Re: Global warming meltdown

Well, it WAS a civil exchange until Mark "answered" my points by simply
telling me over and over that I'm an uninformed idiot. Actual
counter-evidence might have made more of an impression. What is
factual in a statement like this? "Even supposing your facts are
correct (and I've no reason to think they are, given your record)."
And this is the post you guys want to give six stars to? I guess stars
go to posts that express your own position in the most arrogant,
unsourced way possible.

It's remarkable to me, Mark, that you can call my position
"pre-determined" with a straight face. Every fact, study, or expert I
adduce you immediately dismiss as ridiculous, junk, not worth looking
into. All my experts are worthless hacks, but yours are infallible
sages.

The thing is, I'm as interested in "green" solution as you are. I just
don't have to force myself to believe fairy tales in order to arrive at
that position. As Crichton truly says, environmentalism has become a
religion, demanding that its believers accept certain dogmas without
asking questions. Crichton compares global warming to eugenics, a
theory that took hold of the world-wide scientific community with
disastrous social and political consequences. It's a provocative
analogy.

My questioning any aspect of global warming theories seems to get you
as angry as a 14th century Cardinal facing a parishioner's skepticism
about the Immaculate Conception.

I am absolutely open to accepting global warming as true, if better
evidence appears. Until then I'm unconvinced.

That's my last word on this. You may all continue to burn my
blasphemous carcass as a heretic ... ouch!

WHAT A DAY, WHAT A DAY
FOR AN AUTO DA FE!
WHAT A SUNNY SUMMER SKY!



Bushwhacker wrote:
Matthew Winn wrote:
On 22 Jun 2006 08:33:13 -0700, "Eagle" <eaglenewsgroup@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Matthew Winn wrote:
This isn't something that's open to question. The energy is there.
It doesn't just vanish into nothingness because it's politically
convenient for it to do so. We _know_ increased energy results in
more turbulent weather for the same reason we know that heating a
pan of water will result in more violent convection. If the energy
trapped by the atmosphere doesn't lead to more energy in the weather
then where does it go? Critics of global warming appear to ignore
this, as if the extra energy can be swept under some environmental
carpet. Sorry, but that's not science.
Assuming it is true that there have been great climate fluctuations in
the past that cannot be attributable to human activity, then what
caused *those* fluctuations? Was it trapped energy? If so, how did
that occur independent of human activity, and what happened to that
"extra" trapped energy? Did it simply vanish? Could those past
fluctuations have been caused by something other than extra trapped
energy? If so, what is that something other, and why should it be
ruled out as a major factor in climate change today?

What you say there is precisely why the anti-warming argument isn't
considered to be good science.

You're saying two things: that if climate change can happen without
human activity then all climate change happens without human activity,
and that if human activity does cause climate change then no climate
change can happen without human activity.

Neither of these makes any sense. "A results in B" does not mean
"only A can result in B", nor does it mean "B cannot happen without
A".

There can be more than one cause for something. There's no question
that human activity has caused the extinction of many species over
the last few hundred years. Should we assume that this claim makes
extinctions million years ago mysteriously inexplicable because there
were no humans around to cause them? Or if the extinctions of the
distant past were caused by something other than human activity,
should we conclude that _only_ those factors result in extinctions
today and humans are not to blame?

Following your and Sweevil's logic, the answer can only be yes.

The problem with your point of view is that it says we're not causing
global warming but it fails to provide any explanation of why that
should be the case:

(1) We know we're changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere.
(2) We know that the changes we're making have an effect on absorption
of radiation.
(3) We know that this absorption causes more energy in the atmosphere,
and that this energy must go somewhere.
(4) We observe that the climate appears to be changing.

Critics of global warming say that there's no connection between the
first three points and the fourth.

But they provide nothing to justify that claim. All they do is state
that somehow the first three points have no climatic effect, and
there's some other factor at work -- unknown and unspecified -- that
just happens to have the effect we'd expect if global warming were
real.

What's that other factor? Nobody seems able to tell us, but we're
expected to believe in it all the same.

Kinda like "intelligent design" vs. evolution...


All we know is that, whatever
it is, it just happens to have the same effect as we'd expect to see
from carbon dioxide emissions and other human-created contributions to
the atmosphere. Funny, that.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Senators Attest to Alaska Climate Change
    ... Senators Attest to Alaska Climate Change ... Alaska - Anyone doubting the effects of human activity on ... *human activity* is the cause of global warming. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: ! Al Chicken Little Gore Admits Financial Stake In Advancing Global Warming Hysteria
    ... Gore Admits Financial 'Stake' In Advancing Global Warming Hysteria ... Largest corporations agree to cut global warming emissions ... Roundtable on Climate Change in a statement issued Tuesday. ... promoting energy efficiency and de- ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Global warming meltdown
    ... the past that cannot be attributable to human activity, ... Was it trapped energy? ... human activity then all climate change happens without human activity, ... fluctuations *before* the advent of man-made global warming. ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Natural Forces, Not Man, Causing Global Warming, Scientist Says
    ... responsible for any global warming taking place, ... and space physicist Fred Singer declared Monday at the Heartland ... Institute's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New ... and not by human activity," Singer said during his luncheon address at ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Global warming meltdown
    ... the past that cannot be attributable to human activity, ... Was it trapped energy? ... human activity then all climate change happens without human activity, ... fluctuations *before* the advent of man-made global warming. ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
Loading