|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 17, 2008 10:04:42 GMT -4
No one here is doing that, it's being pointed out that his study, which merely questions the models used and the serverity of the current predictions, is being buried by those that seem determined to have the severest possible predictions. If they are unwilling to relook at their models and see if this new model does a better job at predicting what's going on, then surely they have fallen out of the realm of science and into belief and if they aren't willing to have anyone challenge that belief, but rather stamp on anyone that gives a different message to them as a heretic, then surely they are becoming a religion. That was my point in posting it. Your point was to throw doubt on all of the underlying science concerning global warming. Let's be clear. Your political philosophy requires you to not believe in gobal warming and you therefore look for anything that you think will be ammunition for your cause. The more I look into Miklós Zágoni, the LESS I find. Post after post after post just repeats the exact wording of the initial article, often followed by claims that he has undoubdtetly finally buried the science behind global warming. So he's published in a peer review journal. Where are the reviews? And, again, he seems to be only claiming that the end result of global warming will be different, not that it doesn't exist. White House report says people cause global warmingwww.newscientist.com/article/dn6334-white-house-report-says-people-cause-global-warming.htmlHere is an interesting document that details how Philip Cooney, former Chief of Staff of the White House's Council on Environmental Quality (and before that lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute) changed the above document to insert uncertainty to the document where none existed. This is typical of this administration in all kinds of ways. lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=254536
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 17, 2008 11:17:39 GMT -4
Your point was to throw doubt on all of the underlying science concerning global warming. Let's be clear. No, my point in posting that particular item was in fact to illustrate that even something that just mitigates the effects of global warming without disagreeing with the basic premise is viewed as an attack by GW's supporters and relegated to the ghetto of psuedo-science. See my reply #26 on this thread. Not that I was aware of. Perhaps you care to explain what aspect of my "political philosophy" requires rejecting this idea? I thought I was rejecting it because I felt it was hysterical fad science myself. And as you point out below, the White House seems to beleive in at least the basic premise. If I'm truly a dyed-in-the-wool Bush supporter shouldn't I believe in it too then? That would be consistent with his account of having difficulty in finding english-language publishers and with the idea that global warming believers are acting to suppress opinions they disagree with. Yes. Again, that was part of the reason I pointed it out. The fact that even a mitigation is heresy that cannot be tolerated by the acolytes of Al Gore. The White House is a political institution, not a science institute. It's a given that their policy is determined primarily by political concerns, not scientific ones.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 17, 2008 11:45:50 GMT -4
Your point was to throw doubt on all of the underlying science concerning global warming. Let's be clear. No, my point in posting that particular item was in fact to illustrate that even something that just mitigates the effects of global warming without disagreeing with the basic premise is viewed as an attack by GW's supporters and relegated to the ghetto of psuedo-science. See my reply #26 on this thread. Not that I was aware of. Perhaps you care to explain what aspect of my "political philosophy" requires rejecting this idea? You seem to me to be parroting the standard right wing talk radio points that I expect from the right. If you're not repeating the arguments, but have come up with the same hand-waving arguments on your own, then I apologize. It is also consistent with his story being fictional. Unless you can show evidence that his report was supressed, I'm taking it with a grain of salt. I don't believe Al Gore or his "acolytes" have said anything about Zágoni's study. I can find hardly anyone who has said anything about it. Your attacks on Al Gore do fit your ideas about what makes a religion. You continue to vilify him because he does not believe what you do -- even though the science is clearly on his side. So you're saying that the White House is pandering to Global Warming activists? That's rich! Ha Ha. Good one! You've provided nothing to support any of your claims.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 17, 2008 12:01:49 GMT -4
You seem to me to be parroting the standard right wing talk radio points that I expect from the right. If you're not repeating the arguments, but have come up with the same hand-waving arguments on your own, then I apologize. I don't actually listen to much talk radio. You have a point. But if it really is being surpressed, how do we determine that fact? Actually I villify Al Gore because of what he professes to believe while making big money on it, not because he disagrees with me. Yes they are. There is a lot of political pressure to accept the claims of the global warming yahoos currently. I haven't made any claims. I've simply asked "where's the proof?" I'm supporting the claim that there is no evidence that proves global warming is caused by human activity in pretty much exactly the same way that you supported your claims that there is no evidence for the existence of God - by double-dog daring others to provide some. Should I parrot your line that "One does not have to prove the non-existence of something for which there is no evidence"?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 17, 2008 12:29:02 GMT -4
Actually I vilify Al Gore because of what he professes to believe while making big money on it, not because he disagrees with me.. Al Gore donates 100% of the profits from his book and film and a portion of his speaking fees to an educational campaign about global warming. That is evil, isn't it? And since the science supports his claims, where do you get off saying he can't be paid for the work that he is doing? Right. Proof? You've claimed lots of things, Jason. You've claimed that climate scientists are in it for the money (unsupported). You've claimed that they are in it for prestige (unsupported). You've claimed that anti-global warming science is suppressed (unsupported). You've claimed that climate models are too complex to understand (unsupported). You claimed that perhaps old thermometers were inaccurate (unsupported). So when I say you haven't supported your claims, that is what I am talking about. So you think evidence for global warming is the same as evidence for the existence of God? You actually think that climate change science is just built on guesswork and hand waving?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 17, 2008 15:14:06 GMT -4
Al Gore donates 100% of the profits from his book and film and a portion of his speaking fees to an educational campaign about global warming. That is evil, isn't it? And since the science supports his claims, where do you get off saying he can't be paid for the work that he is doing? If Al Gore were practicing what he preaches he might seem a little less evil to me. Instead he goes through the modern indulgences of "carbon offsets" to excuse his lifestyle. Okay, granted I have advanced those as possibilities, without exactly claiming that this these are what is actually happening. I haven't claimed climates models are too complex to understand, I've claimed that the climate itself is too complex for the models to accurately predict. I can support that particular claim just by looking at weather forecasts and comparing them to actual results over a few days. Again - it's human causality for global warming that I'm questioning, not just that climate change has been occurring. But yes, I wouldn't have started a thread on the subject if I didn't think the two were similar in some aspects. At this point yes. I have yet to see evidence that climate scientists are doing any more than educated guesswork. Perhaps they'll get to the point where they can accurately predict the factors that cause climate change, but I don't believe they're there yet.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 17, 2008 15:53:07 GMT -4
Al Gore donates 100% of the profits from his book and film and a portion of his speaking fees to an educational campaign about global warming. That is evil, isn't it? And since the science supports his claims, where do you get off saying he can't be paid for the work that he is doing? If Al Gore were practicing what he preaches he might seem a little less evil to me. Instead he goes through the modern indulgences of "carbon offsets" to excuse his lifestyle. Oh, shame on him. He buys carbon offsets rather than living in an unheated shack. Boo hoo. The man was vice president of the United States, so I think it's okay if he has a big house and does what he can to offset. Weather forecasting and climate modeling are not the same thing. That's no different than saying, "it's been cold all winter! Global warming! Bah!" Who should I go with? Jason, who provides no support for his opinion that global warming is not caused by humans or scientists trained to study the subject who say it is caused by humans? Hmm.... And, again, you are providing no support for this position.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 17, 2008 16:00:54 GMT -4
Who should I go with? Jason, who provides no support for his opinion that global warming is not caused by humans or scientists trained to study the subject who say it is caused by humans? Hmm.... Don't kid yourself. At this point you will probably take the opposite of nearly any position I am obviously in favor of. I'm beginning to wonder if I could get you to start defending the idea that Apollo didn't reach the Moon. According to your brand of logic I am under no obligation to provide support for a claim that no evidence exists to support another person's position, and if you want to prove me wrong you must present such evidence yourself. All I have to claim is that there's no reason to believe in human-caused global warming and dare you to prove me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 17, 2008 16:16:31 GMT -4
Who should I go with? Jason, who provides no support for his opinion that global warming is not caused by humans or scientists trained to study the subject who say it is caused by humans? Hmm.... Don't kid yourself. At this point you will probably take the opposite of nearly any position I am obviously in favor of. I'm beginning to wonder if I could get you to start defending the idea that Apollo didn't reach the Moon. I think you know that isn't true. I'm sure we can find common ground on lots of things. Climate change is not one of them. It is you who claimed that I had to prove there was no evidence for the existence of God. I did not claim that I would do that or that I needed to do that. I know you think you are being very clever by continuing to repeat this claim, but you know as well as I do that you are deflecting from the issue of evidence for the existence of God by claiming that I said I would do something I did not say I would do. If the great majority of climate scientists say one thing and you say something else, I'm not likely to give any weight to your claim until and unless you provide something worthwhile to back it up.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 17, 2008 17:55:31 GMT -4
I think you know that isn't true. I'm sure we can find common ground on lots of things. Climate change is not one of them. Yeah, I'm exaggerating. An amusing thought, though. You did write that you could show that there was no evidence, whatever you intended to claim. So why do you object to my doing the same thing with human-caused global warming? I claim there's no reason to believe it's being caused by humans. If you want to disagree with me, then show me the reason to believe it is being caused by humans.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 18, 2008 13:58:30 GMT -4
I think you know that isn't true. I'm sure we can find common ground on lots of things. Climate change is not one of them. Yeah, I'm exaggerating. An amusing thought, though. More than half of my friends are conservatives. So I have some of these same debates with them. It's not personal. For the third and final time, that claim was in response SPECIFICALLY to your postulation of non-existent evidence, which I said I could prove did not exist because it was defined as not existing. That one case. That one time. That one thought. That one claim. Just that. As I have shown, The White House, the Environmental Protection Agency and the vast, overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that human activity is causing global warming. That is a reason to believe. If you want to dispute that, then you will have to show me why I should not believe them -- and idle, unsupported conjecture just doesn't cut it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 18, 2008 14:36:43 GMT -4
For the third and final time, that claim was in response SPECIFICALLY to your postulation of non-existent evidence, which I said I could prove did not exist because it was defined as not existing. That one case. That one time. That one thought. That one claim. Just that. Oh, just admit you made a mistake already. Literally billions of people believe God exists and you won't accept that as a reason to believe, so I see no reason to give a much smaller number of people any credit. The number of people that believe something is irrelevent as to whether it is correct or not anyway. Why do you not believe the many people who believe in God? Some of them have even reported encountering Him face to face.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 18, 2008 14:54:54 GMT -4
For the third and final time, that claim was in response SPECIFICALLY to your postulation of non-existent evidence, which I said I could prove did not exist because it was defined as not existing. That one case. That one time. That one thought. That one claim. Just that. Oh, just admit you made a mistake already. Admit you are claiming I said something I did not say. That's right. That's exactly right. It doesn't matter how many people believe in God. The fact that lots of people believe in God is irrelevant. Global warming science is based on data, not faith. Belief in God is based on faith. Faith is not reason. Faith is not evidence. Data is evidence. People have reported lots of crazy things, Christian and distinctly non-Christian. Show me a reason to believe any of them. How do I choose?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 18, 2008 15:18:05 GMT -4
Okay, I think I've made my point now.
My disbelief in human-caused global warming is at least as rational as your refusal to budge an inch on the non-existence of God. On the one hand you claim that having an "overwhelming majority" on your side is good reason to believe something, but on the other (and it is just as much of an "overwhelming majority" of people who believe in God) it's not. You claim that you have no need to look for evidence I cannot provide on one hand, but fault me for ignoring evidence that you can't provide on the other.
Do you not see that you are invoking an unsupportable double standard?
You refuse to accept anyone's beliefs as evidence that God exists, but you're perfectly willing to believe that humankind is destroying itself with it's fossil-fuel based technology just because a certain group of people have told you that they believe it (and possibly because it's currently a popular opinion).
The difference between the two of us is twofold: First, I'm willing to admit I could be wrong about human-caused global warming. If I ever see convincing evidence that we really are causing it (not just that climate change is occuring) I will change my opinion. My entire contention is that it's unproven and that its followers are overstating their case, not that it couldn't actually be true. You don't seem to share the same attitude towards God. And second, I have personal evidence that God exists. On that question, at least, I don't have to rely on the words of others. I very much doubt you have personal evidence that convinced you of human-caused global warming.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Mar 18, 2008 17:17:53 GMT -4
Oh, Jason Jason Jason. When I say I believe human-caused climate change is real because an overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it is real, I can and do look at what they are studying and what their studies show. As I said, data is evidence. It is not just because there are lots of people saying a particular thing -- they are saying a particular thing that I can then look into and see why they are saying a particular thing.
With God, it always comes down to faith. You have to choose to believe -- not because the facts show God to be real, but rather that you choose to believe that God is real. As I have said before, even if you had copies of the Ten Commandments with Moses' fingerprints on them, you'd still have to have faith to believe that the Ten Commandments came from God and not from Moses. And as it stands, we do not have copies of the Ten Commandments with God or Moses' fingerprints.
A large group of people believing in God is not at all the same as an overwhelming majority of scientists believing in human-caused global warming. Scientists believe because of science based on evidence. We can look at the evidence and judge it for ourselves. The belief in God is not the same kind of belief, as it is a belief based on faith. Claims in the Bible can't be verified in the way that scientists verify claims about global warming. That is the difference and it is BIG difference.
As I've said, if you can provide some supported reason I should not believe what climate scientists tells us, I am all ears.
|
|