NationStates Jolt Archive

WASHINGTON (AP) - This winter was the warmest on record worldwide, the government said Thursday in the latest worrisome report focusing on changing climate. The report comes just over a month after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said global warming is very likely caused by human actions and is so severe it will continue for centuries.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the combined land and ocean temperatures for December through February were 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit above average for the period since record keeping began in 1880. The report said that during the past century, global temperatures have increased at about 0.11 degrees per decade. But that increase has been three times larger since 1976, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reported.

Most scientists attribute the rising temperatures to so-called greenhouse gases which are produced by industrial activities, automobiles and other processes. These gases build up in the atmosphere and trap heat from the sun somewhat like a greenhouse. Also contributing to this winter's record warmth was an El Nino, a periodic warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean. It was particularly strong in January - the warmest January ever - but the ocean surface has since begun to cool.

The report noted that in the Northern Hemisphere the combined land and water temperature was the warmest ever at 1.64 degrees above average. In the Southern Hemisphere, where it was summer, the temperature was 0.88 degree above average and the fourth warmest. The late March date of the vernal equinox noted on most calendars notwithstanding, for weather and climate purposes northern winter is December, January and February.

For the United States, meanwhile, the winter temperature was near average. The season got off to a late start and spring-like temperatures covered most of the eastern half of the country in January, but cold conditions set in in February, which was the third coldest on record. For winter, statewide temperatures were warmer than average from Florida to Maine and from Michigan to Montana while cooler-than-average temperatures occurred in the southern Plains and areas of the Southwest. For Alaska, both February and winter were warmer than average but far from the record warmth of 2003 and 2001, respectively.
I find it interesting that this information is borne out even after the Bush administration has been shown to have repeatedly suppressed climate change information.

Also funny (and a bit sad): I mentioned the story to my mom, who's a big-time conservative conformist, and she just shook her head and said that the report was "wrong" and that the facts were "manufactured" simply because Alabama had had a pretty cold winter. I tried explaining that the report acknowledged that some areas, including the South, were cooler, but that the average global temperature had risen. She then blamed the "liberal media" for reporting it. Apparently the NOAA is part of the media now. :rolleyes:

Link to NOAA report (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/feb/feb07.html)

We had the coldest winter I can remember up here, had a few days where it was -22 with the wind chill. The snot was freezing in my nose, and we still had school...

Blar! liberal malarky! Climate change is perfectly normal! Humans have no impact on the environment! It's just a con to take our minds off the REAL danger...

...homosexuals getting married!

It's Al Gore's fault. Burn his house.

Is the climate changing? Of course it's changing. The climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years. I am not ready yet to jump on the "blame humans" bandwagon just yet.

One of the major reasons that I dislike the global warming lobby is that they can turn anything into evidence for them. If a temperature change is in their favor, it's climate change. If it's not, it's just weather.

Add that to my personal dislike of Al Gore (I mean the "old" Al Gore, but the new one isn't that different) and that he is getting filthy rich off telling people they should conserve energy while using more than 20 people put together.

i would support the cause, if some of these activists would finally admit that somethings they predicted in rapid haste were wrong. They are just far to eager to blame Global warming for every little thing.

One of the major reasons that I dislike the global warming lobby is that they can turn anything into evidence for them. If a temperature change is in their favor, it's climate change. If it's not, it's just weather.

Add that to my personal dislike of Al Gore (I mean the "old" Al Gore, but the new one isn't that different) and that he is getting filthy rich off telling people they should conserve energy while using more than 20 people put together.

i would support the cause, if some of these activists would finally admit that somethings they predicted in rapid haste were wrong. They are just far to eager to blame Global warming for every little thing.

Don't you find it a little odd that no one has contested his message, they just attack him? He made a pretty bold statement in his film. He said "None of the evidence I'm presenting here has been disputed by the scientific community." Don't you think his documentary would be ripped apart if it were a fabrication or even skewing the truth in some fashion?

Besides, all of his power comes from renewable sources. He's also installing solar panels. I also think he runs an office or two out of his home as well. I could be wrong on the last one though.

Don't you find it a little odd that no one has contested his message, they just attack him? He made a pretty bold statement in his film. He said "None of the evidence I'm presenting here has been disputed by the scientific community." Don't you think his documentary would be ripped apart if it were a fabrication or even skewing the truth in some fashion?

Besides, all of his power comes from renewable sources. He's also installing solar panels. I also think he runs an office or two out of his home as well. I could be wrong on the last one though.
What I was refferring to is that the old Al Gore (the tobacco-picking anti-smoker, if his campaign statements are to be believed) had a nasty habit of saying anything that will get himself elected, and I don't think that the New Al Gore has a higher set of morals. Just my personal opinion.

And to elaborate, I dislike the fact that the Global warming community immediately declares that any evidence that contradicts what they say is falsified by Big Oil and Big Coal (or big anything for that matter) and refuse to hold any sort of open debate about it. Many scientists have dissenting opinions, like this one (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4425), but the global warming activists refuses to acknowledge their possible credibility.

Not that I think that Humanity has done a good job in protecting the environment, I just see too much McCarthy-like zeal coming from these activists to support them.

Actually, that's kind of a good thing. It cuts down on the amount of oil and natural gas we have to consume for heating, keeping prices lower and the overall amount of fossil fuels consumed at lower levels.

Frankly, I hope that trend continues for the foreseeable future.

Many scientists have dissenting opinions, like this one (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4425), but the global warming activists refuses to acknowledge their possible credibility.
Indeed, that is one of the most frustrating things about this whole debate. So far I remain agnostic on the whole thing, but the global warming advocates have not impressed me much.

Not that I think that Humanity has done a good job in protecting the environment, I just see too much McCarthy-like zeal coming from these activists to support them.
Likewise.

You know, this is the point where I'd say "you wouldn't know it if you lived here" but unfortunately--or fortunately, depending on how you see it--that just doesn't ring true anymore. We're going to have 60 and 70 degree temperatures down in Denver next week! 60-70 degrees! Up here it'll probably be in the high fifties to lower sixties, but still...that's crazy-go-nuts...

Is the sky blue?

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the Earth is warming at this point. The only controversy still alive is whether global warming is caused by humans or if it's simply a natural cycle. (note: Even if it is a natural cycle, it could still well be the end of human civilization. Unfortunately, if this is the case, then we can do nothing to stop it. I'll prefer to think that it's caused by humans for the time being)

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the Earth is warming at this point. The only controversy still alive is whether global warming is caused by humans or if it's simply a natural cycle. (note: Even if it is a natural cycle, it could still well be the end of human civilization. Unfortunately, if this is the case, then we can do nothing to stop it. I'll prefer to think that it's caused by humans for the time being)

Aye. And whether it is caused by humans or not, we're adding to it and reducing our own emissions and otherwise lessining our output of greenhouse gasses will help the situation. Thank you for finally bringing some sense to this.

Many scientists have dissenting opinions, like this one (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4425), but the global warming activists refuses to acknowledge their possible credibility.
Let's see the credentials of 'this one' you speak of:
About Walter Williams
Born in Philadelphia in 1936, Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.
http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?name=15

So in your opinion, instead of listening to climatologists - scientists trained, and who have spent their careers, analysing weather patterns, climate change and weather systems, we should listen to a man with an economics degree.
Correct?

'Cause an economics major is going to give you the necessary knowledge, skills and understanding of complex weather systems and climate change.



Let me guess - when you have a toothache, you head to your local botanist, right? 'Cause, y'know, any university training and all that. He's got a degree, so that surely means he knows all about teeth.

Is the climate changing? Of course it's changing. The climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years. I am not ready yet to jump on the "blame humans" bandwagon just yet.

of course. It's just entirely coincidental that an observable climate change is occuring, observable within a single lifetime, which just happens to have a beginning coinciding with the industrial revolution.

Entirely coincidental

of course. It's just entirely coincidental that an observable climate change is occuring, observable within a single lifetime, which just happens to have a beginning coinciding with the industrial revolution.

Entirely coincidental

Yeah! And anyone who says otherwise is just a species traitor who hates humans!

It's really saddening, there will be a point where global climate change and human's effect on it are blatantly, painfully, disasterously obvious to anyone with eyes. And where will all these people be then? Apologizing? I doubt it. They'll probably be focusing on the 'real' problems.... homosexual marriage, and the 'radicalization of Islam.'

The rational seems to be "hmm..well...liberals seem to be supporting this human made climate change theory. I am not a liberal and do not like them at all so i will take the opposite position."

Let's see the credentials of 'this one' you speak of:

http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?name=15

So in your opinion, instead of listening to climatologists - scientists trained, and who have spent their careers, analysing weather patterns, climate change and weather systems, we should listen to a man with an economics degree.
Correct?

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the climatologist mentioned in that article...

But yes, academic credentials are irrelevant. A good argument stands by itself. While someone whose formal academic interest is in a certain field is certainly MORE LIKELY to have an understanding adequate to put forth a worthwhile argument, it's not necessary.

of course. It's just entirely coincidental that an observable climate change is occuring, observable within a single lifetime, which just happens to have a beginning coinciding with the industrial revolution.

Entirely coincidental

Which also happens to be around the same time the technology and infrastructure necessary to make such observations objectively and on a large scale came into being.

Try again.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the climatologist mentioned in that article...

But yes, academic credentials are irrelevant. A good argument stands by itself. While someone whose formal academic interest is in a certain field is certainly MORE LIKELY to have an understanding adequate to put forth a worthwhile argument, it's not necessary. As long as that person agrees with the opinion I already hold.

Corrected and reposted. Admit it: you'd attack the findings of any climate expert that said something you don't want to believe, and question his credentials.

Which also happens to be around the same time the technology and infrastructure necessary to make such observations objectively and on a large scale came into being.

Try again.

And the fact that we have the means to determine climate from the distant past is, of course, completely irrelevant. :rolleyes:

Add that to my personal dislike of Al Gore (I mean the "old" Al Gore, but the new one isn't that different) and that he is getting filthy rich off telling people they should conserve energy while using more than 20 people put together.


Sick to the teeth of this argument.

Okay. Mark Foley was in charge of the Commission for Missing and Exploited Children. Alberto Gonzales (attorney general) may have broken several laws and is under investigation. Some of the staunchest anti-gay polemicists are gay themselves (former mayor of Spokane, several recent preachers, etc.). Politics is hypocrisy.

The difference here is that nobody's bringing up Foley anymore, and I've not seen anything on Gonzales at all. So once again, the Right's strategy of continuing to mention one -- ONE -- person who presents a contradiction to a finding that the vast majority of scientists agree on, continues.

Get over it, already.

Actually, that's kind of a good thing. It cuts down on the amount of oil and natural gas we have to consume for heating, keeping prices lower and the overall amount of fossil fuels consumed at lower levels.

Frankly, I hope that trend continues for the foreseeable future.

Except, sadly, that the savings are offset by the increased use of fossil fuels to generate electricity during the proportionally hotter summer when everyone turns on the air-conditioner.

Whatever happened to those same Chicken Littles that were crying that we were headed toward an ice age in 25-50 years back in the early 70's???
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Whatever happened to those same Chicken Littles that were crying that we were headed toward an ice age in 25-50 years back in the early 70's???
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

The two or three that existed, none of whom were credible climatologists, are probably all dead or senile.

Is the climate changing? Of course it's changing. The climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years. I am not ready yet to jump on the "blame humans" bandwagon just yet.

Let's just blame everything that moves. It's the easiest and most cost-effective method known to man.

One of the major reasons that I dislike the global warming lobby is that they can turn anything into evidence for them. If a temperature change is in their favor, it's climate change. If it's not, it's just weather.

Add that to my personal dislike of Al Gore (I mean the "old" Al Gore, but the new one isn't that different) and that he is getting filthy rich off telling people they should conserve energy while using more than 20 people put together.

i would support the cause, if some of these activists would finally admit that somethings they predicted in rapid haste were wrong. They are just far to eager to blame Global warming for every little thing.
The old "20 times" bit is totally made up . He actually uses three times the national average for a household. And don't forget that he and Tipper are running several offices out of a very large house. From this one might figure his energy usage is actually somewhat lower than most folks with similiar usage needs. And the part of the country he lives in is both cold in the winter and hot in the summer, not like some parts of the country that actually have a low usage part of the year.

had a nasty habit of saying anything that will get himself elected, and I don't think that the New Al Gore has a higher set of morals. Just my personal opinion.



omg sounds like he was involved in some sort of political movement ;)

And the fact that we have the means to determine climate from the distant past is, of course, completely irrelevant. :rolleyes:
Crimethink!

The old "20 times" bit is totally made up . He actually uses three times the national average for a household. And don't forget that he and Tipper are running several offices out of a very large house. From this one might figure his energy usage is actually somewhat lower than most folks with similiar usage needs. And the part of the country he lives in is both cold in the winter and hot in the summer, not like some parts of the country that actually have a low usage part of the year.
Goddammit BK, how dare you bring rationality into this discussion!

Add that to my personal dislike of Al Gore (I mean the "old" Al Gore, but the new one isn't that different) and that he is getting filthy rich off telling people they should conserve energy while using more than 20 people put together.

His carbon footprint is zero; he calculates his energy use and buys carbon offsets to equal it out.

His carbon footprint is zero; he calculates his energy use and buys carbon offsets to equal it out.

He also buys power from renewable sources and is installing solar panels on his property.

Let's just blame everything that moves. It's the easiest and most cost-effective method known to man.

... stay very still...

Whatever happened to those same Chicken Littles that were crying that we were headed toward an ice age in 25-50 years back in the early 70's???
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:The cooling trend from 1950-1970 was human caused btw.

His carbon footprint is zero; he calculates his energy use and buys carbon offsets to equal it out.

Carbon offsets are an inneffective way that the upper and middle classes use to absolve their guilt over the issue. Planting trees is inneffective as trees respire almost as much as they photosynthesise, only the mass of the actual tree of CO2 is removed. Carbon offsetting is not as effective for stopping climate change as simply moving power production into nuclear power, suported by renewables. Very few enironmentalists note the benefits of nuclear power stations, even though they produce almost no greenhouse gasses

Carbon offsets are an inneffective way that the upper and middle classes use to absolve their guilt over the issue. Planting trees is inneffective as trees respire almost as much as they photosynthesise, only the mass of the actual tree of CO2 is removed. Carbon offsetting is not as effective for stopping climate change as simply moving power production into nuclear power, suported by renewables. Very few enironmentalists note the benefits of nuclear power stations, even though they produce almost no greenhouse gasses

*shrugs* I'd be all for power reactors if we could first clean up Chernobyl. Invent something that transforms radiation into something less... I dunno, mutating, and I'll jump on that bandwagon with you. That way, if a reactor explodes, it won't leave a huge "DO NOT ENTER" sign on the map for the next two hundred years.

*shrugs* I'd be all for power reactors if we could first clean up Chernobyl. Invent something that transforms radiation into something less... I dunno, mutating, and I'll jump on that bandwagon with you. That way, if a reactor explodes, it won't leave a huge "DO NOT ENTER" sign on the map for the next two hundred years.

Fusion reactors take care of that sort of thing. They don't produce much radiation (and what they produce goes straight up and out, since it's helium), and the current design prevents an uncontrollable reaction by making it impossible for the amount of material needed for that to happen to fit in the reactor core. The first commercial one should be online in 2050, if the current test succeeds.

*shrugs* I'd be all for power reactors if we could first clean up Chernobyl. Invent something that transforms radiation into something less... I dunno, mutating, and I'll jump on that bandwagon with you. That way, if a reactor explodes, it won't leave a huge "DO NOT ENTER" sign on the map for the next two hundred years.

Let me step in real quick to say something. Chernobyl only happened because the Soviets did not protect the power plant there well enough, and they knew it. Look at the Three Mile Island accident, that meltdown was several times more powerful then Chernobyl but since it was protected correctly the accident was many times smaller. So in short if properly protected (like the US has done with all of its nuclear power plants) no nuclear power plant can do a Chernobyl.

Fusion reactors take care of that sort of thing. They don't produce much radiation (and what they produce goes straight up and out, since it's helium), and the current design prevents an uncontrollable reaction by making it impossible for the amount of material needed for that to happen to fit in the reactor core. The first commercial one should be online in 2050, if the current test succeeds.

Nice. Maybe when I'm 70 I'll enjoy all that energy, if I haven't been killed off by global climate change by then.

Whatever happened to those same Chicken Littles that were crying that we were headed toward an ice age in 25-50 years back in the early 70's???
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Beats me... the only problem is back then it wasn't scientists pushing it, there are a ton of Scientific Papers dealing with Global Warming, sadly there weren't any on Global Cooling (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/).

Corrected and reposted. Admit it: you'd attack the findings of any climate expert that said something you don't want to believe, and question his credentials.

What a childish stunt to pull.

You also made a very childish assumption. Don't assume that just because you're an intellectual coward, everyone else is as well.

*shrugs* I'd be all for power reactors if we could first clean up Chernobyl. Invent something that transforms radiation into something less... I dunno, mutating, and I'll jump on that bandwagon with you. That way, if a reactor explodes, it won't leave a huge "DO NOT ENTER" sign on the map for the next two hundred years.

What's with Chernobyl? Why does that always come up? It's as though you're saying "Well, the Wright brothers crashed in a few seconds decades ago, so I won't fly in this modern commercial aircraft."

Let's see the credentials of 'this one' you speak of:

http://www.capmag.com/author.asp?name=15

So in your opinion, instead of listening to climatologists - scientists trained, and who have spent their careers, analysing weather patterns, climate change and weather systems, we should listen to a man with an economics degree.
Correct?

'Cause an economics major is going to give you the necessary knowledge, skills and understanding of complex weather systems and climate change.

Let me guess - when you have a toothache, you head to your local botanist, right? 'Cause, y'know, any university training and all that. He's got a degree, so that surely means he knows all about teeth.

Easy boy, you take politics to seriously. My argument is that Global warming activists have made many wrong predictions in the past--If memory serves me, 2006 had 0 Major hurricanes despite their predictions of a drastic increase in their number--and that maybe there is a better way to preserve the environment than blaming major politicians for Natural disasters. You know, like organizing neighborhood recycling comities, planting trees in a local park rather than ELF (a paramilitary activist group) style attacks on anything that looks like it's making a profit. Reason and sense are the paths to success, not haste and Zeal.

Where the fuck were they living?

His carbon footprint is zero; he calculates his energy use and buys carbon offsets to equal it out.

Carbon offsets are a massive scam.

Al Gore buys them from a company he himself founded. Nice gig that.

Al Gore profits from his own scaremongering.

Climate change is still a natural phenomenon, and has been for millions of years.

And radical climate shifts have happened before.

Let's adapt, people. Because you cannot stop the climate from changing, nor can we stop the tectonic plates from shifting or the earth from turning.

Carbon offsets are a massive scam.

Al Gore buys them from a company he himself founded. Nice gig that.

Al Gore profits from his own scaremongering.

Climate change is still a natural phenomenon, and has been for millions of years.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that Humanity hasn't messed up the environment since the Industrial revoultion.

As for Carbon offsets, what exactly are they? Are they just planting trees or what? I personally think that it's just a fiscal cop out of actual doing something (like for example, buying land in Montana and starting a park/forest there. Gore has more than enough money for something like that)

Carbon offsets are a massive scam.

you mean "absolutely vital in order to deal with the current situation". it's ok, it's an easy mistake to make.

Al Gore buys them from a company he himself founded. Nice gig that.

Al Gore profits from his own scaremongering.

so your complaint amounts to "waaaaaaaa, al gore gets an employee discount on his carbon offsets!!!!"

CClimate change is still a natural phenomenon

yes, and this time it is a natural phenomenon that we are responsible for causing.

As for Carbon offsets, what exactly are they? Are they just planting trees or what?

any of a number of things that take CO2 out of the atmosphere. planting trees is a big one, but there is more than that.

in order to deal with the present situation, we are essentially all going to have to use enough carbon offsets to go fairly significantly into the negative for net carbon output for awhile. or we could take up the idea of Blocking Out The Sun!!!!1!1!!!, i guess.

As for Carbon offsets, what exactly are they? Are they just planting trees or what? I personally think that it's just a fiscal cop out of actual doing something (like for example, buying land in Montana and starting a park/forest there. Gore has more than enough money for something like that)

Carbon offsets are something the progressive elite has dreamt up so they can keep their excessive lifestyle (they can afford to buy many 'offsets') while us 'commoners' will just have to shut up, stop flying planes and stop driving.

Carbon offsets are a bit like tax cuts for the rich.

any of a number of things that take CO2 out of the atmosphere. planting trees is a big one, but there is more than that.
Okay, I get that, but doesn't Gore realize that he could get a lot more moderate appeal by going out and doing something (even just planting trees himself, or organizing an event on the spot) rather then just writing a check every month? He would get the same overall result, but far more National attention and people will start to shut up about his "affluent" life style.

Eh, it doesn't matter too much anyway (goes back to working)

Okay, I get that, but doesn't Gore realize that he could get a lot more moderate appeal by going out and doing something (even just planting trees himself, or organizing an event on the spot) rather then just writing a check every month? He would get the same overall result, but far more National attention and people will start to shut up about his "affluent" life style.

they won't shut up about him no matter what he does. they are right-wing trolls.

and it seems to me that he has somehow managed to get more national attention focused on climate change than anyone else, ever, in the history of the world.

they won't shut up about him no matter what he does. they are right-wing trolls.

and it seems to me that he has somehow managed to get more national attention focused on climate change than anyone else, ever, in the history of the world.
What I mean is that he would appeal to the more moderate persons of America If he actually went out and got his hands dirty helping the environment rather than just hand out some money every month so people will do it for him.

EDIT: Misread quote

It's Al Gore's fault. Burn his house.

Yeah. The bastard should never have invented global warming.

Carbon offsets are something the progressive elite has dreamt up so they can keep their excessive lifestyle (they can afford to buy many 'offsets') while us 'commoners' will just have to shut up, stop flying planes and stop driving.

Carbon offsets are a bit like tax cuts for the rich.

No. Tax cuts are tax cuts for the rich.

Carbon offsets are like junk bonds for the those who only wish to cheat their conscience.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that Humanity hasn't messed up the environment since the Industrial revoultion.

As for Carbon offsets, what exactly are they? Are they just planting trees or what? I personally think that it's just a fiscal cop out of actual doing something (like for example, buying land in Montana and starting a park/forest there. Gore has more than enough money for something like that)

In theory you pay to have carbon emissions reduced somewhere else by the amount that you produce. e.g. It would be impossible to build a wind farm in NYC. It's impossible to build a football stadium in NYC. But one of those companies could pay for a wind farm that could replace a coal burning power plant in Washington State, or something like that.

The thing is, there are companies that proport to offset your carbon emissions, but they sell credits for things that are "yet to be implemented." Rather like how a company that contributes to the Bush administration can calculate its value based on projected earnings on the "infinite horizon," i.e. "our company is worth a trillion dollars because it could earn a dollar a year for a trillion years."

So yes, there's some scam in carbon offsetting, but there's some value in it too. Like every venture that most people don't understand, it is going to have a large share of people willing to make money by exploiting ignorance.

What I mean is that he would appeal to the more moderate persons of America If he actually went out and got his hands dirty helping the environment rather than just hand out some money every month so people will do it for him.

EDIT: Misread quote

You mean like how George Bush spends an hour or two a year clearing brush on the grounds of his palatial summer home while reporters take pictures before he hands the duty back to his groundskeepers?

Yeah. Al Gore would appeal to more conservative voters if he were full of shit. That's what they seem to go for.

What a childish stunt to pull.

You also made a very childish assumption. Don't assume that just because you're an intellectual coward, everyone else is as well.



I'm not the one dismissing anything that doesn't support my cozy little world view out of hand, little boy. Do you think your petty insults matter to me? did you honestly think you could play the arrogant bully and make me arfraid to confront you? I assure you, you are completely insignificant. I'm an intellectual coward, eh? Well, here's your chance to prove your vast intellectual superiority: provide a link from someone who actually knows anything about climate that proves that mankind isn't contributing to climate change. I will not accept the word of an economist. I will not accept the word of anyone hired by some corporation, and I most certainly won't take your word for it.

I'm an intellectual coward, eh? Well, here's your chance to prove your vast intellectual superiority: provide a link from someone who actually knows anything about climate that proves that mankind isn't contributing to climate change. I will not accept the word of an economist.
What if that economist also happens to be an expert on climatology, even if his education in the subject is purely informal?

I will not accept the word of anyone hired by some corporation, and I most certainly won't take your word for it.

Same argument applies.

Here's your problem: An intelligent critical thinker realizes that GOOD IDEAS STAND ON THEIR OWN MERITS. It does not matter who is making the argument. A good argument is a good argument, and a bad argument is a bad argument, based solely on the argument itself, and not the identity or associations of the individual making it.

Certainly, someone with a formal education in the subject is probably MORE LIKELY to have a valid argument than someone without. But it's not necessary. To pretend that it is is, yes, intellectual cowardice.

Evaluate the argument, not the arguer.

Is the sky blue?

Yes.

Carbon offsets are a massive scam.

Al Gore buys them from a company he himself founded. Nice gig that.

Al Gore profits from his own scaremongering.

Climate change is still a natural phenomenon, and has been for millions of years.

And radical climate shifts have happened before.

Let's adapt, people. Because you cannot stop the climate from changing, nor can we stop the tectonic plates from shifting or the earth from turning.

Cool. Bunkers for everyone.

What would be the alternative for Gore in your opinion? Ah. Live in a bunker. Adapt. Go nowhere.

What if that economist also happens to be an expert on climatology, even if his education in the subject is purely informal?

No. Find a climate expert, little man.



Same argument applies.

Here's your problem: An intelligent critical thinker realizes that GOOD IDEAS STAND ON THEIR OWN MERITS. It does not matter who is making the argument. A good argument is a good argument, and a bad argument is a bad argument, based solely on the argument itself, and not the identity or associations of the individual making it.

Certainly, someone with a formal education in the subject is probably MORE LIKELY to have a valid argument than someone without. But it's not necessary. To pretend that it is is, yes, intellectual cowardice.

Evaluate the argument, not the arguer.

You're right, a valid argument stands on its own merit. Here's the problem: you don't have an argument. Your "expert's" argument is specious. He made the same error that everyone who argues against climate change seems to make. It goes something like this: "The climate was vastly different in the distant past. We didn't cause the Ice Age, did we? So that means we're not causing it now. It's only nature." Yes it was indeed much warmer or colder in the distant past. Yes, there is some sort of natural cycle to climate. None of that changes the fact that we are speeding up the process. I'm not the one denying the validity of a theory just because I'd rather it weren't true. I readily admit that there is a natural element to climate change. But it's only one element of the equation. It is you who are being an intellectual coward. Not to mention the arrogance implicit in your apparent assumption that your belief is what makes it so, and that any different viewpoint is by definition wrong. If you can provide proof from an actual climate expert from a neutral source (I wouldn't insult your intelligence by attempting to use Greenpeace as a source; don't insult mine by quoting someone, even someone with a meterology degree, if they're being paid for by Exxon) that human influence on climate change is a falsehood, I'll accept your evidence and at least admit that the jury is still out. Go ahead and prove me wrong.

No. Find a climate expert, little man.
What a juvenile remark.





You're right, a valid argument stands on its own merit. Here's the problem: you don't have an argument. Your "expert's" argument is specious.
I haven't even made my argument here one way or another! The sole contents of my posts in this thread have been to try to get you to understand that the person making the argument has no bearing on the argument itself.
He made the same error that everyone who argues against climate change seems to make. It goes something like this: "The climate was vastly different in the distant past. We didn't cause the Ice Age, did we? So that means we're not causing it now. It's only nature." Yes it was indeed much warmer or colder in the distant past.
Agreed--that argument is fallacious. But I wasn't expressing any support for it at all!. I was just objecting to you dismissing him out of hand because he's an economist, rather than actually bothering to point out the flaws in his argument.

It is you who are being an intellectual coward.
How so?

Not to mention the arrogance implicit in your apparent assumption that your belief is what makes it so,
(a) I have never made such a claim
(b) There is no way for you to know one way or another anyway, since I have not commented in this thread (or in fact anywhere on the NS forums) on the validity of anthropogenic global warming.

Don't pretend I said something I didn't. It's yet another sign of intellectual cowardice.

What a juvenile remark.






I haven't even made my argument here one way or another! The sole contents of my posts in this thread have been to try to get you to understand that the person making the argument has no bearing on the argument itself.

Agreed--that argument is fallacious. But I wasn't expressing any support for it at all!. I was just objecting to you dismissing him out of hand because he's an economist, rather than actually bothering to point out the flaws in his argument.


How so?


(a) I have never made such a claim
(b) There is no way for you to know one way or another anyway, since I have not commented in this thread (or in fact anywhere on the NS forums) on the validity of anthropogenic global warming.

Don't pretend I said something I didn't. It's yet another sign of intellectual cowardice.

Well, now I have pointed out the flaw in his argument. If you didn't support it, why post it? Your posts made it look as thpugh you did support him. You might have considered clarifying that rather than throwing the words "intellectual cowardice" around. You know what? I don't care what you think of me, and I am not letting you goad me further. You're going on my ignore list.