Global Warming

No you just cite exclusively GW Denier sources and say "golly gee these guys are smarter than me - they must have a point! I'm just sayin', the jury's still out" You do this all the time. This also just happens to be the standard tactic of the GW Denialist lobby - don't make any conclusions because they really can't, just try to murk-ify things just enough so that you can say nothing is certain - accordingly status quo prevails and they get what they want.

Look at you get all upset when I cite a crackpot backed with dubious science to urge a dubious proposition.

Why do you think you should be allowed to do the same?

 

It's not about you Max. It's about all the enormous amount of publicity these small detractors get. Your motives are not a big concern, frankly. However, the motives of these scientists and their supporters are quite alarming.

For once, I'd like an article to get as much attention with a headline:

HUGE MAJORITY OF CLIMATOLOGISTS AND RESEARCH GROUPS CONCEDE GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND CAUSED BY MAN-MADE EMISSIONS

 

Dec. 29, 2011- The Houston Rockets finish an undefeated Oct.-Dec. with a record of 31-0

Dec. 30, 2011- The Houston Texans prepare for a playoff push to the SuperBowl after finishing the regular season 16-0

Jan. 3, 2012- The radical terrorist group Mayan2012 protested at the United Nations calling for global recognition of the end of the world.

Jan. 4, 2012- UN President Obama spoke on global news networks assuring the world that every resource was being directed to stop the growing Global Warming threat. There have been reports that the NFL playoffs and the NBA season would be suspended indefinately for the first time in history due to the crisis.

In other news, it is being reported by ESPN that the Houston Astros have been sold to a Venezuelan group of investors who plan to move the franchise to Cuba prior to the start of the 2012 season.

 

a world where the pres of the USA decides to be pres of the UN is a world I head to the mountains in.

 

Yes, it's time to buy up seeds, learn how to grow organically, and if you're buying foods it's best to buy organic or locally grown at your farmer's market. Clean food water is going to be a necessity of the near future.

 

I guarantee you that if you look at, say, lots of the old threads you start on this topic or that you otherwise participated in you will find lots of information on this very request. You will find the same few people cited again and again by the GW deniers (it is a cottage industry). SOme of them are not climate scientists (meterologists, etc) and many of them were misquoted or many of them are heavily petro-sponsored. It's frustrating to have to engage in this again and again. We don't have this same problem with things like gravity where there is as much or more controversy and blank spaces.

But anyway so what. The fact that there are so many other scientists who believe otherwise is very compelling - if you're going to premise your belief solely on appeal-to-authority.. and it's not just a few more, it's a ton more.

 

OK well if you're not upset, then stop acting so huffy and then answer my questions.

Fred Leuchter is an expert on death machines and has an impressive resume. He produced a scientific document saying that the HOlocaust didn't exist. Most normal people (science and laymen) believe that it did exist.


Two questions:

1. Could I start a thread and have many posts on Holocaust denial, citing Leuchter and honestly say I had no agenda when I started that thread and profess indignation people (like me) interpret that I have one after having done it for years? and more importantly

2. Does the presence of a contrarian opinion from somebody more knowledgeable than you merit the re-examination of a question where the great weight of evidence indicates that the question has been answered?

 

Frederick Seitz wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Seitz

clearly not a "crackpot", but some very interesting observations. employed by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. didn't believe CFC's were a great threat to the ozone layer. didn't think it was dangerous to passively inhale toxins....he clearly mixed it up with some controversial things in his later years - most in areas that don't really seem to be his specialty at all.

i'm using past tense cause he died, btw...

 

I don't think it'll be that extreme unless a MadMax dystopia () really does happen.

Bioengineering will tackle on a lot of the water issues, such as domesticating plants that grow on salty water or creating strains that "purify" soil and water supplies without resorting to costly cleanup.

So maybe we won't have grapes or beef as we know it, but some foods simply are selfish vices when considering the amount of mouths to feed around the world.

 

Sorry but your response to this question ("Jury's still out!") is the same one GWB had in 2000 - even HE has moderated his stance on this at this point. It's very frustrating to see the same arguments again and again.

The connection is that both are things that there is a substantial body of evidence in favor of....and for which there is also a cottage industry of denialists, motivated by various factors, who can and always will exist, and will always be able to fine some authority to cite in their favor.

Really it only takes 600 people to call something into serious question? What if there are 60,000 experts on the other side? 600,000? 6 million? 600 seems like an absurdly low number - I could put together 600 scientists to oppose pretty much everything (probably even the holocaust).

 

Max:

The lack of more information aside from "x number of scientists disagree with global warming" is what calls the motive into question.

The IPCC report is voluminous - detractors arguments are almost never well explained, nor are they usually given in conjuntion with hard data. The few times hard data has been given, the claims have been shown to be exaggerated or completely wrong.

 

Comparing holocaust denial to doubts about global warming is just dumb, although typical SamFisher. The issue of whether or not the IPCC's conclusions were correct is in serious dispute (as one might consider obvious since former IPCC scientists themselves are protesting). Holocaust denial does not have a similar debate, especially considering one is a historical event. Having happened, the evidence available to establish it as a fact is overwhelming. That is in comparison to something that hasn't happened (the impacts of global warming that sound so dire in news reports).

Max posted a report that around 650 scientists, many of whom actually participated in the IPCC, have their doubts about the IPCC's official conclusion. Where he found the report is irrelevant unless you're saying that the report is false (meaning that if I post a story I saw on crackpot.com but it is relaying an actual event - like 650 scientists having problems with the IPCC, then an indict of the site doesn't invalidate the point).

The argument that these are crackpots doesn't make sense as some of these are the same scientists that were part of the IPCC.

The argument that these are not climatologists makes no sense as a large portion of the IPCC scientists were not climatologists. Wow, think geologists, for example, might also be important? Apparently the IPCC does.

It's important to remember that IPCC scientists are disagreeing with the official conclusion because while they contributed on the front end, thousands of scientists did not sit down and write out the final report. That was done by a policy based committee. So while IPCC was announced as '1,000s of nobel scientists say'...that wasn't actually what happened. To that end the 650 (out of a few thousand max, which is a significant number btw) have their own independent issues. I'll give you an example: the IPCC report says that hurricane's will get worse and we'll have superhurricanes as a result of GW. This was, of course, widely reported in '05 with Katrina et al. But many of the scientists disagree with this particular conclusion.

So what happens is that it's announced that thousands of scientists declare 'x' in the IPCC. On the opposing side of the debate, now it's being reported that 'many scientists disagree with the IPCC conclusions.' Both have a strain of truth. Neither tell the full story. There does appear to be a consensus that warming is happening. Whether it's man-made or not, how fast it's occuring, and what the impacts will be - is all still open to debate.

 

What are their Motives?

Rocket River

 

See - you're already wrong and you're barely into your rant....What do you think global warming evidence is based on? The answer is historical data, some recent and some not-so-recent. As you say (circularly) having happened, the evidence available to establish it as a fact is overwhelming.

Accordingly the best way to obfuscate is to ask a lot of the questions using lots of logical fallacies - ones which you are intimately familiar ("Is there really a CONSENSUS on the Holocaust?...What does "CONSENSUS" REALLY MEAN, anyway? Help me out here!")

Yawn.

 

According to google answers, there is an estimated 3.5 million scientists and engineers in US.

For the sake of argument, it is the accepted consensus of this larger scientific community that global warming exists and is exacerbated by man.

The 650 scientists with reservations, is approximately 0.0186% of that larger community.

Significant?