A question about climate change/global warming.

jeezus, kingfish. you sound pretty reactionary and defensive.

this issue is absolute dogma for some people, a nearly prophetic belief where anyone who's not on board with the apocalypse is a "denier." Is that what science has become?

You're projecting again, and using the problems you have with a few of the adherents to try to discredit the phenomenom itself. Using religious language on people who don't hold the knowledge thru relegious teachings is the same shit that fundie creationists do, screeching around about "Darwinists."

who's doing the projecting here?

Nice try.

i think "what more can i do?" a lot of the time. I find it hard not to be smug, coz i look down the list of things in the "how to be greener" list and I think "well, i'm doing ALL of those already and have been for years".

like use yr less for example. I have no driver's licence; I will never have a driver's licence, end of.

i could fly less I suppose, but the most I've ever flown in a year is three return trips in 2005, last year it was two, likely to be two this year. From 1970-1990 inclusive it was none at all, same again from 1992 to 1995 inlcusive.

emsk - that's exactly what I've been wondering; there seems to be a bit of a backlash at the moment, that C4 documentary has meant a few tabloids feeling bold enough to run pieces trashing the whole idea. Admittedly I don't really rate the intellectual credentials of the Mail, Brian Reade and Richard Madeley but the worrying thing is that these twats have an audience. The one which really got me was a Mail leader article about how "they" want "us" to change "our lifestyles" for "no good reason." It's like refusing to go out of your way to buy dinosaur repellent when there's a herd of Apatosaurs bearing down on you.

The thing is, I'm not going to pretend to understand the situation fully, I doubt I am well-enough informed to win a debate with a hard-core climate change denier (purely because I don't have any facts at my disposal to counter their cherry-picked ones); but there's clearly enough evidence to convince me to alter my lifestyle as much as I can. I'm not being particularly inconvenienced, and I'm certainly not doing any more harm, so where's the problem?

Matt, you could always start here. A critique written by Sir John Houghton, ex Met Office Chief Exec who campaigns against climate change from a Christian viewpoint.

http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_Channel4_Global_Warming_Swindle.doc

Ta, I was listening to their arguments and think that it sounded like absolute rubbish but I couldn't prove why. See, I don't doubt the existence of climate change, and I don't doubt the magnitude of the problem. I remember when that documentary was screened a channel 4 rep got torn aprt on the radio (Today, I think), and the main thrust of his argument was a somewhat lame "well it's a different viewpoint and needs hearing" as opposed to the more honest "it's grossly irresponsible but will nevertheless generate media attention. Ker-ching!"

I thought this was mainly a US phenomenon and everyone over here was resigned to global warming's existence (while not actually doing anything about it) except maybe for a tiny, tiny minority of the desperately stupid, but a very smart friend saw that Great Global Warming Swindle programme and the next day he was absolutely sold that everything he saw in it was FACT and we had been LIED to and it was all a conspiracy by anti-capitalists who hate oil companies for no good reason or something. I've since seen a newspaper TV review of it in a paper I just about trust enough to buy also saying "makes you think, doesn't it?" etc bla.

Now I haven't seen this programme (I probably should before I rant, it's on u|<n0v4 but I'm out of disk space, maybe this weekend), but the bits he was quoting as absolute proof it didn't exist were fairly well, er, if not refuted then at least contradicted in both the Gore film and the Planet Earth (?) episode about future climate change, but I didn't have any facts or figures in my head.

Any Britishers here seen it? Anyone else surprised at smart people being convinced by it? I'm a little surprised and disappointed at C4 for putting it on.

this issue is absolute dogma for some people, a nearly prophetic belief where anyone who's not on board with the apocalypse is a "denier." Is that what science has become?

I think the problem here, is that you move from "some people" to "Is that what science has become?"

[i] "Bergeron's epitaph for the planet, I remember, which he said should be carved in big letters in a wall of the Grand Canyon for the flying-saucer people to find, was this:

WE COULD HAVE SAVED IT
BUT WE WERE TOO DOGGONE CHEAP

Only he didn't say 'doggone.'"
- KV, _Hocus Pocus_[i]

I don't understand anyone who says the scientific community's evidence is inconclusive when every major peer-reviewed science journal, international study team, and independent scientific authority has either verified it or expressed major concern about it. They may not be able accurately predict all the effects - the global system is too complex for that kind of prognostication - but the fact that human activity is impacting the temperature and weather systems of the planet is indisputable.

B/c when you finally admit that a problem is happening, it kind of behooves you to do something about it. Any why make the effort to change when things are going so well for this quarter?

The argument isn't whether or not humans impact the earth. It's how much.

About $5 billion worth just in grain crops.

"Not every scientist agrees that agriculture is suffering from warmer temperatures."

We like to call these so-called scientists "deniers."

Who are the scientists? Are they gunna pull from a political scientist & statistician like the dude did in the NYT thing?

They are unnamed in that article because certainly, they are not real scientists who have done any original research on the subject. They are just shills for Big Oil, Big Pharma, Haliburton, George Bush, and Jesus H. Christ.

haha - you say that like it isn't possible

See? Even Don Weiner understands.

Shakey, by now you should know that I've rolled over and come to accept everything that Al Gore has said as the Gospel Truth. I regret that this took me so long, but I'm pretty ignorant and was brainwashed by the Republican Rapture.

The Heretics

29.

Versus the 928 in the Oreskes survey.

Don surely you're aware that there have been actual illegitimate efforts (some even by people you listed) to silence and/or discredit scientists scientific studies verifying global warming.

"scientists AND scientific studies"

gah

That's why these fake scientists are referred to as "deniers", Lee. Because clearly, they must be willfully ignorant to ignore the scientific consensus at hand. It just doesn't make sense to me, this minority of opinion. Surely Exxon, Dick Cheney, the NRA, Big Auto, Big Tobacco, Big Timber, The Beef Council, and Goodyear must be paying these people off. This crowd probably believes in Intelligent Design, are pro-life, and hate the gays. I wonder if they keep their wives locked in the kitchen.

I think we should take away their credentials and make sure Young People are not subject to their faulty teachings. Especially that wingnut Richard Lindzen--he's at MIT fer cryin' out loud! His original research was biased anyway.

Don you seem to be missing the point that scientists with legitimate minority views have had their positions deliberately conflated and confused by others with very non-scientific motives. Or do I have to show you the WH study with the blacked out lines and "we can't say this" notes scrawled in the margins.

You also seem to be missing the point about how small a minority these scientists actually are in terms of the larger scientific community.

but keep it up with the rofflicious strawman arguments that nobody on this thread is making. LAFFS

I'm not missing any points Shakey.

Are you saying that there are scientists who have legitimate minority views that is backed by original research?

Are you saying that that research is flawed and their opinions are invalid because it is conflicting with other scientific findings?

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2084

Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation

Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

* Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr Robert W. Carter, Zoology (Marine Biology and Genetics)
* Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist

* Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
* Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
* Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
* Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
* Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist
* Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
* Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
* Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
* Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
* Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
* Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
* Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
* Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
* Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

Discrimination against creation scientists

* Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview
* Do creation scientists publish in secular journals?
* Do creationists publish in notable refereed journals?
* Bias in higher education
* Peer pressure and truth
* Revolutionary Atmospheric Invention by Victim of Anti-creationist Discrimination
* The not-so-Nobel decision
* The tyranny of ‘tolerance’

There is a great cry today from evolutionists (especially those of the Skeptics groups) that creation science is not real science, and that it should be banned from schools. Creation scientists are actively persecuted for their beliefs by these people. Wherever possible, legal challenges are made to muzzle the voice of creation scientists.

Using their position of esteem in the community, evolutionary scientists assail creation scientists with a number of charges, giving the impression that creationism is dangerous.

Creation science has been described by Graeme O'Neill, a prominent atheist and critic of creationism, as "an insidious force whose growth threatens the intellectual roots of science". He stated that "the cage that creationism builds around young minds limits curiosity and inquiry to narrow avenues, and constrains the free and creative thought that has characterised Western science since the Renaissance". [Graeme O'Neill in "Creationism: Scientists Respond", Australian Skeptics (WA), 1991. Quoted in CEN Tech. J., Vol. 12, No. 1, 1998 p:15]

Ian Plimer (Professor of Geology at Melbourne University), an opponent in Australia's 'Ark Trial', describes creation science as "bad religion", "bad science", and a "load of codswallop". ["Misleading and deceptive but legally off the hook", Sydney Morning Herald, 3/6/97 p:2]

Does this mean that creation science is a fake? - that creation scientists are just a mob of 'nutters'? What is the real situation?

all I'm saying they have MINORITY OPINIONS. Lots of scientists have these about all kinds of issues. It doesn't make them right or wrong a priori, it just means that the majority informed opinion disagrees with them. It is entirely possible that their research is flawed and thus their opinions are invalid, but I am not capable of making that judgment and defer to the larger scientific community. You seem to be taking the position that since, omg there's a minority opinion about something, we better not listen to the majority. A conclusion which seems patently unreasonable and stupid to me, but hey, what do I know.

tropical fruit expert

dude, i want this title.

"No, you don't want vodka with that. Here, mix it with this."

TEACH THE CONTROVERSY

I'm not and have never advocated ignoring the majority opinion, so please don't make that assumption.

But on this issue, with an exceeding and increasing amount of politicking involved, I'm not inclined to accept the majority opinion as gospel unless it involves summarily dismembering and scientifically annihilating original research that is contrary. The consensus opinion is that there is some global warming but there is not consensus on the cause or the impact or the solution, and it seems perfectly reasonable to expect a high standard of debate in those areas.

there is not consensus on the cause or the impact or the solution

It is my understanding that there is a consensus that the average temperature of the earth is rising, in part due to human causes.

The consensus opinion is that there is some global warming but there is not consensus on the cause or the impact or the solution

!?! There is consensus and its called the majority opinion. And the majority opinion is that human causes are contributing to increasing in global temperatures, and that this will mjorly impact human civilization if it stays on its present course. Or have you not been paying attention. Now its true there is not 100% agreement, but there is never 100% consensus on anything in the scientific community - just look at evolution or AIDS-HIV.

I mean there are STILL people (scientists with degrees even!) who don't think HIV causes AIDS, that evolution is a hoax, etc. Does that mean we should encourage people to fuck prostitutes without condoms cuz there's no "consensus"?

here's a dirty needle, don't worry, there's no consensus that you'll get infected

speaking of strawmen.

I hate all these reactionaries who instantly label critics of the HIV-AIDS link as "deniers". IS THIS WHAT SCIENCE HAS COME TO

my point is that yr definition of "consensus" is unrealistic and nonsensical.

not to mention potentially disastrous and life-threatening.

My point is that if HIV doesn't actually cause AIDS, do you want to be responsible for making ill-informed decisions that could cost lives? Do you want to waste the governments money on prevention programs based on a politically-motivated sham?

so Don what's your tipping point in terms of how many scientists does it take to convince you? 75%? 80%? 99%?

He will tell you that it is not about the percentage. It's not about the consensus. It's about the science.

(and yes I know the HIV-AIDS thing is a bit of a strawman - but I do think there are some legitimate and clear analogies to be made in terms of the development of the science and evidence, the potential threat to human life, the political jockeying involved, and the willful ignorance and denial of people too stupid or too evil to accept the fact that things have to change).

He will tell you that it is not about the percentage. It's not about the consensus. It's about the science.

wtf is Don a climatologist/research scientist? I thought he was just an ex-marine or something.

And then you will ask him what he thinks about the science and he will say, "I don't have enough information."