The Skeptic's Guide To Global Warming

[Stormcrow]

I like pie!

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Something the majority of the world might not know

Indeed. Hence I pointed it out.

Can you refute what was reported

I have no intention of trying, actually.

I believe evolution is a more accurate model than creationism, but I'm not going to go and trawl round a bunch of cleverly-argued pro-creationist websites and try to refute them; I simply consider them a bunch of crackpots I can easily ignore.

I believe the earth is an oblate spheroid. I'm not going to go and trawl round the Flat Earth Society's websites and try to refute their view; I simply consider them a bunch of crackpots I can easily ignore.

I believe democracy is better than communism. I'm not going to go and trawl round marxist websites and try to refute their view; I simply consider them a bunch of crackpots I can easily ignore.

In fact, I don't have the time or patience to try to refute crackpots in general.

"Crackpot" is a word that I find very easy to apply to the Daily Telegraph, which is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the euro-skeptic, fundamentalist Christian, extreme right wing lunatic fringe of British society. I believe that the average age of the readership is well over 60, as indeed is the average age of the British Conservative voter, and I suspect that the Conservative party and their so-called "newspaper" the Telegraph will quietly disappear over the next decade as its audience quite literally dies off.

And good riddance.

or should we all begin doubting information simply because we don't like the source, because I don't hold the UN or its IPCC in very high regard for a number of reasons.

You're free to believe or doubt as you please. But don't expect me to be convinced by the Telegraph.

[JCBoney]

I have no intention of trying, actually.

I believe evolution is a more accurate model than creationism, but I'm not going to go and trawl round a bunch of cleverly-argued pro-creationist websites and try to refute them; I simply consider them a bunch of crackpots I can easily ignore.

I believe the earth is an oblate spheroid. I'm not going to go and trawl round the Flat Earth Society's websites and try to refute their view; I simply consider them a bunch of crackpots I can easily ignore.

I believe democracy is better than communism. I'm not going to go and trawl round marxist websites and try to refute their view; I simply consider them a bunch of crackpots I can easily ignore.

In fact, I don't have the time or patience to try to refute crackpots in general.

"Crackpot" is a word that I find very easy to apply to the Daily Telegraph, which is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the euro-skeptic, fundamentalist Christian, extreme right wing lunatic fringe of British society. I believe that the average age of the readership is well over 60, as indeed is the average age of the British Conservative voter, and I suspect that the Conservative party and their so-called "newspaper" the Telegraph will quietly disappear over the next decade as its audience quite literally dies off.

And good riddance.

Interesting, but the subject at hand is several GW skeptics receiving death threats for their stance. Whether or not anyone finds the Telegraph a reliable source is immaterial, unless you're prepared to claim they're out and out lying.

FOXNews has a "controversial" reputation here in the US... if I turned it on to hear a report that the Empire State Building just collapsed, I wouldn't automatically assume they're lying. I'd stop and listen... and then go to the Drudge Report.

Bottomline: a tactic of disputing the source to nullify the information reported isn't a worthy tactic at all, unless one can provide proof that source deliberately lied or used shady means to twist the story.

[jgbrowning]

The earth has warmed up before---and it was not due to the evil mankind. How? What? Impossible! It was cavemen? What there were no cavemen when the earth warmed before? Huh? Hell, you must be a free-thinking Libertarian or a Conservative to mention such blasphemy.

Just because something has happened without the influence of one factor before doesn't mean that one factor isn't an influence now. For example just because forests disappeared long before man doesn't mean that man hasn't had any influence on the disappearance of forests.

Regardless of your political affiliations, the idea isn't treated as blasphemy because of politics: it's treated as blasphemy because it doesn't hold water.

joe b.

[JCBoney]

And for another perspective...

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21 ... 21,00.html

A LEADING Muslim cleric has blamed the devastating drought, climate change and pollution on Australians' lack of faith in Allah.

Radical sheik Mohammed Omran told followers at his Brunswick mosque that out-of-control secular scientific values had caused environmental disaster.

"The fear of Allah is not there. So we have now a polluted earth, a polluted water, a wasteland," he told a meeting this year.

"What are the people now crying for? The prophet told you hundreds of years ago, 'Look after the water'."

A Sunday Herald Sun investigation also found clerics railing against "evil" democracy, vilifying Jews and Christians and encouraging jihad and polygamy.

[Ska]

jgb----agreed, but I think you miss my point. The various links provided and prior argument go to show that the earth warming may have nothing to do with human activity or so litle as to be negligable.

My point was to show WHY the liberal media and the left in general is pushing this ludicrous claim. It is all about government control, raising taxes for wealth re-distribution to fund leftist/socialist programs.

It is the left's newest "cause" being used to frighten people to agree to socialist policies.

[dcs]

A Sunday Herald Sun investigation also found clerics railing against "evil" democracy

Just shows that no one can be wrong all the time.

[jgbrowning]

jgb----agreed, but I think you miss my point. The various links provided and prior argument go to show that the earth warming may have nothing to do with human activity or so litle as to be negligable.

There are also various links and arguments that show that the earth warming is associated with/influenced by human activity.

My point was to show WHY the liberal media and the left in general is pushing this ludicrous claim. It all about government control, raising taxes for weralth re-distribution to fund leftist/socialist programs.

It is the left's newest "cause" being used to frighten people to agree to socialist policies.

You didn't show WHY, you simply said what you thought about the same information that everyone else has looked at - even those who don't think its being used to unduly frighten to promote policy.

That's why I posted my earlier post. This thread is just an "Is not! Is too!" discussion between, assuming the worst of the posters, two political factions that are more concerned with promoting an agenda than with determining what's going on. Assuming the best of the posters, it's just two different opinions about a highly complex subject that has massive political ramifications depending upon how one chooses to view the information available.

joe b.

[JCBoney]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_ ... lar_trek_1

MINNEAPOLIS - A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite.

[dcs]

There are also various links and arguments that show that the earth warming is associated with/influenced by human activity.

Even granting that this is the case (something with which I do not necessarily agree), why do we assume that global warming is something undesirable? For example, if the earth is on the verge of an ice age, then global warming due to greenhouse effects produced by industry is a good thing.

I think it's wise to approach claims about global warming caused by human activity with a fair dose of skepticism. After all, in the 1970s "global cooling" caused by human activity was the consensus.

[AxeMental]

JB, 1 volcanic eruption puts out more global warming gas then all human activity for 10 years (both "sides" agree to this, it is scientific fact). Some years there are many eruptions, some years few. Yet the temperature stays pretty much the same. So how in THE BLOODY LIVING HELL is man kind repsonsible for the increase in global warming? This is pre-school logic my friends. If you can't understand what man does is irrelevant compared to solar flares (also accepted by both sides as fact) and volcanic erruptions then I don't know what else to say.

[TRP]

This is pre-school logic my friends.

Fortunately, I made it considerably past pre-school.

[jgbrowning]

So how in THE BLOODY LIVING HELL is man kind repsonsible for the increase in global warming?

Decreasing CO2 sequestration through deforestation? I don't know. Ask one of the scientists that think so. There's a lot of them. They publish in peer-reviewed journals.

There's a lot that I don't know; like how computers work. My knowledge isn't part of the real debate. The debate is between people who do understand and who can still have conflicting opinions based upon similiar information. From what I understand however, is that peer-reviewed published research in overwhelmingly of the view that mankind is having an effect on global warming.

Once the topic isn't really discussed because the majority of scientists know that mankind has no effect on global warming

I don't know what else to say.

Saying the same thing over and over doesn't help because the arguement isn't a scientific one, it's a political one. I'd hoped that I'd made that point.

joe b.

[AxeMental]

OK then lets here your explination how humans are responsible for increases in global temperature given what I just said.

If 7 more volcanic eruptions in one year don't increase global temperatures (thats 70x human output for any given year) then how can 1/70th of that make any difference?

Logically it can't. Thats one of the reasons global warming is considered a religious movement rather then science.

Also take a look at the archaeological and paleolithic records. Increases and decreases far greater then what we are seeing lately occur on a regular basis before and after modern mans arrival. These are also undisputed facts agreed to by both sides.

[jgbrowning]

OK then lets here your explination how humans are responsible for increases in global temperature given what I just said.

I think humans are responsible for increases in global temperature because that is the commonly believed scientific state. Once there's as large a body of peer-reviewed research stating humans have not influenced global temperature as there is stating they have I'll move into the "we don't know-it's under debate" camp.

If global warming is not true, science will slowly move towards that and I'll slowly move with it.

I view this as the only rational behavior for me. Why should a non-scientist claim to know more than the majority of peer-reviewed scientists about science? The only reason I can think of is because the ramifications of the scientists being correct is unappealing in some form or fashion. Much like evolution.

joe b.