When it comes to global warming, author Elizabeth Kolbert argues in this Los Angeles Times piece, the Bush administration’s cautious approach equals extreme recklessness. If the United States waits for all the evidence regarding global warming to come in, it may be too late. She writes:
“The climate system is highly inertial; it takes several decades for changes already set in motion to become apparent. Scientists probably won’t be able to determine just what level of greenhouse gases will trigger, say, the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet until that level has been exceeded. But as anyone who has ever tried to push a stalled car can attest, systems that are hard to get moving also tend to be hard to stop. Although it sounds reasonable to argue that we ought to wait for certainty before taking action, if we do, effective action almost certainly will become impossible. Once we know for sure that the ice sheet is in danger of disappearing, it will be too late to reverse the process.”
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/8
- sursum on Open thread 11/8
- Regular on Death penalty review promised
- Regular on Open thread 11/8
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/8
- okobserver on Open thread 11/8
- okobserver on Open thread 11/8
- American_Way on Open thread 11/8
- okobserver on Open thread 11/8
133 Comments
How can we cool the planet down? And is that a good idea?
I don’t think we will have a doomsday because of climate change, because the earth always experiences climate change.
I thought we were already past the point of no return? I think they gave it a few years just enough to bash the Bush Administration and blame them for it.
OH NO! Here comes a VOLCANO ERUPTION! Oh well! Looks like we are in really big trouble now. the greenhouse gasses from that one small eruption just sent us over the edge.
Damnit Bush! Why do you have to cause hurricanes and volcanos. You’re a mean, mean man!
The Enviromental movement is just another wedge issue and it is one that the left has claimed as their own, not because they genuiely care about the enviroment because most don’t. They’ll still drive their SUV’s, eat fast food, throw away massive amount of trash, have a large house with three TV’s, and talk on their cell phones.
What the left needed was an issue that people can be passionate about, for which they can play on people’s emotions and get the to call to political action, and it needed to be one that is personal to a point that it means “dead people”.
Nothing brings out people more than the “death” issues. The left found out if they make enviromentalism a “death” issue for their side they can use it to conteract the right’s abortion issue. Basically the Left’s concerned about the enviroment is just their version of the Right’s abortion issue.
Look! Nobody wants a polluted enviroment. Everybody wants clean air, clean water, responsible waste disposal and worthwhile recycling, and all of that as just the same that nobody wants a bunch of abortions to be conducted.
Govenments and businesses have spent trillions of dollars cleaning their enviromental mess and minizing it in the future.
Governments and businessess have also spent billions of dollars on effective birth control measures and education outreach to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the consequences of unwanted children who are born.
While I agree that we should be concerned about the enviroment and we should always be good stewards of the earth and I understand we can do better than what we are doing now, but don’t give me this doomsday crap. All you are doing is making it a political statement and not a reasonable one. Because the enviromental movement has been giving the same old tired doomsday senerio for decades.
Most enviromentalist are just leftist anti-capitalist. They blame the destruction of the enviroment on corporations and SUV’s, yet individuals and governments do way more than their fair share, but they don’t get blamed.
Do you think that deforestation of the Rain Forest in the Amazon basin is because of evil corporations? Or are they average farmers looking for more land? I can come up with so many examples where corporations have nothing to do with serious enviromental issues. But again! They get all the blame. I agree they do some, but not all and certainly not the most. In a matter of fact, most corporations are more enviromentally conscience than your average leftist whacko enviromentalist.
Al Gore flies more miles on his enviromentally dirty private jet and drives more miles in his caravan of massive SUV’s than the CEO of Exxon can ever hope to do.
There is not going to be a doomsday with the enviroment as much as their is not going to be the slipery slope doomsday of aborition leading it mass demorilzation and eventual genecide of the entire human race.
Some of you leftist on here need to see Penn and Teller’s Environmental Hysteria episode.
Here is a preview!http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/prevepisodes.do?episodeid=s1/eh
During the past week I watched 2 shows that reinforced my belief that the man-made global warming theory is utter BS. One was on the “Little Ice Age”. There were small global temperature fluctuations that caused significant long term climate changes in some places that were devastating to many of the people who literally lived hand to mouth on what they could raise. The other was about Krakatoa, the volcano near Sumatra that erupted in the 1880’s. The shear volume of “stuff” that thing put into the atmosphere in a couple of days time dwarfs what we humans put out in 10 years time. And while the earth did cool somewhat as a result of it, it didn’t create calamitous change. Nothing we do as humans can compare short of all out nuclear war.
During the past week I have continued to read the scientific literature on the issue. As a professional I am more convinced every day that this is real, it is serious, and it will be massively damaging to people across the globe.
What scientific literature? What profession are you in?
Environmental Science – degrees in Chemistry (PhD), Geology(BS) and Env Science (MS). I routinemy peruse Science, Nature, and various Geology journals over at Ablah. It is one of several things I do to keep myself ‘off the streets’
In you studies do you find that climate change, and I assume that the average temperature has gone up a few degrees, which can effect quite bit of change globally, is the cause of man, natural earth/sun cycle or a combination of both?
What will be the massive damage that it will cause around the globe? Will anybody benefit from Global Warming or nobody will?What time frame are we talking about?
Is it better for the Earth to be cold, such as glaciers over Kansas during the ice age? Or is there a happy medium? What is the average global temperature that would be considered ideal? How do we reverse global warming?
These are questions I would like to know.
And Joe – what is YOUR professional background that gives you a basis for understanding these issues? How much reading do YOU do outside of the casual lay publications?
Joe – I have previously posted rather detailed discussions of the issue. I focus on the very recent past (million years or so) because the continents are in their present alignment. In the longer term plate tectonics also has an impact. I have posted about the Milankovitch cycles in the tens of thousands of years time frame. About the cycling between glacial and interglacial (and i prefer interglacial). And the “super-interglacial” we are now transitioning into (time frame – decades). Abount how to ameliorate the situation.
The deleterious effects will be from sea level rise, climate zone changes, increased severity of storms and droughts. The ‘winners’ will be Northern Hemisphere high latitudes (Canada and Russia) The really big losers will be the Savannah regions immediately up-latitude from the current desert belts. This is due to the shift of the hadley/Ferrel Cell boundary to higher latitudes. This effect is already being observed in changes in rainfall patterns (we incorrectly call it drought)
Dude! I’m not questioning your creditials or your sources of study.
I’m actually being honest with an open mind. These are questions for which I don’t know and I’m ask you, because I trust you will answer some of them.
Don’t get all defensive. It’s actually a compliment. That is why I ask what your profession was and what sources you read. I don’t know anything beyond the hysteria. I would like to know facts.
Joe
I watch my “Weather Bug,” so does that count?
My post was posted before your last one.
Just wanted to thank you for your summary. I might have some more questions later, but I have to run. I would be interested in listening and learning about this issue.
Beats the Zionists did it?
Joe – your earlier posts implied that you do “know” that there is not a problem. They did not indicate an open mind.
I have a fairly short (about 7 pages without figures) paper I wrote summarizing how carbon and other feedback loops interacted with the Milankovitch cycles over the recent past (not anthropogenic) and the implications for the future (anthropogenic)
It’s a reality whether you believe it’s manmade or not.Stock up on warm clothes and canned food because the ice age is coming. Actually, I hear that freezing to death is not a bad way to die.
Ice age? Maybe a short Younger-Dryas type event in Europe and the far NE North America but not elsewhere, at least in the near future. Maybe after several thousand years …
Actually, it would be interesting to see what a Milankovitch ‘glacial era’ will be like coming after a super-interglacial. I suspect it will be temperate.
Hoo-eeee, boy Ben.You sure screws our brains up wit’ dem’ dare 20 dollar words!You’re probly purty good wit’ dem go-zintas and take aways too!
Ben……………the RW and their attack on science is trying to cloud the entire issue. Look at their minions and how they readily accept their “challenges” to mainstream science. Their new battle cry is to “teach the controversy”. Climate change is real and a threat to the future of this planet. It is time all Americans accept that and the fact that our country is one of the biggest contributors to the problem.
Heckler, the “little ice age” was regional event, not global. Ben is indeed a person with relevant crendentials in this area (he mentioned this months ago).
I notice a while back JM Walker agreed that that warming was real, but questioned the human role. Skepticism is rarely a bad thing, but the evidence is pretty compelling at this point, and I’d like to hear a competing theory (Yes, I’ve heard of the Mars hypothesis, but it’s barely even that).
Here is a website run by scientists who work in the field (one of them is Michael Mann, the creator of the “hockey stick” graph).
http://realclimate.org
Their FAQ deals with a fair amount of the industry-generated nonsense.
Ben Huie,
Thank you so much. Now can all of you Wingnuts just SHUT THE FUCK UP about a matter, namely climate science, you are manifestly unqualified to discuss?
I get SO SICK of these relativistic Right-Wingers who think they can just lob some statement or isolated factoid and take down an entire conceptual scheme of peer-reviewed, mutually reinforcing factual truths. All it shows is that victory for their tribe, not understanding, is what’s at stake.
This ignorance-based world view is killing us. When all the smart people who know stuff arrive at a consensus, all the Wingnuts can do is play word games and claim to defend values they don’t really hold.
TRACY – what the heck are “go-zintas and take aways”?
I try to avoid “20-dollar words”; however it is difficult to discuss a topic without using at least some of the correct terminology.
Good point Apophis – they remind me of the tobacco executives who would “teach the controversy” about smoking and health.
“I have a fairly short (about 7 pages without figures) paper…”
Ben, can you provide a link to this?
“I get SO SICK of these relativistic Right-Wingers who think they can just lob some statement or isolated factoid and take down an entire conceptual scheme of peer-reviewed, mutually reinforcing factual truths.”
These folks have built a parallel universe where all inconvenient facts (those that disagree with a 6,000 yr old planet) are rendered meaningless. Further, looking at their success with questioning evolution, you’d have to wonder why they wouldn’t try what they’re trying.
Sad to say, but the Christian Nationalists have had a huge harvest from their efforts at sowing ignornance.
Ben! I’m not questioning the science nor do am I discounting Global Warming. I’m saying that it is a wedge issue for the left who actually don’t care about the enviroment but use it for political purposes. And they will twist the facts or selectively use data for their ends, which is to end capitalism.
Yeah I believe we are in a warming cycle, I see it personally for myself just living my life. Every winter gets warmer and we have less snowfall. Doughts in western Kansas is evident.
I just get SO SICK of leftist using an issue that have no idea about. Just talking points they here on Air America or Daily Kos. Somebody like you knows the facts and studies it. Blow hards like the facist CF doesn’t have a clue.
I’m asking questions about it. It’s not my field but I would love to know more.
CF
I, too, have an open mind. I’m not an idiot, and I take the authorities word – up to a point.
But no one has to “SHUT THE ____ UP. “Science” does not have a monopoly on insight, as much as they like to think they do.
And history tells us that “when the smart people who know stuff arrive at a concensus,” they’re as apt to be wrong as right. Especially when the concensus fits “their” preconceived world view.
Is the world warming? It appears so. Is man the cause? Certianly greenhouse gasses contribute, but the jury’s still out as to whether man is “the” cause.
In any case, we have good reason to reduce use of fossil fuels and pollution sources, even not taking into account global warming effects.
I wonder if mr. butler county prosecuter uses such loose standards of evidence over there? I wonder if he takes the word of ill informed shills over the word of “expert” witnesses?
I mean, who ya gonna believe, scientists with appropriate training and education, or amature nut cases like heckler and williams?
But no one has to “SHUT THE ____ UP. “Science” does not have a monopoly on insight, as much as they like to think they do.
“And history tells us that “when the smart people who know stuff arrive at a concensus,” they’re as apt to be wrong as right.”
Would that be like the smart people who wont rest until there is a gun in the hand of every man, woman and child in Kansas? Would that be like the smart talibaners who thing GAY marriage is a threat to them? Would that be like the “smart people” who voted for bush, not once, but twice?
Maybe the ill informed opinions of all us amature legal beagles should be given the same weight in the legal process as those oh-so-smart law school grads?
Heheheh.
Is there a point hiding somewhere in there, KFG? Or just more overheated rhetoric?
CF
Since you are so eminently informed and brilliant tell me this. How do we know what global CO2 levels were in the world 350 years ago. What was the average high and low temperature for the year at the confluence of the big and little Ark. river 350 years ago?
Ben or DD feel free to jump in here because I have no faith that CF has the answer.
“Maybe the ill informed opinions of all us amature legal beagles should be given the same weight in the legal process as those oh-so-smart law school grads?”
After all, education and science and EVIDENCE mean little, right?
“I wonder if mr. butler county prosecuter uses such loose standards of evidence over there? I wonder if he takes the word of ill informed shills over the word of “expert” witnesses?”
I guess, sigh, if you have to explain that “this is a pipe” you know it isnt a discussion, it is a ruse.
So, when you prosecute cases over there in butler county, do you ever use expert witnesses? Or is any old uneducated witness ok?
Hehehe. Or are your bloviating pontifications on all subjects all the evidence you need?
The world according to gmc:
science education = worthless
legal education = valuable
I know you are talking gmc. I see both sides of your mouth moving at the same time.
So…. if you ever prosecute me (note to self: stay out of butler county) will you let me use an amature and uneducated non-lawyer to defend me?
Or will you demand that they have a “higher” education?
Typical republican. Only YOUR education counts. The rest of us are ignorant, no decency harpies.
Sound familiar?
CF, I think heckler just gave you a PERFECT example of this:
“I get SO SICK of these relativistic Right-Wingers who think they can just lob some statement or isolated factoid and take down an entire conceptual scheme of peer-reviewed, mutually reinforcing factual truths. All it shows is that victory for their tribe, not understanding, is what’s at stake.”
But he is so ill informed that he doesnt even GET when he is proving you right. Declare victory heck. Isnt that the next move?
“And they (liberals) will twist the facts or selectively use data for their ends, which is to end capitalism.”
DING DING DING DING!
Say what, now?
Ending captialism! That isn’t even good idiocy.
Joe, do you ever hit your head against the wall just because it feels so good when you stop?
but please, let’s continue to talk about overheated rhetoric vs facts. like gmc saying this:
“And history tells us that “when the smart people who know stuff arrive at a concensus,” they’re as apt to be wrong as right.”
I love how lawyers claim to always argue fairly, from a position of superiority, with no emotion, only using facts, etc. heheh.
SO above it all, with the wisdom that can ONLY be gained in law school. All other education, especially Ben’s science and CF’s philosophy credentials are, well, so EMOTIONAL ya know.
KFG
Get a clue, if you knew how much of the calculations behind the global warming(caused by man)theory is based on stuff like estimating regional temperatures based on how many bugs of a certain species are found at a certain depth of ocean sediment youd be scheptical as well.
There may be some perfectly good scientific modelling going on but but its only as good as the data going into it. And ALL of the data from over about 200 years ago are estimates based on theories.
You don’t have to be an expert in a field to recognize questionable methods.
I don’t know the answers to Heckler’s questions, but I am assuming there are ways to make informed inferences (which is different from faith, by the way). Maybe Ben knows. And I would assume Ben would know if those specific questions have any particular meaning in the larger debate.
I hope CF is documenting every time heck makes his points.
THIS:
“Get a clue, if you knew how much of the calculations behind the global warming(caused by man)theory is based on stuff like estimating regional temperatures based on how many bugs of a certain species are found at a certain depth of ocean sediment youd be scheptical as well.”
Sounds an awful lot like THIS:
“Right-Wingers who think they can just lob some statement or isolated factoid and take down an entire conceptual scheme of peer-reviewed, mutually reinforcing factual truths.”
Keep spinning heck, at least gmc knows when to leave the field.
“youd be scheptical as well” – is this like schlepping around those heavy loads of misinformation?
Thanks Heckler, I needed that laugh. I am inferring you did this on purpose.
“You don’t have to be an expert in a field to recognize questionable methods.”
Heck, does this also apply to bible studies? I mean, surely you dont agree that non-christians can spot the fallicies of religion without being TRUE BELIEVERS now do ya?
Nathan isnt gonna like that statmenet very much heck. You seem to have agreed with him before that if we dont agree with dominionist biblical interpretation, or “magic jesus” as Sarah Silverman says, we cant even DISCUSS the subject?
“You don’t have to be an expert in a field to recognize questionable methods.”
BOY am I bookmarking that for future reference.
DD
Informed Inferences? That’s the same thing as an educated guess.
And that accounts for MOST of the data going into all the scientific model work.
Some of it may very well be accurate, but you want to drive government policy based on pumping thousands of years worth of educated guesses through computer models that are under constant revision? Sorry, but I don’t.
Do ya suppose, when there is an election over in butler county, someone might want to question what the county attorney’s employees are doing on the time, computer, internet connections, etc. paid for by the taxpayers?
I’m just sayin’….
“Some of it may very well be accurate, but you want to drive government policy based on pumping thousands of years worth of educated guesses through computer models that are under constant revision?”
Naw…. we’d rather drive government and government policy by religious superstition.
God, guns, and gays. Now THERE are some ways to drive government policy.
Heckler,
I never claimed to have any such expertise. I defer to those who do. That’s why I thanked Ben Huie, who IS a scientist. You would do well to do the same, rather than parading your ignorance. And an ‘informed inference’ is the same as an ‘educated guess’? Glad YOU aren’t in charge of handing out Federal Grant money.
GMC70,
There are indeed revolutions in scientific thought where received opinion is overthrown and whole paradigms shift.
Such revolutions, however, happen exclusively on scientific grounds and from the employment of scientific method. Your attempt to relativize scientific truth by referring to the sociology of science does nothing to change this fact.
Moreover, you trivialize rational inquiry in a quite remarkable way when you say that informed people, following a specific method, have as much chance of being right as those who merely give their opinions or decide in accordance with their prejudices. When I call you a relativist again, GMC70, you would do well to remember what you said above.
Joe Williams,
“DING DING DING!” There it goes again, that “Joe Williams is an idiot who talks out of his ass” bell.
CF isn’t a fascist. Fascism = right wing opposition to Bolshevism. Are you really trying to call me a right winger who opposes socialism? Dumbfuck. Stop listening to Limbaugh; it’s rotting your brain.
ksfarmgrrl, dd, DD, good ones.
CF
It doesnt take a PHD to recognize questionable scientific methods.
KFG
Your turning out to be as big a chicken shit as ProudLib was.
Heckler,
Judging by your attempts at raising “questions,” I’d say you proved my point.
“Your turning out to be as big a chicken shit as ProudLib was.”
Now, now, now, heck, where is all that right wing civility? I see you cant refute the substance of what I say, so go for the name calling?
Isnt that what you and yours accused pl of doing?
You just dont like it when someone points out something that disagrees with your opinions.
And ANY comparison to pl is a complement as far as I am concerned.
thank you
Swearing, cursing, and name calling.
What ever happened to that civility discussion anyhow?
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
It isn’t unanimous among scientists either.
What I don’t get is that some here apparently think that it is heresy to question scientific conclusions. Most of us will question our physician and do our own research etc.. but we are to think that science is infallible?
I am not convinced one way or another on global warming. I am skeptical. I know there are elements of politics in the controversy. But here are some common sense questions that someone is going to have to answer before I would consider supporting drastic action.
1. Is global warming occurring?
2. If it is occurring, is it bad?
3. What is the cause (man or cyclical pattern)?4. Can anything be done about it? If so what?
5. Is there a timeline in which action must be taken?
6. What would be the economic/cultural cost?
7. Is the cost of the cure worth it?
Heckler – CO2 levels over the past million years or so have been determined by a number of methods – C isotope ratios, air bubbles in ice, O isotope ratios etc. They correlate well.
“And ALL of the data from over about 200 years ago are estimates based on theories.” – NOT TRUE. They are based on the data mentioned above.
Try reading some of the scientific literature instead of just the Rightie blogs.
Like I said, deja vu all over again. “There is no real evidence that cigarettes are not good for you”
DD – not a link I’m afraid; it is on my flash drive.
Ben,
Sorry to be skeptical Ben, but when you have to push your lies about the Red Cross without research it makes it a bit easier for me to see that even “scientists” bend the truth and push things that back up their already preconceived world views.
There are several things which the so called “experts” say about things which I completely disagree with.
Temperature rising about a degree? Ok.
CO2 lvls increaseing by 30%. Ok.
CO2 contribute to warming? Sure.
Cause for the doomsday alarms? That is a stretch.
Is man the cause and how bad is it? Debatable.
There is a world of politics involved in this too.
Nathan – I acknowledged that my RC comment was based solely on the ‘popular media’ rather than research. My climate change position is based on decades of scientific literature.
Nathan, if you dont believe in evolution how can you discuss it?
Isnt that what you say about the bible? Those who dont believe it cant even discuss it?
Repost nathan in case you missed it.
“”You don’t have to be an expert in a field to recognize questionable methods.”
Heck, does this also apply to bible studies? I mean, surely you dont agree that non-christians can spot the fallicies of religion without being TRUE BELIEVERS now do ya?
Nathan isnt gonna like that statmenet very much heck. You seem to have agreed with him before that if we dont agree with dominionist biblical interpretation, or “magic jesus” as Sarah Silverman says, we cant even DISCUSS the subject?”
So which way is it nathan? If you can discuss evolution and science without being a true believer, can we discuss the bible and dominionist christians without being true believers?
tick tock, tick tock, tick tock…
Let’s try his own tactic on him.
nathan, do you agree with this?
“”You don’t have to be an expert in a field to recognize questionable methods.”
Yes or no nathan?
Ben
Thanks for the CO2 info. Now how about the temps?
How about some info on the effect of major volcanic eruptions on global temps?
Heck
Try nuclear power plants and navel ships warming the water 24-7-365
I knew it wouldn’t take long before you threw in the Christian and Bible stuff.
You are kind of a one trick pony around here KFG…
Once again, before it begins, I will point out I was not the one who interjected it here.
Allow me to answer the questions:
“Nathan, if you dont believe in evolution how can you discuss it?”
I don’t agree with much of the science behind the theory of evolution. I can discuss it because I research what scientist say about it and the evidence against it.”Isnt that what you say about the bible? Those who dont believe it cant even discuss it?”
Nope. That is not what I say.
“So which way is it nathan? If you can discuss evolution and science without being a true believer, can we discuss the bible and dominionist christians without being true believers?”
KFG,
I think you are confused. I don’t have a problem with you discussing the Bible or religion or Christianity. I have criticized you for lack of understanding, your inability to look at things in context, your purposeful lies and distortions, and your purposeful mischaracterizations.
I do hope this clears things up a bit for you.
heheh. As if nathan would ever answer a yes or no question. He only asks them. But answer them, nawwww….that is only for the little people.
Temps are also determined from plant/animal distributions and rainfall patterns. Take a good Sedimentology class over at WSU.
Volcanic effects have been well studied as well.
“lack of understanding, your inability to look at things in context, your purposeful lies and distortions, and your purposeful mischaracterizations.”
Like the cigarette execs and smoking/health. And now their cousins today.
KFG
Why don’t you try adding something substantive to the discussion instead of your usual fog of misery and dispair.
You like PL like to through out your little veiled threats at people just like a punk little 8th grader threatening to tell the teacher.
Ben
So you are saying that there’s no chance that any of the data is wrong? You just eat it?
KFG,Darlin’ I know it’s fun to bait him but Nathan did answer in yes/no fashion”Nope. That is not what I say.”
I must go cleanse myself for standing up for him – shudder. That and write 500 sentances :)
Did I miss something?
I just answered all of KFG’s questions and I am being demeaned for not answering her questions?
If you are talking about this question, I didn’t see it untill now:
“nathan, do you agree with this?”
“”You don’t have to be an expert in a field to recognize questionable methods.”
Yes.
Ben,
I am not debating about cigarettes… Was there some point you wish me to concede on about them?
Heckler – as you know when we publish these things we include “error bars” to indicate the uncertainty. We also replicate the measurements so a comparison will give an indication of error. As you know, with CO2 over the recent past (million years) we have both direct (bubbles) and indirect (isotope_ measurements so we can compare them. As you know, they match well.
No point to concede Nathan – just that I recall the cigarette issue well and today gives me a very strong sense of deja vu. Industry is doing a magnificant job of throwing up smokescreens again.
Just as the “industry” on your side is doing in throwing up the alarmist additude.
Julie,
even nathan says he didnt answer my question.
Hecker,
What threats? Please repost a threat from me.
If you are referring to my offer to repeat the hypocritical words of nathan, that is not a threat.
That is a promise.
Here’s your sign…..
“Flike,
If you want to have a serious discussion about this I think it only fair that we know what it is you do accept and believe.
Because, if you want to debate whether or not Mormons and Jehova’s Witnesses are Christians or not we will have to use the Bible.
So far, you have shown that you not only don’t seem to know what the Bible is you don’t agree with what it says anyhow.
Now how are we supposed to have a real discussion with you about Christians when you don’t even accept the Bible?
I could be wrong. Do you accept the Bible as valid or no?
Otherwise any discussion with you on who is and who is not a Christian is kind of pointless when you don’t even accept the standard by wich someone would be found to be a Christian or not.
Posted by: Nathan | May 19, 2006 at 12:22 PM
I can make good on no fewer than 30 similar statements by nathan.
I have all day here. Gonna be a fun afternoon. Every denial he posts will be met with his own words.
And I havent even gotten to you yet heck.
“”You don’t have to be an expert in a field to recognize questionable methods.”
Yes.”
Gosh nathan, doesnt that contradict this statement you made?
“So far, you have shown that you not only don’t seem to know what the Bible is you don’t agree with what it says anyhow.
Now how are we supposed to have a real discussion with you about Christians when you don’t even accept the Bible?”
I cant wait to hear how this is not a pipe…
I am waiting for your apology for this nathan:
“”Isnt that what you say about the bible? Those who dont believe it cant even discuss it?”
Nope. That is not what I say.”
Clearly, it WAS what you said.
Yea, nathan, just like the Cancer industry did with smoking.
KFG,
None of my comments which you posted say that people who don’t believe in the Bible can’t discuss it.
What I did say was that it is pointless to debate about what a Christian is, when you don’t ever agree with what the Bible says about being a Christian.
KFG,
You seem to have this obsession with trying to skew what people say into what you want to think they said.
Gonna be a fun afternoon.
“None of my comments which you posted say that people who don’t believe in the Bible can’t discuss it.
What I did say was that it is pointless to debate about what a Christian is, when you don’t ever agree with what the Bible says about being a Christian.”
No Nathan, that is NOT what you said.
THIS is what you said:
“So far, you have shown that you not only don’t seem to know what the Bible is you don’t agree with what it says anyhow.
Now how are we supposed to have a real discussion with you about Christians when you don’t even accept the Bible?”
But of course, this is not a pipe.
Spin away nathan, how many similar quotes do you want me to post?
All thirty?
But this is not a pipe….
Back to the bonedig. Maybe all THIRTY will convince him it is a pipe.
And some of the quotes are even better.
Once again KFG,
Lets break this down a bit more clearly.
I said that I do not agree with your statement that I have said that you must believe in the Bible to talk about it.
So far, you have shown statements of mine which say I think it is “pointless” to have a discussion with someone over what a Christian is when they don’t accept what the Bible says about being a Christian.
Now you pull another quote where I ask how we are supposed to discuss Christians when you don’t accept the Bible.
KFG,
No where will you ever find any statement where I have ever said that “Those who dont believe it cant even discuss it”
Keep trying.
Heckler:
“Informed Inferences? That’s the same thing as an educated guess.”
I’d say it is a little more than that. Care to do some homework, Mr. Heckler? If yes, start here:
http://web.cs.mun.ca/~ulf/gloss/logic.html#Reasoning
“And that accounts for MOST of the data going into all the scientific model work.”
I recognize the “map is not the territory” and would hope that you would concede your mental representations of truth does not necessarily represent truth.
Mathematical models have been found to be quite useful in number of life areas. Your credit rating is the result of a logistic regression model of your liklihood of repaying a loan. Are credit ratings B.S.? The people who loan money don’t think so.
See Wikipedia for a discussion on the modeling of global warming. There are other sources if you don’t wish to accept this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
“Some of it may very well be accurate, but you want to drive government policy based on pumping thousands of years worth of educated guesses through computer models that are under constant revision? Sorry, but I don’t.”
As I point out above – informed inferences are different than educated guesses, and if you accept that distinction, then yes, I think government policy based on those is a very good idea.
“You don’t have to be an expert in a field to recognize questionable methods.”
No, but it helps if you actually try to understand the argument you’re claiming to refute. Sigh. . .***Out, I don’t have time to check where the scientists cited in CFP stand within the scientic community. I do know what the consensus is, and they’re outside of it, and I remain a mite suspicious of an article that quotes only naysayers.
The mechanical engineer who wrote it may be an intelligent upstanding kinda guy, but competent science journalists (or competent journalists, for that matter) cover both sides of a genuine controversy. I suppose it was really an opinion piece (though it wasn’t framed as such), and thus I give it the same credence I would to any semi-informed opinion of an unknown engineer, as such. Wasn’t it Reagan who said “Trust, but verify?”
P.S. DingDong, if you’re new to the group, please stick around. You amuse me.
Brain,
I debate what the Bible says with many people who are not Christians.
I don’t think it is inappropriate at all for someone who is not a Christian to talk about the Bible or use verses.
I think it is intellectually dishonest for someone to both claim the Bible has been translated wrong and is not accurate while also quoting from it to make a point.
I think it is intellectually dishonest to quote the Bible as to some of Jesus teachings and sayings while rejecting or ignoring everything else He said and did.
I love debating with an atheist about the Bible.
I just find it intellectually dishonest for you to try and have a debate about salvation while using the Bible as a source when you don’t even believe any of it.
Posted by: Nathan | April 21, 2006 at 10:24 AM
Looking for these exact words nathan? “Those who dont believe it cant even discuss it”
No, those are MY words. Your words?
“I said that I do not agree with your statement that I have said that you must believe in the Bible to talk about it.”
In light of you saying this:
“I just find it intellectually dishonest for you to try and have a debate about salvation while using the Bible as a source when you don’t even believe any of it.”
Give it up nathan.
Twenty eight more to go….
Let me ad something else before I go get my haircut…
What are you trying to do KFG?
I answered your question. I think it is just fine for people who don’t believe the Bible to discuss it.
Are you calling me a liar? It seems like you think I have stated differently somehwere and are doing a mad search for anything you can find to show it.
You are trying to stretch anything I have said in the past to proove that what I am saying now is not true?
What reason do I have to sit here and lie about something so silly?
I told you what I think and you can keep digging all you want to, but you won’t find any statement where I said I don’t think you can discuss the Bible unless you believe in it.
Just posted while I posted…
Once again KFG, none of what you posted shows where I said you have to believe in the Bible to discuss it.
I’ve already posted two nathan, and you are right, the other twenty eight would not matter to you. This is not a pipe.
RD had your number on another thread. You can read the contradictions (lies? poor logic? denial?) in black and white and still deny them.
I just dont know how you do that with a straight face.
It is easy KFG,
I dont hold the position that you have to believe in the Bible to discuss it.
If that is an impression you get from past posts of mine, it is wrong.
I happen to know what I think and don’t think. Trying to dredge up whatever you can to try to show that I think something I don’t isn’t doing anything.
I can see it is past time for an injection from Hannah:
“Before they seize power and establish a world according to their doctrines, totalitarian movements conjure up a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality itself…The force possessed by totalitarian propaganda – before the movents have the power to drop iron curtains to prevent anyone’s disturbing, by the slighest reality, the gruesome quiet of an entirely imaginary world – lies in its ability to shut the masses off from the real world.”
Hannah Arendt, from _The Origins of Totalitarianism_, 1953.
For those of you who don’t know of Hannah, she was most famous for describing Eichmann as “the banality of evil”
Nathan says:
“I dont hold the position that you have to believe in the Bible to discuss it.”
And then says:
“Now how are we supposed to have a real discussion with you about Christians when you don’t even accept the Bible?”
And:
“I just find it intellectually dishonest for you to try and have a debate about salvation while using the Bible as a source when you don’t even believe any of it.”
No mad search nathan. The words are right here, and more are readily bookmarked.
I dont have to know what you think. I can just read what you have posted.
Ahem…, What is this thread about again?
Kfg, might I suggest asking the editors for a fight thread so that all this school yard crap can go there and not pollute the threads for those who actually have an interest in the subject! What do you think?
I guess we should just ignore the outright lies and mistruths here so we stay on topic. move along here, nothing to see. Christian boy is just denying his own words, calling names, harrassing everyone.
I know you liked it better the last few days when no one called him or his dad on their crap.
Here is a deal. Let nathan stop lying and we will stop calling him on it.
Is that civil enough for you?
My point is that when the posts get completely off subject, the thread has been hijacked. It is not fair to those who want to discuss the subject of the thread.
Take it ouside or something. Exchange email addresses and continue it privately. Whatever.
Whew and I thought it was hot outside.
That I don’t remember early June EVER being this warm may be topical…or tropical.
Certainly is hot in HERE!
CF was positively on fire way up there.
kfg? While Nathan has more than adequately demonstrated his tendency to hypocrisy in the past , and while do enjoy seeing him get it fed back to him, I think the poster who actually asserted that non Christians had no business debating the Bible was OUTLANDER. I could be wrong. If so I apologize in advance to Out.
Oh and Outlander? Before you start trying to play blog Miss Manners, I am gonna call hypocrisy if you do not pounce on the more outrageous on YOUR side of the debates. You don’t have to go look very far to find examples. Please feel free to tell them to play nice.
While super computers may be able to make sense out of the data fed them, I have my doubts about the reality of the data being fed. There is NO model that is completly accurate concerning global warming (the so-called man-made kind), other than what has been studied from past history.
I have to agree with heckler on part of his post. Having watched the discovery channel special on Krakitoa (sp), I came away with a different set of beliefs. That volcanic eruption threw out so much ash, as well as other chemicals, it effected the earths climate for years. The possibility that man could cause the same thing makes sense. But the enormous amount of green house gasses, as well as all other particles, that would be needed to cause a global climate change is mind boggling.
While I believe in the possibility, I am still unconvinced man is the culprit. From the so-called enhanced hurricane seasons to the “droughts”, nature has been doing this since the earth began. And while I am in agreement that greenhouse gasses should be reduced, water cleaned up and forests, rain and old, preserved, I think doing so is plain common sense, and has little to do with global warming.
JMW – nobody claims exact precision in the models. Read the literature and you will see the +/-’s. What IS claimed is the trendlines which have been verified by modeling both the past and then the projections into the future. Krakatoa type effects (which are very short-term) are already worked into the models.
Am I missing somehing here? You’ll believe the Discovery Channel over peer reviewed scientific work? A bunch of science reporters with some combination of journalism and science at maybe a bachelor’s level…looking to produce a show that creates controversy and advertisers over PhD levl researchers who have worked at an incredibly deep level on this very subject for the span of most of their careers? Most scientists are after the truth…being one, we find the wondes of the nature revealed by experiment and modelling of that data far more important than any attempt to politicaly ‘dress up’ the results. Most scientists I know consider what they do ’sacred’ (for lack of a better word) and work hard to live up to the trust given to them.
I’d certainly not put a channel that airs ‘The Mysteries of Nostradamus’ on too tall a pedestal when it comes to reporting on global warming.
Further, how much can they do in the one or two hours allotted to them? And you’re a fool if you think that those 2 hours compete in any way with the millions of man hours spent on the subject by the experts.
I’ll disagree with Walker. I contend that with a population of 6+ billion people, it is absolutely ludicrous NOT to think humans affect the Earth. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I’d say that that extends to the capacity to alter the climate.
The thing is? If I’m wrong, nothing but good things happen. Like the alternatives to energy and healthier attitudes about the environmenet that Walker mentions.
If those who say global warming is not human affected are wrong only bad things happen. Like the ice caps melting flooding heavily popuated coastal areas plantetwide and possibly altering signicantly the delicately balanced eco system that our agriculture depends on.
I sure hope I don’t get to say I told ya so as to this.
Brian – I suspect Discovery did a pretty good job of discussing Krakatoa and the short-term cooling it caused (the summer that never came). Thing is, that was a VERY short-term effect.
When Pinatubo did its thing it led to a slight amelioration of the warming that was underway; a Krakatoa would, in fact, lead to cooling for a year or so.
That sort of cooling is the basis of the “nuclear winter” scenario we heard about years ago. It is also similar to at least a part of what is believed to have done in the dinosaurs.
Well KFG, I really don’t know what to say.
It appears as if you are determined to call me a liar regardless of what I have said or do say.
You have been searching for something I have said to try to stretch it into something you think I believe or have said which I have not.
It is sad that you feel you must do these things to try to call me a liar.
I am just an engineer. I do not work in the field studying the causes of global climate change and would not trust the OPINION of any scientist that does not. Since the Gore interview I have read two articles by those that study the subject for a living – or are just lying for a living. Both agree he has only Junk Science behind him. So I don’t know either. I do know he did not invent the internet That and several other Gore lies blows his credibility for me.
However, when two conservatives and two liberals agree either way, I am on board. Till then it is just a political subject.
Brian,You don’t even want to start something here. The discovery channel special was very well done, with supportive facts on exactly how, why, and what could happenn if its baby goes ballistic.
I don’t watch speculative science shows, or read speculative science books. I read factual books on science, astronomy, biology, etc. I make up my own mind based on what I read. What I’ve read leaves me believing that man MIGHT be the culprit, but based on past history, I am not fully convinced he IS the culprit.
You, Ben, JR, CF, Rage, and anybody else has every right to disagree with me, but you personally did so with absolutly zero positive input. In short, you said sh*t.
Here are some links debunking and supporting global warming:http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1523.htmhttp://www.sitewave.net/news/http://www.junkscience.com/
The answer as to man causing global warming is known to no one. There are only theories. And so far I have yet to read a theory that changes my mind. That doesn’t make me stupid, ignorant or an idiot; it makes me skeptical.
Remember the silicone breast thing? Junk science. Remember Alar (apples)? Junk science. There are way too numerous examples of junk science out there, so I will stay skeptical until I am convinced otherwise.
You want to change my mind, do so with intelligently written facts and supportive theories w/links . . . if your capable of such. Otherwise, blow smoke up someone elses black hole.
Scientists respond to Gore’s warnings of climate catastrophe
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
For those advocating our doom. Maybe it’s our time to go. We had our run for the last 300,000 years, maybe we should step aside and let the birds and reptiles own the earth again.
JR, I agree that everything should be done to reduce oil dependance. That will reduce carbon emmissions, along with other gasses. I also stated, as you pointed out, that we have to change the way we look at the earth, if only for the future of our children.
We can’t afford to rape the earth any more than it has been. But that, in my opinion is just the proper thing to do and has nothing to do with global warming. If global warming IS caused by man, then doing what I suggest will reduce our effect on it, so it’s a winner either way.
Fossil fuels represent CO2 that was sequestered byplants from millions of years ago..when the atmosphere was much more CO2 rich and temperatures were warmer. We are now taking this sequestered CO2 and returning it to the atmosphere, i.e. we are making the atmosphere more like it was several millions of years ago…again, where it was much warmer due to higher levels of CO2.
That’s why a CO2 neutral solution is very important…renewable fuels are CO2 neutral. Fossil fuel release “old” CO2.
It’s hard to believe that, given the CATASTROPHIC potential outcomes to global warming that there are still those who are unwilling to ut forth the tiniest bit of effort to aoid said outcomes. In the ensemble of future worlds in which we might live, the possible globally warmed world looks bad for many…not just humans either. It only makes sense to mitigate what might be a disaster.
JM, books are NOT peer reviewed papers. They are notrequired to present anything but the author’s own opinions. I’m not saying that all authors are liars or driven by personal biases, but many are. If you want to get to the meat of the subject, one has to read the peer reviewed literature, and further, one must admit that one is not an expert in the field..and that those who are seem to be saying by by a huge concensus that global warming is something to be VERY worried about.
Brian,What “Peer Reviewed” literature is that? Please supply links not biased by politics.
I find you comment on books quite lacking in insight: how do you know what books I read, other than the fields I have mentioned? Are you so sure that what I read is NOT co-written by many scientists, giving multi-points of view based on research, and quantifiable experiments?
Last time I checked, books were listed as literature, and as such may contain your so-called “peer review” papers. Hell, they may even be a compilation of “peer review” papers and published as a “book.”
I suggest you fully read my posts, and you will find that even if there is or isn’t global warming, I propose we do something about polluting both the earth and its atmosphere. As such, whether I believe man does or doesn’t have anything to do with global warming warming, is, IMHO, superfluous.
“For those advocating our doom. Maybe it’s our time to go. We had our run for the last 300,000 years, maybe we should step aside and let the birds and reptiles own the earth again.”
Are you offering to go first, Joe?
Good ol’ OISM. Haven’t seen them in a while; many years ago they tried to recruit me and represented that one of my old thesis advisors was on their board. I asked him and he laughed.
Like I said about tobacco – deja vu all over again.
Try Nature, Science, Science News for starters. They are not funded by the fossil fuel industry. All three of those above are.
JM,
I’d suggest you start with Nature and Science and then try reading the references contained in the papers you find there. This would be a far better way to get your information than TV or books.
My statements had nothing whatsoever to do with politics…Maybe you should look up the meaning of the word since EVERYTHING seems to be politics to you. My comments WERE concerned with disaster mitigation.
Certainly, given crime stats in the US, I assume you’d be OK with someone buying a gun JUST IN CASE. And I assume you’re OK with safety belts, air bags, motorcycle helmets, etc. because the consequences of a potential accident are potentially very bad..you use them JUST IN CASE. But you seem unwilling to do anything for global warming because it doesn’t appear to affect you as immediately as these other social problems.
I obviously don’t need to defend Walker, but I thought I got from his previous posts that he was for conservation of fossil fuels whether they caused global warming, or not. If someone shares my goals, is that not reason enough to share the work with them?
All new cars need to have a minimum of 40 MPG standard. After 2008 we may get such common sense policy.
Brian – according to the tobacco industry all the stuff about smoking and health was politics too.
Brian,Your comparing apples and oranges. I stated my beliefs, and will stick with them. Is there something about, “I propose we do something about polluting both the earth and its atmosphere. As such, whether I believe man does or doesn’t have anything to do with global warming warming, is, IMHO, superfluous.”, that you don’t or can’t understand?
“But you seem unwilling to do anything for global warming because it doesn’t appear to affect you as immediately as these other social problems.” Read the above paragraph . . . again.
Also, again, you have absolutly no idea where I stand on guns, seat belts,air bags, motorcycle helmets, edtc., so why even enter that nonsense in the blog?
You seem to be the one making political aspersions here. I recognize the politics of global warming and know that it, in itself, turns heads one way or the other. I really don’t take politics into account concerning global warming and mans’ supposed causing it. I leave that to others. My concern is with polluting both the earth and the atmosphere; I was born and raised in Los Angeles. And, believe me, I do know the politics of pollution.
JM,
Of course I don’t know where you stand, I’m not a mind reader. I said I ASSUME…get it?? The point was that we take precautionary steps for many things in life..that’s what insurance is all about. Some of us would like to take out a bit of insurance based on the dire consequences of warming.
Ben, some of those tobacco execs still think that’s true based on their testimony before congress.
Butcher et.al., Global Biogeochemical Cycles – good discussion of the carbon cycle
Bloom, Deomorphology – relationship between changing climates and landforms.
Robinson and Henderson-Sanders, Contemporary Climatology – a good overview of climate systems with some look toward the future
Parrish, Interpreting Pre-Quaternary Climate from the Geologic Record – how we get from geology to climate.
I’ll try to post a few more tomorrow.
Sorry, I don’t have slick costly industry-supported web sites for you. Just boring textbooks. Add those to the boring Journals mentioned above.
Chemical & Engineering News is another one.
Tough keeping up today!
Ease up on JM a bit. You know, like he did with me?
He first said that I added nothing and then noticed that he and I essentially agree but for different reason.
He is on the right side. You don’t beat up someone who is already on the right side just because he has different reasons or is singing a different song!
A better target is the guy saying oh well maybe it is our time to go. I think he posted before to this issue that global warming wouldn’t be such a bad thing!
J R,
Ben Huie has no reason to apologize for having expertise and arguing from a position of knowledge. He’s qualified to render scientific judgements. J M Walker is a moderately informed layperson whose statements carry correspondingly less weight.
The fact that J M Walker is ideologically on the same page as Ben Huie is quite beside the point. The scientific conceptual game is played according to a very specific and stringent set of rules. You either play it or you don’t. And when J M Walker says that various explanatory schemes are only ‘theories,’ this shows ignorance of how the game is played. ‘Theory’ has a very specific meaning: it denotes a mutually reinforcing set of hypotheses that are experiementally repeatable, and that have generated the same outcomes across multiple iterations. ‘Theory’ means that an explanatory hypothesis has proven repeatable in different circumstances by different experimenters. And the basic test a theory has to pass is that it explain some specific phenomena in light of everything else we know.
Now, it is of course true that the proof for some scientific theories is inferential rather than direct; I can’t see quarks, but they nonetheless are granted status as physical entities. In these cases, the test of the hypothesis is whether it fits with the other, more fundamental hypotheses that are observable, and whether it explains the phenomena in question with a minimum of additional principles or qualifications.
A lot rides on not bastardizing our scientific discourses or dumbing them down. In particular, what is at stake is the reliability of our conceptual reconstruction of the physical world. I agree that this is too important to play politics with. This being the case, the majority of attempts to politicize and adulterate scientific discourse are coming from the Right. Whether it’s global warming or evolution, the Right-Wing attack on scientific method and principles in the name of some phony understanding of ‘diversity’ or ‘pluralism’ is consistent and well-documented. And the real danger, as we’ve seen here, is that the phony “he said / she said” model of discourse usurps scientific method and standards.
Kudos, Ben.
Sheesh CF don’t take me to the woodshed…..or Walker either.
My point was simply that his own agenda would tend to work against human caused global warming. Even if he does not acknowledge it. Certainly I was not attacking Ben!
We who trust the abundant science that human activity IS causing global warming say we need to to do A B C. (Forgive the simplfication).
Walker also says we need to do A B C. Lets not castigate him just cause we disagree with the why of his agreement! We got plenty of idiots who disagree with us AND say stay the course! Let’s work on THEM!
PS. You missed ringing the bell on Joe when he said maybe it is just our time to go!
“the majority of attempts to politicize and adulterate scientific discourse are coming from the Right. Whether it’s global warming or evolution, the Right-Wing attack on scientific method and principles in the name of some phony understanding of ‘diversity’ or ‘pluralism’ is consistent and well-documented. And the real danger, as we’ve seen here, is that the phony “he said / she said” model of discourse usurps scientific method and standards.”
Without question, true.
Delegitimiizing science by saying that “I check out my doctor’s recommendations by going to the internet” is laudable in some senses, but that does not put you on equal footing with said doctor. Those who think it does are fooling themselves, and unfortuately fooling those who listen to them. Outlander, paying attention, I hope?
I am sure my friend, Hannah, has something to say about this subject…
DD,
As is the case with most subjects and Hannah Arendt. Some people are just too dang right about stuff.
JR,
Fair enough, and I’m all for fellow travellers working to ameliorate the effects of climate change. Frankly, J M Walker’s position seems, to me, to be the ‘conservative’ one: namely, knowing that the consequences of CO2 overproduction might be catastrophic and unmanageable, the judicious thing to do is act even in the absence of definitive proof.
As for Joe Williams, well, with Joe, I tend to confine myself to matters of foreign policy and the definitions of ideology. I try to stay within my area of expertise.
Wow, CF landing with both feet. I think his remarks about what I believe are off base, but that’s CF: If it’s conservative, it’s bad.
First, some scientific input from scientists who have nothing to gain from dissing global warming:
“First, earlier this year two Harvard researchers, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, showed that, contrary to an influential paper published in 1998 in Nature by Michael Mann, Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes (MBH), the Mediaeval Warm Period (about 1100 to 1450) and Little Ice Age (about 1600 to 1900) were probably global in their influence. This fact argued against late-20th century climate warming being particularly unusual in rate or magnitude.
Second, at the recent World Climate Conference in Moscow, Vladimir Putin’s science advisor Yuri Izrael commented that “all the scientific evidence seems to support the same general conclusions, that the Kyoto Protocol is overly expensive, ineffective and based on bad science”.”
“Professor Bob Carter is an environmental and climate scientist with cogent views about climate change, global warming and anthropogenic influence. In his presentation, Professor Carter argued that, when considered in the context of the longer time scales over which climate change operates, global average temperature may be expected to fall. Any human-caused warming effect, should it be demonstrated, may act to diminish the rate of this cooling, and therefore be beneficial. Regarding the short-term warming trend which occurred in the closing years of the twentieth century, it is the case that both the magnitude and rate of this change ‚Äì- however caused ‚Äì lay well within the bounds of earlier natural change. Bob Carter described research which is based largely on oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores and sediments which quite accurately reflect the temperature at which the ice was laid down. These ice cores provide an important and continuous record of global temperature change over short to intermediate time periods, and are not subject to the errors possibly induced when different techniques are used for different time periods, such as the combination of thermometer measurements with tree ring analysis and other proxy methods.
“Public discussion of global warming, or climate change, is based almost exclusively on the climatic record of the last 1,000 years,” said Professor Carter.
“This is an inadequate period over which to assess the magnitude and rate of natural climate change, especially in judging whether contemporary climate change is unusual. Our knowledge of Earth’s climate change through time is based upon geological studies. The record reveals, first, that climate is never static but always changing, and second, that climate change often occurs cyclically, with periodicities which range between 11 years (the sunspot cycle), through 20, 41 and 100 thousand years (the Milankovitch frequencies, related to Earth’s changing orbital geometry and hence insolation), to millions and tens of millions of years.”
“Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of “climate change skeptics” who disagree with the “vast majority of scientists” Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. “Climate experts” is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore’s “majority of scientists” think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. “While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change,” explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. “They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies.” ”
Theory:1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
CF you cherry picked your definition. Read number 6. That, in my opinion, is what global warming, as supposeddly caused by man, is to me: A theory.
“the majority of attempts to politicize and adulterate scientific discourse are coming from the Right. Whether it’s global warming or evolution, the Right-Wing attack on scientific method and principles in the name of some phony understanding of ‘diversity’ or ‘pluralism’ is consistent and well-documented. And the real danger, as we’ve seen here, is that the phony “he said / she said” model of discourse usurps scientific method and standards.”
In many aspects, true, and I do agree the major arguments against global warming are coming from the right. However, as I stated earlier, I do not listen to arguments WHEN THEY ARE DRIVEN BY POLITICS! If my views coincide with some right wing group, it is coincedence, and nothing more. Anything else is like saying hitler liked carrots, I like carrots, ergo I believe as hitler did. Bad reasoning.
Liberals are just as much at fault in making bad science political as wing nuts are. I am in no way asking Ben to appologize for his expertise. I believe he may be wrong in his conclusions, but as JR stated, we are on the same page as to what should be done. We arrive at that conclusion via different routes.
BTW, JR, I was refering to Brian when I said he brought nothing.
My case has been stated: Do something to stop polluting the ground air and water, and do it now!
Ben-the twenty dollar words are fine with me. I’ve got a pretty good Scrabble game.Go-zintas and take aways- that’s the way Jethro Bodine ciphers (does math).You know me-always the joker in the latest thread.
I think there is a difference between the scientist who study the effects of climate change and those who study what causes climate change.
Normally Climatologist study what causes climate change and other scientist in the enviromental field just study the effects, but are not conclusive about how and why it is happening, just that it is.
My issue is that in the political arena, the enviromentalist have made their own conclusions that are not based in fact. Their conclusion is that corporations and man is causing it and must be stopped. Because their agenda is not the enviroment, but to end capitalism.
Websites like this: http://globalchange.gov/ has the information. And buy the way, the Bush Administration is doing something about it and they have their initive to help reduce greenhouse gases.
But of course the leftist don’t believe government sources. Air America with Randi Rhodes and Al Franken, where the leftist get their news.
..by the way… and initiative. Appolgize for the typos.
“longer time scales over which climate change operates, global average temperature may be expected to fall”
As I had already said “Maybe after several thousand years …
Actually, it would be interesting to see what a Milankovitch ‘glacial era’ will be like coming after a super-interglacial. I suspect it will be temperate.”
Yes, in the LONG run we can expect a cooling. I am more concerned with the coming few centuries rather than far out millenia.
..so anyone who wants to clean up the environment wants to end capitalism???????
DING DING DING DING DING!
Must be smokin’ that union dope grown by those lazy ass western kansas farmers.
kansas sam, sincerely, as a thinking person, you might enjoy this article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-rigby/christians-who-want-democ_b_22942.html
Wow, what a crock. (IMHO)
Well, hehehe, if outlander thinks it is a crock, it must be a good read. Thanks for the endorsement bro’.
heheheheheheheh
I am posting this for two reasons.
One, it will piss off outlander.
And two, the COMMENTS under here are priceless, and they were also why I said THINKING people would like the article.
Really.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214×77175
KFG..Interesting read, and I can see where he is coming from, although I do disagree with his position on the effects of “Jesus as Lord”. I will have to read it more carefully when I have time.. thanks :)
yer welcome sam. I really did think you would find it interesting, as you would the comments too. You dont have to agree with it to find it interesting.
“..so anyone who wants to clean up the environment wants to end capitalism???????
“DING DING DING DING DING!
“Must be smokin’ that union dope grown by those lazy ass western kansas farmers.”
No, KFG, AfKansastan weed would markedly IMPROVE Joe’s thought processes. AND, he’d seem much less paranoid about a 60’s style communist take over, too. Somebody get him a prescription!
KFG…It is always good to read stuff that you don’t agree with along with what you do.. otherwise, how will you ever learn anything?
I’m sure KFG doesn’t care, but for the benefit of other Christians reading the link here is my humble opinion:After reading more closely, I do have to agree with Outlander that this guys view of Christ is a crock, although it points out some valid problems in His church. In my opinion, the most relative information if found in the third comment:
-OneSalientOversight, 06.13.2006…” I don’t think your assertion that there has been a mistranslation of “kurios” is accurate – nevertheless I can understand where you are coming from.
As an Evangelical and a Political Liberal, I find no problem whatsoever in “God the dictator” as you may put it. The bible is full of examples whereby God and Christ are deemed to be the king over the earth.
The error of modern Evangelical Christianity – along with the historic faults of the Roman Catholic church (inquisition etc) is that their attitudes and actions go beyond the bible’s borders. The bible nowhere says that God’s people, the church, should work to dominate and control the nation they live in.
This may have been true in the Old Testament – certainly God called Israel as a political entity to run itself as a theocracy. Nevertheless when Christ came he instituted a “New Covenant” whereby God’s people would not be determined by racial background, but by faith in Christ and obedience to God.
The way that God changes the world is through the message of the gospel proclaimed in the church – thus the group of believers becomes the place where people are changed. By opting to go into politics, modern evangelicals are actually disobeying God the King.
Paul makes it clear in the epistle of 1 Corinthians, chapter 5, that a clear line exists between the church and “the world”, to the point where sins that require immediate action within the church require no action at all when committed by those in the world.
Yes God is king and he is Lord over all creation – but he has chosen to change the world through his people within the structure he chosen… the church. As soon as Christians begin to agitate for moral and ethical change outside the church, they go where God has not commanded them to go. “
Well, believe it or not sam, I do care about what you say. I always find your comments insightful, even if they sometimes set me off. Maybe they set me off because I always expect the best from you. You rarely disappoint.
You, above many posters here, seem to be able to navigate the waters at the confluence of thinking and faith. I admire that.
And how could I argue with this?
” but he has chosen to change the world through his people within the structure he chosen… the church. As soon as Christians begin to agitate for moral and ethical change outside the church, they go where God has not commanded them to go. ”
You make a lot of sense sam. You are right that I dont care who you marry or what you do inside your churches. I do care what happens when the church wants to control the state. You have found middle ground in your post.
Thanks.
KFG…wow… I’m speechless… first time EVER!!