:p

anyone else is safer.

...and we've had this debate before as well.... :D

On one side is pretty much every respected climatologist and scientists from various related disciplines, sporting eleventy billion Nobel Prizes, and on the other side are a handful of professional skeptics bankrolled by the energy industry... and MBBF.

Honestly, it would be easier to debate a topic that is less settled, such as whether or not Barry Bonds used steroids.

I don't know, it takes a brave man to argue with what seems like kindof a "duh" statement:
Speaking at the Summit of the Americas in the Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago, Steven Chu says some islands could disappear if water levels rise as a result of greenhouse-gas induced climate change."

Really? So if glaciers melt, ocean levels rise, and some islands would go under? That seems pretty obvious.

SI

Of course. It's just like that. Sounds like that topic is resolved. Return to your regularly scheduled fear-mongering.

For the Children's sake do NOT send them to American Colleges to be brainwashed....fearmongering fah shaw!

And this is flat-out untrue. I've posted links to articles / interviews with other well-respected scientists / climatologists that disagree, including a former major player in hurricane work with the NOAA (interview from Discover). They just get shouted down and/or have trouble publishing (let alone get funding from any source BUT the energy industry), so it LOOKS like the situation you describe.

I'm happy to concede that Greg has a point (unlike, say, MBBF). The problem, Greg, as I see it, is that what you're hoping for is that the vast majority (by numbers) are wrong and it's the outlying challengers who are correct. That's certainly possible. Galileo, for instance, was a minority of one with his theories (later proven correct).

I don't think the debate is really helped by often being framed by the arguments of its extreme opponents. For instance: "There's no way humans could affect the Earth's climate" vs. "OMG! Everyone will be under water!!! Like Waterworld!!!!"

Of course, because he basically restated the point I was making. Much of what Greg mentions is what I was referring to, but don't let that stop you.


I think this comment is something we've seen far too often in recent weeks from supporters of the Obama administration and the administration itself. The idea that there is a huge swell of support for everything that the current administration pushes and anyone against that train of thought is in the extreme minority. We've seen it with global warming, stimulus packages (Obama's "I won" comments), and the 'pitchfork' comments to the CEO's of major financial institutions.

Just because the administration asserts a stance does not make it so.

I'm not a scientist in this field so any opinion I would have on climate change is uneducated. What I can say is that the ones who seem to be against it are the ones on the right. The same side of the aisle that believes our Earth is 6,000 years old. You can see why it's tough to take their side on an issue of science.

Yes, because nearly all Conservatives have a firm belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old, hence you can't believe a word they say.

Who's bringing the stupid in this discussion?

So if you don't believe in global warming you believe the earth is 6,000 years old? What?

Just stop.

The point being made has nothing to do with Obama. It is the majority of scientists on one side, mostly in full agreement over their interpretation of the data, and a small minority on the other.

There are also a small(er) minority of scientists who think evolution is wrong, and they also keep getting parroted about when creationism/evolution is argued. As someone with a lot of respect for scientists, I tend to believe it when a large majority of them say one thing versus one guy who says another. Like the rest of us here at FOFC, I am woefully unqualified to make my own judgements on these things so I have to rely on the views of those who study this for a living.

No, but the majority do. I'm just saying that the issue is being pushed hard by the right. When you have such a ridiculous track record on science, doesn't it make it harder to trust that side?

Not at all. I'm saying that some of the largest anti-global warming advocates are on the same side of the 6,000 year old Earth.

So the Energy Secretary is making these claims independent of any backing by his boss? Interesting assertion. Obama needs to get control of his cabinet if that truly is the case. As mentioned before by Greg, there are plenty of reputable scientists who offer significant evidence to contradict those theories. It's far from the open and shut case that you and Flere would like to paint.


There's a huge difference between the evolution argument and the global warming argument.

This should be fun.

:popcorn:

Of course there is. But there is a correlation between those who are against global warming but for the 6,000 year old Earth.

My ceiling needs painting this weekend, I figure with that broad brush of yours you should be able to get it done in 1 stroke.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf


9 out of 10 of all scientists say the earth is warming, and 4 out of 5 believe it is human-driven. Those that study the climate itself skew even higher.


Yes, there is. My point was that the manner in which it is attacked by the dissenting side is similar.

You really think the majority of "conservatives" think the earth is 6,000 years old? Or even don't beleive in global warming? That's the silliest thing I've heard in this thread yet.

No, Greg makes his points in a logical manner that have remained consistent through this argument for the past several years, as opposed to cloaking his arguments (on whatever topic) in thinly veiled partisan attacks.

To whit:


Really? The concept that the scientific argument about global warming is over is a recent declaration? Really?

The claim that serious scientific argument over global warming is basically over predates, in fact, Obama's presence on the national stage. It even predates An Inconvenient Truth.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Re...eationism.aspx

Then call Gallup silly. I'd also add that conservatives tend to be farther to the right than just the general "Republican" term and would probably have a higher percent.

No, it's an open and shut case in the opinion of an overwhelming majority of scientists in relevant disciplines (such as the Energy Secretary).

Anyway, if FOFC wants to have this argument again, complete with citations and the picking apart of scientific conclusions, knock yourselves out, folks.

MBBF /= Polling data or it's conclusions

Fabulous stuff there on what you selected to present. You took out the fact that just over 100 actual climate scientists actually participated in the study, which is a pretty small sample size and then stated that 9 out of 10 of all scientists say the earth is warming. Note that the vast majority of those scientists included in the study were NOT climatologists. Also note that it was merely an opinion-based poll with no requirements as to actually prove what they were saying.

This also doesn't even mention just how much money is being driven into the climatology field from government and private funding on both sides of the issue, which only furthers the amount of money to be made by keeping this discussion going. If it was so cut and dry as you mention, why are billions being spent to prove one side or the other?

I'm guessing it's just a re-education system for all of us 6,000 year old book beaters.

youve cited CATO before!

I'm pretty sure a lot of that money being spent (especially on the government side) is actually to research workable methods to slow down or reverse the process.

But perhaps you know differently.


I'm sure we'd all take your posts a lot more seriously if you didn't play the martyr card at every opportunity.

I'd also add that virtually every major conservative advocacy/research group supports creationism in schools and believe global warming is a myth. That includes:

-Family Research Council
-Discovery Institute
-American Conservative Union
-American Family Association
-Citizens United
-John Birch Society
-Heritage Foundation
-Cato Institute
-American Enterprise Institute

You can read into it however you want. I don't know how you don't see a correlation between those who believe in creationism and are against global warming. I'm just saying from a completely neutral observer on this topic, which side would you gravitate toward based on track records in science?

If there's anything that we can count on, it's that the government is spending taxpayer money for all the right reasons.

We all applaud your newfound circumspection of government expenditures.

There have been a ton of polls that used just climatologists. AGI did one last year I believe that had 97% of their climatologists stating they believed in global warming.

If you believe all those scientists are wrong, that's one thing. If you are trying to say that the vast majority of climatologists don't believe in global warming, that's just plain wrong.

Perhaps you should read again? My one mistake was not noting that is was 9 out of 10 earth scientists rather than all scientists. This was in fact an oversight on my behalf. And I would think said oversight would, if anything, bolster the case. They received responses from 157 climatologists out of around 520 polled (using their response rate). Just how many climatologists do you think there are to poll? As far as it being opinion-based, I'm not sure what other kind of poll you would be looking for. Of course it's opinion based.



Um, maybe because those scientists who think this is a problem would like to find some way to stop it?



I'm bewildered what this has to do with anything I've said. This is why we can't take you anywhere, MBBF.

OK, I was considering "conservatives" as a group larger than Republicans (and including libertarian types, basically anything not "liberal"), but that's just semantics.

But I admit I've very surprised the numbers are that high - on both sides.

I never really though, totally understood the conection between being "conservative", and religion/environmental views. Can't I dislike Obama, be strongly opposed to Democratic fiscal and national security ideas (and be completely annoyed at liberal smugness and arrogance when it rears its head), not not care about religion (but am annoyed when people beat it up for no reason) and be pro-environment and acknowledge global warming? Or all of those views tainted because "some of the same people" have certain ideas that the majority disagrees with? (it's becoming a classic FOFC logic).

I don't care what they believe, which is my whole point. Show me a poll that asks whether they can provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a direct correlation between man and global warming. Then we'll talk.

It should be noted in case you haven't noticed that I'm not dismissing the possibility that it exists. I just think there should be more absolute proof before Chicken Little becomes the Energy Secretary and his boss is blessing this kind of behavior.

It's like 2002 all over again.

Very true. You would think that the current administration would try to avoid repeating those kinds of mistakes. Evidently not.

That's a little much to ask, isn't it? Why would we apply the criminal conviction standard to enironmental policy? What's the downside? Fresh air, renewable energy, and a energy independence? I mean, would that suck if we achieved all that and it turned out we were wrong about global warming?

I'm curious how likely you think man-man global warming is, and at point we should try to do something about it. You say "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is something like 99% sure. What if we were 85% sure? Should we still just blow it off? What if there was even a 50% risk, say, that a catastrophe would impact civlization. Wouldn't you look into ways to mitigate that?

I don't think conservatives are that large. A libertarian for instance would be conservative fiscally, but very liberal socially. I think the country is probably around 25% conservative and 25% liberal. The rest kind of just lean a little one way or the other and are probably mixed (like me). If conservatives had a huge base, there is no way McCain would have gotten that nomination.

I'm also surprised by the numbers. I think younger people believe in it much less and we are probably around them most of the time.


Of course you can. I'm just saying as a whole, those who are against global warming tend to be more likely to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. I think it's fair to point out that many of the groups pushing an anti-global warming agenda also believe Jesus lived amongst dinosaurs. If you are judging this independently than great, but a lot of people are just being told what to believe by their "flock leaders". Those same leaders who have a laughable track record on science.

"dont care but certainly will use them to bolster my stance"...I remember the Cato poster being the most terrific example of your hypocrisy.

Doctor: We'd like to put you on this drug that will help kill the infection.

MBBF: Can you prove without a reasonable doubt that this drug will kill my infection?

Doctor: No, but we have a lot of data that shows that this drug is effective in killing these types of infections.

MBBF: No thanks, talk to me when you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I mentioned before, I think it's a great idea to do everything feasibly possible to mitigate any harmful man-made effect on the environment. Pick up trash, reduce fossil fuel reliance, etc. I just am totally opposed to the idea that we need scare tactics based on questioned research to move that process forward.

There's a whole lot of Chicken Little's out there who aren't actually doing much to back up their global warming talk. If it's such an important thing, why aren't they acting on those assertions?

Once again, an argument that has no relevance. Antibiotic research is proven far beyond a reasonable doubt, but don't let that stop you.

I think you're confusing "speculation" with "scientific conclusions".

...and now we move from challenging the assertion to attacking the messenger.... If we keep this up at this pace I think we can be through the re-hash of this argument by dinnertime.

Fixed.

When said messenger is a hypocrite, the challenge is without question well-warranted.

At least we're agreed that you're confused, then. That's progress. :D

That's almost zen, especially coming from you.

Wasn't that a given? I'm just removing the layers of haze. :D


Well, I'm no Al Gore, but.............