Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

bails wrote: Unfortunately there are no expert witnesses on the skeptics side available to prove their points, only armchair skeptics*

With all due respect Bails, that's an overstatement. There are a number of scientists who are skeptics, but it appears that the view of the majority of the climate-science community is that they are rogues or cranks.

Here's a partial list of some "qualified" skeptics:

Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, MIT;
William M Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University;
Jan Veizier, Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Ottowa;
Roy Spencer, research scientist at the University of Alabama;
The late Marcel Leroux, Professor of Climatology, Jean Moulin University (died late last year);
Timothy F Ball, Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg.

Given that the area of research is complex, there are a number of different aspects to skepticism and criticism of the accepted orthodoxy, from basic theory to concerns over the methodology used for projections. I can't say I'm well read on all the arguments (apart from my exposure to computer modeling and forecasting), so I'll leave it to anyone who is well-informed to comment further about the merits of the various arguments.

Thank you very muchly.
I'll start reading now.

Reading about the above mentioned scientists themselves is far more interesting than reading about what they actually thought!
I'm not trying to attack the person instead of the argument, but the controversy involving Timothy F. Ball's credential claims appears almost in the same league as L. Ron Hubbard, and Roy Spencer is one the rarest of rare examples of a scientist who denies Darwinian evolution (Please don't change the topic and run with this one!). Each one of the listed scientists has a controvesy/criticism section on Wikipedia.

bails wrote:

dr_bob wrote:*Note: If there are any expert environmental skeptics, please direct me to them. I am merely an armchair advocate, but I'd love to read their papers.

Go back to the first page.... you obviously missed my first post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... al_warming
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/glo ... 051607.htm

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 4616db87e6
.... and I GUARANTEE that each one of the 650 will be personally attacked.

wayang wrote:Thanks for trying to be polite, Kent...I know you did your best.

You're welcome, Dane. Have fun in self imposed exile. Once again you run away when things get a bit warm. I suspect it's a lifetime habit. I also understand that taking a hard look at one's morals is a difficult thing to do. No, I'm not being snide here. I know from personal experience
that it IS a difficult thing. As such, I find it pretty revealing that you refuse to answer the Baby vs Chickens questions. A simple one word answer
is all that is needed but you have refused to do so. Interesting. And YES, Brian is correct to say that the conversation should stay on topic and not get personal. I apologize to Brian for getting off topic with my jibes at you, Dane. Sometimes it's hard for me to avoid such a target rich environment.

And just for the record to ALL......... Please dont think that I'm trying to set myself up as the RickResource pop psychologist. It's not like that at all.
MY answer to Baby vs Chickens? ........ Baby. (see? it aint that hard a question) .... and I didn't think I'd have to, but maybe the question should be modified to include a lock on the chicken cage and bars on the windows. You get the idea.

But for some reason, many people have trouble answering Baby vs Chickens. SHANE... I thought your response was fun and funny. But check it out:
In your fantasy scenario, the baby "proves conclusively that Climate Change is solely the work of mankind". Why is that? Since it's your
story, she could easily have proved that Climate Change is a naturally occurring phenomenon and THIS outcome would have been far better
for mankind, would it not? Why is your first reaction to blame mankind?

I think the Baby vs Chickens question is RIGHT ON topic. The tendency for some people to "Blame Humankind First" is very much connected to people's ability to fall for The Great Global Warming Swindle.... {oops, I meant "Climate Change")

Okay, I'm back...but VERY BRIEFLY! I don't mind when 'things get a bit warm', but I'm not as interested in being called names as I maybe once was...

I just checked back in to say: the baby, okay? I take a hard look at my morals constantly, and I didn't need to think about the question to know what my answer was. I rehearse twice a week with a twenty-piece orchestra, and everyone brings their kids. We have a dozen kids perpetually running around having fun, most of them under five (our dancers double as baby sitters). I love all those kids and they love me...

So anyway, back in hypothetical land: as I stumble down the smoke-filled staircase with a baby in my arms, it occurs to me to wonder: who leaves a baby alone in a burning building? Man, some people...even a mother hen has more maternal regard for the welfare of her chicks than that...

Interestingly, I've heard people answer "chickens" to that question. This answer always comes from hardcore PETA/ELF/ALF types who dont value a human life over the life of an animal (sometimes quite the opposite) .... and that is why the question makes a point of having more than one chicken.

Any way you slice it, the responses to that question can be very interesting and revealing, eh? It's NOT a trick question.... but I suppose some people think it is and try to give it a tricky answer.

bails wrote:Thank you very muchly.
I'll start reading now.

Reading about the above mentioned scientists themselves is far more interesting than reading about what they actually thought!
I'm not trying to attack the person instead of the argument, but the controversy involving Timothy F. Ball's credential claims appears almost in the same league as L. Ron Hubbard, and Roy Spencer is one the rarest of rare examples of a scientist who denies Darwinian evolution (Please don't change the topic and run with this one!). Each one of the listed scientists has a controvesy/criticism section on Wikipedia.

On ya Bails, you're a man of your word!

What's fascinating is, in the reading I've done over the last few days, the amazing lack of respect that scientists appear to have for other scientists (and anyone else for that matter) of differing viewpoint (and this applies equally to those on either side of the argument). From vindictive personal attacks to snide dismissive asides, these people really take criticism personally and give back better than they get. It's like a trashy soap opera, only nastier. There are ego issues and inferiority complexes aplenty out there! It's disconcerting to see slanging matches between people who are viewed as ultra-rational and highly intelligent, but they're only human, after all!

I admit I've been unintentionally evasive about what I actually believe here, and I think I line up with Shane - whilst I'm not convinced of the predictions that have been publicised, prioritising a more eco-friendly culture is a no-brainer. Putting this into practice is the really tough part. There are so many competing interests and so much "short termism" that getting meaningful progress seems to be nigh impossible.

I too think that a more eco-friendly culture is a no-brainer. We should be (and have been) reducing pollution. However, the proposed remedies for Global Warming (or whatever the term used this week) are very economically draconian and threaten to bankrupt prosperous countries while not seriously addressing pollution. That is one of the reasons why Kyoto went down in flames in the US. When even Kerry and Kennedy side with the skeptics, you KNOW there is an agenda other than one of "saving the planet". So-called "carbon trading" is simply a money grab.... and we are talking BIG bucks here. Follow the money.

On July 25, 1997, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, along with 93 other senators (with five senators not voting and none voting in opposition) adopted a resolution stating that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto.

"The relationship between CO2 and temperature in the ice core record show that temperature drives CO2, not the other way round"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... p-and-co2/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -ice-cores

At best, the jury is still WAY out on the subject of man made climate change.

Kent, on several occasions in my life I have taken to a number of topics with an abundance of zeal and angst. So much in fact, that in retrospect, my obsession with my own point of view precluded me from making a rational judgement.

After reading this thread and seeing your response to various environmental topics, I tend to believe you are falling into the same trap into which I fell. I highlighted one instance where you selectively quoted a source to justify your argument: reading the article in full reveals quite the opposite. Please do not let bias and anger cloud your judgement on any topic.

In regard to the Climate Change/Global Warming debate, I may be forgiven for believing many of the skeptics opinions may have something to with Al Gore himself and not his message.

In this matter, I have simply drawn upon my own experiences, reviewed data from national and international sources, and read various article on the topic as well as discussing the matter with others. I have come to my conclusion after assessing the myriad of factors that permeate this topic. At this point in time it is my view the human race has made a substantial contribution to Climate Change, and I see no reason to change that opinion. Ultimately however, the truth will only be revealed long after my demise. In my life, I have adopted a style that lessens my impact on the environment, and I see no harm in that. Think Globally, Act Locally.

In regard to the baby and the chickens, if you wish to lock the cage and bar the windows, why not do away with the chickens altogether, and make it two babies: what would you do then? Alternatively you could bolt the ground floor door shut, preventing entry, and we could all grieve over the loss. The answer I gave was to try and highlight the contribution from all forms of life that exist today.

Even if the baby went on to prove Climate Change/Global Warming was a natural phenomenon, it certainly does not make the situation better for mankind. We are all still encumbered with the consequences of same problem. For this reason it is my view, that instead of arguing over the causes and each others credibility, science should be finding a way to overcome the changes that are occurring in agriculture, rainfall distribution etc etc, and ensure that all life on Earth can continue to exist without fighting over diminishing resources (or anything else for that matter!)

Remember, we did not inherit the Earth from our parents, we have borrowed it from our children.

This debate has been interesting to say the least, the great joy being we are free to voice our opinions without fear of retribution, in real time and at an international level.

Time for a musical interlude.

In regard to the baby and the chickens, if you wish to lock the cage and bar the windows, why not do away with the chickens altogether, and make it two babies: what would you do then? Alternatively you could bolt the ground floor door shut, preventing entry, and we could all grieve over the loss. The answer I gave was to try and highlight the contribution from all forms of life that exist today.

What you did was to change the question. Sure that scenario can be modified in lots of different ways. The two babies scenario (ie: Sophie's choice) would be a valid one for sure. However, the question is what it is. Its is not a trick question and it's purpose it to force someone into revealing whether they value the life of one human over the lives of 3 chickens. No more no less. The fact that so many people have such a hard time in saying "the baby, of course" is one of the reasons Baby vs Chickens is such an interesting exercise.

Even if the baby went on to prove Climate Change/Global Warming was a natural phenomenon, it certainly does not make the situation better for mankind. We are all still encumbered with the consequences of same problem.

We may still be encumbered with the consequences of same problem (although I dont agree that it is one), but we would not be encumbered with the consequences of same solution. In the case of the Global Warming scam, the "solution" IS the problem.

And to your general point of me getting a bit too wrapped up in the whole thing for my own good and does it skew my vision of the subject? Perhaps. But still I stand by my original premise. Look, the fact is that the global warming hysteria is being driven by computer models. Another fact is that these same models, when fed known data from the known past, do not correctly predict know weather outcomes. Shouldn't that all give us pause to ask "hey, what the hell is really going on here?"

And as to the arctic ice, that article showed that the ice was experiencing fluxuations... sometimes more... sometimes less... the point of which is that the doom and gloom predictions that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008 were wrong. In fact, the global sea ice levels we see now equal those seen 30 years ago. Almost every day we see more and more evidence that proves prior predictions wrong, and THAT should at least make us seriously question current predictions..... if not completely laugh them out of the room?

Case in point.... this gloomy 2007 report from ABCturns out to be a false alarm. And this 2005 prediction:also turns out to be wrong. How many times do we have to see prior environmental doom reports disproved before we sit up and start to seriously question current predictions..... if not completely laugh them out of the room? Al Gore, call your office, the hockey stick wants it's money back.

Follow the money.
http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2 ... money.html

And now, another musical interlude.

Doggone it...try as I'd like to stay away, this topic gets me where I live (and where everyone else does, too). It's wrong to characterize the two sides of this debate as 'pro-human' and 'anti-human'...and just as it might be wrong to hate humanity, a 'humanity-uber-alles' frame of mind ignores a lot of what's going wrong in the world.

So, I whipped up another 'hypothetical' I like to call 'drug or money': a woman with a baby-making fetish (and no husband), who's already 'made' six of them (one of whom is autistic), walks into a room with a table in it. On one end of the table is a vial containing a powerful 'fertility' drug...on the other end is a big pile of taxpayers' dollars, earmarked by a previous political administration for 'abstinence education', but otherwise up for grabs...

What's to prevent her from grabbing the drug and the money, and going to the nearest clinic to have a 'litter' of eight?

Fourteen new humans, with no independent means of support, are going to cost you and me a lot more than a cage of chickens would...and while I'm 'pro-human' enough to be opposed to eugenics and in favor of individual reproductive rights, I can't condone completely irresponsible 'procreation' (in either the 'old' or 'new' meaning of that term).

So what's it gonna be: the drug or the money? Or in the case of what's happened out in California, both...

I've been reading this thread and have enjoyed most of it. There are a lot of different opinions on the subject. Yes I mean opinions. Science thought in the 70's an Ice age was coming in the 00's Global warming, now climate change. There may or may not be such a thing, and if there is we may or may not be causing it. The earth will swallow us up whole when we are gone. We are a tiny fraction of a second in it's life.

We as citizens of earth have to take care of this place as it's our home. Renewable energy, while expensive now, will eventually be lower in cost. These sources also have it's challenges. Wind power is UGLY and kills birds. Hydro messes up ecosystems, and so on. Nothing will make everyone happy. Oil is STILL CHEAP. Until it isn't we as a people will be slow to change.

'drug or money': a woman with a baby-making fetish (and no husband), who's already 'made' six of them (one of whom is autistic), walks into a room with a table in it. On one end of the table is a vial containing a powerful 'fertility' drug...on the other end is a big pile of taxpayers' dollars, earmarked by a previous political administration for 'abstinence education', but otherwise up for grabs...

not sure I understand the question. In Baby vs Chickens the person has the choice of rescuing the baby or rescuing the chickens or rescuing neither.

If that's the scenario here... taking fertility drug, taking other people's money, or neither.... I'd say neither. But that's easy for me to say.
After all, these scenarios work best if the reader is put in the position of making the decision, not deciding for someone else.