« The Enemy Within | Main | Bush Derangement Syndrome, Cheney Variant »

March 16, 2007

Comments

Why does one Danish scientist have so much more credibility than 95% of the scientific community? I'm just asking.

"Yes, and my house "may" be picked up by a cyclone and transported to a curious land of little people, talking scarecrows, and cowardly lions. But pardon me if I'm not budgeting for ruby slippers just yet."

How much would you budget to protect against a terrosist attack that "may" occur, but that you would most likley not be a victim of even if it did?

To hear people who thought Saddam Hussein was going to take over the US with imaginary weapons describe others as "Chicken Littles" is the irony of the century.

and the sun revolves around the earth, which is flat.
ludites rock.

This is probably the least scientific "debunking" of global warming that I've read in a long time.

"But the claim that within less than a century mankind has radically transformed the climate of the earth so as to raise temperatures dangerously beyond the normal wide range of natural variation is an audacious claim that requires compelling proof before it can be accepted. Such proof has not been provided."

Yes, it has:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

For a more thorough debunking of climate change skeptics: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

"To look at it another way, if we were entering another ice age right now (and -- who knows? -- we "might" be), does anyone seriously believe that simply by producing enough carbon dioxide humankind could stave off the ice age and keep the global climate sunny and pleasant?"

Yes, it's called terraforming, and is believed to be possible by many serious, scientific people. Obviously the amount of "staving off" would depend on how bad the ice age was and what the limits of greenhouse warming are, but yes, of course people seriously believe that we can warm the planet by putting carbon into the atmosphere.

"If that is a silly fantasy, then so is the flip side of the same coin."

That's a logical fallacy...first off, as I said above, it's not silly fantasy, it's science. Second, whether we could "fully" stave off an ice age with carbon says nothing about whether carbon emmisions lead to an increase in global temperature. The effect is real, the degree of the effect has yet to be determined, but has been measured as an average .11 degrees per decade since 1880, though the warming has been 3 times faster overall since 1970 compared to the rest of the century.

"To jump to the conclusion that humans have, in a few short decades, destroyed the global climate by adding minimally to worldwide carbon dioxide emissions"

Who said humans have "destroyed the global climate"? I don't think anyone has seriously said that (beyond your typical hyperbolistic enviro-nut). Furthermore, your analysis of 95% of carbon emmissions not being from human causes is actually quite irrelevant. Adding 5% to one side of an equilibrium can throw things REALLY off balance. Furthermore, human carbon emissions aren't the only problem....deforestation reduces the amount of carbon that can be processed back to O2 by plants, for example, and the warming we're already experiencing is thawing the siberian tundra, releasing a LOT of methane that had been trapped.

Ignoring the science of global warming will not make it go away.

I always LOVE how the global-warming alarmist freaks show up and cite Wikipedia as evidence. Sheesh. Try this one on:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm


Face it. You don't have FACTS to back up your dire predictions. You have flawed computer models and inference. That's junk science at best. And yet, you want us to pump billions, possible trillions of dollars at this supposed problems. Meanwhile, anyone who is skeptical are outcasts and even receive death threats.

Yeah, this is really science. NOT!!!

I always LOVE how the global-warming alarmist freaks show up and cite Wikipedia as evidence.

I always love how global-warming denying freaks refuse the evidence that proves they're wrong.

If the Wikipedia link is wrong, and/or contains wrong or faulty information - then prove it wrong! It should be easy, right?

If you can't prove it wrong, then the argument stands.

If you disagree with the argument I've just presented here, then please show what I've said that's wrong, and logically explain why it's wrong.

The earth is only 6000 years old. It says it in the Bible and some scientists agree.

The Wikipedia entry leads to a graph that was generated from data published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you scroll to the bottom of the page, you will notice that each of the traces on the graph comes from data from a different article, and that all those articles are cited on the page in appropriate journal citation format. If you would like to claim that you and one Danish "scientist" have more expertise than ten peer-reviewed journal articles, then by all means feel free to do so.

A. When "providing evidence" it always is recommended that the evidence come from outside sources and not self-referential links.

B. The CFP article relies similarly on mere statements and is written by someone whose byline is unapologetically described as a former climatologist. That's a refutation of many articles from many different scientists?

I guess when I was taking science and math in school there was a different set of criteria used for discerning truth/fiction and simple bloviation.

But that requires hard work, research and stamina.

However, the real questions is whether all of the deniers are willing to take the chance that they are wrong.

And why not plan for the end of fossil fuels instead of acting like an ostrich?

But then, there would not be any reasons left to bash Mr. Gore or those of us who do not think that burning fossil fuels is the only way to perserve modern life.

Have you read what Bjarne Andresen's Niels Bohr institute has to say about evolution?

"Evolution is an inherent part of biological systems and we in the center aim at developing new views and models to deal with evolutionary processes in general. This includes models of evolving biological systems, like gene regulatory circuits, but also concerns more abstract modeling of for example evolving social systems." (http://cmol.nbi.dk/research.php?research=4 ) (Andersen is also involved in this evolution study: http://www.dna.gfy.ku.dk/index.html)

It is easy to pick and choose tidbits from scientific reports. Would creationists be able to support Andresen's findings on climate change yet refute his thoughts on evolution? It seems a slippery slope.

Also, reading the study, it says only that there is no such thing as "global temperature" because the Earth is just too large and diverse an entity to be able to measure averages of temperature in that way. The only real conclusion then is that there is no way to measure if there is global warming or not using the current system of averaging. Andersen is looking at the Earth and the idea of global temperature within the idea of ontological complexity:

"From its beginning, biology was a science of complex systems, but with the advent of electronic computing and the possibility of simulating mathematical models of complicated systems, new intuitions of complexity emerged, together with attempts to devise quantitative measures of complexity. " (quoted from "Aspects of Complexity in Life and Science" published by Andersen's Niels Bohr Instiute http://www.nbi.dk/~emmeche/cePubl/97g.complisci.html)

Andersen's beef is more with a linear system of global temperature measurement than it is with the idea that carbon emissions are not affecting the globe.

Here is a better news piece on the study:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm

It includes this key line of analysis that people using the study to refute global climate change seem to omit: "What Bjarne Andresen and his coworkers emphasize is that physical arguments are needed to decide whether one averaging method or another is needed to calculate an average which is relevant to describe the state of Earth."

Pollution, deforestation, etc. are still real problems that we should be concerned about. Nowhere is the study refuting that. To jump to the conclusion that global warming is a myth (and that we should not be concerned about carbon emissions, etc.) based on the idea that we need a better way to measure the temperature of the earth is a very suspect interpretation of the findings.

Regardless, I wonder why you expend so much energy trying to refute "global warming." It seems (by all the posts and comments I have read here at least) that you are quite emotional about the issue. That is strange to me. Is it simply because it is lumped under "liberal" causes? There certainly is a ton of hype and misinformation about the issue, but it seems that the enlightened conservative approach would be to find solutions based in careful thought and conseravtive values instead of stirring up partisan politics and using selective bits from scientific reports. In fact, I think you could be more compelling in your arguments if you were able to accept some of the real dangers of pollution and look at answers that made the most sense yet still embraced your core political values. We don't live in a black-and-white world and all black-and-white responses seem to do is excite the far ends of the politcal spectrum.

The comments to this entry are closed.

GINA COBB

  • The 2006 Weblog Awards
  • "This is a great blog."

WEBSITES TO EXPLORE

COMMENTS?

  • Before posting a comment, ask yourself whether it is polite, fair, and truthful. Comments are auto-deleted if they contain profanity (even with ast*ri*ks). Comments may also be edited or deleted if they include anything false, misleading, insulting, unethical, illogical or spamlike. Rude comments or spam result in a permanent ban of future comments.