Re: OT: Re: Global warming meltdown

Mark Cipra wrote:
I'll give one more run at this then let you have the last word.

Sweevil wrote:
Mark, you'll be relieved to hear I have no role in running the
government.

I'll be able to sleep again at night.

The U.S. government is, in fact, one of the biggest
promoters of the global warming theory.

Why do you say this? Because it's the major source of grant money in the
US? Certainly those at the top are not very interested in the issue.

I don't agree that expressing skepticism about a hotly-debated
scientific theory amounts to "pontificating".

Yes, that was hyperbole. Let's go with "spouting nonsense".

My problem is that you don't seem to me to be expressing skepticism. I
subscribe to Skeptical Inquirer (and contribute to its parent organization)
and read a lot of other skeptical and "straight" scientific material. I've
seen this issue discussed skeptically a number of times. There *are*
rational arguments on both sides, but the "anti" side seems to lose the
argument every time, when all the facts are considered. I presume you
believe sincerely in your position; if not, and you are arguing merely for
the sake of expressing skepticism, you are doing the skeptical movement no
favors.

I say this because you appear to have a pre-determined position - for
reasons which are not clear to me - and now you support it by selecting only
those facts which (you think) support it - and without thorough
understanding, to boot. One example from our discussion: bringing up the
variable results of climate change as evidence against global warming -
without realizing that this is frequently cited as confirmation of the
theory. (Note that in scientific sources, the term is almost always "Global
Climate Change", not "Global Warming". Many media outlets seem to have
picked up the more accurate terminology, but for this discussion I'm
sticking with "... Warming".)

This *sounds* to me as though you know what you want to believe ahead of
time, that you select the tiny subset of facts which support your opinion,
add in a few misunderstood facts which actually tend to disprove your
opinion, and ignore the vast bulk of information which makes your position
untenable.

And I don't agree with
your repeated assertion that I know nothing about the subject. One of

Sorry if I said or implied that. What I think is that you know only what
you want to know. Also, you have displayed repeated misunderstandings of
the way science works and the way scientists conduct themselves.

In addition to the examples from this and earlier discussions, I could cite
the fact that you frequently dismiss scientific opinions based on what can
only be popular-media (=TV?) attacks on them - e.g., dismissing the Venus
analogy. If you knew anything about the Venus analogy, it would be clear
how it fits in global warming theory in a limited but very useful way.

Responsible news outlets, by the way, frequently *do* present issues like
this in a reasonable way - they include all those scientific "weasel words"
like "probable", for example. It's up to you to read them carefully.

my best friends was special attache to the United Nations in the
1990s, specializing in the global warming issue. We've had many
spirited discussions about it and he's pointed me to various sources
of information -- I take a special interest in this subject, which is
why I started the thread in the first place.

Even if everything you believe is true, it's too late to do anything
substantive about it. How are you going to stop greenhouse emissions
from livestock and agriculture -- which I believe are greater than
those produced by fossil fuels. I guess we could kill all livestock

There are "green" ways to minimize livestock emissions, I believe, but it's
not something I'm very familiar with. I'm not quite sure what the net
effect of our having replaced forests and grassland with cultivated land is,
but I suspect it's close to a wash.

Even supposing your facts are correct (and I've no reason to think they are,
given your record), dealing effectively with the half of the problem
attributable to fossil fuels (I'm glad to see you acknowledge the effect)
would be a tremendous step forward.

and murder all farmers ... global starvation would surely be a small
price to pay for encouraging the use of alternative energy sources.

Straw man. No one suggests this, but greener alternatives should be
explored.

By the way, the point about risk in my previous post, which I made poorly,
is that by taking action, we *may* be able to control and mitigate the
effects. Through inaction, we face the very real possibility of
uncontrolled widespread hunger and economic disruption.

What will we do about emissions from the world's most populous
nations, which are exempted from the Kyoto Treaty? Aside from
wringing our hands or simply wiping out the majority of the human
race, what can we do that would actually affect your disaster
scenario?

Well, we could sign up to the treaty ourselves, first of all, since we are a
self-exempted country. We could invest in existing cleaner technologies
more heavily than we invest in older technologies. We could put more money
into basic research that may result in breakthrough technologies (rice
paddies with minimal greenhouse effect?). We could encourage conservation.
Our leaders could stop pretending the issue doesn't exist.

We could *start*, in other words. As people came to be used to these
efforts they would see that they don't need to be as economically disruptive
as they thought (and certainly less so than the alternative, if they would
only consider the risk factors), we could increase the efforts. It might
not be too late.

Or do you want extreme environmentalism? We could, after adopting green
policies ourselves, use our global might to impose restrictions on others,
although I'd prefer to lead by example and persuasion. The scenario I fear
is the rest of the world ganging up on *us*. That would get ugly.

Crichton researched this subject for three years and came to

It is especially rich for you to trot out Michael Crichton in the post
following the one in which you dismiss Stephen Hawking as a
"non-climatologist". Let's see ... I've got to choose between the opinions
of two non-climatologists on the subject of global warming. Will I go with
one of the great scientific minds of all time, or a
medical-doctor-turned-sci-fi-author? Tough call.

Don't get me wrong - I enjoy Crichton's fiction, but he's no Stephen
Hawking. He's a good writer of adventure stories, but a second-tier (at
best) thinker of sci-fi ideas. And I will concede that he's a smart fella,
if sometimes given to wierd opinions (I'm not asking for his advice on
international relations or sexual harrassment soon).

conclusions considerably less charitable than mine. I guess he's
"ignorant" too.

No, like you, he's very selective in his research.

Your attitude towards those who hold an opposing
views remind me of Theresa Heinz-Kerry's response when a reporter
told her some people questioned one of her husband's policies: "Well,
they're idiots!" :-)

Well, they are. :) Not really. I respect the research of scientists who
have found holes in global warming theory - this is another one of those
"that's how science works" things. Scientist A finds a hole, scientist B
tries to figure out why it exists, they argue, and the resulting theory is
stronger.

What I don't respect is the opinions of people who glom onto a few isolated
facts and think that they constitute an argument.

[snip]

--
Mark Cipra
"I peel back those magnetic ribbons on people's cars that say 'God
bless America' and snip out the blank space and the 'b'. Probably this
is wrong of me."
Play Indiana Jones! Hide the "ark" in my address to reply by email.


Now *that's* a six-star (at least) post! Beautifully detailed and explained.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Globaloney elsewhere
    ... any way similar to the present scientific standing for global warming is ... "science" is politically motivated junk science IMO and I refuse to ... Another poor game of the whipped by the facts crowd is to try to play ... we invoke the aid of the scientists and Al Gore instead. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: OT: Re: Global warming meltdown
    ... My problem is that you don't seem to me to be expressing skepticism. ... when all the facts are considered. ... variable results of climate change as evidence against global warming - ... the way science works and the way scientists conduct themselves. ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Re: WHY DID GLOBAL WARMING BECOME A MORAL MATTER?
    ... High Priest of Global Warming has decreed it as such. ... also tell you that you "cannot legislate morality". ... which one views the facts. ... Some very reputable scientists hold that global warming may ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: OT: Re: Global warming meltdown
    ... facts are considered. ... evidence against global warming - without realizing that this is ... opinions of two non-climatologists on the subject of global warming. ... scientists who have found holes in global warming theory - this is ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Re: Doom is at the Door
    ... The world's top scientists warned last week that ... > climate change is taking place today, ... > global warming, comes into force after a seven-year delay. ... as the seas rise dramatically. ...
    (sci.energy)