this question: am I reacting to scooternyc's questions and assertions in any manner that reflects the way the religious react when they feel like their ideas are being attacked, and perhaps discredited?
Other Comments by scooternyc
27. Comment #28490 by scooternyc on March 29, 2007 at 11:36 am
WilliamP So how does your comment specifically contribute to this dialogue? I don't wish to rehash Iraq, but I want to be clear about your assertions.
Other Comments by scooternyc
28. Comment #28494 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 29, 2007 at 11:48 am
Frankly, I don't know much about Gore. My conclusions re GW have little to do with him, so I can't meaningfully comment.Oil companies will not go bust if we migrate to renewables and the like, energy demand is growing everywhere and oil has plenty of other uses. I would consider those sound investments. That said, none of us should be in the business of bailing out bad investments, or protecting technologies that have outlived their usefulness.
Yes people are hypocritical, complex and conflicted. So what? You need to make up your own mind about these issues, with the best information available. On this issue, the overwhelming consensus points in a single direction.
Now to my specific questions.
1) Is your position that we should do nothing?
2) If yes, when should we do something?
3) Why do you not research Intelligent Design and UFO's as completely as GW, or perhaps you do?
4) What action that is being suggested to combat GW are you most fearful of, and why?
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
29. Comment #28497 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 29, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Ask yourself this question: am I reacting to scooternyc's questions and assertions in any manner that reflects the way the religious react when they feel like their ideas are being attacked, and perhaps discredited?No, I'm reacting the way I reacte when a theist says they don't "beleive" in evolution. It's not a question of beleiving, it's a question of the evidence.
Do you then believe all science should be decided by consenus? All medicine? All ideas relating to laws of the universe
Actually thats exactly what I think happens. Even objective reality has it's detractors, we frequently debate them in these forums. People can draw different conclusions from the same data. This is why creationists beat up science for its "theories" and being "equivocal", it's because it's true!! Everything is provisional.
As a lay person, and I'm guessing you are neither a climatologist or an evolutionary biologist, what on earth can one do but accept the consensus, the prevailing view, theory, hypothesis etc. especially where a given camp represents the overwhelming majority of a given discipline?
I really don't see how you can claim the "jury is out" on GW, but be utterly convinced of evolution. You have perfect knowledge about neither, yet the consensus in the relevant communities on the basic's is very similar. Whats different? I really want to hear this.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
30. Comment #28516 by Fishpeddler on March 29, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I'm with you, Brian. I'm not sure when "scientific consensus" became a term of disrepute, because I love it. If 9 top doctors were to tell me my daughter has cancer and I must act now, and 1 doctor tells me she's healthy, I'm getting the chemo anyway. If a dozen electricians tell me my house is dangerously miswired and may burn down, but only a couple tell me my house is probably fine, I'm gonna fix the wiring. That seems a normal, rational way to live. Should I be open to the possibility that the consensus is wrong? Of course, but I can't forever shun my responsibilities while I await certitude. In fact, I welcome challenging the consensus WHILE ONE TAKES ACTION. In my cancer analogy, for example, I'm going to start treatment while I look into the claim by the one doctor that my daughter does not have cancer. If we find out a month, a year, or a decade from now that the consensus was wrong about global warming, then we can change our policies appropriately. Right now, though, I would describe the delay as mere procrastination and avoidance disguised as rigorous skepticism.
Other Comments by Fishpeddler
31. Comment #28558 by JRG on March 29, 2007 at 6:42 pm
I agree utterly with scooter's skepticism regarding global warming/climate change, and I'll tell you why. It's the language they use. I can translate it into a single sentence:OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!
That's how nearly every article hyping climate change sounds these days, and that immediately makes me suspicious. I even see it on posts in this thread. I see repeated references to "far greater costs" and "sitting on our hands" and "thinkofthechildren". I am accustomed to scientific discourse not sounding like that. The hypothetical doctors Fishpeddler refers to who would tell him his daughter has cancer would not sound like the climate change people.
I'm not quite as old as scooter, but I do remember my Weekly Reader. (You got the name right, scooter.) Mine no longer talked about the eminent Ice Age, but my parents remember that. Did anybody notice how "the issue" has magically evolved over the past 35 years? It shows every sign of being a marketing campaign, from start to finish. It started out as Ice Age. Then when nobody bought that, it became Global Warming. Then when nobody bought that, it became Climate Change. And at every step of the way, the constant tolling sound you heard in the background was "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!"
What I do remember is being a test case. I had no idea that's what was happening at the time, but that's what it was. I was part of a small group of kids taken out of class to a special event. They dressed it up as a "young leaders" thing, and at the age I was, well, you just go along with that sort of thing. That wasn't what it was. What they did was give us a set of assertions, with supporting paragraphs, and ask us "which of these world problems is the most important?" One of them was Global Warming. (It was still Warming, in those days, not Changing.) I am ashamed to admit that I picked that option, out of the whole list of things, most of which were more civically oriented. Things like crime and wages and such. Here's the funny thing. I was the only one. Nobody else in my group picked that option. We were required to come to a consensus, and I was outvoted. My reasoning was, all the other things don't matter if the Earth becomes uninhabitable, so we'd better fix that first. I was in elementary school at the time and I didn't know any better. I made that decision based on a sole source that flat out lied to me about the extent of the problem, with all of the wisdom of a 9 year old.
Looking back, I understand what they were doing. They were getting a test case for their marketing. That's all IceAge/GlobalWarming/ClimateChange has ever been. A marketing campaign. I don't know who, and I don't know why, and I don't like them. I'm allergic to people who try to sell me something I don't need. But make no mistake, that is what they're doing. They're trying to sell us a bill of goods.
They're failing. P.T. Barnum had a low opinion of humanity's intelligence, and I confess I often do too, but in this case, it seems that people aren't so stupid. They may not even know why they're not indulging in hysterical recycled-bicyling-to-work-in-their-environmentally-friendly-gunny-sack, but they're not. They can smell the marketing, and they're not buying it. Thousands of "we're all gonna die" articles have been written, and out on the road I see more new H3s than I do new Priuses. Is this a lemming-like rush over a cliff edge to our doom? Perhaps. But I don't buy it.
In the very few articles that quote real numbers, the numbers simply aren't scary. The numbers, quoted in the self-same articles that people reference in this thread, say the most likely scenario is that in an entire century, the total warming will be less than one celcius degree, which is less than the margin of error in the global temperature measurements. Nobody is scared of that. We all live in weather, not climate, and we see worse than that in an afternoon. Then there's a thunderstorm, and it blows over. If the average nudges up a tiny bit, is it really going to be noticable? It really isn't. That's why the papers and articles, if they mention that most likely scenario at all, immediately shuffle it under the rug and move on to the worst case scenario. We're told it'll be catastrophic. Mass melting of ice, millions displaced, fear, fire flood. Starvation and panic and epidemic. What crap.
Everybody knows it, deep down, and it suprises me, because humans, and especially Americans, are notoriously bad at understanding probabilities. Yet everybody knows it and that's why the rhetoric is changing yet again. Global Warming of one celcius degree over the course of a century scares no one. So now the new thing is "catastrophic climate change!" Yes that's right, because people aren't stupid and have figured out that even if the coastlines do change, a century is a long time to notice it and MOVE INLAND or BUILD A 10 FT DIKE, now the new thing we're supposed to be afraid of is catastrophic climate change. That's where Iowa becomes a desert overnight, New York floods to the 30th floor in an afternoon, and the Lincoln Monument is sitting in water up to Abe's chin tomorrow morning. Oh the humanity! Here I must borrow a word from Penn Jillette. Bullshit! It's not going to happen.
This is why consensus doesn't matter. The whole thing stinks. It stinks like marketing, for ulterior motives, and it's been going on long enough that the stink is getting intrusive. Judging by the accusations leveled against those "evil doubters," it's a marketing campaign against Big Oil. And that's just stupid too. You can't market against anything. Anybody who tells you they can is lying. You can only market FOR things, and that's why the whole campaign has failed. They should be trying to sell us stuff worth having, and they're not. They're just trying to tell us oil is evil, oil is horrible, stop using oil. That's never ever ever going to work. Sell us something ELSE, and we'll buy it. But it has to be better than what we've got, in terms of convience, cost, and utility. Anything less is unacceptable.
Here is where I'm going to do what looks like an abrupt about-face. But it's not. But here's the thing: I would buy. Funny, isn't it. The campaign has *almost* worked. They just have nothing to sell. Somebody somewhere needs to sell me something. If I could cover my house's roof in 70% efficient solar panels for $10,000 I would write a check right now. No joke. Why? Because I get capital equipment, that counts as a home improvement, and eliminate my power bill. That sounds like a great deal, to me. Would I do it to "save the planet?" No. I would do it purely selfishly, and my local power company would be annoyed with me. And apparently the IceAge/GlobalWarming/ClimateChange freaks would be happy with me.
If I could afford it, I'd be one of the first 100 pre-orders for a Tesla Motors Roadster. Check it out if you haven't heard of it. http://www.teslamotors.com/
Why? Because I think the internal combustion engine is the most ridiculous contraption ever proliferated. It's *bad engineering*. It's a heat engine that throws away all of the heat it generates while operating. Its power curve is a joke for the application it is supposed to function in, requiring ridiculous stop-gaps like gear shifting transmissions. It stops working at the slightest thing, or stops working well and makes a horrible stink. I despise it. It's defective by design and we need to do better. Tesla Motors is doing better. If I could buy a Tesla Motors pure electric vehicle for $30,000 I would write a check right now. Why? Because it's better. A power curve like a locomotive (literally), style and function and no buying gasoline. I love it. I want it. Would I buy it to "save the planet?" No. I'd buy it for purely selfish reasons and my local gasoline dealers would be annoyed with me. And apparently the IA/GW/CC freaks would be happy with me. Except for the real idiots in that crowd who don't understand what a blessing the mobility a motor vehicle provides is to civilization and who would prefer that everybody but them walk to work and stop "wasting" all that energy in manufacturing vehicles. But those people have no understanding of the implications of what they're advocating, so we'll move on.
This is why there are people like scooter, and people like me, folks. We smell the stink of marketing, with no alternative product. No amount of allegedly scientific consensus can cover it up. We refuse to back down from First World civilization at the behest of a bad marketing campaign. I LIKE that the local fire department can get to my house in 3 minutes flat. I LIKE that the grocery store isn't 100 yards up the road. I LIKE that I get to live in a suburb with flowering crab trees in my front yard and beautiful oaks in the back. I'm not giving it up, even if Bombay floods to the roof. Not all of the consensus in the world is going to change that. Sorry, try again. No wait, don't try again. Catastrophic Climate change is ludicrous enough. I can only guess how bad the next iteration is going to be.
Other Comments by JRG
32. Comment #28562 by Helios G2V on March 29, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Ok JRG, I think we get it - you're selfish.Don't buy any renewable products.
Don't support anyone who may be trying to influence your elected representatives to clean up the air you breathe and the water you drink.
It's all a lie.
Big Oil is our friend just like Big Tobbaco is was our friend. Big Nuclear is our next best friend. (Nuclear energy may work in the right hands, however the corporate world would need a huge injection of ethics)
Your skepticism is admirable, no one is asking you to become hysterical. Leave that to CNN to sell hysteria.
Skepticism is healthy (remember Y2K bug) and everything should be questioned.
There will be corporations who will seek to make a handsome profit from GW peddling snake oil solutions.
There will also be corporations who will assemble teams of well qualified thinkers to nut out sustainable solutions, I hope it is something we will discuss on these forums.
Other Comments by Helios G2V
33. Comment #28563 by Fishpeddler on March 29, 2007 at 7:33 pm
"OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE"That is your synopsis of the literature on global warming? Grow up.
Other Comments by Fishpeddler
34. Comment #28564 by Fishpeddler on March 29, 2007 at 7:41 pm
As long as lame encapsulations of opinions are being thrown around, here's one of my own (borrowing heavily from JRG):I disagree utterly with JRG's and Scooter's skepticism regarding global warming/climate change, and I'll tell you why. It's the language they use. I can translate it into a single sentence:
OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE IF WE CHANGE A THING!!!
Other Comments by Fishpeddler
35. Comment #28569 by Godbag on March 29, 2007 at 8:33 pm
just an underlining thought i had reading through both the article and the comments... i really dont see it as a bad thing(/something should have been done already!) to lessen the western worlds dependence on oil, and more importantly the major oil companies monopoly on governments and consumers... actually come to think of it, they both scare the shit out of me equally because they are both headed by people who only care about one thing... and its not humanityOther Comments by Godbag
36. Comment #28571 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 29, 2007 at 9:48 pm
This is why there are people like scooter, and people like me, folks. We smell the stink of marketing, with no alternative product. No amount of allegedly scientific consensus can cover it up. We refuse to back down from First World civilization at the behest of a bad marketing campaign. It is ironic to hear you go on about hysteria and brain washing, and PT Barnum, when it's clear you've bought the alternative view hook line and sinker.
No one (well no one who'll ever be elected) is suggesting the insane strawman you are terrified of. A two decade focus on renewables and efficiency (which is the most radical proposal to date) can only be broadly beneficial, some individual companies may go bust, but boo-hoo that happens every day. It's how capitalism works!!! Regardless of your sense that the information stinks, you are simply wrong because the majority of experts disagree with you. Both on your intuitions and the detail, so why on earth should we care what YOU think? You get that right? What your "gut" or your "common sense" is telling you is of no benefit in assessing a complex, convoluted and involved area such as climatology, evolution or quantum physics. What you "feel" has no bearing whatever on the evidence.
You are like some crazy flat earther marching around yelling, "I don't feel the earth movin' do you feel the earth movin'? Gosh durn uppity sciencey types and their so called "consensus" that the earth moves!!!"
Quantum physics is counter intuitive too, apply your or my common sense and it's bullshit, but we know we are both wrong. Why can you accept that, evolution and a thousand other counter intuitive observations of science but not this?
I really don't get how a modestly intelligent person can know that the IPCC have raised the alarm on this issue 4 times in the past 15 years, that the vast majority of scientists in the relative discipline agree on the substance and trends of the issue, and still simply shrug their shoulders and maintain that the "Jury is out". The jury is not out, ok? The jury has delivered their verdict, gone home, had dinner and been living their lives for the last 15 years, secure in the knowledge they have done their duty. The "jury is out" is simply not a position that is remotely tenable for a rational person. I don't how many different ways I can say that:-(
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
37. Comment #28578 by scooternyc on March 30, 2007 at 12:48 am
"1) Is your position that we should do nothing?2) If yes, when should we do something?
3) Why do you not research Intelligent Design and UFO's as completely as GW, or perhaps you do?
4) What action that is being suggested to combat GW are you most fearful of, and why?"
While I can appreciate these questions, my answering them does nothing to further the debate.
If we do not establish which scientists we are going to accept data from? Which evidence are we going to draw conclusions from? Which models are we going to glean potentials from? What criterion a scientist is being discredited? What criteria is evidence being discredited? Then what's the point of the debate? Do you not need such precepts before any debate or discussion can be had?
Much of this "predicting" is like predicting what a stock will do in 20 years. Sure, if I factor in certain variables I will net certain results. The problem is you can't factor in ALL variables or even ENOUGH variables to make the prediction valid. Is this not what Michael Crichton said? Do we think Michael is insane then, as well? Who else with reasonable voice in media, science, literature, etc. should we silence on this subject?
Do you honestly believe that weather predictions can be made from such an unreliable source as Mother Nature?
What about all the predictions from past decades about weather? Had we taken the Little Ice Age Is Coming from the 70's what might that have caused/cost us?
These are not irrational questions. The sky is falling attitude is.
Other Comments by scooternyc
38. Comment #28579 by scooternyc on March 30, 2007 at 12:49 am
To your previous question, yes I am currently reading Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years. These scientists are just as credible as those that say things aren't warming. Are they not? If not, why not? What's the barometer for such a decision? Other Comments by scooternyc
39. Comment #28582 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 1:14 am
Well I think we are getting to the nub of the issue. I base my decision making on issues like this on the prevailing view in the relevant community (in this case climatologists). I don't have a hard figure where my skepticisim blurs into acceptance, but it's probably at the 75-85% mark, and we are well past that on AGW.
You seem to have formed the bizarre notion that since scientists, in some cases a majority, were wrong in the past, therefore we cannot trust scientists, not even a majority in a given discipline today. You don't see that a majority of scientists in the past are always wrong, in varying degrees about almost everything?
This is the same smokescreen the creationists blow all the time, with the peculiar exception that you seem to have bought it in this isolated case.
If thats your view, and it seems to be, then I don't see how you can form a view on anything (gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution ... the list is literally endless) short of doing all the research yourself. If a single dissenting voice is raised you're on the fence.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
40. Comment #28584 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 1:35 am
Finally Scooter : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/These guys have answers to all your questions, I've have read up on some of them in the past, and they can answer you more completely than I can. Rest assured though, that not a thing you have said in this entire thread is unfamiliar. I'm afraid the word "carnard" springs very readily to mind.
The key point I guess, is neither you nor I are climatologists, thus to debate this issue in the detail is largely pointless, because neither of us really have a clue. At least I confess, to only a vague notion of the details, hence my reliance on a critical mass of the relevant eggheads to agree.
However, debating the motivations for taking a given position are meaningful, and you have yet to demonstrate why you are "agnostic" :-) on this issue. I have 9 out of 10 climatologists on board my band wagon, and I think thats a pretty compelling case for action. Do me a favour research all your objections on the site I've supplied and then lets see if that moves you:-) If we can't convince rational atheists of the case, then we are in serious trouble:-)
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
41. Comment #28587 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 2:14 am
Just can't leave it alone:-)Do you honestly believe that weather predictions can be made from such an unreliable source as Mother Nature?
It's not about belief!! It's about evidence, and 90% of the relevant experts are convinced.
What about all the predictions from past decades about weather? Had we taken the Little Ice Age Is Coming from the 70's what might that have caused/cost us?
Oh come on:-) Next you'll be referencing victorians with slide rules and their concern about horseshit levels in 21st century London. These predictions where based on computer models running in about 64KB of RAM!!! They also had nothing like the level of agreement that AGW does today, in fact most of the scientists signing the IPCC declaration would have had trouble finding each others phone numbers in the 1970's. The level of co-operation and communication amongst climatologists today is unprecedented, and the computer models they use are literally millions of times more powerful, and reviewed by thousands of peers intent on finding something wrong with them. Another reason (do we need another!!!) why non-climatologists, even other scientists discussing the trend of one or two variables is simply laughable.
These are not irrational questions. The sky is falling attitude is.
The questions are not irrational, but refusing to acknowledge a massive majority of relevant experts in agreement is. There is also nothing irrational about pointing out that the sky is falling, if the sky is in fact falling. Although I hasten to add this characterisation is an hysterical strawman, there are serious odds that bad stuff could happen if we don't cut back energy use soon. The majority of climatologists agree on the trend and direction, just not magnitude.
In the teeth of such consensus, to do nothing, to champion doing nothing, to activley restrain and obstruct the people intent on doing something is surely irrational?
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
42. Comment #28605 by Fishpeddler on March 30, 2007 at 5:01 am
"We refuse to back down from First World civilization at the behest of a bad marketing campaign."I admire JRG for this comment in that it, at long last, drops the pretense that skepticism of GW is primarily about real scientific skepticism. It is about fear of being asked to give up some of our creature comforts.
I believe this fear is based on an incorrect assumption that we are in a zero sum game, that we have to choose between human comforts and protecting the environment. But at least this is something that can be discussed. It is a big improvement over the intractable stance of being skeptical of GW as long as ANY scientist is still skeptical of it.
Other Comments by Fishpeddler
43. Comment #28607 by Fishpeddler on March 30, 2007 at 5:06 am
"In the teeth of such consensus, to do nothing, to champion doing nothing, to activley restrain and obstruct the people intent on doing something is surely irrational?"Wow. You can drop the question mark, Brian -- this is a powerful statement that stands on its own.
Well, except for the typo. :)
Other Comments by Fishpeddler
44. Comment #28612 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 5:41 am
Wow. You can drop the question mark, Brian -- this is a powerful statement that stands on its own.Lets hope so:-)
I'm consistently amazed at how otherwise intelligent people compartmentalize their minds. The religion thing is a classic example, but the GW and evolution denial is so similar that it is startling. People simply refusing to accept mountains and mountains of evidence from experts.
I expect this from republican theists, but not from fellow rationalists. How do they justify it?
I just don't get it. When you have 90% of the worlds climatologists in agreement for 15 years, it's time to get the finger out.
Fishpeddler, you contributed a cool quote yourself earlier : If a dozen electricians tell me my house is dangerously miswired and may burn down, but only a couple tell me my house is probably fine, I'm gonna fix the wiring.
Anyone ignoring that sort of advice from one electrician would be considered reckless, but to ignore so many voices in agreement is simply criminal stupidity.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
45. Comment #28626 by scooternyc on March 30, 2007 at 7:09 am
Modern climate history:1850 to 1940: warming, especially between 1920 and 1940
1940 to 1975: cooling trend
1976 to 1978: sudden warming spurt
1979 to present: a large disparity between surface thermometers, which show a fairly strong warming, and the independent temperature readings of satellites and balloons, which show little warming trend.
"A wealth of other evidence has emerged since 1984, however, corroborating Dansgaarg and Oescher's natural 1,500-year climate cycle:
An ice core from the Antarctic's Vostok Glacier – at the other end of the world from Iceland – was brought up in 1987 and showed the same 1,500-year climate cycle throughout its 400,000 – year length.
The ice-core findings correlate with known advances and retreats in the glaciers of the Arctic, Europe, Asia, North America, Latin America, New Zealand, and the Antarctic.
The 1,500-year cycle has been revealed in seabed sediment cores brought up from the floors of such far-flung waters as North Atlantic Ocean and the Sargasso Sea, the South Atlantic Ocean and the Arabian Sea.
Cave stalagmites from Ireland and Germany in the Northern Hemisphere to South Africa and New Zealand in the Southern Hemisphere show evidence of the Modern Warming, the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming, the Dark Ages, the Roman Warming, and the unnamed cold period before the Roman Warming.
Fossilized pollen from across North America shows nine complete reorganizations of our trees and plants in the last 13,000 years, or one every
1,650 years.
In both Europe and South America, archaeologists have evidence that prehistoric humans moved their homes and farms up mountainsides during the warming centuries and retreated back down during the cold ones."
Fred Singer and Dennis Avery.
So, here I'm just getting started with information that seems logical, forthright in its ideas and evidence. Once read, does it sound like I'm not taking the matter seriously? Does it appear from reading this excerpt from Singer/Avery that they don't know what they're talking about at all? Is this evidence they present discredited?
Other Comments by scooternyc
46. Comment #28631 by scooternyc on March 30, 2007 at 7:32 am
In no way am I imparting that science is a "belief" system, it is not. Science proves factual theories based on evidence. I have no shares in it being otherwise. Simply because I don't agree with what's going on right now doesn't mean I'm not concerned.
Should we be creating alternatives means of energy to have less reliance on foreign oil? Certainly. Two very important precepts are accomplished in taking such action. Creating independence (something America was founded on and you'd think we'd get it by now the usefulness of the idea) and cleaner means of energy.
Would it not be in our best interest to form new products by which we are more conscious of the environment when it comes to consumer goods? Absolutely.
However, in this quest are we to deny, for instance, Third World Countries who wish to evolve to a higher level of living standard then they are experiencing today? No we should not.
A great example of this back/forth concept and how we jump in feet first, was revealed in the notion of Organic food. When confronted with the question of whether or not Organic food was BETTER for you, Catherine DiMateo of the Organic Trade Association had this to say about the bacteria issue: "It's just as nutritious as any other product". When pressed about Organic food being MORE nutritious she once again dodges the question: "It is as nutritious as any other product on the market".
My point - look at all the years and the continued adherence to Organic food as though it will save the earth and yet even the OTA can't make the claim that it's BETTER for you or even BETTER for the environment based on the fact that they can't grow it without some form or residuals of pesticides.
It just makes sense to pull back this snowball of what appears like hysteria to be able to ask, what are we doing now, where is the science leading us, let's look at BOTH sides before we move in a direction that once done, will take decades to undo.
Other Comments by scooternyc
47. Comment #28634 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 7:37 am
This is interesting, but largely pointless as I've explained at length. Neither you, nor I are experts, but you seem to want us to rehash the work a 100,000 climatologists over 5 decades on this blog. I have neither the time, nor sufficient knowledge to engage you in this way, and I think it unlikely that you are exponentially better informed on the subject than I:-) So lets save ourselves the trouble, eh?
Does this strike you as uncritical, lazy, reckless? I can only refer you AGAIN to the overwelming consensus of the relevant experts, if there was significant doubt that AGW was real, or it was 50/50, I would of course act differently.
Easy question, and you can ignore all the others to date (you have anyway!!). How do you, personally decide if a particular scientific theory, trend or hypothesis is true? I've given you my reasoning on the subject, now I want to hear yours.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
48. Comment #28638 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 7:53 am
However, in this quest are we to deny, for instance, Third World Countries who wish to evolve to a higher level of living standard then they are experiencing today? No we should not.LOL, the only people suggesting that are the Bush Junta. Kyoto lets the developing countries (temporarily) off the hook for this exact reason, and was unhappily a major stumbling block for the US. I consider it an appalling example of short sighted selfishness myself. So thats hardly an issue.
As regards the rest of your last post, you appear to be in favour of everything I'm in favour of, including mature reflection. Great:-) I just think the mature reflection phase has been had, and it's time to decide on action, of course in the EU thats already happened, so the US needs to play catch up now.
Does the US want to be left behind technologically, and economically? Sidelined from what will arguably be a major planetary industry in 10 - 20 years? C'mon get on board the capitalist green train, time is short and we are leaving the station:-)
How about that question?
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
49. Comment #28678 by scooternyc on March 30, 2007 at 11:10 am
"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus" - Christopher Hitchens, Hart House, University of Toronto Other Comments by scooternyc
50. Comment #28679 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 30, 2007 at 11:31 am
"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus" - Christopher Hitchens, Hart House, University of TorontoI completely agree. If the consensus is that of the mob, or the uninformed, but thats not what we rationalists are talking about here is it?
Fine, don't answer the substantive questions, I have to say this has been pretty disappointing:-( You need to do some serious self reflection Scooter my rational buddy. What is it about AGW that brings out the squirming theist in you?
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
1. Comment #28122 by pastafarian82 on March 28, 2007 at 4:54 am
Ah, finally a Friedman article that is not a raging contradiction of scientific observance and fact. Not to take anything away from Friedman for this, good on him. I suppose even a blind man can hit the target if he shoots enough bullets.Other Comments by pastafarian82