global warming denial

[varwoche]

The denial of global warming, and the denial that burning fossil fuels contributes, has about the same intellectual honesty as holocaust denial.

OK, overstated slightly, but not by much. So let's grant a small degree of uncertainty...

Inaction is unacceptable when when best science indicates that disaster of biblical proportion looms as a real possibility.

Not to mention that reducing fuel consuption would be an important "weapon" in the war on terror. Unfortunately, Bush et al do not fully appreciate the multi-dimensional aspects of this war.

varwoche

 

[RandFan]

The denial of global warming, and the denial that burning fossil fuels contributes, has about the same intellectual honesty as holocaust denial.

OK, overstated slightly, but not by much. So let's grant a small degree of uncertainty...

Inaction is unacceptable when when best science indicates that disaster of biblical proportion looms as a real possibility.

Not to mention that reducing fuel consuption would be an important "weapon" in the war on terror. Unfortunately, Bush et al do not fully appreciate the multi-dimensional aspects of this war.

varwoche

If the evidence does indeed show that there is a significant risk to global warming caused by burning fossil fuels then you are right.

My understanding is that there is no such consensus. Just a fear that fossil fuel is suspected by many as being a significant factor.

Can you post data that supports the notion that burning fossil fuels has been determined to be a significant cause?

Also what if there is contradictory scientific data? Would you consider this data or dismiss it out of hand?

 

[Sundog]

Re: Re: global warming denial

If the evidence does indeed show that there is a significant risk to global warming caused by burning fossil fuels then you are right.

My understanding is that there is no such consensus. Just a fear that fossil fuel is suspected by many as being a significant factor.

Can you post data that supports the notion that burning fossil fuels has been determined to be a significant cause?

Also what if there is contradictory scientific data? Would you consider this data or dismiss it out of hand?

Read this month's Scientific American. It'll scare the you-know-what out of you.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Read this month's Scientific American. It'll scare the you-know-what out of you.

Which I'm sure was their intent...

 

[Sundog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Which I'm sure was their intent...

So Scientific American is now a left-wing publication?

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Read this month's Scientific American. It'll scare the you-know-what out of you.

Is it the end of the discussion as far as global warming goes?

Does the magazine state categorically that humans have significantly contributed to global warming?

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

So Scientific American is now a left-wing publication?

You think left-wing publications are the only ones capable of propaganda and fear mongering?

 

[Sundog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Is it the end of the discussion as far as global warming goes?

Does the magazine state categorically that humans have significantly contributed to global warming?

Yup. Read it.

 

[Sundog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

You think left-wing publications are the only ones capable of propaganda and fear mongering?

Obviously Kodiak dismisses it without even reading it. Obviously if it has evidence about global warming, it's a left wing scare tactic. Must be, right?

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Obviously Kodiak dismisses it without even reading it. Obviously if it has evidence about global warming, it's a left wing scare tactic. Must be, right?

I did read it. It was written by James Hansen, who had made definitive statements about global warming before, and was then forced to back-pedal and alter his positions.



For example

 

[Sundog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

I did read it. It was written by James Hansen, who had made definitive statements about global warming before, and was then forced to back-pedal end alter his positions.



For example

Do you have concrete criticisms of what he had to say, or are you waiting for some good loyal Republican scientist to debunk it?

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

I did read it. It was written by James Hansen, who had made definitive statements about global warming before, and was then forced to back-pedal end alter his positions.


For example

Where's your skepticism, Sundog?

Is your need to believe affecting your objectivity?

 

[Sundog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Where's your skepticism, Sundog?

Is your need to believe affecting your objectivity?

Why on Earth would anyone WANT global warming to be true?

Not being a scientist myself, the equation goes something like this:

I see an OVERWHELMING number of scientists who are convinced global warming is real.

All the arguments against it come from people with obvious stakes in it not being true. All the "scientists" who don't believe in it seem to have clear ties to the right.

My vote goes with the vast, VAST majority of scientists who are convinced it's real. I believe in the scientific process.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Do you have concrete criticisms of what he had to say, or are you waiting for some good loyal Republican scientist to debunk it?

I only have to look at his own statements to come to the conclusion that he tends to take definitive positions hastily and then later has to withdraw them. On top of that, his Sci-Am article starts off with an anecdote - never a good beginning for a supposedly "scientific" article on HCGW.

 

[Sundog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

On top of that, his Sci-Am article starts off with an anecdote - never a good beginning for a supposedly "scientific" article on HCGW.

Oh, piffle. Surely you've read SA long eough to know that that's quite common.

 

[Luke T.]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Why on Earth would anyone WANT global warming to be true?

Why would anyone WANT Planet X to smash into the Earth?

Excitement.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Why on Earth would anyone WANT global warming to be true?

Easy.

To use fear for political gain against capitalism, democracy, and free enterprise.

 

[Sundog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Easy.

To use fear for political gain against capitalism, democracy, and free enterprise.

Do you honestly ascribe such motives to me?

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Why on Earth would anyone WANT global warming to be true?

Well, people of your ilk for example would want to use it as another bat to beat people with which they disagree. That's the only reason certain people loose all pretenses of skepticism when the subject comes up. It comfortably fits in with their pre-conceived notions and biases.

 

[Sundog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming denial

Well, people of your ilk for example would want to use it as another bat to beat people with which they disagree. That's the only reason certain people loose all pretenses of skepticism when the subject comes up. It comfortably fits in with their pre-conceived notions and biases.

"My ilk"? Ouch.

Someone please explain to me how it is not being skeptical to side with the VAST majority of worldwide scientific opinion? Isn't that how we DO skepticism?