Originally Posted By DlandDug >>"In other words, a roundabout way of saying that there is no credible scientist who disagrees that global warming is caused by man" No, it's just that at this point it would be quite extraordinary to find one. Because the vast consensus is what I said it was, and there are very few people left who disagree. Those who do are generally not very credible at this point.<< Which goes, again, to the heart of the matter. There is no longer any point of discussion when one rebuts all arguments with the simple statement that any disagreement is not credible. Rather than simply repeat this again, please provide specific arguments about the scientists and organizations that have been preented. Something other than, "Anyone who disagrees with the man made causes of global warming is not credible."
Originally Posted By jonvn "There is no longer any point of discussion when one rebuts all arguments with the simple statement that any disagreement is not credible." Another strawman. I never said that. In fact, I've repeatedly said the opposite. Disagreement is the basis for scientific advancement. It simply has to be credible. "Rather than simply repeat this again" Since you really do not seem to understand this at all, I keep repeating it. And I'm repeating it again, because you again still don't get it. And it's very simple. For disagreement to be considered credible, it has to be published and peer reviewed. Once it is credible, the findings then need to be taken into account with the other findings, which are quite massive at this point which indicate what we already know. This is how science advances. It's not done via opinion pieces in lay journals. OK? Has this been said enough times to you yet for it to be absorbed? Will I have to repeat it a few more times? How many more times will that be before you finally realize that you're going to get this response, and not much else, because that's all there is to it. "Plase provide specific arguments about the scientists and organizations that have been preented." I've already done that repeatedly in the past. It's no longer a debate or an argument. You can find this information quite easily. But you can go look up what the EPA, the NSF, the AGU, and various other scientific bodies around the world have to say. These are scientific organizations that are based around the world in different countries, here and abroad, that study this stuff. They've been quoted on this board already by me and others. Also discussed and pointed out by me and others are the methods they have used to make these determinations. Go look the stuff up yourself. It's not hard to find. I'm not going to do your research for you. I've already done that three times now on this board.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer From the Drudge Report... >>President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis. In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions: Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?• A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.• Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...• A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice. • Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?• A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.• Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?• A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.• Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...• A: ...I am right...• Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?• A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.• Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?• A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.<<
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.<< Well, that settles it. Thank you, Darkbeer, for shedding new light on this important issue.
Originally Posted By jonvn "President of Czech Republic" Filed under those who apparently pay no attention to what is being said here. I don't think I've heard that the President of the Czech Republic was a scientist studying any of this. He's not? Then gee, his opinion carries no weight. Thanks for yet one more waste of bandwidth.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. > I have to say I laughed out loud at that one. I could see that becoming a stock answer around here.
Originally Posted By jonvn I think that's also the stock ideaology of what is going on with the folks who want to deny what is happening, and try to twist stuff around so that it's not what it actually is. THey want it to be something else, so they grab onto anything they can, and blithely ignore a huge mountain of evidence while pursuing some tiny little escapade that very few if anyone deems credible. Fortunately, the world has finally started listening to science, and have stopped believing in witchcraft, and while slow to accept sometimes, the world does eventually come around. The only problem is that sometimes by the time you do come around, it can be too late to do anything simply or easily. By waiting you increase your costs dramatically.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you.<< Hmmm... I think Czech president Vaclav Klaus might be a regular contributor to this section of Laughing Place.
Originally Posted By friendofdd Shucks! Here it is monday, people back at their work computers and starting to post on this topic. It will completely ruin the week-end flow of rational and reasonabe discourse in this topic.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I could see that becoming a stock answer around here.<< No, it won't. : D
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan That's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet. (What Darkbeer's Link-O-Matic lacks in adding substance it more than makes up for in providing comedic material.)
Originally Posted By friendofdd >>>That's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.<<< If I knew what that meant, I would prolly be offended.
