Posts by dilaceratus

47

Gore is no expert....

by Bryan in

jw
friends

a staunch critic of the climate change debate says al gore's oscar for his film an inconvenient truth makes a mockery of the awards.. http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/423466/1005652.

a top hurricane forecaster called al gore "a gross alarmist" friday for making an oscar-winning documentary about global warming.. .

"he's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things.

dilaceratus

ANewLeif: "I only state that the exercise is explained as an attempt to save the environment and to save the earth while the fact is the exercise is for the salvation of our species."

Once again, your overly limited definitions are used to artificially bifurcate ideas which share a more complicated interconnection. Which parts of the environment and earth are superfluous to a continuation of humanity? While your core argument is certainly true (that humanity is not necessary to the continuation of earth), you seem to believe that, by choice, humans could take up some other support system. What genuine difference is there, then, between attempting to continue the species, and its Maslow list?

As far as the broader effects, do you suspect that drastic climate change would be something akin to the loss of television, of interest only to one particular, self-selecting group?

ANewLeif: "That tens of thousands of scientists can agree to anything related to this issue in significant numbers may indicate they are humans first and scientists second."

This is just a silly (and again, trivial) sloganeering, unless you are prepared to demonstrate how the scientific method has been independently dropped in favor of sentimentalism by these tens of thousands of individual scientists, their oversight groups, their peer associations, and their respective governments.

47

Gore is no expert....

by Bryan in

jw
friends

a staunch critic of the climate change debate says al gore's oscar for his film an inconvenient truth makes a mockery of the awards.. http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/423466/1005652.

a top hurricane forecaster called al gore "a gross alarmist" friday for making an oscar-winning documentary about global warming.. .

"he's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things.

dilaceratus

ANewLeif: "I do not believe humans can turn Earth into a gas giant."

Gaiagirl specifically stated that she was speaking of a worst case scenario (which no one is suggesting is in any way likely, or that humans would have any way of knowing about, should it occur), of a critical climatic spiral in part triggered by human activity.

ANewLeif: "CO2 is not a pollutant just because it is not conducive to long-term perpetuation of current human enterprise."

While your considerations are fairly thoughtful, they seem to rely on overly rigid and literal definitions. Earth is a term that can be construed in numerous scalable, but still meaningful ways, as is the word pollutant. That tens of thousands of climate scientists (and the U.S. Supreme Court) are able to parse these ideas enough to move forward without becoming trapped in fruitless quibbling over philosophical semantics suggests that a consensus on the meaning intended is clear.

That some creatures would adapt and thrive as a result of new energy sources and limited competition from any unprecedented physical change to the earth's environment is not only theoretically true, but borne out by the history of the planet, yet it is a trivial and needlessly fatalistic argument in the face of a profound reduction in complex species as a result of controllable, elective human activity.

Whether or not humanity deserves to survive, having over-populated and built up beachfront properties, is just as irrelevant a question. The desire to survive is hardly species-specific. The ability to control carbon emissions enough to attempt to evade a foreseeable trouble, in this instance, is.

48

MIT Scientist: 'Alarm over climate change is based on ignorance...

by Bryan in

jw
friends

the earth will always be changing.. what ever happened to the acid-rain, sky is falling, bs?.

learning to live with global warming.

by richard s. lindzennewsweek international"the current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.".

dilaceratus

DanTheMan: "Yes, but what you repeat doesn't seem to have very much substance. You would have us all believe that today's climate models are no better than fortunetelling they are so inaccurate, but what I'm asking you is, how are you so certain that these issues of deforestation and agricultural practices aren't being accurately taken into account, and how are you so sure that these things would have such impact on the models once they are taken into more perfect account, that they will make today's models "garbage" by comparison?"

Brother Apostate is right: You really didn't read what he wrote. How much more exhaustive and thorough an explanation is required than, "We'll have to wait and see"? No doubt this prudent approach, coupled with a few snappy "I have a hard time believing"s are precisely the jolt those actively working on this phenomenon have needed in order to come to their senses, drop their calculators, and stop causing panic in the Seychelles.

48

MIT Scientist: 'Alarm over climate change is based on ignorance...

by Bryan in

jw
friends

the earth will always be changing.. what ever happened to the acid-rain, sky is falling, bs?.

learning to live with global warming.

by richard s. lindzennewsweek international"the current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.".

dilaceratus

Brother Apostate: "How significant is "something""?

Presumably, "We'll have to wait and see."

(Because it's far easier and wiser for those not trained and actively working in the field to rush ahead speculating that some new, unproved, unverified, and as yet unfound mechanisms are responsible for unequivocal observations of warming than it is to accept the highly likely (+90%) findings of an anthropogenic basis from thousands of scientists.)

48

MIT Scientist: 'Alarm over climate change is based on ignorance...

by Bryan in

jw
friends

the earth will always be changing.. what ever happened to the acid-rain, sky is falling, bs?.

learning to live with global warming.

by richard s. lindzennewsweek international"the current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.".

dilaceratus

Brother Apostate: "dilaceratus,

You might want to check your "facts" before you put your foot in your mouth again.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/130204/2309422/post.ashx#2309422

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/29/131025/2327865/post.ashx#2327865"

It seems almost impossible to believe that you would not be mortified by these embarrassing threads you have participated in, let alone advertise them-- where in them do you feel you scored any advantage?

You might also have noticed a comment of my own in one of them, indicating my previous familiarity.

Your own seeming lack of knowledge regarding a similar, current thread, with the same dreary cast of characters and scary lack of knowledge, on this board, http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/132263/4.ashx, but with the advantage of my own somewhat more active participation, might have been useful before deciding to issue your rebuke.

Of course, it is hard to "put your foot in your mouth" when it is engaged in emitting such shining beacons of knowledge and wisdom as "PS- We'll have to wait and see."

48

MIT Scientist: 'Alarm over climate change is based on ignorance...

by Bryan in

jw
friends

the earth will always be changing.. what ever happened to the acid-rain, sky is falling, bs?.

learning to live with global warming.

by richard s. lindzennewsweek international"the current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.".

dilaceratus

Bryan: "Accually, there are many scientist who think we are not the creators of the warming."

And yet, astonishingly, none of them seem to be able to produce, or cite, any peer-reviewed research or studies to support their claims.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of scientists working in that field are able to do so, and their consensus is nearly unanimous.

Arguing against thousands of trained professionals using the scientific method with "I have a hard time believing..." is riding a concrete block hobby-horse-- the only person getting their ass bloodied is you.

68

ANOTHER 200 Scientists Document Global Climate Change - Yo Deniers!

by Seeker4 in

jw
friends

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/science/earth/07climate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin.

another international slate of scientists have released their findings regarding global climate change and human's effect on that (see the above link).. after the last major study released by several hundred scientists a few months ago, it does seem there is a serious concensus here among the leading thinkers and scientists on this issue.

i know i've banged heads with a few who disagree with this, but it does seem as though that handful of folks who disagree with the science are looking more and more like deniers, as in holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, etc.. in other words, out there on the lunatic fringe.. so, do you folks think it might be time to reconsider?.

dilaceratus

Rassillon: "Sorry dude, I am unable to find your quote on the IPCC front page as you claim....sloppy....hmmm....."

I hope SixofNine's clarification was not too complicated-- I thought including the instruction "press Play" seemed unnecessarily demeaning, like suggesting you first power up your computer, launch a browser, and connect to the Internet before attempting to access the IPCC website, but it seems not. I certainly hope the instructions for liquid waste removal are printed on the dorsal side of your boots, or you may find yourself similarly embarrassed in the future.

In any case, your ability to find one of the IPCC reports appears to be more of a cause for celebration than I had earlier realized, so perhaps your inability to comprehend the rigor of its review is more understandable. Perhaps Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, author of "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" Science magazine might help you:

"IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
"Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
"The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

(Emphasis added. Citations and full article: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 Those with an eye for detail may note that this article was published in 2005, before the IPCC changed its designation of global warming due to anthropogenic causes from "likely" to "highly likely" (+90%).)

Rassillon:"As I said in an earlier post you completely ignore my humor"

You seem to keep suggesting that your citation and presentation of that farcical ten year old OISM petition was nothing but a lark. (Possible, since you have declined to support your posting.) Either that or the one line you prefaced it with was worthy of Bartlett's. (Unlikely, on the merits.) In either circumstance, your enthusiasm for your work seems misplaced.

68

ANOTHER 200 Scientists Document Global Climate Change - Yo Deniers!

by Seeker4 in

jw
friends

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/science/earth/07climate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin.

another international slate of scientists have released their findings regarding global climate change and human's effect on that (see the above link).. after the last major study released by several hundred scientists a few months ago, it does seem there is a serious concensus here among the leading thinkers and scientists on this issue.

i know i've banged heads with a few who disagree with this, but it does seem as though that handful of folks who disagree with the science are looking more and more like deniers, as in holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, etc.. in other words, out there on the lunatic fringe.. so, do you folks think it might be time to reconsider?.

dilaceratus

Rassillon's post has all the hallmarks of a prank, but, assuming there actually are those incapable of exerting even the slightest efforts in understanding where they are profoundly mistaken,

"2.) Has the IPCC report been peer reviewed?"

is a stunner.

The simple act of examining the front page of the IPCC's website reveals (at the very top) the information that the reports are the work of:

"2500+ scientific expert reviewers, 850+ Contributing authors, 450+ lead authors, from over 130 countries, working for the last 6 years"

Rassillon's extraordinary comprehensive literary and political criticisms to the side, this sustained effort has, if anything, been watered down under pressure from the United States, Chinese, Russian, and Saudi Arabian governments, as a comparison between the final report and leaked drafts shows ( PDF ).

Were there any other questions troubling you which I might answer in under thirty seconds? You may consider me to be your own personal Google.

68

ANOTHER 200 Scientists Document Global Climate Change - Yo Deniers!

by Seeker4 in

jw
friends

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/science/earth/07climate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin.

another international slate of scientists have released their findings regarding global climate change and human's effect on that (see the above link).. after the last major study released by several hundred scientists a few months ago, it does seem there is a serious concensus here among the leading thinkers and scientists on this issue.

i know i've banged heads with a few who disagree with this, but it does seem as though that handful of folks who disagree with the science are looking more and more like deniers, as in holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, etc.. in other words, out there on the lunatic fringe.. so, do you folks think it might be time to reconsider?.

dilaceratus

Rassillon: "Who wrote the article which you cite?

Do they have an agenda?

Are all the facts correct?"

Precisely the same questions I posed about the reference you gave to a "petition" a decade old, of extremely dubious provenance, based on an article never published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The Sourcewatch wiki happened to be a concise round-up of the OISM debate. Following through on the citations would lead to articles in the journals Science and Scientific American, which facts you have entirely neglected to address. That you have chosen to strike your blows against a medium, rather than the specific, sourced information presented from them is hardly surprising-- after all, you were the one who brought up the Oregon Petition in the first place.

Rassillon: "Fact[:] if human induced global warming was proveable [sic] it would have been done, it has not."

Kindly refer to the IPCC reports, which have been noted throughout this thread, and establish firmly what you claim has not. As a precis on the most recent report, from today's Newsweek:

"On Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, marshaling the research of nearly 1,000 scientists from 74 countries, issued a long-awaited report on climate-change "impacts, adaptation and vulnerability." The study found that global warming was already affecting the Earth's ecosystems; it predicted that continued climate change, in combination with other environmental stressors such as population increases and greater urbanization, would lead to more-severe and widespread drought, greater coastal and riverine flooding, and "increased risk of extinction" for 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species. Depending on how much temperature rises, food production in the temperate regions (including parts of the United States and Canada) could actually increase, but would probably decline in much of the tropics."

Based on the shoddy work so many on this board have demonstrated on this issue, I wonder whether they personally believed the WTB&TS's propaganda that they were "studying" their Watchtowers by skimming them, and highlighting a few passages, and so believe that this is the same method genuine researchers use in weighing the questions of climate change, or evolution. No doubt the members of the IPCC do little other than piece together a few half-heard strings gathered from cable news shows, bar conversation, and anecdotal quips from popular magazines, in establishing their "OPINIONS."

68

ANOTHER 200 Scientists Document Global Climate Change - Yo Deniers!

by Seeker4 in

jw
friends

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/science/earth/07climate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin.

another international slate of scientists have released their findings regarding global climate change and human's effect on that (see the above link).. after the last major study released by several hundred scientists a few months ago, it does seem there is a serious concensus here among the leading thinkers and scientists on this issue.

i know i've banged heads with a few who disagree with this, but it does seem as though that handful of folks who disagree with the science are looking more and more like deniers, as in holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, etc.. in other words, out there on the lunatic fringe.. so, do you folks think it might be time to reconsider?.

dilaceratus

Rassillon: "I will see your 200 and raise you 17,000."

Oh, for crap's sake-- doesn't anybody even try to find out whether their counter-arguments aren't fraudulent?

From Sourcewatch:

"When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names."

The whole article on OISM and the history of this petition is worth reading.

(Edited a few moments later to add some paragraph breaks and rewrite the history of Arthur B. Robinson. Let's split the difference, and call it all Formatting.)