# Creationists and Global Warming Deniers

## Recommended Posts

There's no dilemma. Theres no black and white, but there's no dilemma....Err on the side of caution people.

##### Share on other sites
There's no dilemma. Theres no black and white, but there's no dilemma....Err on the side of caution people.

What are you talking about ?

Misinterpreting, or actively reinterpreting or sometimes cherry picking data, especially to bolster a 'denial' of a scientific model does indeed create a false dilemma.

##### Share on other sites

OK forget it! The chances of you fanatics actually interpreting the data right in the first place are so small that I dont think the concession is needed.

##### Share on other sites

We have had 43 US Presidents, of which none are/were classified atheist. Three were non denominational and the rest some form of Christan. IMO; none have ever committed troops to any war theater feeling the worst would be a trip to some heaven. Their duty or that of the commanders duty bound to the Commander In Chief, under our system is the protection of the people who have elected them to protect the Nation and the Constitution, which our system is based on....

Those that have achieved the position itself, statistically are more likely to die or have an attempt on their life, than any other segment of our society, including the Military itself.

43 Total...4 Assassinated, 5 attempts and untold plots foiled.

In all the US Wars, from the Revolutionary to Iraq; 43,200,000 have served during wartime. Battle deaths 669,000. A figure rarely mentioned are the deaths with in the military, which occur similar to death rates of society in general. This figure during Wartime was 526,000. Since Viet Nam, our total Military deaths of active member, with a war (Afghanistan/Iraq 1 or 2) or not is about 1,000 per years give or take 300.

##### Share on other sites

Yes but during wartime you have human beings actively trying to kill each other, and the populations of soldiers for instance during a war is typically far smaller then say the population of an entire nation.

The point is that you are under the control really of a person who has a worldview. Such as if they are truly religious then they see death as passing on to any conceived notions of an afterlife.

I am agnostic, as such my choice is based on the reality that we don’t have an answer to such questions, and then to answer such is a faith regardless.

I mean what is the difference. Animal learning in hand did our culture evolve from whatever culture primates had? I would suspect so giving what we know about reality. Is that the same as faith when all one can really do is decide to believe in something with not facts?

Bottom line is its my life, and I don’t care to through it away on some officer that believes all dogs go to heaven.

##### Share on other sites
I promise I'm not trying to make a point with this.

but youre going to anyway...

I'm just curious as to how you feel the scientific community should treat these two groups that oppose basically what it as a body is saying. Now obviously there are some global warming deniers (or anthropogenic global warming, or whatever semantic games you want to play) and even a few Creationists on this site, so perhaps you're going to have a different opinion than us drones, and I'd be interested to hear those too.

and the commonality is excusively What exactly?

Is denying the scientific consensus on the origins and development of life and the universe analogous to denying the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change? Is one position more valid than the other? Does either group serve any more valid function than the other?

so you wish to compare apples and Oranges then, is that it?

it might have been So much More different if youd have used the Correct terminology! ie/ YOUNG EARTH creationist (YEC for short) rather than the all sweeping Blanket term! doncha think?

##### Share on other sites

Darwin; Many folks engaged in the GW argument, feel there is an underlying ideology bordering a religious tone, when any argument opposing the idea is made. Much as Creation/Evolution....Consensus, by shear numbers believe a God of sorts created *Mankind*, but with a thousand plus versions on just when and how this could have happened.

GW, likewise simply infers mankind is somehow responsible for ALL the problems or ills of society. Most in reality have nothing what so ever to do with GW or are the parties truly concerned with that issue. Many issues which folks (especially politicians) cannot attack as a single issue, CAN be attacked under the topic GW. I have found, in arguing *Natural Cycle* warming/cooling of the planet as a natural process, allowing mankind to become, that the opposing view is concerned with one or more of what mankind has done. Most appear IMO, to dislike Capitalism in general. Wealth which has been created, life styles which not everyone can achieve or the control over people, which some perceive Corporations maintain.

Foodchain; The short answer is then, not to join the Military. In the US, today we have plenty of folks, which still believe in the American Dream, the culture and traditions which have made this Country, all that it is...

My point however, was our system under the framers of our Country, via the Constitution, realized with a million or 300 million individuals had to have a system, where one person takes on the responsibility for certain actions with few restrictions. Truman, in ordering the Bombing of 2 Cities in Japan, which ended WWII, could not have concerned himself with his afterlife or that of the millions which that action affected. Right or wrong, he made that decision and the war ended. The Civil War, was just as tragic, with far more controversy than the current actions in Iraq.

I call myself, agnostic as well, primarily since I still hope to believe in something someday. Personally, if there is an afterlife, there should have been a pre-life, which is what I could accept but is not a concept today.

And I did join the military, for reasons of duty to country and my ancestry which goes back to the War for Independence.

##### Share on other sites
so you wish to compare apples and Oranges then, is that it?[/Quote]

I'm inviting a compare and contrast of the two most vocal and powerful political movements that oppose mainstream science. Why is that such a difficult concept?

I'm not saying there is an analogy. If you think there isn't, then feel free to offer an argument as to why not.

it might have been So much More different if you`d have used the Correct terminology! ie/ YOUNG EARTH creationist (YEC for short) rather than the all sweeping Blanket term! doncha think?

Young Earth Creationism is a kind of Creationism. There are plenty of other kinds that oppose the scientific consensus on the origins and evolution of life and the universe, all of which fall under the umbrella term Creationism.

##### Share on other sites
Their duty or that of the commanders duty bound to the Commander In Chief, under our system is the protection of the people who have elected them to protect the Nation and the Constitution, which our system is based on....

Those that have achieved the position itself, statistically are more likely to die or have an attempt on their life, than any other segment of our society, including the Military itself.

Statistically, isn't the likelihood that we are all going to die 100%?

My next question, good sir, is... what does any of your post have to do with this thread about the perceived differences or lack thereof with creationists and global warming deniers?

GW, likewise simply infers mankind is somehow responsible for ALL the problems or ills of society.

Sorry. No. That, my friend, is a strawman and I might even go so far as to call it a lie. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are just ignorant on this particular issue.

Most in reality have nothing what so ever to do with GW or are the parties truly concerned with that issue.

I don't know what you just said. Can you clarify?

Many issues which folks (especially politicians) cannot attack as a single issue, CAN be attacked under the topic GW.

Like what? Can you give a "for instance?"

I have found, in arguing *Natural Cycle* warming/cooling of the planet as a natural process, allowing mankind to become, that the opposing view is concerned with one or more of what mankind has done.

This is not necessarily a bad thing.

Most appear IMO, to dislike Capitalism in general. Wealth which has been created, life styles which not everyone can achieve or the control over people, which some perceive Corporations maintain.

This seems a misinterpretation on your part. I think I follow what you are saying, how many people attack those with wealth. However, this tends to occur due to the ACTIONS of those with wealth, not due to a general "dislike of capitalism."

My point however, was our system under the framers of our Country, via the Constitution, realized with a million or 300 million individuals had to have a system, where one person takes on the responsibility for certain actions with few restrictions. Truman, in ordering the Bombing of 2 Cities in Japan, which ended WWII, could not have concerned himself with his afterlife or that of the millions which that action affected. Right or wrong, he made that decision and the war ended. The Civil War, was just as tragic, with far more controversy than the current actions in Iraq.

I'm still waiting for that point you referenced.

I call myself, agnostic as well, primarily since I still hope to believe in something someday. Personally, if there is an afterlife, there should have been a pre-life, which is what I could accept but is not a concept today.

This is not a thread about religion, spirituality, or afterlife. This is about creationism and denial of global warming. Since the data is heavily against both positions, one might wonder why someone would choose to ignore the data and go on believing things that have been falsified or denying those which have been repeatedly shown via empiricism.

And I did join the military, for reasons of duty to country and my ancestry which goes back to the War for Independence.

I thank you, sir, for your service. The personal sacrifice of a soldier is great, and should always be appreciated.

##### Share on other sites

I get the general impression when reading and listening to arguments against GW, and experience with people I know, is that they're harboring a political/social, maybe even personal axe to grind, and rather than take issue with the real reason they challenge the anthropogenic cause to GW, they attack the science behind it. The debate is the perfect recipe to fuel opinion, due to the mass political and media coverage, and this obviously skews the information and breeds doubt and suspicion.

There are obviously a number of reasons that GW is challenged or denied, including, lack of knowledge of the field, moderate knowledge but missing or misinterpretation of significant data, misinformed by the media, personal reason, or a political or media axe to grind that has swayed an individual’s opinion. The sad fact is, organizations such as the IPCC receive the brunt of the arguments, when they are practicing legitimate science. Climate change includes the use of basic elementary science from subjects such as the carbon cycle through to reams upon reams of collected data, through to highly complex interdependent sequences / series calculated on supercomputers. No stone is unturned, but people arguing against, either genuinely forget or conveniently forget not only attributes of the entire system that effects climate, but attributes of the science behind climate change, which covers all faculties of science, from the basics to the most advanced models calculated.

Where Creationism is concerned, it's perfectly obvious why they would have an axe to grind with certain scientific discoveries (depending on their interpretation of the Bible, and how strong their beliefs are.) With GW deniers, there could be a myriad of reasons, however the tactics used to argue a case (if used to support an individuals agenda) are very similar indeed, and that is where the comparison lies. However, the source of the argument isn't, and in that respect it's like comparing apples and oranges...one has religious motives, the other is misinformation or political or perhaps economic and media suspicion. It could also be stemmed from just plain ignorance, which would be applicable to both individual Creationists and GW deniers.

I always ask myself this question, if organizations such as the IPCC are not practicing legitimate science (I think there would be a lot more outcry against GW if that really was the case), what possible reason would they have for misinforming the public.

##### Share on other sites
I always ask myself this question, if organizations such as the IPCC are not practicing legitimate science (I think there would be a lot more outcry against GW if that really was the case), what possible reason would they have for misinforming the public.

I've heard some claim that it's all a big conspiracy so the government can collect more tax money. This particular theory seems more prominent in England. Others might argue that it's about generating fear in the populace and trying to control them. While the issue of global climate change does induce some degree of fear, and it also impacts people's behavior (I hope) to some degree, I don't find either of these points particularly compelling.

##### Share on other sites
I've heard some claim that it's all a big conspiracy so the government can collect more tax money. This particular theory seems more prominent in England. Others might argue that it's about generating fear in the populace and trying to control them. While the issue of global climate change does induce some degree of fear, and it also impacts people's behavior (I hope) to some degree, I don't find either of these points particularly compelling.

Indeed, and both of those arguments would require a far more convulted background of political strategies, rather than, anthropogenic influence to climate is happening, and there are a large number of the public who are a tad confused by the whole thing.

##### Share on other sites
I've heard some claim that it's all a big conspiracy so the government can collect more tax money. This particular theory seems more prominent in England. Others might argue that it's about generating fear in the populace and trying to control them. While the issue of global climate change does induce some degree of fear, and it also impacts people's behavior (I hope) to some degree, I don't find either of these points particularly compelling.

Indeed, any critique of scientific finding that postulates a conspiracy is starting out badly from a credibility standpoint.

##### Share on other sites
Indeed, and both of those arguments would require a far more convulted background of political strategies, rather than, anthropogenic influence to climate is happening, and there are a large number of the public who are a tad confused by the whole thing.

There is no confusion spastic! Your premise of a correlation between manmade greenhouse production and climate fluctuation is the simplest thing imaginable after learning Quantum mechanics and Trigonometric calculus. Its your faith induced assertions based on coincidence rather than strict science method that is where the doubt lies.

##### Share on other sites
Where is this echoing bollocsk coming from?

On the contrary, the followers of the modern day faith in manmade global warming are the religious types! They believe the claims without question or scrutiny because they are unable to interpret data, models and general draw conclusions of their own. See a pattern?

The suggestion that the scientifically cautious to flash-in-the-pan claims are creationist analogies is the pot calling the kettle black in the extreme.

Actually, that's not quite true. A lot of creationists find it more logical to object to global warming because of their belief.

Evangelists are the worst, because a lot of them believe global warming is actually a GOOD thing, since it may hurry-up the "second coming" and the "rapture".

Check these out:

(evangelist)

~moo

((I couldn't edit the post directly, so I am assuming this will join the upper one))

In any case I wanted to add that the SADDEST part of it all is that Shirley Phelps Roper actually reads the bible LITERALLY.. the bible *does* order to kill off homosexuals, beat up disobedient kids and much more.

Other religious groups seem to claim these parts are NOT valid anymore (at least that) but technically, those who claim to literally go by the bible should behave exactly like her.

##### Share on other sites

Take II. The original post disappeared so I hope this one survives the glitch.

The sad fact is, organizations such as the IPCC receive the brunt of the arguments, when they are practicing legitimate science.

The sad fact is that the IPCC doesn't seem to be practicing legitimate science.

rather than take issue with the real reason they challenge the anthropogenic cause to GW, they attack the science behind it.

I always thought that defending your conclusions against attack was part of the scientific method. You aren't suggesting that pro-GW papers should be exempt from scrutiny are you?

Yes, I'm a denier. Or at least I'm unconvinced, which in the current political climate makes me a denier.

Are deniers like creationists? I don't think so, Deniers have more in common with blasphemers. Creationists hold their beliefs in spite of contrary evidence whereas a denier is asking for proof. CO2 levels at an all time high? Prove it. High levels caused by man? Prove it.

That's how I see creationists and global warming deniers. A special form of retarded.

I have found that in a debate the side that is reduced to namecalling does so because they have run out of logical arguments.

Some may have come across this piece from Richard S. Lindzen, MIT Professor of Meteorology and a menber of the US National Academy of Sciences panel on Climate change. He doesn't seem to agree with the IPCC on GW.

CO2 is the cause and it at an all time high. I know this report says it shouldn't be cited but I'm in a debate, not writing a thesis. The authors work showing the CO2 concentrations (by chemical analysis) over the last 180 years is enlightening. I understand that chemical analysis has been superceded by more accurate methods, but the chemical analysis was accurate to around 3% this inaccuracy is not enough to invalidate the measurements taken before 1957 when the new methods came in.

The report clearly shows that CO2 concentrations fluctuate wildly and have been far higher in the past than they are today. A concentration of 440 ppm occurred in both 1822 and 1942. Even if we reduce the figure by 3% due to the inaccuracy of the testing method we still have concentrations of 427 ppm.

Any theory claiming man made CO2 emissions must account for these figures, the IPCC theories do not, they estimate the concentration in 1800 as 280 ppm and then use the figures from 1957 onward to make their case. Ignoring contrary data is bad science and any theory based on that "science" must be declared invalid.

I also invite you to read this piece by Bonner R. Cohen Ph.D.. Rather interesting that the GW supporters consisently refuse to have an actual scientific debate on the topic where they have to argue the facts and the science rather than the rhetoric. Of course, as Cohen points out, if you tried it once and had your arse handed to you, you might not want to try it again.

We also have this report from the Brookhaven National Laboratory, the conclusions of which led Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin to comment "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

To combat the idea that we "deniers" are retarded, deluded or otherwise bereft of logical thought, I can point readers to this series of Articles from the Financial Post. If you look at the qualifications and positions of these "deniers" you'll see I'm in rather good company.

Why do I have trouble with the Gospel according to the IPCC? I give you quotes from Chris Landsea's (of the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory) Open Letter To The Community regarding his withdrawl from the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC.

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

Concerning an IPCC Press Conference on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity"

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

##### Share on other sites
I have found that in a debate the side that is reduced to namecalling does so because they have run out of logical arguments.

Or, all logical arguments have failed and frustrations have swelled.

Any theory claiming man made CO2 emissions must account for these figures, the IPCC theories do not, they estimate the concentration in 1800 as 280 ppm and then use the figures from 1957 onward to make their case. Ignoring contrary data is bad science and any theory based on that "science" must be declared invalid.

Do the math. How much CO2 do we pump out from our factories, cars, and energy plants every single day? To suggest this volume of CO2 does NOT impact the figures you're using in your argument is rather dishonest.

I also invite you to read this piece by Bonner R. Cohen Ph.D.. Rather interesting that the GW supporters consisently refuse to have an actual scientific debate on the topic where they have to argue the facts and the science rather than the rhetoric.

Wow. He has a Ph.D. He must be right. You're actually citing a blog to suggest that "GW supporters consistently refuse to have an actual scientific debate on the topic where they have to argue the facts and the science rather than the rhetoric?" Come on. Really?

How many actual climatologists were not able to discuss the facts? How about we let the ones doing the science everday be the ones we invite and listen to for such discussions and debates on facts. How about that, eh?

Btw... In what area of study is Bonner Cohen's Ph.D from the University of Munich? Next, you should really check the integrity of your sources, especially if you're going to appeal to their authority to support your arguments:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bonner_Cohen

Of course, as Cohen points out, if you tried it once and had your arse handed to you, you might not want to try it again.

Hmmm... Not so much, no. This whole "ass handed to you" approach is pretty subjective, and you are sharing it in context of a call for objective debate, so I'll just let your comment speak for itself.

We also have this report from the Brookhaven National Laboratory, the conclusions of which led Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin to comment "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

You've quoted out of context. You presented a report which generated a comment elsewhere, but did not source the comment itself. Reid Bryson was arguing for the impact of water vapour, and the quote came from yet another blog. Your citations, at least those presented in the post above, are very weak, and often misrepresented.

For others, here's the quote John referenced:

http://ecomythsmith.blogspot.com/2007/05/thoughts-from-reid-bryson.html

To combat the idea that we "deniers" are retarded, deluded or otherwise bereft of logical thought, I can point readers to this series of Articles from the Financial Post. If you look at the qualifications and positions of these "deniers" you'll see I'm in rather good company.

You've now referenced the National Post as a reference, and are arguing again by appeal to authority. What about this cry for discussion and debate on the evidence? Double standards, much?

Why do I have trouble with the Gospel according to the IPCC? I give you quotes from Chris Landsea's (of the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory) Open Letter To The Community regarding his withdrawl from the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC.

The "gospel?" Good lord man, the comments of a few regarding the politics of a particular group does not disprove the data said group shares.

Try to remember, it's you who is arguing for a discussion and debate on objective facts.

##### Share on other sites

JohnB: Your links all seem to be incorrectly formatted as http://http: (whatever) and they don't work.

I also invite you to read this piece by Bonner R. Cohen Ph.D.. Rather interesting that the GW supporters consisently refuse to have an actual scientific debate on the topic where they have to argue the facts and the science rather than the rhetoric. Of course, as Cohen points out, if you tried it once and had your arse handed to you, you might not want to try it again.

Challenges by "Czech President Vaclav Klaus," "Dennis Avery, director of the Center for Global Food Issues and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute" ("Hudson Institute is a non-partisan policy research organization") and "Lord Monckton of Brenchley, a former adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher" to debate Al Gore cannot legitimately be called scientific debates, since none of the protagonists appear to be engaged in climate research. To claim that such a debate would contain facts and no rhetoric is optimistic to a ludicrous degree.

Public debate is a really bad forum for scientific discussion. The real debate occurs in peer-reviewed scientific journals and at conferences.

##### Share on other sites

Swan; Most folks will never have an occasion to express their views on any topic of importance, much less than the one which could effect our very way of life. Additionally most of us, have read reports *pro/con*, probably many of which are or are from "Scientific Journals" no doubt having been reviewed. Our opinions are based on something, noting that most opponents (including myself) are skeptical rather than outright opposed to what has caused the LATEST WARM SPELL.

Rather than adding to your frustration from posters, or formatting an argument, please feel free to google *Man Made Global Warming, opposition*, which I did prior to this post. Wikipedia has an impressive list of "skeptics", many of which have come from previous advocates. This just one of over a million listing, which after the first 20, reaffirmed my status as a skeptic. I nor John are alone with our thoughts.

IMO; You will find nothing, not seen before, but suggest as you feel the skeptics are stubborn to accept, you and many advocates are just as stubborn to believe their may be other motivations behind these claims.

iNow; "do the math"??.....All the activity mentioned, releases carbons into the atmosphere, which is restored in other forms, primarily plant life. I might add twice as much oxygen (than carbon) eventually gets back into that atmosphere. Since we are talking 385 parts per Million, I assume all that we are producing is very small to that tonnage which is atmosphere.

Your actual argument must be totals, of breathing animal life on the planet.

Obviously if we lived today, as our ancestors did a thousand years ago or two hundred years, we would have a problem, especially with the addition of 5.6 billion humans. I can just imagine that wagon train of fresh produce heading out from California, to NYC with say 100 ox and 200 men, to handle what one truck and one driver can easily handle today. Which would create the MOST CO2???

##### Share on other sites
iNow; "do the math"??.....All the activity mentioned, releases carbons into the atmosphere, which is restored in other forms, primarily plant life. I might add twice as much oxygen (than carbon) eventually gets back into that atmosphere. Since we are talking 385 parts per Million, I assume all that we are producing is very small to that tonnage which is atmosphere.

The fact that CO2 composes a small percentage of the atmosphere has no relevance to the impact of even slight increases in it's level. Another way of looking at it is that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, relative to centuries before, has risen dramatically. This dramatic rise is causing measured effect, and it's dangerous.

I recently read another poster stating the ppm explanation using nerve gas as an example (sorry I cannot remember who, but the point is the same). Just because you're in a room filled with less than 1% of nerve gas does not mean that the nerve gas will not harm or kill you. The relative percentage of the substance has little bearing on it's overall effect. This is also the case with CO2.

Next, I've heard the "plants will do all the work and make things better" argument before, but it just doesn't hold water. Clearly, if plants could just intake all of our CO2, we'd not be seeing the drastic concentration increases we are, and we'd also see an explosion of flora. We are adding CO2 to the atmosphere much faster than the plants can process it.

To support my point, I will call your attention to the results of a UCSD study conducted in May of 2006. Specifically, this quote which speaks to the issue of plant intake of CO2:

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/sCO2plants.asp

One of the standard arguments against taking action to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is that the elevated carbon dioxide will stimulate plants to grow faster. The assumption is that plants will take up excess carbon dioxide to produce carbohydrates—their stored energy source.

However, studies have shown that, contrary to expectations, increased carbon dioxide does not accelerate plant growth. Previous research has also shown that the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide expected to occur this century can cause leaf stomata to close by 20 to 40 percent in diverse plant species, thus reducing carbon dioxide intake. Little was known about the molecular and genetic mechanisms controlling this response.

Schroeder and colleagues discovered that in the cells surrounding the leaf stomata calcium ion “spikes”—or rapid increases and then decreases in calcium ion concentrations within cells—changed in frequency according to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. As the carbon dioxide concentration was increased, the rapid drum roll of calcium spikes within the cells changed to a slower beat. The cells responded by reducing the size of the pores in the leaf.

In the presence of low carbon dioxide, a quick drumbeat was induced, but the stomata opened, rather than closed

You see, the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually causing the plants to intake less, and as referenced above, we would not be seeing the level of increase we are if the plants were simply responding to our actions in the manner you suggest.

Your actual argument must be totals, of breathing animal life on the planet.

No, that's not my argument.

Obviously if we lived today, as our ancestors did a thousand years ago or two hundred years, we would have a problem, especially with the addition of 5.6 billion humans.

Can you explain this? What type of problem? Clearly, if we lived like the ancient romans, CO2 contributions to the atmosphere would not be the same as they are today. This discussion is about the challenges we all face regarding global climate change, so please do not try to redirect this conversation to some other tangent. That would be silly, and wouldn't do your argument against anthropegenic causes of global climate change much good. In other words, it's off topic and not relevant to the situation in which we find ourselves.

However, I too am interested in commerce and shipping channels and would welcome a conversation on these... in another thread.

I can just imagine that wagon train of fresh produce heading out from California, to NYC with say 100 ox and 200 men, to handle what one truck and one driver can easily handle today. Which would create the MOST CO2???

Are you suggesting that our current transportation and industrial activity is putting CO2 into the atmosphere at the same or lower rate than the exhaled breath of men and ox centuries ago? If you are, I'd rather you substantiate that claim than make me embarrass the hell out of you by showing how wrong you are in the most belittling way I can muster. Sound good? Do we have a deal?

Show your proof and I'll shut up. Until then, that claim is crap.

##### Share on other sites
JohnB: Your links all seem to be incorrectly formatted as http://http: (whatever) and they don't work.

Bugger! Haven't had that happen before, I wonder why?

First off just so we're clear. I do believe that we need to cut our pollution, of all types. We need cleaner technologies. However we should do this so that our children have clean air to breath, clean water to drink and clean food to eat, not because of bad science or to satisfy somebodys ideological wet dream.

since none of the protagonists appear to be engaged in climate research. To claim that such a debate would contain facts and no rhetoric is optimistic to a ludicrous degree.

Good point. I was more interested in the original debate itself. A full text of which can be found here. Unfortunately the actual debate also had a large amount of rhetoric as well. (Gavin Schmidt of NASA referring to an unnamed astrophysicist "Uh. He is drunk.") But still worth the read.

Do the math. How much CO2 do we pump out from our factories, cars, and energy plants every single day? To suggest this volume of CO2 does NOT impact the figures you're using in your argument is rather dishonest.

Strawman. Rather than a pointless diversion, how about arguing the data? The readings show higher past levels of CO2 than exist today, how do you account for this?

Wow. He has a Ph.D. He must be right. You're actually citing a blog to suggest that "GW supporters consistently refuse to have an actual scientific debate on the topic where they have to argue the facts and the science rather than the rhetoric?" Come on. Really?

As I said above, I was more interested in the original debate itself, which the GW side lost conclusively.

Btw... In what area of study is Bonner Cohen's Ph.D from the University of Munich? Next, you should really check the integrity of your sources, especially if you're going to appeal to their authority to support your arguments:

Whether or not Sourcewatch like the guy does not invalidate the comments.

(BTW, thanks for that link. I'm not sure which way the site leans but it seems a good starting point for looking into backgrounds.)

This whole "ass handed to you" approach is pretty subjective

Oh, I don't know. Going from a 2 to 1 in favour to a loss position seems like getting your arse handed to you to me.

You've quoted out of context.........

The original article I read did in fact link the report and the comment. I see that this was incorrect. Again however that does not invalidate the statement. The full article is here. Would you care to challenge his statement that water vapour has far more to do with GW than CO2?

You've now referenced the National Post as a reference, and are arguing again by appeal to authority.

If calling attention to the comments of leading researchers in their fields is "Appealing to Authority", then what is quoting the IPCC? You might try reading what the researchers actually said.

The "gospel?" Good lord man, the comments of a few regarding the politics of a particular group does not disprove the data said group shares.

Ye Gods man. One of the lead authors of the IPCC report holds a press conference about his findings before anybody does the research, the IPCC doesn't care and you don't have a problem with this? Funny I always thought that one reports their findings after they did the research and anything else would be cause for censure.

And one has to start doubting the data when we read Prof. Paul Reiter, head of the "Insects and Infectious Disease Unit at the Pasteur Institute" (maybe you've heard of it?) commenting "I know of no major scientist with any long record in this field who agrees with the pronouncements of the alarmists at the IPCC," and "On the contrary, all of us who work in the field are repeatedly stunned by the IPCC pronouncements. We protest, but are rarely quoted, and if so, usually as a codicil to the scary stuff."

To quote from the article on Prof. Reiter.

As Prof. Reiter testified to a U.K. parliamentary committee in 2005, "The paucity of information was hardly surprising: Not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.

"Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Nino, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motorcycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cellphones)."

As an aside to this part of the topic, when we hear about cars and GW we always hear about the CO2 emissions. I've often wondered about the actual heat produced. I can't help but think that millions of cars, each producing kilowatts of heat per day would have to have an effect, yet it is never mentioned in conjunction with GW causes.

##### Share on other sites

Okay JohnB. Let's start here.

There are literally thousands of studies used to support the IPCC position you seem to disagree with so much. How about we begin by your sharing exactly which articles/studies are inaccurate, and exactly which ones we should not be using in this debate due to the issues you reference.

##### Share on other sites

According to Wikipedia, IPCC;

The stated goal was to extract relevant Scientific Information to..

1-Human induced climate change. 2- Impacts of human-induced climate change and 3- Options for adaptation and mitigation.

(I would suggest no.3 pre judges what 1 and 2 would have to determine or that those participating knew in advance what the program was designed to establish)

Some conclusions;

A- Warming of climate systems is unequivocal. (Pure nonsense; The planet has been much warmer and/or cooler over time.)

B- 50% of the observed increases in Global Temperatures since the Mid 20th Century are (90% consensus) are very LIKELY due to man made concentrations. (Talk about double talk. Actually in modern times the mid 30's were warmer than anything current. Droughts, high temperatures were a world wide problem, not just the US dust bowl days)

C- The probability that this is a natural process is less than 5%. (So much for Nature or the natural process seen which evolved to the point each living species could/does/did live.)

D- Sea levels will PROBABLY rise by 18-23 inches in the 21st century and temperatures will rise 2-11.5 F. (Since this is based on the suggested .5 degree F from the end of the 19th Century, I find it an attempt to create hysteria in anyone who understand what that 11.5 in 90 years figure would truly mean.)

E- 90% consensus there will be far more warm spells and heat waves with heavy rain falls. BUT with a 66% consensus there will be more droughts, cyclones and extreme high tides. (In one place or another, no doubt more or less some some weather pattern will happen. This goes to the idea "all the ills and problems in the world" are caused by man caused GW. As for the Moon causing Tidal Waves, well we are knew that was a joke, didn't we???)

F- CO2 levels have increased markedly since 1750 and far EXCEED the values of the past 650k year. ( I am not sure any one who has ever looked at a chart of CO2, Methane, Solar Cycles, Sulfur with Temperature levels, would agree with that statement. In fact while researching this IPCC, I saw where in recent times PPM CO2 level were near 400 and in 1942 was over 400 PPM.)

iNow; I know this is off topic and I understand you were addressing John. My only point in even offering this post, was to IMO demonstrate the extremes which the UN and their program have gone.

John; Often in arguing GW, I have used the little heater (man) and his big heaters (home/work/auto/factories/mining/agriculture/ect) to demonstrate what should be if man could out pace nature's natural give/take of the environment/atmosphere. Virtually none of this with a billion people in the mid-19th century to 6.5 billion people and even more astronomical increases in the rest today, the figures for measuring mans influence should be obvious. They are not...IMO.

On moisture/clouds/rain distribution, many agree this issue is instrumental in what causes temperature fluctuations. The problems are in measurements, which are not available today, much less over historic times. How much falls over the oceans (70% of the planet) in any given year, opposed to land fall (which includes cloud cover) should give a more accurate picture to what land dwellers have endured.

##### Share on other sites
According to Wikipedia, IPCC;

<...>

iNow; I know this is off topic and I understand you were addressing John. My only point in even offering this post, was to IMO demonstrate the extremes which the UN and their program have gone.

John; Often in arguing GW, I have used the little heater (man) and his big heaters (home/work/auto/factories/mining/agriculture/ect) to demonstrate what should be if man could out pace nature's natural give/take of the environment/atmosphere. Virtually none of this with a billion people in the mid-19th century to 6.5 billion people and even more astronomical increases in the rest today, the figures for measuring mans influence should be obvious. They are not...IMO.

On moisture/clouds/rain distribution, many agree this issue is instrumental in what causes temperature fluctuations. The problems are in measurements, which are not available today, much less over historic times. How much falls over the oceans (70% of the planet) in any given year, opposed to land fall (which includes cloud cover) should give a more accurate picture to what land dwellers have endured.

You stilll haven't addressed the questions directed to you.

##### Share on other sites
Swan; Most folks will never have an occasion to express their views on any topic of importance, much less than the one which could effect our very way of life. Additionally most of us, have read reports *pro/con*, probably many of which are or are from "Scientific Journals" no doubt having been reviewed. Our opinions are based on something, noting that most opponents (including myself) are skeptical rather than outright opposed to what has caused the LATEST WARM SPELL.

In matters of scientific inquiry, opinion doesn't matter.

According to Wikipedia, IPCC;

The stated goal was to extract relevant Scientific Information to..

1-Human induced climate change. 2- Impacts of human-induced climate change and 3- Options for adaptation and mitigation.

(I would suggest no.3 pre judges what 1 and 2 would have to determine or that those participating knew in advance what the program was designed to establish)

Some conclusions;

A- Warming of climate systems is unequivocal. (Pure nonsense; The planet has been much warmer and/or cooler over time.)

Strawman. Warming implies comparison to a baseline. What was the baseline? It is not equivalent to stating that the planet has never been warmer.

B- 50% of the observed increases in Global Temperatures since the Mid 20th Century are (90% consensus) are very LIKELY due to man made concentrations. (Talk about double talk. Actually in modern times the mid 30's were warmer than anything current. Droughts, high temperatures were a world wide problem, not just the US dust bowl days)

Appeal to ridicule. Science does not deal in proof, and there is always uncertainty in any measurement, so quantifying uncertainty is part of science. Noting that there was a high temperature in the 30's is a strawman, climate change does not imply/predict a monotonic increase in temperature.

E- 90% consensus there will be far more warm spells and heat waves with heavy rain falls. BUT with a 66% consensus there will be more droughts, cyclones and extreme high tides. (In one place or another, no doubt more or less some some weather pattern will happen. This goes to the idea "all the ills and problems in the world" are caused by man caused GW. As for the Moon causing Tidal Waves, well we are knew that was a joke, didn't we???)

The first prediction is not contradicted by the second. And then a strawman.

## Create an account

Register a new account