A question about climate change/global warming.

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."

I apologize, Don, if I'm wrong. I don't know you and I am being presumptuous, but this all sounds very familiar.

here ya go:

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/07.03.13.StretchingTruth-X.gif

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/05.12.06.WinterBlunder-X.gif

http://www.creators.com/comics/37/3390_thumb.gif

oh yeah, and you wanna know what helps "consensus"? When political apparatchiks actually EDIT the docs stating there's consensus, get installed into NASA and go after their own scientists, etc

A House committee released documents Monday that showed hundreds of instances in which a White House official who was previously an oil industry lobbyist edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming or play down evidence of such a role.

[...]

They were the first public statements on the issue by Mr. Cooney, the former chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Before joining the White House, he was the “climate team leader” for the American Petroleum Institute, the main industry lobby.

He was hired by Exxon Mobil after resigning in 2005 following reports on the editing in The New York Times. The White House said his resignation was not related to the disclosures...

but THE SCIENCE IS STILL OUT OH YES

the only way to tell if a gun is loaded is to kill something with it

Joe Barton = douchebag

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/21/national/w115923D90.DTL

ahem

(btw kingfish that's what I was referring to upthread - I have copies of some of the docs referenced in that NYT article complete with strikeouts, margin notes, etc.)

gotta love how Inhofe brings up that bullshit about Gore's home energy usage.

I'm basically fascinated by what desires lead people to believe this kind of thing (apocalypse/revelation/end-of-millenium scenarios), especially if they have no control or even real influence over it. It seems like people basically choose who to believe based on their personal preference.

That said, global warming is real. That also said, I think if it's not the end of the world that many people are going to be disappointed.

nihilism is a funny thing

Thing about the end-of-the-world bits is multi-faceted, and interesting; you have some Rapture-happy folks who are eagerly awaiting the End of the World, so who gives a fuck about the planet, we ain't gunna be here.

The other thing is that we live in such a damaged media culture that you have to present your case in dramatic terms, otherwise plenty of folks won't listen to you. Humans have a way of ignoring problems until they're staring them in the face, and even then, some folks have a difficulty in thinking anything bad can happen to them. How else are you going to budge the richest and most comfortable nation on the planet out of its sedentary state? Hell, we don't give a fuck about much unless it stands to fuck us up tomorrow. I'm amazed that we were able to do the CFC-removal thing 15 years ago to let the ozone layer repair itself.

Al Gore gets a lot of shit for going doomsday, which isn't always that warranted. I think that a lot of his arguments and conclusions get mis-reported and exaggerated in the process(by both sides, tho usually not the left). It's something the dude's used to; he'll get attacked for things he didn't actually say, like all those Algore made internets lol joeks. (a claim that started with Mark Foley of all people 8 years ago)

summarily dismembering and scientifically annihilating original research that is contrary.

What research is this? That which evidences natural variability in the climate cycle? It has no relevance - the research demonstrates conclusively that there now exists man-made warming above and beyond that natural variability.

Holy shit, nedra pickler still works for the AP? i like her mention of "the sigh" and him answering "at length", and extra fun added speculation about him running again.

Also, a guy Thom Hartmann argued with today on his show had a crucial(if obv) point: talking about environmental policy is talking about energy policy, since the vast majority of consternation and foot-dragging around green reforms is resistance to changing current habits of energy production and distribution.

Even if the environmental problems weren't as dire as they could be, we still have a horribly unsustainable infrastructure in america where the only way most of us get food is from diesel trucks that travel 3000+ miles, supported by a network of gas stations refueled by more trucks.

watched Gore's testimony on C-Span last night. Inhofe is a really rude, cranky guy wtf. Also when did Al develop those supervillain eyebrows...

I was shocked that J-Pod shook his finger at Inhofe:

The thing is that Inhofe was behaving boorishly toward Gore during his questioning. He'd ask questions, Gore would answer them and then Inhofe would whine that Gore was eating up Inhofe's time. It was very discomfiting, and Boxer was in the right to bust him on it. If a Republican had ever done the same, we would have cheered it. Senators and congressmen get the idea that it's okay for them to act like bullies because some people in their home state cast votes for them, but it isn't, and it doesn't matter what party they belong to. Message to Inhofe: It's inappropriate behavior to ask a witness, even Al Gore, a question that contains an insult and then ask for the answer in writing so you can go on to your next, also presumably insulting, question.

I just had a rather angry exchange with a very liberal friend who, surprisingly, believes every word Al Gore says about the issue. To be skeptical means opening yourself to charges that you don't believe in, say, evolution. I'm naturally wary when pols get alarmist; I can't help it. kingfish's answer is closest to my thinking.

Again....I am not talking about skepticism, but a cold, sharp avoidance of looking at ANY of the information. There seems to be way too many of these people.

Right, and we like the idea of being a skeptic, or thinking things thru(we never actually do this or teach our kids to, but whatevs), but there is a line between being a skeptic("Well, lemme see whatcha got") and being a full-on denier("fuck you, there's no possible way this could be true, Algore is fat lol")

There's also a limit to saying, "you're fulla shit and just trying to get votes" when any politician actually brings up a legit issue that could rapidly disintegrate into crisis, e.g. all the democrat congressfolks trying to direct attention to massive problems in VA funding, or Earl Blumenauer(my rep) talking about how New Orleans needed funding levee-repair back in '02-'03 or else things were going to get fucked.

Inhofe's contention that this is all a fraud perpetrated to literally line the pockets of (and I quote) "Al Gore, Michael Moore, and Richard Branson" is by turns insulting and innacurate, not to mention totally irrelevant when one considers the massive subsidies and record profits currently being raked in by the oil/energy industry.

I'm amazed that we were able to do the CFC-removal thing 15 years ago to let the ozone layer repair itself.

There's a school of thought that that move, however beneficial it may be to the ozone layer, was down to DuPont's expiring CFC patents.

Fuck it; at this point, i'm happy with whatever fixes the problem.

what kingfish said a few posts up is OTM. I mean, how the fuck else did we get ourselves into Iraq? Pols long ago realized that declaring a crisis = money and microphones.

I think we all agree that doomsday hysteria is distasteful - but you can't deny its political expediency.

Digby sez:
"I think my favorite thing about the know-nothing wingnut argument is that Al Gore is said to be all hysterical on this silly little problem by the same people who are screeching like howler monkeys that the oceans don't protect us anymore and "they're" comin' to kill us in our beds! The fact that ridding ourselves of our dependence on oil might mitigate both of these problems escapes their notice. But then, they are incredibly stupid."

To be skeptical means opening yourself to charges that you don't believe in, say, evolution.

but this isnt a question of SKEPTICISM anymore; gore is hardly the only person talking about global warming. the evidence is on the table, and has been for 10+ years! i can't believe that people are still saying shit like "the jury is out" or "i'm skeptical of gore's claims" when a) theyre not GORE's claims specifically and b) the "debate" or the idea that one can be SKEPTICAL of this has been created ENTIRELY by the energy lobby and the politicians in their pockets. this is not a two-sided issue for scientists!

I'm talking just normal citizens who do not work for the Hoover Institute, Exxon, etc.

people like don, for instance. the thing is - separating out hoover institute, exxon, etc. from "normal citizens" is exactly the sleight of hand that perpetuates the success of the massive investment in propaganda public relations ginned up by these huge stakeholders. normal people think there's "no consensus" or that "the science isn't conclusive" by a very simple process: vested interests spend tens or hundreds of millions on conferences, panels, PR events, and lobbying the government, all with the simple message that human contribution to global warming has not been scientifically established --> their views filter into newspapers and government --> "mainstream" opinion-makers repeat this PR as "part of the debate" --> it becomes conventional wisdom. enough, at least, to call the fundamental scientific consensus into question. adam curtis and bob somerby have it right. this is how women were convinced to smoke cigarettes and it's how gore became the butt of every joke. these things don't happen by accident AT ALL.