Right Wing University says Global Warming a Natural Cycle

[rZ]

Spangler,

While my field of study is not climatology, I am a scientist and fully aware of the scientific process. I am also familiar with how scientific information is manipulated for political and/or professional gain. That being said, my earlier comment was not an attack on you or your opinions on current empirical evidence. I simply stated that there is a theory gaining momentum within the scientific community that works to find an explanation as to why CO2 levels continue to rise, yet temperatures for the next couple of years are predicted to fall.

It was a statement to the content of said theory, not to the public perception of the theory.

[Maggie]

Spangler,

You write:

I care about the science, not the public perceptions. Trying to judge the validity of the science based on "public debate" or "the public proclamations of scientists" is intellectually dishonest.

I am fine with your first sentence. However, while you care about the science (and, ultimately, so do I), the advocates, in my judgment, of global warming appear to care more about public perception/opinion.

Also, I don’t see how you can state it is intellectually dishonest to view an argument with a skeptical eye (even if you know absolutely nothing about the underlying subject) if the proponents of that argument consistently resort to logical fallacies and rhetorical excess in an attempt to justify his or her position (which, incidentally, you have not been guilty of doing).

It is the proponent of that argument who is being intellectually dishonest not the person sitting in his or her living room.

If you form a judgment about the validity of the science without looking at the science itself, you are being intellectually dishonest.

If you say "These scientists don't seem to be acting appropriately and I'm not certain they are correct," then you are not being dishonest.

For you to be skeptical is fine. For you to claim that the science is wrong without looking at the science itself is dishonest.

Fair enough but, with all due respect, you didn’t write it is intellectually dishonest to form a judgment without considering the underlying science. I would agree with you on that count. You wrote “Trying to judge the validity of the science based on ‘public debate’ or ‘the public proclamations of scientists’ is intellectually dishonest”. That is a bit different. The inquiry certainly should not cease if you find the defense of an argument less than convincing; however, it doesn’t place the proponent is a very good light.

As I have made clear, part of my problem with this whole issue is the fact that its advocates are generally dismissive of counter-arguments, many times in ways I would view classic intellectual dishonesty, rather than addressing the merits of the counter-argument. Frankly, I don’t understand why they behave this way if they have such faith in their conclusions. It is truly frustrating and legitimately engenders skepticism – whether their position ultimately proves to be valid or not.

I feel I have been fair and polite so your last sentence is a little vexing:

For you to claim that the science is wrong without looking at the science itself is dishonest.

Strangely, I don’t recall doing that in this thread.

[SpanglerFan316]

Spangler,

While my field of study is not climatology, I am a scientist and fully aware of the scientific process. I am also familiar with how scientific information is manipulated for political and/or professional gain. That being said, my earlier comment was not an attack on you or your opinions on current empirical evidence. I simply stated that there is a theory gaining momentum within the scientific community that works to find an explanation as to why CO2 levels continue to rise, yet temperatures for the next couple of years are predicted to fall.

It was a statement to the content of said theory, not to the public perception of the theory.

I didn't take your comment as any kind of attack. Should I have?

I was not disagreeing with anything you said. I agree that "dust" (particulate matter) can have an impact on the reflection of solar radiation.

In a certain way, I'm on the side of the critics. I think the problem of predicting climate change is too "ill conditioned" to be accurately computed. I don't believe any particular prediction from a particular numerical model.

On the other hand, if the total amount of thermal energy on "earth" keeps increasing, this will affect the climate and climate change will occur. So I agree with the idea that global warming and climate change will occur. I just don't think we will be able to make good predictions of the effects of global warming. I consider things like increased particulate matter to have temporary effects which will not be (very) significant in the long run.

[SpanglerFan316]

I feel I have been fair and polite so your last sentence is a little vexing:

For you to claim that the science is wrong without looking at the science itself is dishonest.

Strangely, I don’t recall doing that in this thread.

I guess I phrased my comment poorly. I wrote:

For you to be skeptical is fine. For you to claim that the science is wrong without looking at the science itself is dishonest.

I intended this in the following sense:
"If a person is skeptical, this is fine. If a person claims that the science is wrong without looking at the science itself, this person is being dishonest."
The "you" I wrote was not intended to be Maggie but anyone who fit the description. Sorry for the confusion.

[rZ]

I didn't take your comment as any kind of attack. Should I have?

not at all.

I consider things like increased particulate matter to have temporary effects which will not be (very) significant in the long run.

Please elaborate. I is my understanding that these particles can have significant effects on global climate. Isn't this at least part of the reason why every major ice age was preceded by increased volcanic activity which put large amounts of debris in the atmosphere (and increased CO2 levels)?

[SpanglerFan316]

I didn't take your comment as any kind of attack. Should I have?

not at all.

I consider things like increased particulate matter to have temporary effects which will not be (very) significant in the long run.

Please elaborate. I is my understanding that these particles can have significant effects on global climate. Isn't this at least part of the reason why every major ice age was preceded by increased volcanic activity which put large amounts of debris in the atmosphere (and increased CO2 levels)?

Could you provide me the data on this "increased volcanic activity"?

We are using terms (e.g. "ice age") carelessly; I think we are discussing "interglacial periods" and "glacial periods" of the current ice age.
Within the ice ages (or at least within the last one), more temperate and more severe periods occur. The colder periods are called glacial periods, the warmer periods interglacials, such as the Eemian Stage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age


(Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles discusses Milankovitch cycles.)

[Maggie]

I feel I have been fair and polite so your last sentence is a little vexing:

For you to claim that the science is wrong without looking at the science itself is dishonest.

Strangely, I don’t recall doing that in this thread.

I guess I phrased my comment poorly. I wrote:

For you to be skeptical is fine. For you to claim that the science is wrong without looking at the science itself is dishonest.

I intended this in the following sense:
"If a person is skeptical, this is fine. If a person claims that the science is wrong without looking at the science itself, this person is being dishonest."
The "you" I wrote was not intended to be Maggie but anyone who fit the description. Sorry for the confusion.

Well, I wouldn’t call myself confused, but thanks for clarifying.

[SB Shock]

Why don't you have a debate by yourself; you seem driven by (political) dogma rather than by science.

So I am driven by political dogma because you have no understanding of science and it's process besides using google and wilkepedia and I called you on it.

[engrshock]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/ap_on_sc/us_sci_warm_oceans

[ShockCity]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/ap_on_sc/us_sci_warm_oceans

An unexpected consequence of this could be more sharks, who love warm waters.

[SpanglerFan316]

Why don't you have a debate by yourself; you seem driven by (political) dogma rather than by science.

So I am driven by political dogma because you have no understanding of science and it's process besides using google and wilkepedia and I called you on it.

The people who read this thread can form their own opinions; I don't care. They can investigate for themselves and see if weather, climate, etc. is fundamentally a thermodynamic process. You don't seem to acknowledge this (as far as I can tell.) They can determine if increasing the thermal energy of the "earth" is likely to have drastic effects (e.g. disruption of the Gulf Stream, disruption of fisheries, drought, flooding, sea level rise).

As for using wiki articles, I agree that better sources to quote exist. However, do you question the basic information these wiki pages contain?

[ABC]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/ap_on_sc/us_sci_warm_oceans

An unexpected consequence of this could be more sharks, who love warm waters.

We'll need bigger boats.

[Maggie]

This is part of the problem with arguments in support of global cooling/global warming/climate change theory – there is, and at times proponents have admitted it, an entirely separate agenda and their exaggerations strains credibility with those who might be willing to listen to their arguments with an open mind – from an editorial in IBD:

What's the climate change scare really about? Not what the alarmists want the public to think. Just ask the retiring head of Greenpeace. In an unguarded moment, he might spill the secret again.

During an Aug. 5 interview with the BBC, Gerd Leipold, outgoing executive director of Greenpeace, admitted that his organization emotionalizes issues to influence the public. At the time, he was admitting his group had made an error in its July 15 news release that claimed "we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030."

"I don't think (the Greenland ice sheet) will be melting by 2030," he said. "That may have been a mistake." (emphasis added)

Or maybe it was one of those examples that Greenpeace embellished to stir fear in the public? If so, it wouldn't be an isolated case. Others have admitted they're willing to bend the truth in order to draw attention to the cause.

Twenty years ago, Stanford University environmentalist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine that it's perfectly fine "to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have. . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." (emphasis added)

Al Gore noted the power of propaganda when he once told Grist, a magazine for environmentalists, that "it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience." (emphasis added)

So why all the distortions about global warming? To save the planet, to save us from ourselves? No. To choke economies in developed nations, particularly the U.S.

"We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth," Leipold told the BBC's Stephen Sackur in the same interview in which he acknowledged Greenpeace's mistake. "The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model."

This same thinking is found in the minds of so many of the global warming alarmists. They say they can make the trouble go away if they can just force the U.S. and other developed nations to cut their levels of consumption.

When all the pretense about science is stripped away, it becomes clear that the global warming scare is not about the planet, but about establishing egalitarianism across the world. It's about making everyone more equal by slowing growth in rich nations rather than increasing growth in poor and developing countries. (emphasis added)

The mind-set can be found in campaigns such as Climate Justice, which "is not only the right tool for climate stabilization," says Jin-woo Lee, a policy analyst for the Energy & Climate Policy Institute for Just Transition, but also "the underlying principle for global equity." (emphasis added)

Greenpeace's Leipold said he believes the world is finally beginning to take global warming seriously. But that seems wildly optimistic. The movement looks to be losing momentum.

Already 20,000 overnight hotel stays that had been reserved for the December United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen have been canceled. Either a lot of people are losing interest — or they're thinking it will just be too cold.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1501&status=article&id=335659960231024&secure=1&show=1&rss=1