Our SUV's are belching out too much greenhouse gas and causing global warming, right? Maybe not.
From Canada.com comes the story of an international team that looked at the ocean floor in the Arctic.
They found huge fountains of gas and molten lava exploding from the ocean floor.
The scientists say the heat released by the explosions is not contributing to the melting of the Arctic ice, but Sohn says the huge volumes of CO2 gas that belched out of the undersea volcanoes likely contributed to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. How much, he couldn't say.
I find it hard to believe that all this geothermal activity wouldn't be melting the Arctic ice...while our Ford Expeditions are. He does at least say that the CO2 this volcanic activity is emitting is "contributing" to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Man, getting these politically correct "scientists" to admit that anything natural could be affecting climate is like pulling teeth, isn't it?
The Arctic seabed is as explosive geologically as it is politically judging by the "fountains" of gas and molten lava that have been blasting out of underwater volcanoes near the North Pole.
Yes, neither this volcanic activity under the North Pole, nor the huge star in the middle of our solar system could possibly cause temperature changes on the earth.
And they say Christians aren't rational...
36 comments:
So by comparison, it's *irrational* to care about the environment, stop raping our natural resources, find cleaner sources of energy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and end this Freudian obsession with driving big gas-guzzling SUVs?
Why are Christians (if you're going to generalize, I might as well too) so vehemently against this so-called liberal propaganda about global warming? You have every right to drive an irresponsibly fuel-inefficient vehicle, but you don't NEED to. In fact, I'm willing to bet that hardly anyone who drives an SUV actually needs one. Is it so irrational to drive a more economical car that doesn't greedily consume the precious, finite amount of fuel that millions of drivers have to share?
I don't like SUVs either, but people should have the right to drive what they believe they need or want.
I can't speak for other Christians, but I vehemently oppose this anthropogenic global warming myth because (1) it is based more on conjecture than science, (2) ignores common sense as I stated in this article, and (3) if we're going to radically retard our economic future, it should be based on solid evidence and not the conjecture of a lot of people who have an anti-capitalist, anti-Western agenda.
Study after study conducted by independent scientists around the globe shows that global warming is occurring at an incredible rate. Internationally, nobody is debating about whether or not it exists, and what the cause is. The CO2 prouced by volcanoes and other natural sources is nothing compared to the scale on which human activities has been spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. Admitting that the problem exists is neither anti-capitalist nor anti-Western because if we wanted to, the West could use all its technology to create cleaner alternatives and end our dependency on fossil fuels (a non-renewable resource anyways). There is a huge "green" movement developing in America today, as we're finally starting to feel the effects of global warming and the limits to fossil fuels. All it takes to star living greener are small lifestyle changes, such as buying compact florescent bulbs, bringing your own cloth bags to the grocery store to avoid wasting plastic bags, buying smaller, fuel-efficient cars, recycling, growing gardens instead of huge water-guzzling lawns,etc. Those aren't huge sacrifices, and more and more Americans are freely choosing to make them. If the market's smart it will continue to catch on, but we need the government to endorse and sponsor the research that will lead to cleaner fuels and a healthier environment so that future generations will be inherit a better world.
Furthermore, being so "vehemently" opposed to the notion that human actions have environmental consequences is not only ignorant, it's downright dangerous. Anyone who reads the news can see the increasing effects of global warming: warmer winters, more severe natural disasters, increasing numbers of animals on the endangered species list, food crisis, melting polar ice caps, etc. It's happening whether you think it is or not. If you ignore it, it's not only at your own peril, but the peril of your children and grandchildren.
I'm right there with you, Quill. I think a huge reason for many people's denial of this problem is due to religion. Christians believe that Christ could return at any minute, so what's the point in securing our environment for future generations? This kind of "logic" will our undoing, because when we finally wake up and realize that Christ isn't returning (because it's a myth), it will already be too late.
Each day I'm more convinced that aliens are observing us from space saying, "Let's skip this planet - these people are too dumb to bother with."
Quill, I'd appreciate it if you'd click on the "Global Warming" topic on the left side of the page and examine the huge amount of evidence contrary to anthropogenic global warming.
The "science" upon which this fantasy is based is thin, at best. It is based on a lot of conjecture and a little bit of climate data. Computer models have been found to be notoriously incapable of accurate prediction--for that matter, we don't know what the weather will be like tomorrow, much less 100 years from now. Many of the temperature data collection sites are unreliable, over the years having changed from rural environments to urban ones where the data is much more likely to be thrown off (I saw a picture of one which was right next to an air conditioning vent of a building, and what to air conditioning vents do--spit out hot air).
Further, the "consensus" that Al Gore desperately wants people to believe exists is simply a lie. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 31,000 scientists have signed the Oregon petition stating they flatly disagree with the theory of anthropogenic global warming, or that there is insufficient evidence to reach that conclusion.
It is beyond ludicrous to believe that our puny human activities will ever amount to anything significant compared to volcanic activity, gas released from oceans, natural climate cycles, and solar activity (all of which are well documented). Historical data shows periods even warmer than now in ages past; Greenland used to really be green, and even vineyards grew there. There's even warming occurring on Mars, Jupiter and other planets--and it's a pretty safe bet there are no SUVs, coal-fired power plants or incandescent bulbs on any of those worlds.
Doing ANYTHING substantial in response to what is only a theory supported by the thinnest of circumstantial evidence would be highly irresponsible. That some people are so hysterical about it (and those same people are also usually anti-capitalist and anti-Western) with so little solid evidence indicates a political agenda rather than a rational, scientific response.
Anonymous, Christ WILL return someday, and while no one knows for sure, it may be sooner than a lot think. Regardless, I don't think that's the reason many Christians aren't buying this malarky. I think the main reason is what I already stated above, but also that we understand that God was intelligent enough to create a planet that can perform a significant degree of self-maintenance--which it does (just took at the gas recycling system between animals and plants, or the gas-exchange properties of the ocean). If this planet was the end-product of random chance, it might be pretty scary what hung in the balance of the slightest wrong move...but it isn't. It's designed better than the best house, car, airplane or computer.
And as long as we show a little responsible stewardship, there'll be no need to worship the creation or enslave ourselves to it in a vain and foolish attempt to alter it's natural climate.
"Doing ANYTHING substantial in response to what is only a theory supported by the thinnest of circumstantial evidence would be highly irresponsible."
Exactly. That's why I prefer not to live my live according to a fairy tale, and it's the great tragedy of our planet that we kill ourselves over which one is right, and that common sense is clouded by wishful thinking.
Most of the "science" that conservative sources cite in regards to global warming was funded by oil companies and others who profit from not facing reality.
If you live another 20 years, you won't be able to deny the effects of global warming any longer. But the truly reprehensible effect of such denial is that your children and grandchildren will have to live with this mess a lot longer than you will. Denying that global warming exists serves only one purpose: protecting oil companies and the heavy industries and the hedonism that is destroying our environment and therefore, humanity.
Doesn't the Bible speak of making sacrifices when necessary for the sake of others? And even if global warming didn't exist, wouldn't developing green technologies only leave our children with a cleaner world? What is the harm in that?
Oh yeah, the "oil companies are evil, lying filth" defense. Whether someone did get paid by an oil company or not, say they did to make the information sound incredible.
Of course, we won't talk about all the money coming from Leftist groups and the pockets being lined with "research grants" and such.
Meanwhile, common sense, solar activity and historical climate change information is, uh, irrelevant, yeah, irrelevant.
Bob,
What exactly is anti-capitalist and anti-Western about believing that global warming is real? Oh, and try to answer without the childish sarcasm you've shown Quill. Thanks.
You didn't like that little reversal on the tired old charge against the evil oil companies, eh?
The chief purveyors of this fantasy are anti-capitalist and anti-Western. They have pre-existing agendas against business and usually expect Western nations to bear the brunt of efforts to curb this theoretical anthropogenic global warming while giving other polluting nations a pass.
And it's all based on the assumption that our puny emissions have a greater effect than solar emissions (which incidentally seem to be causing global warming on Mars and Jupiter where, the last I checked, there were no SUVs or coal-fired power plants) and natural planet cycles such as the one which found Greenland once warm enough to support vineyards.
What's more, the alleged scientific data which supposedly supports this contention is flawed and has had to be revised, and is gathered from climate stations that are themselves suspect (e.g. they were once in rural areas that have now become urbanized--one station I saw was sitting next to an air conditioner vent blowing hot air on it.
In short, it's unfounded, defies common sense, and has an anti-capitalist and anti-Western source.
Thanks. I always like to hear what a Christian considers an unfounded, common sense-defying fantasy, considering...
And now you know.
Kinda makes Christians look pretty faithless, doesn't it?
Or just embarrassingly biased and deluded.
I'd bank on "faithless."
Believing what global warming apostles believe in the face of unreliable data, contrary evidence and a total lack of common sense, Christians almost look like atheists, they have such little faith.
It actually takes quite a bit of faith to be an atheist, if you think about it.
Also, it seems that Christians like you get behind science only when it bodes well for your religion. I'm not just talking about global warming, but any kind of scientific data or historical findings that might "prove" something about Christianity. But when researchers discover anything that questions the inerrancy of the Bible or punches a hole in the overall "logic" of Christianity, you're all too quick to discard that research as what you just called it: an unfounded fantasy that defies common sense.
If you were objective, you would treat ALL scholarship with an equal amount of skepticism.
You're right about the amount of faith it takes to be an atheist.
And I do treat all scholarship with an equal amount of skepticism.
I understand why you say Christians only get behind science when it bodes well for our religion. However, have you considered the possibility that maybe our religion is right, and it's the truth, and we only get behind "science" that harmonizes with the truth?
While I admit it takes considerable faith to believe some of the claims of the Bible, I've examined the Bible from a critical--even skeptical perspective--and after considerable examination found that none of the criticisms of it either stand up or rise to the level of a serious problem. On the other hand, there are a tremendous amount of statements and claims made by the Bible that have been and continue to prove real.
Global warming, on the other hand, (as I've said above) is based almost entirely on conjecture, can't be proven, has predictive computer models that don't work at all without continual tweaking, ignores history, and doesn't even pass the smell test.
If there's ever solid, reliable evidence for anthropogenic global warming, I'll join the herd. But based on the mountain of evidence to the contrary right now, I have serious doubts that'll ever happen.
I have considered the possibility that maybe Christianity is right. I believed it for 20 years, until I woke up and realized that every other religion claims to be right. The only reason I believed Christianity was the right one is that I was taught from an early age to believe it, and I was surrounded by a community of fellow believers. If circumstances had been different, and I had grown up in a Muslim culture, I would have been just as convinced that Islam is the right religion. And so would you.
I won't disagree that certain biblical claims have been proven -- as long as we stay within the realm of history and geography. But when it comes to the basics, like whether or not Christ is the Messiah, you have absolutely no proof, and never will. The fundamental tenet of your religion is grounded in faith, not fact. Therefore, why not take it on faith that Christ is NOT the Messiah, and that Muhammad is the only way to Heaven? Or go the way of Tom Cruise and believe that Xenu will come to earth and whisk you away on his spaceship? Or worship Anubis as the one true god? You have just as much evidence to believe these things as you do that Jesus Christ is the son of God. The fact that you insist on being a Christian anyway is the result of bias, arrogance, double standards, and ethnocentrism.
This is why I get so uneasy when Christians deride global warming as a "myth," considering the things they already take purely on a gut feeling. At least there's scientific evidence, albeit dubious, in support of global warming. That's more than Christians can say about proof that Christ is the Messiah.
* I don't like SUVs either, but people should have the right to drive what they believe they need or want.
i want a tank. i need a tank. and i'm going to drive it down your street, bob. come on, what silly things you say! obviously there are and should be limits, so the question is, what should the limits be? and should those limits be strictly imposed, or encouraged by subsidies and taxes? but that would be a thoughtful discussion of policy, something that doesn't happen on this blog.
* I can't speak for other Christians, but
you nevertheless claim to have the one and only christian truth, all the time.
* I vehemently oppose this anthropogenic global warming myth because (1) it is based more on conjecture than science,
this is completely wrong, as can be easily documented. but there are lots of things out there that are based on conjecture, and you don't get in a lather about those. oh, except for christianity, which is based on the ultimate conjecture (mind you, i'm ok with that aspect; it's the claim of universal, objective truth that troubles me).
* (2) ignores common sense as I stated in this article,
also wrong. CO2 absorbs heat. that's basic physics. in fact, we measure CO2 concentrations by measuring the ability of the air to absorb infrared radiation (heat) of specific wavelengths.
you don't understand the effects of greenhouse gases on global temperature and climate, but simply pointing out your lack of understanding ("I find it hard to believe that all this geothermal activity wouldn't be melting the Arctic ice...while our Ford Expeditions are") is not an argument. neither is your failure to understand the distinction between climate and weather.
* and (3) if we're going to radically retard our economic future, it should be based on solid evidence
of course it is based on solid evidence, but you automatically reject anything that doesn't fit your preconception.
and responding intelligently to anthropogenic global change won't "radically retard our economic future." many people have been saying for years that this creates enormous economic opportunities. but not all the money will be made by the same people making piles of money now, doing the same things that they're doing now.
bob, someone got you to swallow their political and economic agenda, apparently by wrapping it up in religion. remember when james watt, reagan's secretary of the interior, said that jesus was coming and would be angry if we hadn't used all the resources god gave us? i've read a good bit of the bible, but i missed the part where it says that we should go forth, multiply, and subdue the earth like there's no tomorrow. look, bob, it'd be a bad idea to poop in the well that supplies your drinking water, right? well, more than six billion of us pooping in the ocean matters, and dumping gas into the atmosphere matters.
don't you ever ask yourself why your views on politics, the economy, and the environment correspond to those pushed by bill o'reilly, the bush administration, and the petrochemical industry? don't you ever ask yourself whether it's really in your interest to further those positions?
i'm a scientist, and i've published research papers in the primary, peer-reviewed scientific literature on the effects of CO2 and temperature change on plants. what i find to be the most compelling argument for taking care of the environment (including responding thoughtfully to global climate change) is that a failure to do so would be really selfish.
you must be aware that there are evangelical christians who are concerned about global climate change and other conservation issues. i wish you would go talk with some of them, listen to them, and think about what they're saying. they have a religious, christian motivation. and the science is on their side.
~ robin
Well said, Robin, but you're wasting your time. Bob is a sheep, nothing more.
Robin, you revealed your own bias with a number of comments which indicate you probably are of the anti-capitalist bent.
Since you don't want something, you'd like to spoil the party for everyone. Opposing something because it hurts people or because it's immoral is one thing; opposing for everyone simpy because you don't like it is a different matter. If that were sound, I'd be with you on the SUVs; I hate 'em. But we have this thing in America called freeeeeeedom. It's a wonderful thing. We don't need to be like these socialist countries where freedom is a shadow of what people should be entitled to in full.
I don't know why Bill O'Reilly, the Bush administration and the oil industry agree with me, but it's to their credit.
But I know I won't change your mind. In fact, I'm not here to change your mind. I'm here to present evidence to people who are open to the truth so that they get both sides (something curiously absent from the "mainstream" media). They can examine the evidence and make up their minds accordingly. And they are.
I'm seeing all across this great land of ours that fewer and fewer people are buying this sci-fi thriller of anthropogenic global warming, and more and more people are starting to call it out for the lunacy it is. Once you show people that it doesn't even pass the common-sense smell-test, much less the rigors of real science, they can figure it out from there.
So go ahead, Robin. Stay in your fantasy world, if it's comfortable for you. Meanwhile the rest of us will be out here buying and consuming and driving and being free and loving it.
Anonymous 2:03 - Ooooooooooho! Heeee! Wow!!! Sheep! That's a good one Anonymous!
Last I checked, you guys and the rest of the herd were following Saint Al Gore. I'm in the "going against the grain" and "questioning" and "nonconformity" category. You know; the ones who think for themselves?
Sheep? Go look in the mirror. Baaaa-aaaa!
(Where are my shears?)
bob - i don't know how my statement that global change offers enormous economic opportunities reveals an anti-capitalist bent. i thought that capitalists like economic opportunities. you set up the proverbial straw man and then spend the rest of your response on that, rather than on anything i said.
al gore is a politician, not a scientist. railing against him is misplaced. his film was a pretty reasonable approximation of the scientific consensus at that time, but he's a consumer of information, not a producer. the obsession with al gore only serves to highlight the fixation on personalities rather than issues.
so, you want to present evidence? try the following, which was published in the journal science, one of the very top most respected and influential journals in the world.
and don't bother dragging out some online petition in response. anybody can sign on to those, whether they know anything about the subject or not.
~ robin
------
Science 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes* 3 December 2004
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
References and Notes
1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
3. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
7. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
8. See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
9. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.
* The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail: noreskes@ucsd.edu
Sorry Robin; we don't take admonitions not to "drag out" relevant information here.
There wasn't even consensus in 2004, and there certain isn't now. Gathering a bunch of socialists who already agree to the same fantasy isn't consensus; it's mass delusion.
The Oregon Petition, which I'm reasonably sure is the one you didn't want to see "dragged out," has verified the academic and scientific credentials of thousands who have signed the petition. I'm sure they'd be surprised at the consensus nobody told them about; how sad that they missed the herd.
Click on the "global warming" topic link on the left side of the page and you'll find references to many more scientist who somehow missed the "consensus train" when it left the station.
I guess for whatever reason they decided to remain in Realityville.
Anthropogenic global warming doesn't even pass the common sense test, much less the test of science. More and more people are waking up to the fact every year; pretty soon you and Al Gore will join the Malthusians on the ash heap of history.
"Last I checked, you guys and the rest of the herd were following Saint Al Gore. I'm in the 'going against the grain' and 'questioning' and 'nonconformity' category. You know; the ones who think for themselves?"
Is this really what you do with your time -- sit there at your little computer and point fingers at people, condemning anyone who disagrees with you as a conformist liberal? When the rest of us are working at our real jobs, you think you're enlightened enough to inform the public and present them with accurate information? God help us all.
come on, bob, don't be afraid to post this. you say that you want to provide information so that your thoughtful readers can make their own decisions.
so tell them more about the oregon petition, including their website at petitionproject.org. using the numbers at that website, the astute reader can ascertain that they have the signatures of about 165 ph.d.-holding scientists in atmospheric sciences, climatology, meteorology, and ecology combined, out of the many thousands of practicing scientists in those fields nationwide.
at that website, it's also clear that they "verify" the credentials of the signers by having them check a box on a form. the only requirement to sign is that the signers claim to have a b.s. degree; just under one-third say they have a ph.d.
your readers might also be intrigued that the petition project highlights as its 'peer-reviewed' research on global change an article published in a medical journal. i'm sure that it will please you that some of your readers will be stimulated into wondering why the authors couldn't get their article published in any of the many journals on meteorology, climatology, atmospheric physics, ecology, global change biology, and so on, that would be far more relevant. how is it that there's no consensus, but there seems to be a consensus that that article didn't merit publication?
encourage your readers to go to sourcewatch.org, and check out the sponsors of the oregon petition. there they can learn that two of the people listed as faculty at the sponsoring organization, the oregon institute for science and medicine, are dead. yes, dead. but that's ok, since the "institute" of which they are "faculty" has no classes and no students.
you can have your own opinion, bob, but you don't get your own facts. and in science, you don't get to make stuff up.
~ robin
Anonymous 7:01 - Everyone has an opinion and a right to it; you're proof of that yourself.
To ask the same question, is this all you do with your time--sit there at your little computer and point fingers at people, condemning anyone who disagrees with you as a nonconformist conservative? While the rest of us are working at our real jobs, you think you're slick enough to misinform the public and present them with inaccurate information?
No, Bob. I visit your site for my daily dose of insanity while I'm at work. Unlike you, I don't make a full-time job out of misinforming people.
bob - congratulations! it's commendable that you are willing to post information that totally shreds the credibility of sources of "information" that is critical to your arguments.
i've been reading more about the association of association of american physicians and surgeons (aaps), the organization that published what the oregon institute considers to be the key article supporting their perspective. apparently, the aaps is basically a mailbox, which it shares with other organizations of similar political orientation.
the journal put out by the aaps is called "the journal of american physicans and surgeons." that's where the key article upon which the oregon petition bases their argument was published. i searched the institute for scientific information / web of science database, which is widely considered to be the central index for peer-reviewed scientific journals. the journal of american physicians and surgeons is not listed here.
i also searched the library holdings of the orbis/cascade alliance, which comprises forty-six academic libraries in the pacific northwest. member libraries include the major public universities (the universities of washington and oregon, washington state and oregon state), private liberal arts colleges, and religious colleges (including george fox university). not a single institution in the orbis /cascade alliance lists the journal of american physicians and surgeons among their holdings.
so, the "journal" that published the article that the oregon petition project highlights as their star witness appears not to be taken seriously by anyone but themselves. the "executive director" of the aaps, jane orient, is also on the board of the oism (oregon institute for science and medicine), which sponsors the petition project.
in other words, for those who have lost the plot at this point, the primary "evidence" that supports the petition project is published by people associated with the petition project.
and two of the "faculty" for the oism, an institute without courses or students, are sons of the founder. but at least, unlike two other "faculty" members, they aren't dead.
heard enough, bob? are you still taking their stuff seriously?
oh, but some oism associates did manage to get something published in the journal climate research. in response to the acceptance of that paper, half of the editorial board of the journal resigned.
apparently there's some sort of consensus among climate and atmospheric scientists.
still, i think it's good for science that there are people who challenge the consensus. but it's a misrepresentation to portray them as the majority.
~ robin
Robin, I think you're reading off some press releases that are out of date. Based on a news report I read a few months ago, about 9,000 of the 31,000 who've signed the Oregon petition have PhDs. Not that it takes a PhD to wield common sense, or recognize a nutty idea.
I also wouldn't put much stock in the so-called "peer review" process, either. When you have a group of biased elitists who are themselves the guardian high priests of the religion of anthropogenic global warming, what do you expect? If the "scientists" controlling the review process believe the moon is made of cheese, any other view isn't going to survive the "peer review" process.
As I've said before, this silly idea doesn't even pass the smell test. It's promoted by a bunch of anti-capitalists, ignores natural climate data (such as these underwater volcanoes and global warming on planets that don't have SUVs), ignores historic climate change, based on flawed data, fueled by wild conjecture, and can't even come close to "consensus" in the scientific community for that very reason. We can't predict what the weather will be like tomorrow or next year, and yet we somehow "know" we face apocalypse in 100 years? And at least a couple of global warming conferences have been canceled in the last year or so due to blizzards and frigid weather? The emperor simply does not have new clothes!
I think you're really getting terrified that you've hitched your wagon to the wrong horse, Robin. Just a few short years ago, we didn't see this kind of hysterical insistence that we all believe a so-called "scientific" contention built on a teeny bit of science and a whole lot of conjecture. As word gets out that this whole anthropogenic global warming idea is full of hot air (excuse the pun; I couldn't help myself), you're seeing disciples and converts falling off.
Must be sad to be on the wrong side of a bad idea.
bob, once again i've responded to your previous post with facts and figures, and you've chosen not to post my comments.
that's ok. you still haven't responded with any substance to the content of the article by Naomi Oreskes, above. her sources include the national academy of sciences, the american geophysical union, and the american meteorological society. that looks like a consensus to me.
and don't point at the oregon petition and their self-published articles, unless you want to embarrass yourself again. i explained further about why you should be embarrassed to use them as a source, in my previous comment on this thread, which you refused to post.
are you afraid what your readers might think?
~ robin
Robin, checked my comments queue and found no missing comments. Unless they got lost in etherspace somehow, I've posted everything you sent. I did notice that one of my own comments from about 4 days ago didn't post when I thought it did, so there may have been some problem with the comments mechanism.
The articles you posted are meaningless. They are propaganda, not science. They can assert this and assert that and tell themselves they're wearing the emperor's clothes of "consensus," but that doesn't make it so--not by a long shot.
The IPCC is a political body, and they're tied to the UN, which means they're even more political and more suspect, since the UN is an anti-American body filled with a lot of nations that loath the United States and capitalism in general.
And yes, I'll point once again to the Oregon petition because, once again, you're flat wrong. The articles to which I referred were not "self published" but were published by other news organizations. You don't get to rewrite reality so you can get to the fantasy closet and put on your emperor's clothes of "consensus."
As I've said a number of times before, the theory of anthropogenic global warming doesn't even pass the smell test, much less the rigorous test of science. It doesn't pass the threshold of common sense; the sun is irrelevant, volcanic activity is irrelevant, historical climate cycles are irrelevant, but by golly we KNOW with certainty that your Ford Expedition is going to make the planet into a big fireball. All evidence to the contrary is ignored, including the aforementioned previously warmer periods in earth's history, and also warming on planets like Mars and Jupiter where, the last time I checked, there were no SUVs or coal-fired power plants.
Do us both a favor and quit embarrassing yourself, Robin. No amount of propaganda you may be able to come up with is going to be able to overcome the basic, fundamental problems with the theory.
So why don't we call it quits and have a wonderful Independence Day (if you can quit loathing this capitalistic country long enough to give that a try).
yeah, bob, and my dog ate my homework.
still no substance bob. you continue to fail to offer any reason or evidence for rejecting the views of the national academy of sciences, the american geophysical union, and the american meteorological society.
your readers can begin their research on one of your fetish objects, the "oregon institute for science and medicine" on sourcewatch.org.
you, however, seem to be incapable of having new information affect your "thought" processes. but you would further your cause if you spent less time and energy insulting people. i choose to live in this country; i've lived elsewhere, and i have other options. can you say the same, or are you just latching onto what was handed to you?
bob, again, your "doesn't pass the smell test" sort of statements only serve as a public announcement of your failure to understand the science being the topics you're frothing on and on about.
my comments that you chose not to post include the following -
~ robin
-------
in response to your comments of 7/02/2008 7:10 PM, i wrote:
"I think you're reading off some press releases that are out of date. Based on a news report I read a few months ago, about 9,000 of the 31,000 who've signed the Oregon petition have PhDs.
bob, as you know, the arithmetic was in a comment of mine that you declined to post on this site. so here it is again.
the oregon petition website lists signers according to discipline, including Atmospheric Science (114), Climatology (40), Meteorology (341), and Ecology (72). that's a total of 567. if we assume that these people are as likely (neither more nor less) than other signers to have a ph.d. in their field, then we can assume that 29 percent (9071/31072) hold the ph.d. degree. so, 29% of 567 is about 165, which i why i used that number.
but then, why do you feel entitled to expect that my arguments are based on logic, when yours aren't?
i highlight the number of signers who are likely to hold a ph.d., because -- hey, surprise!! -- people with a ph.d. tend to have a different approach from those who have bachelor's degrees. people wth a ph.d. tend to question information more rigorously and be more skeptical of sources than those with bachelor's degrees who, unfortunately, sometimes simply learn what they're told without thinking as critically as they perhaps should.
you started off questioning whether there was a consensus, and now are discarding the peer review process, which is the established, best available means of ascertaining what the consensus is.
you say that it "Must be sad to be on the wrong side of a bad idea". no, bob. i'd be delighted if extinction were not a huge problem, if we weren't overfishing the oceans, killing coral reefs, stripping forests, and denuding the earth of soil. i'd be really, really happy to be wrong about this.
bob, this isn't about wearing the team t-shirt, and painting your face with the team colors. i'm not interesting in chanting "we're number one, we're number one!" i'm interested in knowing what's the best available scientific information and analysis, and what's the most ethical behavior that follows from our best understanding. it's not about winning the argument for me. i'm interested in doing what's best for the world that your descendants will have to live in, bob.
Robin, it looks like you just went to the Oregon petition (www.petitionproject.org), peeled a few numbers off the top and called it "done."
How about a few of those you skipped, like astronomy (58), astrophysics (25), earth science (107), geochemistry (62), geology (1601), geophysics (334), geoscience (23), hydrology (21), environmental engineering (473), environmental science (256), forestry (156), oceanography (86), physics (2310), biochemistry (703), biophysics (65), and biology (985) to name a few.
If you think these disciplines have no relevance to the planet and the climate...well, that might go a long way in explaining why you've bought this nonsense.
And by the way, it doesn't take a PhD, a BA, or even a high school diploma to have enough common sense to see through this silliness. Some trucks and power plants are going to doom us, while the sun, geothermal activity underneath the Arctic, and climate cycles that have been going on for thousands of years are irrelevant. Yeah, go pull my other leg now.
I honestly haven't seen those previous comments you allege were submitted and never published; they may very well have ended up lost in cyberspace.
But if you can't come up with anything better than this, if you can't at least be honest, then I WILL shut off your comments. I've wasted enough of my time on supposition, misrepresentation and bad information.
Now go have a fun Independence Day whether you like it or not.
"So why don't we call it quits and have a wonderful Independence Day (if you can quit loathing this capitalistic country long enough to give that a try)."
Bob, what has Robin ever said that makes you think she loathes America?! What an insanely hateful idiot you are!
Because that is what is behind and what fuels this global warming fantasy: hatred of the United States.
It's promoted by a bunch of former communists and socialists, with the primary emphasis on crippling the capitalist Western nations, primarily America. Have you noticed that environmental proposals, including Kyoto, want to slam the United States while giving a pass to some of the world biggest polluters like China and India?
And when I invited Robin to " have a wonderful Independence Day (if you can quit loathing this capitalistic country long enough to give that a try)," he/she essentially confirmed my suspicions when he/she said "this isn't about wearing the team t-shirt, and painting your face with the team colors. i'm not interesting in chanting 'we're number one, we're number one!'"
This is the same kind of "Oh, what a terrible place is America" and "Oh, America is nothing special" and "Oh America is not and should not be number one" kind of anti-American sentiment behind this anthropogenic global warming insanity.
What's more--without a single bit of reliable evidence! And a mountain of evidence to the contrary, which indicates any warming is natural and cyclic!
America is one of the cleanest countries in the world, and has actually met Kyoto standards better than Europe has, even though we didn't sign the agreement.
It's about crippling America's economy under the weight of a bunch of unnecessary and foolish requirements which won't change the climate one iota.
I happen to love America, and unless we blow it by completely abandoning our moral foundation or straight-jacket ourselves with the idiotic requirements being called for under global warming initiatives, we are the best hope the world has for freedom and prosperity.
I'm not about to stand idly by and see that destroyed by a fantasy, or to describe it more accurately, pure propaganda.
Post a Comment