On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:22:38 -0800, "Paul Popinjay"
<paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >"John the Savage" <savage0...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> Your defensive condescension is unconvincing, and perhaps you should just >> give up your line. If you'd like to continue, you need to make a rational >> argument for at least one of these two points:
>> (1) These massive, recent changes in nature I have listed do not exist >> (2) These massive, recent changes in nature I have listed are not caused >> by man
>>>>> how many times do we have to tell you to ..STOP FUCKIN AROUND .. with >>>>> facts and pictures .. The righties want to believe what they want to >>>>> believe
>>And the lefties? >>What do they want to believe?
>>>>> This shit only makes em angry and uncomfortable
>>>>I never knew that Global Warming issue was a right/left issue. I thought it >>>>was based on science and facts.
>>>For some reason, though, it's only the righties that don't want to >>>accept the science and facts. Go figure.
>>They simply won't accept all the science and facts from the sole >>source of knowledge, the lefties?
>>Shocking! >>Shocking, I say!
>>Can't we all just think alike?
>The problem is that the righties only want to accept "science" from >petroleum industry-funded studies.
>>>>> If if wasn't us, who was it? Was it God? Did God cut down all the >>>>> trees, Turbo? Did God start practicing "totalitarian agriculture" and >>>>> change the entire surface of the planet? Did God build the cities, >>>>> slums, and farms that have crowded so many species out of existence >>>>> right before our eyes? Did God pull all this carbon out of the Earth >>>>> and start burning it so that you could sit on your ass on a Monday night >>>>> and communicate with the rest of the world? Did God build the dams that >>>>> reduced formerly raging rivers to slow drips? Did God pump nitrogen >>>>> based fertilizer into the ground until it ran off into the Gulf causing >>>>> huge dead spots where nothing can live? Did God create the Great >>>>> Pacific Garbage Patch? Did God fill all the fish with mercury?
>> I noticed. >> You managed to cram a whole lot of Environmentalist Whacko talking >> points into a single paragraph.
>> You didn't really expect a serious answer to them, did you?
>So you're just giving up, then? Let me remind you where you are. A few >messages up, you said this, in response to my quoted paragraph above:
>> You are assuming that the changes in Nature are being caused by us.
I should have said something like: "You are assuming that ALL of the changes in Nature are being caused by us."
I will definitely agree that there are situations where there are changes to the ecology that are Mankind contributes to.
The currently disappearing ice caps in Kilimanjaro being one of them.
It's quite a stretch to extrapolate from that, to claiming that the planet is inevitably on a sure path to higher and higher temperatures, all caused by our CO2 production.
>I have listed numerous obvious, indisputable changes in the biosphere >brought on by the recent activities of man. They are not "talking >points". I did expect you to at least understand what I was getting at; >perhaps I expected to much. You manage only to wave your hand at all of >them, without being able to explain why a single one is contrary to >fact. You do not even make an attempt, yet you hold smugly to your >claim that the recent, massive changes in nature may not be caused by man.
>Your defensive condescension is unconvincing, and perhaps you should >just give up your line. If you'd like to continue, you need to make a >rational argument for at least one of these two points:
>(1) These massive, recent changes in nature I have listed do not exist >(2) These massive, recent changes in nature I have listed are not caused >by man
I wouldn't argue against either of those points, except to point out that they don't prove your basic, implied assumption that Mankind will ultimately turn the entire planet into an uninhabitable wasteland.
You and I have had these types of conversations before, haven't we?
You, the young guy, being full of gloom and doom and despair over the future of Mankind.
Me, the old guy, being full of hope for the future of Mankind, with new technology being able to fix the problems that come up, and improve our quality of life.
Just to cherry pick one of the questions in your little sermon. Yes, I'm damn glad we have been able to pluck carbon out of the earth so we can burn it, and I can sit on my ass and communicate with the rest of the world.
Anybody operating an excavating machine should be damn glad he can sit on his ass and dig dirt for the construction of a new building, rather than doing the back breaking work with a hand shovel.
In fact, all of us in our daily lives have reason to be thankful that we learned how to dig carbon out of the earth and burn it in useful ways.
Heh. Look who's sermonizing now, eh? (That would be me.)
At every turn, the West is now being hobbled by demands to remove dams and hydro electricity, to stop drilling for oil, to stop using nuclear power, to greatly reduce military spending, to corrupt NASA with useful fools in positions of power, to replace extremely cost-effective petroleum with silly wind power schemes, to tax driving and commerce, to end space exploration, to make the UN the arbiter of world government, to end the free flow of information through the internet, to promote the belief that CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change, to promote the argument that taxpayers in industrialized countries must pay exorbitant penalties for “carbon” use, while giving a free pass to all others, to demonizing oil, coal, natural gas, and hydroelectric power, etc., etc.
>> Gee, if I only had two brain cells instead of the single one I have, >> I >> could read the actual studies and come to the same conclusions as >> you?
>No, you could compare to what is claimed by the authors to what what >is claimed by Anthony 'the fakester" Watts and judge his credibility >for yourself.
Oh, name-calling so early in the game? NTTAW name-calling.
>> And what's this "pretend" meterologist thing? >> He has been a working meteorologist for 25 years.
Oh, "pretend". Nice little shot.
>My understanding is one needs credentials to call oneself a >meteorologist. If I am wrong about that, then fuck it, I'm a >meteorologist too. Do you really not understand the difference between >a TV weatherman and a meteorologist?
>>>> His only claim to expertise is having been a meteorologist for 25 >>>> years.
>Yes, that's the claim I am talking about. How did he become a >meteorologist 25 years ago? Did he find his meteorologist card in a >box of Cracker Jacks?
Your Academic Snobbery is showing up again.
>> Hah. >> You certainly are an Academia Snob, aren't you? >> You think that being ensconced in an Ivory Tower is the sole >> qualification for knowing something?
>Call me a snob, but I want my doctor to have a medical degree, I want >my lawyer to have a law degree, and I want my scientists to have >science degrees.
I see. Accept Authority. The rest of us don't have the right to an opinion.
>> You know what I always say, don't you? >> The biggest danger of higher education is that it can easily turn an >> ordinary Fool into a highly educated Fool.
>And it's as hackneyed this time as it was the first time you said it.
>> "... oil company funded, pretend-scientist..." ?
>> Aren't you just the least bit embarrassed regurgitating that >> shopworn >> old chestnut?
>No, I am not embarrassed. I want my sources to be 1) qualified, and 2) >objective, as does anyone with a shred of common sense.
No, I guess I couldn't expect you to be embarrassed. You're shameless.
>> I spose that next you are going to use that old favorite >> "overwhelming >> consensus" ?
>> Puhleeze, don't do it. >> I can't stand to laugh. The stitches don't come out until next week
>Let's let RGP decide. You have your Oil Company Blogs and some >pretend-scientists. I have almost every major prestigious scientific >organization in the world:
Anyone skeptical of the summary as written by the UN funded IPCC is a shill for Big Oil?
Hmmmm Where have I heard that before?
>Synthesis reports >Synthesis reports are assessments of scientific literature that >compile the results of a range of stand-alone studies in order to >achieve a broad level of understanding, or to describe the state of >knowledge of a given subject.[2]
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 >In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming >Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth >Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause >of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global >warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in >average global temperatures over the last 100 years.[3]
Wow!! By the line count of my newsreader, there are about 800 lines that I deleted here.
And here I was thinking that I was one prolix MoFo. I have been put to shame by that post.
You must have put your entire reading list into that one post. And not a single skeptic in the bunch, eh? They all fall in line with the IPCC. No wonder you're so sure about everything.
Well, I don't have anything to match that, but I do have one list to contribute.
Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society Dear Editors:
[Note: The blue text below is the new APS statement requested by the signers and the red text below is the present APS statement the signers wish to replace.]
Fifty-four current and former members of the American Physical Society have signed the attached Open Letter to the APS Council calling for a reconsideration of its November 2007 Statement on Climate Change. The Open Letter includes a proposed Alternative Statement which the signatories find a more accurate representation of the current state of the science than the unsupported assertion of the APS: "The evidence is incontrovertible.”
The signatories are a diverse group who share only their common background in physics and a concern for the integrity of the science process. They come from academia, industry, and government and have a variety of fields of interest and experiences. Many are distinguished prize winners (including a Nobel laureate), members of national academies, authors of books, chairs of studies of historical significance, and leaders of important activities in industry and government.
It is not necessary that the Alternative be adopted verbatim. Rather it is put forth as a significant counter view that many accomplished physicists have been able to support. The critical point, as stated in the third paragraph of the Alternative, is the establishment of an ongoing objective scientific process devoid of political or financial influence and agendas. Such an “agnostic” approach is needed to reverse the subversion of the science process and the intolerance of scientific disagreement that have characterized the climate issue.
On May 1, 2009, the APS Council decided to review the current Statement via a high level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. We applaud this decision. It is the first such reappraisal by a major scientific professional society that we are aware of, and we hope that the APS review will lead to meaningful change so as to reflect a more accurate view of the current state of the science.
Respectfully,
Robert H. Austin Roger W. Cohen Laurence I. Gould William Happer Harold W. Lewis S. Fred Singer
Regarding the National Policy Statement on Climate Change of the APS Council: An Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society As physicists who are familiar with the science issues, and as current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned urge the Council to revise its current statement* on climate change as follows, so as to more accurately represent the current state of the science:
Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals.
Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth’s climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate.
The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the effects of all processes – natural and human -- on the Earth’s climate and the biosphere’s response to climate change, and promotes technological options for meeting challenges of future climate changes, regardless of cause. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that the "blue" text is what is being quoted here.
------------------------------------------------------------ — APS News; January 2008 (Volume 17, Number 1)
Harold M. Agnew Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory (1970 - 1979) President, General Atomics Corporation (1979 -1984) White House Science Councilor (1982 -1989) E.O. Lawrence Award 1966, Enrico Fermi Award 1978, Los Alamos Medal (with H.A. Bethe) 2001 Member National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Fellow APS, AAAS
Moorad Alexanian Professor of Physics and Physical Oceanography University of North Carolina Wilmington Member Mexican Academy of Sciences, American Scientific Affiliation
Robert H. Austin Professor of Physics Princeton Universityy Fellow APS, AAAS; APS Council: 1991-1994, 2007-2010 Member National Academy of Sciences, American Association of Arts and Sciences
Franco Battaglia, PhD Professor of Chemical Physics and Environmental Chemistry University of Modena, Italy APS Life-member
Stuart B. Berger Research Fellow and Divisional Time-to-Market Manager Xerox Corporation (retired)
Barry L. Berman Columbian Professor and Chair Physics Department The George Washington University Fellow APS
Edwin X Berry Atmospheric Physicist, Climate Physics, LLC Certified Consulting Meteorologist #180 Member American Meteorological Society
Arie Bodek George E. Pake Professor of Physics University of Rochester Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky Prize in Experimental Particle Physics (APS) 2004 Fellow APS
Timothy D. Calvin President, Bearfoot Corporation (retired) Fabricated rubber products for the DOD, shoe and automobile industries Member ACS
Gregory H. Canavan Senior Fellow and Scientific Advisor, Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow APS
Roger W. Cohen Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs ExxonMobil Corporation
...
>>>>>1) I told you that the studies to which he refers do not say what he >>>>>claims they do. Does that concern you at all?
>>>> Frankly my boy, you telling me something doesn't automatically >>>> translate into a belief on my part that you know what you're talking >>>> about.
>>>Yes, but if you rub two brain cells together you may come to >>>conclusion that it might be a clue that you need to look at the actual >>>studies rather than take a guy who pretends to be a meteorologist on >>>the internet's word for it.
>> Gee, if I only had two brain cells instead of the single one I have, I >> could read the actual studies and come to the same conclusions as you?
>> And what's this "pretend" meterologist thing? >> He has been a working meteorologist for 25 years.
>> Um, er, have you been taking lessons from Beldin on How to Win an >> Argument through Creative Insults? >Please. >I don't just insult you. >I insult you, then prove you wrong.
Yes, I've noticed that. You have a 100% success rate in proving that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
****** //// Sarcasm Alert ON////*****
(I only put that alert in for my favorite Dogg, Travel)
---------------------------------------------- Mark Twain On Consensus
“Thirty-five years ago I was an expert precious-metal quartz-miner. There was an outcrop in my neighborhood that assayed $600 a ton—gold. But every fleck of gold in it was shut up tight and fast in an intractable and impersuadable base-metal shell. Acting as a Consensus, I delivered the finality verdict that no human ingenuity would ever be able to set free two dollars’ worth of gold out of a ton of that rock. The fact is, I did not foresee the cyanide process… These sorrows have made me suspicious of Consensuses… I sheer warily off and get behind something, saying to myself, ‘It looks innocent and all right, but no matter, ten to one there’s a cyanide process under that thing somewhere.’”
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:09:21 -0800, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote: >>No, you could compare to what is claimed by the authors to what what >>is claimed by Anthony 'the fakester" Watts and judge his credibility >>for yourself.
> Oh, name-calling so early in the game? > NTTAW name-calling.
Did you make the comparison I suggested? What did you find out?
>>>>> His only claim to expertise is having been a meteorologist for >>>>> 25 >>>>> years.
>>Yes, that's the claim I am talking about. How did he become a >>meteorologist 25 years ago? Did he find his meteorologist card in a >>box of Cracker Jacks?
> Your Academic Snobbery is showing up again.
How did he become a meteorologist 25 years ago? Did he just decide to start calling himself that one day?
>>Call me a snob, but I want my doctor to have a medical degree, I >>want >>my lawyer to have a law degree, and I want my scientists to have >>science degrees.
> I see. > Accept Authority. > The rest of us don't have the right to an opinion.
So you *would* go to a surgeon without a medical degree? No, I really don't think you would.
>>No, I am not embarrassed. I want my sources to be 1) qualified, and >>2) >>objective, as does anyone with a shred of common sense.
> No, I guess I couldn't expect you to be embarrassed. > You're shameless.
Why would I be embarrassed to seek out qualified non-biased opinions?
>>> I spose that next you are going to use that old favorite >>> "overwhelming >>> consensus" ?
>>> Puhleeze, don't do it. >>> I can't stand to laugh. The stitches don't come out until next >>> week
>>Let's let RGP decide. You have your Oil Company Blogs and some >>pretend-scientists. I have almost every major prestigious scientific >>organization in the world:
> Wow!! > By the line count of my newsreader, there are about 800 lines that I > deleted here.
> And here I was thinking that I was one prolix MoFo. > I have been put to shame by that post. > You must have put your entire reading list into that one post. > And not a single skeptic in the bunch, eh?
No, that was an article from wikipedia on the current state of scientific consensus on climate change. Did you take note of all the major scientific organizations therein. That means nothing to you?
> They all fall in line with the IPCC. > No wonder you're so sure about everything.
So your logic is that if most all of the world's major scientific organizations generally agree on a scientific principle, that is evidence the principle is not true? lol
> Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society > Dear Editors:
> [Note: The blue text below is the new APS statement requested by the > signers and the red text below is the present APS statement the > signers wish to replace.]
> Fifty-four current and former members of the American Physical > Society > have signed the attached Open Letter to the APS Council calling for > a > reconsideration of its November 2007 Statement on Climate Change.
Uh, the American Physical Society has about 50,000 members. So the fact that ~.1% of it's members have expressed disagreement with the organization's policy statement is compelling to you?
Do you not see the difference between the positions of major scientific organizations and those of a relative few individual scientists? I am quite certain I could make an impressive looking list of health scientists who refuse to believe that cigarettes cause cancer (of course, most of them would likely be working directly or indirectly for the tobacco industry), but the list would become far less impressive when one realized that that *long list* represents .1% of health scientists. You need to learn to start looking at the big picture. You are textbook case of extreme attitude polarization.
>>>>>> how many times do we have to tell you to ..STOP FUCKIN AROUND .. with >>>>>> facts and pictures .. The righties want to believe what they want to >>>>>> believe
>>>And the lefties? >>>What do they want to believe?
>>>>>> This shit only makes em angry and uncomfortable
>>>>>I never knew that Global Warming issue was a right/left issue. I thought it >>>>>was based on science and facts.
>>>>For some reason, though, it's only the righties that don't want to >>>>accept the science and facts. Go figure.
>>>They simply won't accept all the science and facts from the sole >>>source of knowledge, the lefties?
>>>Shocking! >>>Shocking, I say!
>>>Can't we all just think alike?
>>The problem is that the righties only want to accept "science" from >>petroleum industry-funded studies.
>You got it all figgered out, don't you?
>You and Al Gore.
Care to refute what I said with actual facts? -- ~ Seth Jackson
> >>No, you could compare to what is claimed by the authors to what what > >>is claimed by Anthony 'the fakester" Watts and judge his credibility > >>for yourself.
> > Oh, name-calling so early in the game? > > NTTAW name-calling.
> Did you make the comparison I suggested? What did you find out?
> >>>>> His only claim to expertise is having been a meteorologist for > >>>>> 25 > >>>>> years.
> >>Yes, that's the claim I am talking about. How did he become a > >>meteorologist 25 years ago? Did he find his meteorologist card in a > >>box of Cracker Jacks?
> > Your Academic Snobbery is showing up again.
> How did he become a meteorologist 25 years ago? Did he just decide to > start calling himself that one day?
> >>Call me a snob, but I want my doctor to have a medical degree, I > >>want > >>my lawyer to have a law degree, and I want my scientists to have > >>science degrees.
> > I see. > > Accept Authority. > > The rest of us don't have the right to an opinion.
> So you *would* go to a surgeon without a medical degree? No, I really > don't think you would.
> >>No, I am not embarrassed. I want my sources to be 1) qualified, and > >>2) > >>objective, as does anyone with a shred of common sense.
> > No, I guess I couldn't expect you to be embarrassed. > > You're shameless.
> Why would I be embarrassed to seek out qualified non-biased opinions?
> >>> I spose that next you are going to use that old favorite > >>> "overwhelming > >>> consensus" ?
> >>> Puhleeze, don't do it. > >>> I can't stand to laugh. The stitches don't come out until next > >>> week
> >>Let's let RGP decide. You have your Oil Company Blogs and some > >>pretend-scientists. I have almost every major prestigious scientific > >>organization in the world:
> > Wow!! > > By the line count of my newsreader, there are about 800 lines that I > > deleted here.
> > And here I was thinking that I was one prolix MoFo. > > I have been put to shame by that post.
> > You must have put your entire reading list into that one post. > > And not a single skeptic in the bunch, eh?
> No, that was an article from wikipedia on the current state of > scientific consensus on climate change. Did you take note of all the > major scientific organizations therein. That means nothing to you?
> > They all fall in line with the IPCC. > > No wonder you're so sure about everything.
> So your logic is that if most all of the world's major scientific > organizations generally agree on a scientific principle, that is > evidence the principle is not true? lol
> > Well, I don't have anything to match that, but I do have one list to > > contribute.
> > Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society > > Dear Editors:
> > [Note: The blue text below is the new APS statement requested by the > > signers and the red text below is the present APS statement the > > signers wish to replace.]
> > Fifty-four current and former members of the American Physical > > Society > > have signed the attached Open Letter to the APS Council calling for > > a > > reconsideration of its November 2007 Statement on Climate Change.
> Uh, the American Physical Society has about 50,000 members. So the > fact that ~.1% of it's members have expressed disagreement with the > organization's policy statement is compelling to you?
> Do you not see the difference between the positions of major > scientific organizations and those of a relative few individual > scientists? I am quite certain I could make an impressive looking list > of health scientists who refuse to believe that cigarettes cause > cancer (of course, most of them would likely be working directly or > indirectly for the tobacco industry), but the list would become far > less impressive when one realized that that *long list* represents .1% > of health scientists. You need to learn to start looking at the big > picture. You are textbook case of extreme attitude polarization.
Given the breadth of the fields associated with being a member of the APS, 54 members probably represents a reasonable percentage of those involced in climate science. In any case, finding 54 high profile members who are willing to put their scientific credibilty on the line is, in my opinion, significant. For the vast majority of the membership, contact with the Society probably begins and ennds with signing the membership check each year.
The comparison with smoking is simply illogical. The mechanism by which smoking increases cancer risk is well documented, both chemically and medically, and there is direct correlation between the risk and the severity of the habit. No such correlation exists for CO2 forced global warming.
Did you read the original article on the Kilimanjaro glaciers? Either of you?
_____________________________________________________________________ : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
>>>>>>1) I told you that the studies to which he refers do not say what he >>>>>>claims they do. Does that concern you at all?
>>>>> Frankly my boy, you telling me something doesn't automatically >>>>> translate into a belief on my part that you know what you're talking >>>>> about.
>>>>Yes, but if you rub two brain cells together you may come to >>>>conclusion that it might be a clue that you need to look at the actual >>>>studies rather than take a guy who pretends to be a meteorologist on >>>>the internet's word for it.
>>> Gee, if I only had two brain cells instead of the single one I have, I >>> could read the actual studies and come to the same conclusions as you?
>>> And what's this "pretend" meterologist thing? >>> He has been a working meteorologist for 25 years.
>>> Um, er, have you been taking lessons from Beldin on How to Win an >>> Argument through Creative Insults? >>Please. >>I don't just insult you. >>I insult you, then prove you wrong.
> Yes, I've noticed that. > You have a 100% success rate in proving that anyone who disagrees with > you is wrong.
> (I only put that alert in for my favorite Dogg, Travel)
> ---------------------------------------------- > Mark Twain On Consensus
> "Thirty-five years ago I was an expert precious-metal quartz-miner. > There was an outcrop in my neighborhood that assayed $600 a ton-gold. > But every fleck of gold in it was shut up tight and fast in an > intractable and impersuadable base-metal shell. > Acting as a Consensus, I delivered the finality verdict that no human > ingenuity would ever be able to set free two dollars' worth of gold > out of a ton of that rock. > The fact is, I did not foresee the cyanide process. These sorrows have > made me suspicious of Consensuses. I sheer warily off and get behind > something, saying to myself, 'It looks innocent and all right, but no > matter, ten to one there's a cyanide process under that thing > somewhere.'"
Turbo, we're dealing with a great likelihood, of a time sensitive nature. Only a complete moron waits to be sure under those circumstances.
>> Uh, the American Physical Society has about 50,000 members. So the >> fact that ~.1% of it's members have expressed disagreement with the >> organization's policy statement is compelling to you?
> Given the breadth of the fields associated with being a member of the APS, > 54 members probably represents a reasonable percentage of those involced > in climate science. In any case, finding 54 high profile members who are > willing to put their scientific credibilty on the line is, in my opinion, > significant. For the vast majority of the membership, contact with the > Society probably begins and ennds with signing the membership check each > year.
Bill seems to imply that 50,000 members of the APS wrote the original position and 54 members disagree with the other 49,946 members. This is typical, of course, of someone who has an agenda rather than a argument.
You are correct that members of any organization from the trivial to the astute seldom have much contact with the pronouncements of that organization. (For a personal example, I ended my association with the ABA when the goofiness of the politics outweighed any possible benefit.) Doctors that belong to the AMA do not necessarily agree with the political positions of the AMA ... they don't all agree on the opinion of the AMA on medical issues.
The idea that members of organizations all agree with the pronouncements of the national organization is just a bad "assumption." But this is a newsgroup and people draw all sorts of conclusions and post a lot of opinion as fact. Sometimes, the opinions are better supported in "common sense" than others.
> The comparison with smoking is simply illogical. The mechanism by which > smoking increases cancer risk is well documented, both chemically and > medically, and there is direct correlation between the risk and the > severity of the habit. No such correlation exists for CO2 forced global > warming.
Those that have faith can avoid doubt by assumption and diversion.
> Did you read the original article on the Kilimanjaro glaciers? Either of > you?
Consider this exchange in this subthread:
>>>Call me a snob, but I want my doctor to have a medical degree, >>>I want my lawyer to have a law degree, and I want my scientists >>>to have science degrees.
>> I see. >> Accept Authority. >> The rest of us don't have the right to an opinion. > So you *would* go to a surgeon without a medical degree? > No, I really don't think you would.
Is Bill's assumed conclusion that Turbo would have a surgeon cut on him a valid one in context? This was an attempted putdown based on "logic" that is actually an illogical rhetorical slam. The constant calling of those that disagree with assumptions and opinions names is not helpful in advancing discussion or understanding.
There are so many important "issues" that get swept up into mixtures of half truths being spun into outright silliness. Trying to get through the fog of words is difficult. There is nothing wrong with "appeals to authority" for sources of information, but everyone needs to acknowledge our own limitations in interpreting complex opinions on complex data and the complex conclusions being drawn by those who draw them.
The main problem I have with Bill is that he assumes too much in each sentence and there are often several sentences in each paragraph and it is difficult to start at the first word of the first sentence and try and reconstruct where the assumptions and opinions wiggle to the denouement. The final "gift" is already boxed, wrapped and tied with a bow. It is almost impossible to get to the cake through the icing.
Using words like "any sane person" do not help keep the discussion civil. General statements of truth do not always apply to specific conclusions. I enjoy a good cat fight on RGP, but I wish sometimes that those few that are really quite smart (like BillB) would step back and reconsider their omnipotence in what they believe they understand. I can say that about Beldin too ... he is a smart guy, but he suffers from too high an opinion of his opinion and reduces any discussion to crude, juvenile rants and name calling. [I confess to a high opinion of my opinion and I am also subject to frustration and devolvement into sarcasm and ridicule as a result.]
You, labrat, do not post much here. You seem to be able to keep to the high road. Your final comment above, however, seems to indicate that you might be feeling just a moment of frustration.
> > I never knew that Global Warming issue was a right/left issue. I thought it > > was based on science and facts.
> How naive. Those on the right represent big companies and rich people > so of course they don't want their pollution activities curtailed and > they will use whatever means necessary (including perverting the > truth) to allow their money-making activities to continue. Those on > the left represent others and so they don't mind screwing it to the > big companies and rich people and instead care about the truth.
> Also, there are a large group of those on the right who believe that > science is false in many ways so if scientists say it then it much be > fought with all angles.
> This is all so obvious even I could see it.
the right eats baby seals for breakfast, so i don't see how polluting the water helps.
mo_charles
---- * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
> Given the breadth of the fields associated with being a member of > the APS, > 54 members probably represents a reasonable percentage of those > involced > in climate science.
Come on. Talk about jumping to conclusions! The fact is 54 of 50,000 expressed reservation. It is what it is. I bet I can guess the political affiliation or employment status of most of those 54. I am willing to bet the majority of them are paid consultants for emitters.
In any case, finding 54 high profile members who are
> willing to put their scientific credibilty on the line is, in my > opinion, > significant. For the vast majority of the membership, contact with > the > Society probably begins and ennds with signing the membership check > each > year.
Baloney. I have noticed that the opinions of scientists who are paid by oil companies and the like diverge markedly from the scientific community at large. It ain't a coincidence. Scientists can be bought off like anyone else. A certain percentage also let their politics get in the way of their scientific reasoning. For example, look at the facebook page of the APS guy who authors the blog to which Turbo refers. I was not surprised at all to find out he is an hard right-winger.
If you find it significant that that 54 of 50,000 members express reservation about the organization's statement, how significant is it to you that almost every major prestigious scientific organization in the world endorses the IPCC's fourth assessment?
> The comparison with smoking is simply illogical. The mechanism by > which > smoking increases cancer risk is well documented, both chemically > and > medically, and there is direct correlation between the risk and the > severity of the habit. No such correlation exists for CO2 forced > global > warming.
You missed my point. In fact, you are kind of reinforcing my point. My point was that you can find individual scientists to say almost anything, no matter how ludicrous. The % of scientists who object to the gist of the IPCC assessment is small (very small). That is reflected by the fact that there is almost universal endorsement by major scientific organizations. My point was that Turbo suffers from a very bad case of attitude polarization. He finds it extremely significant that, say, 5% of scientists agree with his position, but places no significance at all on the converse that 95% don't.
How did the IPCC come to the conclusion that they are 95% confident that most of the observed global warming is a result of increased anthropogenic greenhouse gasses? What would you set that probability at? Is it safe to say that most of the people who collaborated on that assessment have more expertise in climate science than you?
> Did you read the original article on the Kilimanjaro glaciers? > Either of > you?
FL Turbo wrote: > On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:10:22 -0500, John the Savage > <savage0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> FL Turbo wrote: >>>>>> If if wasn't us, who was it? Was it God? Did God cut down all the >>>>>> trees, Turbo? Did God start practicing "totalitarian agriculture" and >>>>>> change the entire surface of the planet? Did God build the cities, >>>>>> slums, and farms that have crowded so many species out of existence >>>>>> right before our eyes? Did God pull all this carbon out of the Earth >>>>>> and start burning it so that you could sit on your ass on a Monday night >>>>>> and communicate with the rest of the world? Did God build the dams that >>>>>> reduced formerly raging rivers to slow drips? Did God pump nitrogen >>>>>> based fertilizer into the ground until it ran off into the Gulf causing >>>>>> huge dead spots where nothing can live? Did God create the Great >>>>>> Pacific Garbage Patch? Did God fill all the fish with mercury? >>> I noticed. >>> You managed to cram a whole lot of Environmentalist Whacko talking >>> points into a single paragraph.
>>> You didn't really expect a serious answer to them, did you?
>> Your defensive condescension is unconvincing, and perhaps you should >> just give up your line. If you'd like to continue, you need to make a >> rational argument for at least one of these two points:
>> (1) These massive, recent changes in nature I have listed do not exist >> (2) These massive, recent changes in nature I have listed are not caused >> by man
> I wouldn't argue against either of those points,
Oh, okay then. So you are now admitting that what you earlier characterized as "Environmentalist Whacko talking points" are actually valid points in answer to your claim that my assertion that nature was undergoing massive change was an "assumption". Thanks.
> except to point out > that they don't prove your basic, implied assumption that Mankind will > ultimately turn the entire planet into an uninhabitable wasteland.
In the future, this would work better if you simply dealt with what I actually said, instead of what you think I was trying to imply. It doesn't bother me if you don't agree with my opinion of the likely outcome of human civilization. But this doesn't give you any grounds to call simple facts (which may support my opinion) "whacko talking points". It turns out you even agree with these "whacko talking points". But you reflexively refuse to consider them because you don't like the implications.
> You and I have had these types of conversations before, haven't we?
> You, the young guy, being full of gloom and doom and despair over the > future of Mankind.
I'm just the analyst. I'm not gloomy, and I don't feel despair. I'm pretty happy, just finished a busy week of school and lab successfully, am going to spend the weekend with the new girl, and am even enjoying some goldfish as I write this. They're delicious.
> Me, the old guy, being full of hope for the future of Mankind, with > new technology being able to fix the problems that come up, and > improve our quality of life.
> Just to cherry pick one of the questions in your little sermon. > Yes, I'm damn glad we have been able to pluck carbon out of the earth > so we can burn it, and I can sit on my ass and communicate with the > rest of the world.
> Anybody operating an excavating machine should be damn glad he can sit > on his ass and dig dirt for the construction of a new building, rather > than doing the back breaking work with a hand shovel.
> In fact, all of us in our daily lives have reason to be thankful that > we learned how to dig carbon out of the earth and burn it in useful > ways.
> Heh. > Look who's sermonizing now, eh? > (That would be me.)
So then, I guess we're all happier than we used to be? Or are we? What do you think the data is?
>> Pity the poor slobs who trudged this Earth, before the invention of the >> internal combustion engine. Of course, they're all dead!
> Excellent ... but then, in the end ... aren't we all.
> John the Savage is a bright spot (I prefer the old persona, but the new is > OK) but he suffers from pronouncement disease.
What's in a name? That's all that has changed. If you prefer a dead Priest who liked to play chess, and whom you couldn't possibly know much about on a personal level, to the delightful hero of BNW, I'm disappointed.
> Like someone else I know and enjoy, he presumes, assumes and has ultimate > faith in whateveritisthatheissaying and then denounces anyone who might > questions the original conglomeration.
I don't like this characterization of my work here as "denouncement". I don't think that's very accurate, and I think you could do better if you wanted to.
> There are no clear and unambiguous opinions given nor sought ... just the > same old same old political rants.
I don't think I've ever delivered a single "political rant" to RGP.
> Now, if he would just separate legitimate environmental concerns so they > might be considered one by one with some sort of reasonable debate, progress > might be made ... but that seems unlikely.
Well, progress .. is the whole problem. But I digress. The point is that none of the "legitimate environmental concerns" exist in a vacuum, separate from all the others. I prefer to look at the "big picture". There could never be a way to convince someone like you, or FL Turbo, that civilization was doomed from the start, even if it were true. I don't want to try. I don't see why you think a "reasonable debate" on the subject is impossible, however, and I don't think you have ever actually tried. You prefer to be smug and ambiguous, which is fine. You have your niche, and you are welcome to exploit it to the best of your ability, like all the rest of the creatures of the Earth.
> Delete above ... substitute ... Mankind is the only species that does not > deserve to exist.
It is not up to us to decide who gets to exist and who does not. As I said, Mother Nature has Her way of taking care of these things. I'm just going to enjoy these cheddar goldfish while I can.
>>>>>>> how many times do we have to tell you to ..STOP FUCKIN AROUND .. with >>>>>>> facts and pictures .. The righties want to believe what they want to >>>>>>> believe
>>>>And the lefties? >>>>What do they want to believe?
>>>>>>> This shit only makes em angry and uncomfortable
>>>>>>I never knew that Global Warming issue was a right/left issue. I thought it >>>>>>was based on science and facts.
>>>>>For some reason, though, it's only the righties that don't want to >>>>>accept the science and facts. Go figure.
>>>>They simply won't accept all the science and facts from the sole >>>>source of knowledge, the lefties?
>>>>Shocking! >>>>Shocking, I say!
>>>>Can't we all just think alike?
>>>The problem is that the righties only want to accept "science" from >>>petroleum industry-funded studies.
>>You got it all figgered out, don't you?
>>You and Al Gore.
>Care to refute what I said with actual facts?
I do not think that actual facts could influence you at all. Your mind is made up already.
Opinions and facts that go contrary to the UN funded IPCC spin will be discarded by you as being propaganda from Big Oil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Dwight Eisenhower in his 1961 Farewell Address to the Nation “that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity” “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded.”
>>>>>>>1) I told you that the studies to which he refers do not say what he >>>>>>>claims they do. Does that concern you at all?
>>>>>> Frankly my boy, you telling me something doesn't automatically >>>>>> translate into a belief on my part that you know what you're talking >>>>>> about.
>>>>>Yes, but if you rub two brain cells together you may come to >>>>>conclusion that it might be a clue that you need to look at the actual >>>>>studies rather than take a guy who pretends to be a meteorologist on >>>>>the internet's word for it.
>>>> Gee, if I only had two brain cells instead of the single one I have, I >>>> could read the actual studies and come to the same conclusions as you?
>>>> And what's this "pretend" meterologist thing? >>>> He has been a working meteorologist for 25 years.
>>>> Um, er, have you been taking lessons from Beldin on How to Win an >>>> Argument through Creative Insults? >>>Please. >>>I don't just insult you. >>>I insult you, then prove you wrong.
>> Yes, I've noticed that. >> You have a 100% success rate in proving that anyone who disagrees with >> you is wrong. >That'd be false.
>> (I only put that alert in for my favorite Dogg, Travel)
>> ---------------------------------------------- >> Mark Twain On Consensus
>> "Thirty-five years ago I was an expert precious-metal quartz-miner. >> There was an outcrop in my neighborhood that assayed $600 a ton-gold. >> But every fleck of gold in it was shut up tight and fast in an >> intractable and impersuadable base-metal shell. >> Acting as a Consensus, I delivered the finality verdict that no human >> ingenuity would ever be able to set free two dollars' worth of gold >> out of a ton of that rock. >> The fact is, I did not foresee the cyanide process. These sorrows have >> made me suspicious of Consensuses. I sheer warily off and get behind >> something, saying to myself, 'It looks innocent and all right, but no >> matter, ten to one there's a cyanide process under that thing >> somewhere.'"
>Turbo, we're dealing with a great likelihood, of a time sensitive nature. >Only a complete moron waits to be sure under those circumstances.
Is that the kind of thinking known as Pascal's Wager?
>>>No, you could compare to what is claimed by the authors to what what >>>is claimed by Anthony 'the fakester" Watts and judge his credibility >>>for yourself.
>> Oh, name-calling so early in the game? >> NTTAW name-calling.
>Did you make the comparison I suggested? What did you find out?
I don't remember you suggesting that I make any comparison. You know my memory isn't as good as it once was.
>>>>>> His only claim to expertise is having been a meteorologist for >>>>>> 25 >>>>>> years.
>>>Yes, that's the claim I am talking about. How did he become a >>>meteorologist 25 years ago? Did he find his meteorologist card in a >>>box of Cracker Jacks?
It means he has had 25 years to observe and study the world's climate.
>How did he become a meteorologist 25 years ago? Did he just decide to >start calling himself that one day?
>>>Call me a snob, but I want my doctor to have a medical degree, I >>>want >>>my lawyer to have a law degree, and I want my scientists to have >>>science degrees.
>> I see. >> Accept Authority. >> The rest of us don't have the right to an opinion.
>So you *would* go to a surgeon without a medical degree? No, I really >don't think you would.
That only means you are good at setting up a strawman and knocking it down.
It doesn't prove anything else.
>>>No, I am not embarrassed. I want my sources to be 1) qualified, and >>>2) >>>objective, as does anyone with a shred of common sense.
>> No, I guess I couldn't expect you to be embarrassed. >> You're shameless.
>Why would I be embarrassed to seek out qualified non-biased opinions?
And of course if they march in lockstep with the UN funded IPCC, that means that they are automatically qualified and non-biased.
Believing that is what should make you embarrassed.
>>>> I spose that next you are going to use that old favorite >>>> "overwhelming >>>> consensus" ?
>>>> Puhleeze, don't do it. >>>> I can't stand to laugh. The stitches don't come out until next >>>> week
>>>Let's let RGP decide. You have your Oil Company Blogs and some >>>pretend-scientists. I have almost every major prestigious scientific >>>organization in the world:
>> Wow!! >> By the line count of my newsreader, there are about 800 lines that I >> deleted here.
>> And here I was thinking that I was one prolix MoFo. >> I have been put to shame by that post.
>> You must have put your entire reading list into that one post. >> And not a single skeptic in the bunch, eh?
>No, that was an article from wikipedia on the current state of >scientific consensus on climate change. Did you take note of all the >major scientific organizations therein. That means nothing to you?
>> They all fall in line with the IPCC. >> No wonder you're so sure about everything.
>So your logic is that if most all of the world's major scientific >organizations generally agree on a scientific principle, that is >evidence the principle is not true? lol
If they all fall in line with the IPCC conclusions and simply regurgitate the same line of thought, my suspicious little brain tells me they haven't done much thinking at all.
I'm sure you have heard these famous observations; "When everyone thinks alike, no one thinks much at all."
"Coming to a conclusion often only means that is the point where we stop thinking about it."
>> Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society >> Dear Editors:
>> [Note: The blue text below is the new APS statement requested by the >> signers and the red text below is the present APS statement the >> signers wish to replace.]
>> Fifty-four current and former members of the American Physical >> Society >> have signed the attached Open Letter to the APS Council calling for >> a >> reconsideration of its November 2007 Statement on Climate Change.
>Uh, the American Physical Society has about 50,000 members. So the >fact that ~.1% of it's members have expressed disagreement with the >organization's policy statement is compelling to you?
From reading ahead on this thread, I see that other people have told you that an organization can easily issue policy statements that don't reflect the opinions of their membership.
'Nuff said.
>Do you not see the difference between the positions of major >scientific organizations and those of a relative few individual >scientists? I am quite certain I could make an impressive looking list >of health scientists who refuse to believe that cigarettes cause >cancer (of course, most of them would likely be working directly or >indirectly for the tobacco industry), but the list would become far >less impressive when one realized that that *long list* represents .1% >of health scientists. You need to learn to start looking at the big >picture. You are textbook case of extreme attitude polarization.
I can't think of any "health scientists" who would deny that cigarettes contribute to cancer.
It is more likely that it is only another one of your cute little strawman arguments.
|
