Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Oh, no! You're not puttin' up Inhofe as a spokesperson? And he actually quotes from a guy named "Harold Ambler"? Man, this is gettin' surreal...

Inhofe, Inhofe...does he have any ties to the Petroluem Industry, do you think? Plus, he's from, uh, let's see...Oklahoma? That makes him also, um, a ...Creationist, I s'pose...er, an "Intelligent Designist", I think they may be called now, although I can't keep up with all the Republican Party 'nomencature-change' memos...

(It cracks me up the way he says: "Global kew-w-lin'"...)

For all of you to ponder -- Kent, I ran the title of your book past four of my colleagues in Earth and Atmospheric Sciences (granted no one famous enough to be in Lawrence Solomon's book) and asked them if they would read it in order to evaluate the science behind the claims. After hearing the title three of them laughed at my choice of the phrase "science behind the claims," while the fourth person said that he was familiar with the book. I thought "good" here might be a different opinion from which I might learn something. He said it was written by a guy who heads a conservative-based political organization called the "Energy Probe Research Foundation." He also said, "that guy's a joke."

When I forwarded to one of the four some the quotes Kent listed in a previous post his response was "Read them. Many don't refute global warming as man made they just say that they don't think that global warming is responsible for hurricanes or mosquito-borne diseases or they say that the sun may, and I repeat MAY be affecting climate change. For some folks in my discipline the jury is still out on the effects of global warming, not that it has been affected by or accelerated by mankind. That horse is already out of the barn."

Here are three quotes from Kent's previous posts to which my colleague may have been referring. I'm assuming that they are from the jacket cover.

Dr. Christopher Landsea—past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones—says “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.”

Prof. Paul Reiter—Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute—says “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Al Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Dr. Sami Solanki—director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun’s state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: “The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.”

Now those are some strong, unequivocal statements about the nature of global warming if I've ever heard any. There is no conclusive link between global warming and hurricanes, between global warming and mosquitoes, and, get this, the sun MAY be the principal cause of global warming. There you have it. Proof that man has had no effect on global warming.

I have ordered the book and will read it and then recycle it. Thanks Dane for reminding us of the rhetorical attempts to recast this debate in a way that would be more favorable to a certain political ideology.

A few quotes from Dr Sami Solanki:

"since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming."
(Solanki, S. 2004, "How Strongly Does the Sun Influence the Global Climate?". Max Planck Society.)

"A misleading account of my views was published in the Toronto National Post in March, 2007 (and is to be found at different places on the web). In contrast to what is written there I am not a denier of global warming produced by an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases. Already at present the overwhelming source of global warming is due to manmade greenhouse gases and their influence will continue to grow in the future as their concentration increases. The same newspaper already misquoted other scientists on this topic."
(Solanki, S. http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/solanki/science.html. Retrieved on 2009-02-06.)

(Note: The quote, "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures." attributed to Dr Solanki above, neither refutes nor makes any comment relating to man-made climate change, though it appears to have been falsely used to do so.)

Inhofe, Inhofe...does he have any ties to the Petroluem Industry, do you think? Plus, he's from, uh, let's see...Oklahoma? That makes him also, um, a ...Creationist, I s'pose...er, an "Intelligent Designist", I think they may be called now, although I can't keep up with all the Republican Party 'nomencature-change' memos...

Avoid the issue / Attack the messenger. Dane, I expected no less from you.

I have ordered the book and will read it and then recycle it.

glad to hear it, Bob.... because so far it appears that you've let other people do your thinking for you.
And what do you mean by "then recycle it"? Have you already dismissed it in your mind? If so, why bother reading it?
After all, at 200+ pages it's a VERY VERY long book, eh?

Like I said, guys, if this thread had caused even one person to realize that Al Gore's "the science is settled" is simply BS, then all my postings will have been worthwhile. As for Inhofe, I'd LOVE to see a fair and open debate between him and Algore. It'll never happen because Algore absolutely refuses any and all such offers and challenges. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that virtually ALL of his claims have been thoroughly debunked? Naaaaa... I guess he's just too busy saving the world. Yea, that must be it.

Kent, unlike you (here's a quote from one of your previous posts -- "I wont claim to have read every single word on every page") I will read the entire book -- all of the words on all of the pages. I'm sure it will make a nice evening's read.

Again, my apologies that I wasn't clearer. By "recycling" I meant that I would pass it on to others to read. I am surprised that someone who is "generally environmentally sensitive" wouldn't know that people recycle books (i.e. give them to others to read) to save a valuable environmental resource.

As far as letting others do my thinking for me, I've never been accused of that before and certainly won't let you do it for me. Thanks for the spirited exchange.

Living in Australia, I have no idea who James Inhofe is, but in general, if a message relates to a personal opinion (rather than the simple dissemination of fact) then the background of the messenger is most certainly an important consideration.

Whenever my grandfather used to say "Dentists don't know anything. I haven't been to one for 50 years and I'm still fine", I knew that his opinion on dentists was not highly regarded. In his youth, to save costs on return visits, a dentist pulled all his teeth in one session. He probably had good reason to dislike dentists, and additionally had no reason to see one because he hadn't had any teeth for the previous 50 years! This example clearly shows the importance of considering the messenger as well as the message.

I believe it is most pertinent to consider the scientific credentials of anyone who refutes evolution, just as it is important to consider the credentials of anyone who makes any unfounded claim. Unlike those people, I can't rely on the fallback option of praying for a better world. I have to take personal responsibility for the knowledge I have and actions I take to ensure the planet we live on remains liveable on...

Good grief; I don't know Inhofe's credentials either, other than that he's a senator, but to assume he's creationsist, and that he's ignorant because of a regional accent and the fact that he's from Oklahoma, is a bit much, to say the least. If he's saying something daft that's one thing, but attacking the arguer, rather than the argument, is fallacious reasoning in and of itself; argumentum ad hominem as it's formally called.

brammy wrote:Avoid the issue / Attack the messenger. Dane, I expected no less from you.

Well, you've expected no more from yourself in most of your posts, Kent...unless you're going to maintain that your characterizations of Al Gore don't constitute attacks. I'm just returning the favor...

paologregorio wrote:Good grief; I don't know Inhofe's credentials either, other than that he's a senator, but to assume he's creationsist, and that he's ignorant because of a regional accent and the fact that he's from Oklahoma, is a bit much, to say the least. If he's saying something daft that's one thing, but attacking the arguer, rather than the argument, is fallacious reasoning in and of itself; argumentum ad hominem as it's formally called.

I was pretending not to know Inhofe's 'credentials': comedy, as it's formally called. Inhofe's 'credentials', if that's the appropriate term here, are quite easy to come by. I'm not merely 'assuming' that he's a creationist or ignorant. But that aside...

Have you ever been to Oklahoma? I have...my father grew up in Tulsa. I also worked with plenty of "798'ers", members of the Tulsa welding union, on the Alaska pipeline, so I can testify that not everyone from there is ignorant. However...there's a reason why guys like Oral Roberts and Tony Alamo don't come from New York or San Francisco, and that reason is all wrapped up with places like Oklahoma...

Well, you've expected no more from yourself in most of your posts, Kent...unless you're going to maintain that your characterizations of Al Gore don't constitute attacks. I'm just returning the favor...

Sorry, bud, that whining just wont fly. My attacks on Gore were not on him personally .... not on where he's from, or his accent, or his beliefs in other areas.....but on the what he's said and his actions in relation to the issue of Global Warming. Far different from your small minded ad hominem flailing. Either stick to the issue or do us a favor and (once again) run away.

Last warning guys. Either stick to the topic and avoid personal attacks, name calling, baiting etc. or this topic will have to be locked......... as interesting as it is. That would be a most unfortunate consequence of what is for the most part a very civil and lively debate.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Quite right again, as usual, my dear Winston...

Kent, you and I have very much attempted to gain a monopoly on the discourse here, and we haven't done our fair share of the lifting when it comes to keeping things civil. Besides, we're exhibiting a bit too much of our own peculiar writing 'styles' in this thread for many tastes, I'm sure. Let's agree to disagree for now, and let cooler heads express themselves for a bit...

(But...if I've made just one person laugh, I don't consider my time to have been wasted. And I mean, one person besides me, of course...)

Thanks Dane. Btw I am not suggesting that you and Kent refrain from posting I merely request that you keep the rules in mind before you hit that enter key. I have enjoyed this topic and I am sure many others have too. Back to the discource.

Oh btw you have made me laugh more than once.........

I've laughed, I've cried, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times

And now I think it's definitely time for another musical interlude

And now the real cause of global warm ... er ... I mean climate change has been discovered. It was all the screaming girls during Beatlemania!
Our parents were right! The Beatles were bad for us after all!