tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post7719680150689067705..comments2024-03-25T04:46:46.000-04:00Comments on Casting Pearls Before Swine: The Myth Of Global WarmingMarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-32174006903293868532007-12-18T10:04:00.000-05:002007-12-18T10:04:00.000-05:00Oh. Forgot to respond to the other question as to ...Oh. Forgot to respond to the other question as to why GW is a good working model for other scientific research.<BR/><BR/>Because that's how science works. Start with a theory, objectively research and test the theory, and then make a non-biased scientific conclusion, based on the facts.<BR/><BR/>The problem with GW, and it always has been the problem, little OBJECTIVE research has been done except for those scientists who believe not enough evidence has been accumulated to warrant such a conclusion.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-20803866968882396642007-12-18T09:11:00.000-05:002007-12-18T09:11:00.000-05:00"It doesn't answer as to why non-American scientis..."It doesn't answer as to why non-American scientists accept the theory"<BR/><BR/>Well, yes, it does. Politics and money hold sway all over the world, not just America.<BR/><BR/>And just what facts is it supposed to fit? The preponderance of evidence shows ALGore and those like him stand to get very very rich and powerful if they can just manipulate public opinion enough to make policy changes.<BR/><BR/>But what of the evidence in opposition? AlGore's 950 scientists or so don't really outweigh the conclusions of the 19,000 scientists who disagree with them, do they?<BR/><BR/>In order to convince me one first has to present me with truth, not lies, like the myth that warming is caused by CO2 emissions. The facts show just the opposite--CO2 causes warming. Watch the video. It's all in there.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I like this Geoffrey bettwer than the other one. :)Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-81125657246618185212007-12-18T08:39:00.000-05:002007-12-18T08:39:00.000-05:00That's quite a conspiracy theory, Mark. It doesn'...That's quite a conspiracy theory, Mark. It doesn't answer as to why non-American scientists accept the theory, or how it has become a good working model for all sorts of other scientific research.<BR/><BR/>I understand what you are saying. I just don't think it credible. As it doesn't fit the facts - which any good theory should - I really can't accept it. Would you be willing to change your mind if enough evidence were put together to show that it is wrong?Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-64192447558129202762007-12-18T06:02:00.000-05:002007-12-18T06:02:00.000-05:00OK, It is clear that I am going to have to create ...OK, It is clear that I am going to have to create rules, or more appropriately, a rule, for commenting here. <BR/><BR/>I will no longer allow comments that do not adress the subject of the post. <BR/><BR/>I deleted some of ERE's. not because of his attitude or opinion, which he is free to have, but because he didn't address the subject. <BR/><BR/>Geoff, I have allowed your comment because you did get around to addressing the subject on the tail end of your rant.<BR/><BR/>Before I answer your question, however, I do want to address your statement that you have not attacked me, and am generally nice to everyone.<BR/><BR/>Do the words, "a guy that can barely string two sentences together" and some people are just beyond dumb" have any significance to you? That is an attack. And it isn't very nice, is it? <BR/><BR/>That wasn't even the first time you have attacked my intelligence. there have been many many others. As I said, you and your friends drew first blood. Play nice, or don't play at all, and I will do the same.<BR/><BR/>Now, as to your question:<BR/><BR/>"Why would scientists all over the world not only concoct the theory of human-induced global warming, but convince millions of non-scientists, including policy experts, that it is a correct theory?" <BR/><BR/>Asked and answered in previous comments. Money and politics. But I'll break it down for you. <BR/><BR/>For money: <BR/><BR/>Scientists live on income from Government grants and of course, whatever corporations and/or foundations by whom they are employed. They are paid to reach whatever conclusions their employers desire. Why would those entities be interested in paying scientists to concoct hairbrained theories? <BR/><BR/>Politics: <BR/><BR/>Many scientists support certain political candidates or policy makers who would benefit greatly from a scientific theory that would help them institute desired government policy changes. Global warming, for instance, is tailor made for those wishing to tax us to death. Scientists, of course, get a kickback for their trouble.<BR/><BR/>Convince everyone the planet is rapidly being destroyed by mankind, and certain policy changes that will cost billions of tax dollars to implement will prevent it, and you have plenty of motivation to concoct the theory of man-induced Global Warming.<BR/><BR/>I should think a man of your intellect would have easily grasped that very simple concept.<BR/><BR/>How's that for dumber than dumb 'ol me stringing sentences together?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-6084388862083651012007-12-17T21:54:00.000-05:002007-12-17T21:54:00.000-05:00First of all, I have not attacked you here. I hav...First of all, I have not attacked you here. I have disagreed with you. I have asked you a serious question in regards to your reasoning. I have not questioned your relationship with God, or whether your position on God preventing global disaster is credible. I have offered reasons why I do not hold that position, but I do not think you are "wrong" in either a relative or absolute sense. I assumed that, ind conducting an argument, you would understand that involved disagreement. Rather than address the issue, you decided to go all <I>ad hominem</I> on me, and I still have no idea why.<BR/><BR/>Have I called you ignorant in the past? Perhaps because you have displayed ignorance. Am I a snob for calling a spade a spade? Perhaps, perhaps not. I do enjoy being called a snob, and someone who is only nice to those with whom I agree. In fact, I happen to be nice to pretty much everyone. I will disagree with you until the cows come home, however, if you say something with which I disagree.<BR/><BR/>See, Mark, that's the difference, as I see it, between some folks on the right, and most of the rest of us. There is nothing personal going on here. I have not attacked you, your name, your family heritage, what have you. I have tried, as best as I can, to present an <I>argument</I> - a series of related propositions leading to a conclusion. You, on the other hand, made fun of . . . my name, which hasn't happened to me since 1971 or so.<BR/><BR/>I do not think you are an evil horrible person. I do not think you are damned to hell for all eternity because of the way you express your faith in God. I believe you to be wrong about some aspects of your faith. I know you are wrong when you state categorically that global warming is a myth. That doesn't mean I think you are a bad person. In trying to have a discussion about these issues, however, you have decided to get all upset, for some reason I still cannot fathom, and call me names ("European"?). That's OK, because all it shows is the problem does not lie with me.<BR/><BR/>I asked a question of another global warming denier earlier, and have yet to get a response, so I want to ask you. Why would scientists all over the world not only concoct the theory of human-induced global warming, but convince millions of non-scientists, including policy experts, that it is a correct theory? Is this a conspiracy theory here? I'm honestly curious.<BR/><BR/>ER, thank you for the very kind words. I did for you what I would do for anybody.Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-78516065139431422122007-12-17T13:00:00.000-05:002007-12-17T13:00:00.000-05:00ER, Thanks for disproving my belief that Libs don'...ER, Thanks for disproving my belief that Libs don't have a sense of humor. I think you at last may "get it".<BR/><BR/>I love you, too ER, as a brother, and I knew you cared, or you wouldn't get so angry with me.<BR/><BR/>I still think Jeff is a snob, though. No doubt he is a wonderful friend to those who think like he does, but woe to anyone who dares to think differently.<BR/><BR/>Oh, your apology, such as it was, is accepted.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-75646310240308524642007-12-17T11:48:00.000-05:002007-12-17T11:48:00.000-05:00Got ya the last word, didn't ya? Yer such a pipsqu...Got ya the last word, didn't ya? Yer such a pipsqueak! LOLOL. But I love ya man. That's why I think you need help. If I didn't care, I wouldn't care.Erudite Redneckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04830721195868387265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-5626294078669912962007-12-16T21:02:00.000-05:002007-12-16T21:02:00.000-05:00ER, you and Geoff and friends drew first blood. Ev...ER, you and Geoff and friends drew first blood. Everytime I comment on your blog, even when I agree with you, I am called stupid or ignorant, etc. <BR/><BR/>Example? I said God is in control and I was summarily dismissed as a kook for believing my God--not man--has the power to destroy or save the earth from Global Warming, if such a thing exists. <BR/><BR/>You don't have to agree with me, but at least you could respect my right to have an opinion that differs from yours without resorting to ad hominen attacks. <BR/><BR/>So, apparently you value other's opinions as long as they agree with you.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and by the way, Tim apologized for specific things he said that he shouldn't have. You simply said, "I apologize". You did not name specifics which leads me to suspect your apology was not sincere.<BR/><BR/>And while I'm on that subject, Mr "Jesusian". You are so fond of declaring yourself a follower of Jesus. Where do you find Jesus refusing to forgve someone unless they apologize first? Did I miss that particular part of scripture or did you once again create your own interpretation of the Bible to justify being an ass?<BR/><BR/> Now the gloves are off. If you and your friends can insult me, I can insult you. Turnabout's fair play.<BR/><BR/>You don't like what I say? You are free to vacate my blogspace, and don't let the door hit you in your brain on your way out.<BR/><BR/>I've already vacated yours.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-10928732875652561412007-12-16T19:20:00.000-05:002007-12-16T19:20:00.000-05:00Dan you must love that verse. If you quote the bi...Dan you must love that verse. If you quote the bible use the whole sentence not just the last clause. <BR/><BR/>Example: <BR/>Genisis 19:5<BR/><BR/>. . . Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.<BR/><BR/>Using your method we can assume all of us should leave our houses and have sex.<BR/><BR/>The correct way is <BR/>"They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."<BR/><BR/>Makes a difference, doesn't itEdwin Droodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07734335669101499685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-7173481917419934452007-12-16T17:42:00.000-05:002007-12-16T17:42:00.000-05:00Mark! That was viscious even for you.Geoffrey is a...Mark! That was viscious even for you.<BR/><BR/>Geoffrey is a friend of mine. I became acquainted with him a year ago, when my mama was sick. He prayed for me, the church his wife pastors prayed for me, and stucketh closer to me than an online brother, which is more than I can say for just about any other person in blogdom. He is as close a friend now as any of the two or three I have in the real world.<BR/><BR/>Your attack on him, on his name! for God's sake! shows more than you know just how utterly ignorant you are, and how mean and low you've become.<BR/><BR/>You're small, man. Real small.Erudite Redneckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04830721195868387265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-53442338955571269732007-12-16T13:10:00.000-05:002007-12-16T13:10:00.000-05:00Wow.First, my parents, Daniel and Virginia Safford...Wow.<BR/><BR/>First, my parents, Daniel and Virginia Safford, will celebrate their 54th wedding anniversary this coming March 31st. My wife, the Rev. Lisa Kruse-Safford and I, when we married, decided to legally adopt each others names and hyphenate, to symbolize the new reality that was created when two individuals, Geoffrey Stephen Safford (yeah, I got the fancy spelling of the middle name two, from my liberal, socialist-pacifist [it's true, they are] parents who are both really educated and really smart; like me) and Lisa Anne Kruse, became something new and different. I never wanted any woman I married to take my name, because it is a sad relic of a past when women were property. Lisa argued and I accepted that hyphenating would be a nice way of saying something about who we had become.<BR/><BR/>As for not resembling "Biblical Christianity", I would hope it doesn't, because I'm not a first or second century resident of the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. I don't speak Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Armenian, Syriac, Coptic, or Persian. If that's what you mean by "Biblical Christianity". If, on the other hand, you mean whatever it is you believe, well, no, I'm not that either. The difference between us, Mark, is that I would never deny you are a Christian.Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-60875629725122052202007-12-16T12:41:00.000-05:002007-12-16T12:41:00.000-05:00Ahhh, the fag jokes. The last bastion of the inte...Ahhh, the fag jokes. The last bastion of the intellectually devoid "progressive".<BR/><BR/>There's that "the debate is over" nonsense again. <BR/><BR/>Here's your link to <A HREF="http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117857349/ABSTRACT" REL="nofollow">a peer reviewed study</A>. You'll have to kick down the $25 for the full article. Not that you'll actually read and/or understand it; I'm sure you'll tell us all how it's not a "real" scientific journal, or the researchers are all on the take.<BR/><BR/>Your "progressive" hypocrisy is showing again: Yeah you're right, you're so much more mature than our 5th grade antics, as the fag insults are certainly junior high level. <BR/><BR/>Oh yeah, and now that you've accused me of being gay, I'm sure you'll be scrambling to get on your knees. Save it for <A HREF="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528" REL="nofollow">Al Gore</A>; I'm sure he'll reward you with a <A HREF="http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST%20PDF%20VERSION.pdf" REL="nofollow">Toyota Prius</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-40640414278735197272007-12-16T01:25:00.000-05:002007-12-16T01:25:00.000-05:00You know what, Henry? I think you must be sorta sw...You know what, Henry? I think you must be sorta sweet on me to have all that opinion about me. Didn't mean to get you all stirred up, little buddy.<BR/><BR/>Here's what I'm asking for fellas:<BR/><BR/>A scientific article in a recognized journal supporting your position. Something I can read. One link. Something to support your position besides some corporate shill.<BR/><BR/>But no. You have not offered the first one. Nor have you answered why we ought to trust your few voices over the ones we've read and what makes logical sense to us.<BR/><BR/>You are free to believe as you wish. But you have already lost the debate with the American people. You've offered nothing but the politics of name-calling and childishness.<BR/><BR/>If you would like to hold a rational adult conversation then you would have to give us something, some evidence. Something besides attacks and nonsense.<BR/><BR/>But it is fairly clear that you all seem to be fairly impotent fellas who don't like that you haven't been able to convince the nation or the world that you're right and so you just want to whine and moan.<BR/><BR/>Have at it, pals. I'm tired of your 5th grade antics.<BR/><BR/>Peace.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-69723907792407711522007-12-15T15:18:00.000-05:002007-12-15T15:18:00.000-05:00Excuse me, was I addressing you, Dan? What you ar...Excuse me, was I addressing you, Dan? What you are mistaken about is the idea that I was commenting to you; I was commenting on the topic in general. However, I will note your predictable "progressive" narcissism. <BR/><BR/><I>the main scientific opposition comes from scientists funded by oil companies or rightwing "think tanks"</I><BR/><BR/>The "big oil" conspiracy? LMAO!!<BR/><BR/>Can you even name any of the "main scientific opposition"? You're going to have to show me some credible evidence of some kind of grand conspiracy amongst thousands of scientists and all of them receiving money from "big oil". Oh, and DKos, DU and HuffPo don't count.<BR/><BR/>Typical "progressive" moonbat accusations of some kind of secret cabal of "big oil" fat cats plotting to destroy Mother Gaea while they sit around lighting cigars with $100 bills; hiring scientists as henchmen to do their world-destruction bidding. <BR/><BR/>Who are these scientists that are paid-for lap dogs of "big oil"?<BR/><BR/>I suppose <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Izrael" REL="nofollow">Yuri Izrael</A> is a shill for big oil; please enlighten us as to which oil company is writing his checks.<BR/>How about <A HREF="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119258265537661384.html" REL="nofollow">Daniel Botkin</A>; he's on the take too? Again, you will have to show us, specifically, which "rightwing 'think tank'" is cutting his checks. Then there's <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentalist%29" REL="nofollow">Patrick Moore</A> and <A HREF="" REL="nofollow">Jay Lehr</A>; are they on the "big oil" payroll? Don't forget <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Reiter" REL="nofollow">Paul Reiter</A>; which "rightwing 'think tank'" is it that's funding him?<BR/><BR/>Go ahead and show us all exactly which "big oil" companies and "rightwing 'think tanks'" bought off <A HREF="http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm" REL="nofollow">over 17,000</A> scientists who disagree with the hysterical rants of <A HREF="http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/51232027.html?dids=51232027:51232027&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Mar+19%2C+2000&author=David+Maraniss&pub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=A.01&desc=Gore%27s+Grades+Belie+Image+of+Studiousness" REL="nofollow">Al Gore</A> and <A HREF="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836" REL="nofollow">James Hansen</A>.<BR/><BR/>Until you start producing credible evidence of some kind of over-arcing connivance with scientists and "big oil", I suggest you tap a keg of frosty, cold STFU.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure there were idiots like you repeating the "Scientific Consensus" meme back in J. Harlan Bretz's day too, i.e. "More scientists agree with my brand of common sense, therefore I'm right."<BR/><BR/>While I'm at it, I'll point out your typical "progressive" hypocrisy. You project your claims of "spreading myths" onto Mark, yet here you are regurgitating the holy mantra of a "big oil" conspiracy to fund the <A HREF="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/" REL="nofollow">holocaust deniers</A>, sorry, I mean AGW skeptics. Talk about myths....<BR/><BR/>Wanna know something Dan? I'll put my degrees in Environmental Science and Marine Technologies up against 99% of "intelligent" citizens like you any time.<BR/><BR/>Here's my point, Dildo Dan:<BR/><BR/>You define the term "Liberal douche bag".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-67046374077546760972007-12-15T07:39:00.000-05:002007-12-15T07:39:00.000-05:00Dan says, "And the basic questions remain unanswer...Dan says, "And the basic questions remain unanswered."<BR/><BR/>How astute of you to finally notice!<BR/><BR/>The basic question: Calculate the number of years it will take for the earth to get so hot it seriously endangers man's existence. <BR/><BR/>You haven't answered it yet, nor will you ever because you are more intersted in arguing than in truth, which I've already pointed out, can be ascertained through basic common sense and logic.<BR/><BR/>Ok, so you can say you won the argument I will join in the hysterics with you:<BR/><BR/>THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-12602140267353219712007-12-15T07:18:00.000-05:002007-12-15T07:18:00.000-05:00Geoffrey Kruse-Safford says, "It's Christians like...Geoffrey Kruse-Safford says, "It's Christians like you that almost make me want to become Buddhist."<BR/><BR/>Well, Mr. Kruse-Safford, (What is it with the hyphenated name anyway? Are being pretentious or do you have two daddies or two mommies and can't decide which of their last names to use?)judging from your new age humanist brand of Christianity, which bears little resemblance to true Biblical Christianity in the first place, I'd say your theology more closely resembles that of Buddhism than Christianity anyway.<BR/><BR/>Geoffrey, (What's with the European spelling of your name, Jeff? Are you trying to appear to be a politically correct Globalist?)you are a phony pretentious elitist snob and your comments are only permitted here to show clear thinking people how ludicrous you silly Libs are.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-77173254088950460892007-12-14T21:44:00.000-05:002007-12-14T21:44:00.000-05:00And the basic questions remain unanswered.Mark, I ...And the basic questions remain unanswered.<BR/><BR/>Mark, I don't think you're a bad guy. Just mistaken and unwilling to yield an inch.<BR/><BR/>But if you can't answer some basic questions in support of your position, don't you think that ought to at least give you pause?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-78837493387986994482007-12-14T20:17:00.000-05:002007-12-14T20:17:00.000-05:00This is an interesting conversation, to say the le...This is an interesting conversation, to say the least. On the one hand, you have Dan, and bb-idaho, explaining how science works, with bb-idaho giving an excellent example of actual science (to which Mark has yet to respond), and you have Mark, repeating "Global Warming Is A Myth" without a beat, without any consideration at all of what has been said here.<BR/><BR/>I do love your "God won't let people destroy the planet" argument. When you are driving, do you take your hands off the steering wheel and say, "God won't allow me to plow in to the van filled with kids that's approaching me?" In essence, the argument you are making is the same.<BR/><BR/>We human beings have been given care of creation, we are the stewards, whose responsibility it is to make sure the planet, and those creatures that live on it, thrive. Hoping for some <I>deus ex machina</I> to pull our collective chestnuts out of the fire isn't faith, but wishful thinking. Declaring global warming a "myth" with no understanding of what you are talking about isn't an argument, but an assertion.<BR/><BR/>It's Christians like you that almost make me want to become Buddhist.Geoffrey Kruse-Saffordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11242660591954094499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-66008328983603908882007-12-14T18:58:00.000-05:002007-12-14T18:58:00.000-05:00And since you didn't respond, I just wanted to cla...And since you didn't respond, I just wanted to clarify: <BR/><BR/>You ARE going to help do your part to dispel the myth that "the global warming scientists" were predicting an ice age in the '70s? You're an honorable man, Mark. You wouldn't want to perpetuate a falsehoold, would you?<BR/><BR/>Now that I've shown you evidence to the contrary, you WILL be renouncing that position, won't you?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-65664951895746542792007-12-14T18:55:00.000-05:002007-12-14T18:55:00.000-05:00Okay. Allow me to correct that. No real scientists...Okay. Allow me to correct that. No real scientists (perceived "left" or "right" or otherwise) is denying the facts that the earth has gotten warmer this last century.<BR/><BR/>None.<BR/><BR/>Very few real scientists ("left" or "right") doubt the evidence that human activity is contributing to climate change.<BR/><BR/>Can you name any? Cite any scientifically valid journals with evidence saying that global temperature is decreasing? <BR/><BR/>Who are these talking heads on the videos? Who is paying their salaries?<BR/><BR/>Not that I doubt that there might be a few people who work as scientists to say that, but answer the question: <BR/><BR/>You are absolutely correct to suggest that just because a majority of scientists (vast majority) believe the evidence shows clearly that the earth is warming - and many of those think that there is evidence suggesting that human activity is contributing to it - that just because that's true doesn't make it reality. BUT, why should we take the opposite stance and assume that the few scientists who DON'T believe the evidence is clear that the earth is warming? WHY believe them?<BR/><BR/>If the majority of scientists tell you that you need to quit smoking or you'll have lung and health problems, but ONE scientist (who works for the cigarette company) tells you, "Nawww, go ahead and smoke. The evidence is not clear that you'll have any negative effects from smoking," who would you believe: The one or the majority?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-1009230307367712522007-12-14T17:35:00.000-05:002007-12-14T17:35:00.000-05:00Dan, you say "no one is calling "global warming" a...Dan, you say "no one is calling "global warming" a myth."<BR/><BR/>Wrong. I am saying it. Read my lips. Global Warming is a myth.<BR/><BR/>And guess what? I'm not the only one. Not by a long shot.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-79226758472961857082007-12-14T12:51:00.000-05:002007-12-14T12:51:00.000-05:00If you need a little more evidence in favor of Glo...If you need a little more evidence in favor of Global Climate Change, how about The Environmental Skeptic? Bjorn Blomborg has made a name for himself, saying he's an environmentalist but rejecting many claims of environmentalist and scientists, including global warming.<BR/><BR/>But even Blomborg has come around, saying, "The review correctly points out that climate change is a <B>real problem</B>, and that it is <B>caused by human</B> greenhouse-gas emissions."<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182" REL="nofollow"> source</A><BR/><BR/>At first, the critics pooh-poohed global warming. Then, they admitted that the science was sound and that global warming is a reality (THE CRITICS say this, not the GW scientists) BUT, they said, humans couldn't possibly affect the climate.<BR/><BR/>And NOW the skeptics say, "Okay, Global climate change is a reality and it's likely that humans have impacted it, but so what? Either there's nothing we can do about it or it might even be a good thing, or at least nothing to worry about..."<BR/><BR/>Mark, no one - not the oil companies, not the president, not the auto companies, not other skeptics - <I>no one</I> is calling "global warming" a myth. Very few opponents are even doubting that humans are impacting the climate.<BR/><BR/>If you want to make the argument that we ought not worry about global warming, do so. But it's just a bit silly to say things like calling GW a myth. No one thinks that because the science does not support that view.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-86217397958203432112007-12-13T15:35:00.000-05:002007-12-13T15:35:00.000-05:00Henry said:CONSENSUS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC METHODUnl...Henry said:<BR/><BR/><I>CONSENSUS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC METHOD</I><BR/><BR/>Unless I'm mistaken, the only one who has referred to "most scientists" here would be Mark, when he made the claim that "most of these same consensus of scientists claimed the Earth was heading for another ice age..."<BR/><BR/>No one here has said that consensus = scientific method, Henry. So, what's your point?<BR/><BR/>Now, when we poor lay citizens are trying to decide upon policy, and we hear different messages from different scientists, we ought not look for consensus necessarily. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if many scientists are telling us that human behavior may be impacting negatively upon the earth, including in climatic change, and the main scientific opposition comes from scientists funded by oil companies or rightwing "think tanks," well then, intelligent citizens would weigh all of that for what it's worth and vote for policies based upon the science as we best understand it.<BR/><BR/>That is, if 1000 climatologists are saying humans may have an impact upon climate change and 100 scientists working for or receiving money from the oil companies, what would you have us base our decisions upon?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-78394786726261979192007-12-13T10:09:00.000-05:002007-12-13T10:09:00.000-05:00I always love the claims of "most scientists" or "...I always love the claims of "most scientists" or "scientific consensus" as used to "prove" that global warming is anthropogenic.<BR/><BR/>Get this:<BR/><BR/>CONSENSUS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC METHOD<BR/><BR/>Here's a <A HREF="http://www.detectingdesign.com/harlenbretz.html" REL="nofollow">funny little story</A> about "scientific consensus"...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-71955060960310146552007-12-12T17:58:00.000-05:002007-12-12T17:58:00.000-05:00Mark repeated a myth, saying:30 years ago, most of...Mark repeated a myth, saying:<BR/><BR/><I>30 years ago, most of these same consensus of scientists claimed the Earth was heading for another ice age. Were they wrong then or now?</I><BR/><BR/>This is an example of an actual myth. Scientists in the 70s weren't predicting an eminent ice age. It's a myth perpetrated by anti-global climate change folk in an effort to obfuscate (perhaps unknowingly repeating bad information).<BR/><BR/>See <A HREF="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94" REL="nofollow"> here</A> for the detailed explanation.<BR/><BR/>In short, the SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS were not publishing reports predicting an ice age, although a few News type magazines reported an occasional story hinting at it, it's not a theory that was or is embraced by the scientific community at the time.<BR/><BR/>It is a myth. And now that I've informed you of that, you can help educate people so they don't repeat the myth mistakenly, as you have done here.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your help on that!Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.com