Climate concern ripped as 'religion'

[didymus]

tinyurl.com/4d9325

Climate concern ripped as 'religion’

Environmentalism, says Czech President Vaclav Klaus, is the new communism, a system of elite command-and-control that kills prosperity and should similarly be condemned to the ash heap of history.
The provocative Mr. Klaus, an economist by training and former prime minister, said in an interview that today’s global warming activists are the direct descendants of the old Marxists who trampled on individual freedoms and undermined free markets in pursuit of a greater good.

“I understand that global warming is a religion conceived to suppress human freedom,” he told editors and reporters at The Washington Times. “It is used to justify an enormous scope for government intervention vis-a-vis the markets and personal freedom.”

The 66-year-old Mr. Klaus was in Washington this week for talks with senior U.S. officials, including Vice President **** Cheney, and to tout his new book, “Blue Planet in Green Shackles,” about the dangers to life, liberty and prosperity posed by the modern environmental movement.

I want to check out Pres. Klaus’s book, I heard him being interviewed on the BBC & it sounded very interesting.

See also this op-ed in the Washington Post by the impeccably liberal Charles Krauthammer about “the Church of the Environment”.

It occurs to me that for a lot of folks freedom is not a noble enough cause – “You leave me alone & I’ll leave you alone” just doesn’t stack up against “Save the — !” whales, children, planet, whatever.

 

[roanoker]

I’ve gotta agree with this guy…Roanoker

 

[Yerusalyim]

This is one of the few times I’ll admit so publically…I agree with Krauthammer full bore.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Yeah, an economist doesn’t like global warming. Isn’t it amazing that those who know the least, are the ones most likely to be deniers?

The communists, BTW, were far more anti-environment than any western nation. Maybe Vaclav longs for the good old days:

Unlike Havel, Klaus modified his previously strident rhetoric following his election with the support of communist votes to say that considers himself to be a “non-communist” but not an anti-communist, a label he claims to reject as a cheap and superficial posturing although he has warned against the traditional ‘red scare’ during two election campaigns against ČSSD…As mentioned earlier, one of the contested issues is his relation to communism, both in the past and as a strong modern-day politician: Klaus has published articles praising “the grey zone” of the majority of ordinary people who passively endured the regime, while downplaying the importance of the small minority of dissidents like Havel because of their "haughtiness."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A1clav_Klaus

Sounds like impeccable credentials for a denier.

 

[jman507]

Yeah, an economist doesn’t like global warming. Isn’t it amazing that those who know the least, are the ones most likely to be deniers?

The communists, BTW, were far more anti-environment than any western nation. Maybe Vaclav longs for the good old days:

Unlike Havel, Klaus modified his previously strident rhetoric following his election with the support of communist votes to say that considers himself to be a “non-communist” but not an anti-communist, a label he claims to reject as a cheap and superficial posturing although he has warned against the traditional ‘red scare’ during two election campaigns against ČSSD…As mentioned earlier, one of the contested issues is his relation to communism, both in the past and as a strong modern-day politician: Klaus has published articles praising “the grey zone” of the majority of ordinary people who passively endured the regime, while downplaying the importance of the small minority of dissidents like Havel because of their "haughtiness."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A1clav_Klaus

Sounds like impeccable credentials for a denier.

Part of the problem to global warming is when it becomes a policy issue. There will be a hard time trying to seamlessly bring together sound science, economics and politics. It is one thing for the science as a whole to say it is happening, it is another here is what we can do about it. There are all kinds of effects if you make one major change to a system. The are many that can be foreseen, there may be many that we may be unaware of before it is too late.

Then on top of that, one must consider the economical implications of any intervention. How liberal or conservative should one be with the spending that needs to take place on an intervention? How much should be set aside for coping with the effects? It may be better at times to scrap a prevention plan than to spend it on the after effect. In the end, we are living in a fog of not being completely sure how things will exactly unfold.

On top of that may be political considerations. Countries, corporations, and people will disregard a policy – the question is to what extend and to what effect. How much of an individuals freedom will need to be cut in order to make sure that these programs are implemented? Is it worth it to by pass a person’s freedom?

Even if Kluas may not have the best background for the science, he may be able to speak to it as a policy issue given his background in economics and politics. It sounds like he has an idea about using politics. Sure the communist may not have cared about the environment – it may though serve as a pathway to their political goals. In order to get a better impact on fighting global warming the state may have to take over (or at least regulate to the point it more or less takes over) industry. That may be over the top to assert that, chances are there will be people fighting back, on the other hand that may just be what he is doing.

We have to remember part of the lesson from eugenics. It isn’t a good idea to take a novel new theory, and use it to fulfil our policy whims “in the name of science.” For one we may not even have an accurate and precise enough idea of the theory to make overarching engineering feats proposed. Another is that we still need in doing any intervention we should have an idea of economic, political, and moral/ethical considerations.

 

[The_Barbarian]

We have to remember part of the lesson from eugenics.

Good point. Eugenics seemed to non-scientists like “novel new theory”, but to the Darwinians who debunked it, it was simple denial of the facts.

Likewise, our um, “non-communist, not anti-communist” economic theorist seems to think that the debunking of the warming deniers is a religion, primarily because he is a non-scientist. So did his bosses back in the Warsaw Pact, when dumping of pollutants was SOP.

He knows that cleaning up will come at a cost, though. And that means that certain facts will just have to change.

Political and economic considerations, you know. Why do you think every organization used to have a political commissar? No one made problems like this back then.

 

[jman507]

Good point. Eugenics seemed to non-scientists like “novel new theory”, but to the Darwinians who debunked it, it was simple denial of the facts.

Likewise, our um, “non-communist, not anti-communist” economic theorist seems to think that the debunking of the warming deniers is a religion, primarily because he is a non-scientist. So did his bosses back in the Warsaw Pact, when dumping of pollutants was SOP.

He knows that cleaning up will come at a cost, though. And that means that certain facts will just have to change.

Political and economic considerations, you know. Why do you think every organization used to have a political commissar? No one made problems like this back then.

To put it on the table, global warming as a phenomenon is one thing; if it is treated as if it is another; if it is treated as a means to usher in socialism to, then communism is another; how to treat the problem is another. Care must be taken to make sure that the proper relation is taken into consideration, or else you can easily fall into fallacious thinking.

Even if you give that global warming is happening, it could itself be taken as if it is a religion, or it could be used to circumvent freedom. Even if people who advocate for global warming, and even enact rules for it, doesn’t mean that they will not themselves pollute. They may even do it to point where it is illegal. Even if someone proposes and enacts a way to clean up the environment, he could still pick up a alternatives that themselves are just as harmful.

I think there can also be problems on one side you have people who make a hasty generalization that doesn’t agree with all the proposal of global warming are deniers, then on the other you have people who completely disregard that the environment has been effected in any way. I’m not proposing that their should be some compromise by saying that. I would propose it would be far better to remain skeptical – especially of any costly intervention. Why? Because it may not work, or worse, cause more problems.

 

[shockerfan]

Sounds like impeccable credentials for a denier.

Be careful about using words like “denier” for those people who disagree with the concept of “man made global warming”.

I don’t think people who believe in the concept would like to be called “kool-aid drinkers”.

The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of climatologists, scientologists and meteorologists who disagree with Al Gore, et al, who think man is to blame for global warming.

“Man made global warming” is similar to Darwinism…you have to “believe it”, because you can’t “prove it”. Much like religion.

 

[The_Barbarian]

To put it on the table, global warming as a phenomenon is one thing; if it is treated as if it is another; if it is treated as a means to usher in socialism to, then communism is another; how to treat the problem is another.

I agree with that. But the truth matters. You shouldn’t deny what is true, because it could have bad consequences.

Even if you give that global warming is happening, it could itself be taken as if it is a religion, or it could be used to circumvent freedom.

So, I guess, could croquet, if people allowed it. But the truth still matters.

I would propose it would be far better to remain skeptical – especially of any costly intervention.

The problem is, we’re experimenting with the only place we have. Not a good idea.

I agree caution is merited. If you’re driving 90 miles an hour on city streets, “caution” would be slowing down.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Be careful about using words like “denier” for those people who disagree with the concept of “man made global warming”.

It’s what they do.

I don’t think people who believe in the concept would like to be called “kool-aid drinkers”.

Nor has anyone been dumb enough to call them that. They do have the evidence, after all.

The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of climatologists, scientologists

(Scientologists, maybe)

and meteorologists who disagree with Al Gore, et al, who think man is to blame for global warming.

Last time I took a look at the list, it was a miniscule fraction. And most of those “lists of climatologists” includes lawyers, ministers, etc.

“Man made global warming” is similar to Darwinism

In the sense that it is well-documented, and is mainly argued against for emotional and religious reasons.

.you have to “believe it”, because you can’t “prove it”.

Of course, science does not deal in proof. It merely collects enough evidence to make denial perverse. That is where global warming and evolutionary theory are, right now.

Much like religion.

I’ve often wondered why creationists use “religion” as an accusation. It confirms my feeling that they lack the faith to accept God, and hope to get science to do it for them. Trust God more, and you will hate science less.

 

[shockerfan]

It’s what they do.

So, if you say that 1+1=5, and I disagree, then I am a “denier”. Hmmm?
I suppose you would have called Copernicus a denier for not believing the universe revolved around the earth?

Nor has anyone been dumb enough to call them that. They do have the evidence, after all.

They have a set of facts (not always correct, as proven by incorrect temperature readings Al Gore used to in his movie.)
timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2274346.ece
Actually, Al Gore’s movie has several errors and exaggerations
ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=446
iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/11/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Gores-Documentary.php

Also, we can’t even predict the weather a month out, yet we are supposed to believe that the models used by the “man-made global warming” crowd can predict earth temperatures years out.

They also like to avoid certain topics which negatively impact their perspective. For example, why do they avoid talking about the shrinking polar ice caps on Mars? Perhaps because they can’t blame it on human activity.
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Basically, they have taken information, and drawn conclusions that are easily debatable, because of the number of assumptions they had to make, and the number of variables involved.

(Scientologists, maybe)

Whoops…I thought that looked odd when I wrote it

Last time I took a look at the list, it was a miniscule fraction. And most of those “lists of climatologists” includes lawyers, ministers, etc.

I would disagree
petitionproject.org/

In the sense that it is well-documented, and is mainly argued against for emotional and religious reasons.

No, in the sense that it takes faith to believe it. No fossil record of a missing link exists last time I checked. (I refer to Macroevolution, not microevolution)

Of course, science does not deal in proof. It merely collects enough evidence to make denial perverse. That is where global warming and evolutionary theory are, right now.

Yep, right up there with the “earth is at the center of the universe” and “the earth is flat” crowd. And if you dare present facts to the contrary you are labeled a “denier”, which will soon have the same stigma as being labeled a “racist”.

I’ve often wondered why creationists use “religion” as an accusation. It confirms my feeling that they lack the faith to accept God, and hope to get science to do it for them. Trust God more, and you will hate science less.

Who is a “creationist”? I’m a “intelligent design” person myself

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It’s what they do.

So, if you say that 1+1=5, and I disagree, then I am a “denier”.

In this case, of course, the deniers are saying that 1+1=5.

I suppose you would have called Copernicus a denier for not believing the universe revolved around the earth?

Copernicus affirmed that the Earth went around the Sun. The deniers, of course, said that was ridiculous. Even made lists of scholars who denied ti.

And when Gallileo found confirming evidence of it, with his telescope, they refused to look. Deniers haven’t changed much, um?

Barbarian observes:
Nor has anyone been dumb enough to call them that. They do have the evidence, after all.

They have a set of facts (not always correct, as proven by incorrect temperature readings Al Gore used to in his movie.)

I posted the two sets of data here in a graph. At the resolution of your screen, you can’t tell them apart. You’ll have to do better than that.

(Stuff about Al Gore)

This isn’t really about the science for you, is it?

Also, we can’t even predict the weather a month out, yet we are supposed to believe that the models used by the “man-made global warming” crowd can predict earth temperatures years out.

So far, it’s been pretty good. You could always take my bet. I bet that the average for the next five years will be higher than for the last five, as of Jan. 07. Nobody seems to want to call me on it.

They also like to avoid certain topics which negatively impact their perspective. For example, why do they avoid talking about the shrinking polar ice caps on Mars?

No one cares, because Mars is currently closer to the Sun than average. It’s not unexpected. Pluto is currently colder than it has been in a while. For the opposite reason.

Perhaps because they can’t blame it on human activity.

Of course. But it doesn’t help the deniers, does it?

Basically, they have taken information, and drawn conclusions that are easily debatable, because of the number of assumptions they had to make, and the number of variables involved.

And yet they’ve been accurately predicting the rise in global temperatures. You want to say they’re just lucky?

Barbarian observes:
(Scientologists, maybe)
Whoops…I thought that looked odd when I wrote it

Barbarian observes:
Last time I took a look at the list, it was a miniscule fraction. And most of those “lists of climatologists” includes lawyers, ministers, etc.

I would disagree

It’s fact. Your list, for example, touts over 30,000 scientists. How many of them climatologists? 40. Add those with related degrees:

I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )

The rest in whatever. Out of tens of thousands of climatologists, meteorologists, and atmospheric scientists, they got 495 deniers. Isn’t that a tip-off in itself?

Barbarian observes:
In the sense that it is well-documented, and is mainly argued against for emotional and religious reasons.

No, in the sense that it takes faith to believe it. No fossil record of a missing link exists last time I checked.

“Missing link” is a folk term. But there are many, many transitional species. Would you like to test your belief that they don’t exist?

(I refer to Macroevolution, not microevolution)

The first directly observed macroevolution was about 1904.

Barbarian observes:
Of course, science does not deal in proof. It merely collects enough evidence to make denial perverse. That is where global warming and evolutionary theory are, right now.

Yep, right up there with the “earth is at the center of the universe” and “the earth is flat” crowd.

Sounds like someone didn’t listen in science class, um?

And if you dare present facts to the contrary you are labeled a “denier”, which will soon have the same stigma as being labeled a “racist”.

Sounds a bit paranoid to me. I keep getting the impression, that you’re more concerned with political correctness than the facts.

Barbarian observes:
I’ve often wondered why creationists use “religion” as an accusation. It confirms my feeling that they lack the faith to accept God, and hope to get science to do it for them. Trust God more, and you will hate science less.

Who is a “creationist”?

You are.

I’m a “intelligent design” person myself

New name, same old ideology. Dover settled that issue.

 

[shockerfan]

Barbarian observes:
It’s what they do.

In this case, of course, the deniers are saying that 1+1=5.

Copernicus affirmed that the Earth went around the Sun. The deniers, of course, said that was ridiculous. Even made lists of scholars who denied ti.

And when Gallileo found confirming evidence of it, with his telescope, they refused to look. Deniers haven’t changed much, um?

Now I get it, a your definition of “denier” is someone who holds a position different from yours.

Barbarian observes:

I posted the two sets of data here in a graph. At the resolution of your screen, you can’t tell them apart. You’ll have to do better than that.

Sorry, didn’t see any graphs…at least on my Mac

This isn’t really about the science for you, is it?

How did you draw than conclusion? It must be because I have a different position than you, because to me, its always about the science. As an Electrical Engineer by degree, its about solid science, accurate measurements, and consideration of all (not some) of the facts. I go where the information leads me, instead of taking a position, and only considering information that supports my position. Understand, I do not deny temperatures going up or down, I question the CAUSE of the increases or decreases.

So far, it’s been pretty good. You could always take my bet. I bet that the average for the next five years will be higher than for the last five, as of Jan. 07. Nobody seems to want to call me on it.

The bet should not be around whether or not the temperatures of the earth go up or down, its about the cause. I’m not arguing that earth temperatures go up or down, of course they do, I’m arguing the cause.

No one cares, because Mars is currently closer to the Sun than average. It’s not unexpected. Pluto is currently colder than it has been in a while. For the opposite reason.

Apparently, the scientist in the article I linked to disagrees with you. But hey, he’s a denier, right?

And yet they’ve been accurately predicting the rise in global temperatures. You want to say they’re just lucky?

In the 70’s, the prediction of the day was another ice age.

Barbarian observes:
Last time I took a look at the list, it was a miniscule fraction. And most of those “lists of climatologists” includes lawyers, ministers, etc.

It’s fact. Your list, for example, touts over 30,000 scientists. How many of them climatologists? 40. Add those with related degrees:

I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )

The rest in whatever. Out of tens of thousands of climatologists, meteorologists, and atmospheric scientists, they got 495 deniers. Isn’t that a tip-off in itself?

And Copernicus was part of an even more miniscule percentage in his day. Consensus does not determine the truth. More and more scientists are coming out against the concept of man made global warming. I would say that one of the factors against more, is that there is a political correctness to accept it. The constant use of the term “denier” is an attempt to make it the equivalent of the modern day “Scarlet Letter A”. Don’t debate (especially because Al Gore with his degree in Government says its over)…just call people deniers.

I’ll write more later…I have to go to work.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Now I get it, a your definition of “denier” is someone who holds a position different from yours.

Um, no. It’s someone who denies what the facts indicate. As you learned that “correction” your bloggers made such a deal of, was so small that graphing the two data sets together, you can’t tell them apart.

Sorry, didn’t see any graphs…at least on my Mac

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/blogphotos/Blog_Revised_Global_Warming.gif

Surprised? That’s not all they lied to you about.

Barbarian observes:
This isn’t really about the science for you, is it?

How did you draw than conclusion?

Oh, the paranoid obsession about Al Gore, the lack of interest in the science involved, stuff like that.

It must be because I have a different position than you, because to me, its always about the science.

You had no idea that the “correction” you touted was miniscule, did you? You never actually looked for the data, um?

As an Electrical Engineer by degree, its about solid science, accurate measurements, and consideration of all (not some) of the facts. I go where the information leads me, instead of taking a position, and only considering information that supports my position.

We just tested that. And you didn’t even know the facts you were talking about.

Understand, I do not deny temperatures going up or down, I question the CAUSE of the increases or decreases.

A lot of deniers, like President Bush have now admitted that it’s mostly human-caused.

Barbarian suggests:
So far, it’s been pretty good. You could always take my bet.

The bet should not be around whether or not the temperatures of the earth go up or down, its about the cause.

I’m using scientific models of anthropogentic CO2. Why don’t you go to one of your denier sites and get their prediction?

Barbarian observes:
No one cares, because Mars is currently closer to the Sun than average. It’s not unexpected. Pluto is currently colder than it has been in a while.

Apparently, the scientist in the article I linked to disagrees with you.

**Pluto’s temperature depends greatly on its orbit. **
library.thinkquest.org/C002416/pluto/index.htm

Pluto crossed the orbit of Neptune some years ago, and is now getting colder and colder.

The changes of temperature on Mars as a function of orbit is more interesting. Read about it here:
rocherresearch.us/publications/planetary_wet_mars_2_13_06.pdf

Barbarian asks:
And yet they’ve been accurately predicting the rise in global temperatures.

In the 70’s, the prediction of the day was another ice age.

Study: Global cooling a 1970s myth
Asheville, N.C. (UPI) Feb 21, 2008
A U.S. climatologist said there was no consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed for a new ice age.

terradaily.com/reports/Study_Global_cooling_a_1970s_myth_999.html

The consensus, even then, was for warming. Enough to start thinking for yourself?

Barbarian observes:
It’s fact. Your list, for example, touts over 30,000 scientists. How many of them climatologists? 40. Add those with related degrees:

I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )

The rest in whatever. Out of tens of thousands of climatologists, meteorologists, and atmospheric scientists, they got 495 deniers. Isn’t that a tip-off in itself?

And Copernicus was part of an even more miniscule percentage in his day.

Horsefeathers. By the time of Copernicus, almost every scientist knew the truth. Aristarchus of Samos had shown that the Earth orbited the sun before Christ was born.

We know he had lots of people on his side, because when the authorities ordered the offending parts of his book removed, the books were hidden in the universities. Few of them had the pages removed.

Consensus does not determine the truth.

So why are you touting that list of non-climatologists as evidence?

More and more scientists are coming out against the concept of man made global warming.

Seems to be going the other way. For obvious reasons. But I’d be willing to look at your data as to the net change, if you have any.

The constant use of the term “denier” is an attempt to make it the equivalent of the modern day “Scarlet Letter A”.

If I thought that something was incorrect, I’d be proud to be called a denier.

Don’t debate (especially because Al Gore with his degree in Government says its over)…just call people deniers.

BTW, haven’t seen Gore’s movie, so I can’t say if he’s right or not. I tend to follow the judgment of the people who actually know about the issue.

You might want to give that a try.

 

[shockerfan]

You had no idea that the “correction” you touted was miniscule, did you? You never actually looked for the data, um?

We just tested that. And you didn’t even know the facts you were talking about.

Wow, do you sleep at your computer? I had a few moments before work starts. Here is the deal Barbarian:

1. You have provided a lot of evidence that supports man-made global warming. (what is your educational background, if you don’t mind me asking?)
2. There is a lot of evidence that counters man-made global warming. (yes, not all is good, but there is a lot that seems to be well founded)
3. I don’t have the time to go tit-for-tat, and look up every point and counter point, as it seems everytime I do, I keep finding counter points, counter-counter points, and on and on. So, I just except the fact that there are a lot of people on both sides of this issue, which is why I want there to be a public debate between climatologists, meteorologists, and scientists on this issue. The debate should not be over, because some the proposed “solutions” will have such a profound negative impact on our economy, and may not have any real impact [Like Kyoto].
   So in the meantime, I’ll keep reading the news as it comes up, and adjust my perspective accordingly.
4. Al Gore gets a lot of attention because he is the current face of the man-made global warming crowd…or at least he gets the majority of the press
5. I would suggest that if you want to be more persuasive, avoid the ad hominem attacks [like labeling, or comments like “Sounds like someone didn’t listen in science class, um?”] and stick to civil rebuttal. If any of my comments came across wrong to you, my apologies.
6. I would also suggest that before you use labels, you understand a person’s frame of reference. You say there is no difference between “Creationist” and someone who subscribes to “Intelligent Design”. Here are my definitions: A Creationist believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis, that the earth was created in 6 days, and the earth is about 6000 years old. Intelligent Design, in my definition and the definition of those I interact with, is only that life has an Intelligent designer. It allows for the earth being millions of years old…it just does not allow for the concept of humans evolving from a pool of goo by random chance. So, from my definitions and frame of reference, there is a big difference.

Sorry I won’t have anymore time to respond, but I’ll try to read your response over the next few days.

Knock yourself out Barbarian.

 

[The_Barbarian]

1. You have provided a lot of evidence that supports man-made global warming. (what is your educational background, if you don’t mind me asking?)

Mostly biology. Lots of hours in history and psychology, and a master’s in what used to be called operations research. Mainly studying biological and ecological systems from a systems analysis POV.

And enough graduate work in ergonomics to get certified by HFS. Oh, and for one client, some fire protection technology (hazardous materials and fire investigation)

1. There is a lot of evidence that counters man-made global warming. (yes, not all is good, but there is a lot that seems to be well founded)

The best evidence for that, would be the obvious; the warming cycles of the Earth are fractal and hard to track. So you need something to confirm it is anthropgenic. CO2 levels seem to do that nicely.

(3) I don’t have the time to go tit-for-tat, and look up every point and counter point, as it seems everytime I do, I keep finding counter points, counter-counter points, and on and on.

I have a job that requires a lot of search time. If I encounter something interesting, I save it. And over time, that’s a lot of information.

So, I just except the fact that there are a lot of people on both sides of this issue, which is why I want there to be a public debate between climatologists, meteorologists, and scientists on this issue.

The problem is that the government has been trying to suppress the debate; NASA was recently investigated, and there was considerable pressure to alter reports and to isolate scientists from the press.

The debate should not be over, because some the proposed “solutions” will have such a profound negative impact on our economy, and may not have any real impact [Like Kyoto].

What to do is a political and economic problem, as much as a scientific one. The debate as to the science is over. But what to do is another question.

So in the meantime, I’ll keep reading the news as it comes up, and adjust my perspective accordingly.

1. Al Gore gets a lot of attention because he is the current face of the man-made global warming crowd…or at least he gets the majority of the press

I haven’t seen his film, myself. What the press does, is hardly an indication of science.

would suggest that if you want to be more persuasive, avoid the ad hominem attacks [like labeling, or comments like “Sounds like someone didn’t listen in science class, um?”] and stick to civil rebuttal. If any of my comments came across wrong to you, my apologies.

No apologies necessary. And yes, this seems to be working better.

1. I would also suggest that before you use labels, you understand a person’s frame of reference. You say there is no difference between “Creationist” and someone who subscribes to “Intelligent Design”. Here are my definitions: A Creationist believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis, that the earth was created in 6 days, and the earth is about 6000 years old.

Prior to the 1930s, most creationists didn’t believe that. The creationism presented at the Scopes Trial, for example, was the Old Earth sort.

Intelligent Design, in my definition and the definition of those I interact with, is only that life has an Intelligent designer. It allows for the earth being millions of years old…it just does not allow for the concept of humans evolving from a pool of goo by random chance

Neither does evolutionary theory. The main difference is that ID is a religion, whose governing goals are religious, not scientific.

So, from my definitions and frame of reference, there is a big difference.

What convinced me was “Of Pandas and People.” It was originally written as a creationist tract. The IDers took it, tossed out God, inserted “designer”, and hey, presto! An ID textbook.

All the creationists arguments, recycled.

 

[MHalsey]

Um, no. It’s someone who denies what the facts indicate. As you learned that “correction” your bloggers made such a deal of, was so small that graphing the two data sets together, you can’t tell them apart.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/blogphotos/Blog_Revised_Global_Warming.gif

Why does your graph only go back to 1880? What was the temperature like prior to that? Climate change should be on a much grander scale than 130 years. In fact, I believe 1880 was the end of the so called “little ice age”. To use that as a starting point for displaying the rise in temps is a little misleading. Go back much further, and the trend is not so momentous.

As for temps going up, Since Jan '07, the temps have actually been going down. The following link has quite a bit of info about that.

wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

I don’t know that you’d want to call the owner of the site a denier, but he has done quite a bit of research on HOW temps are recorded and on how the data is used.

Just from personal observation, here in CA it been a very cool year so far. Our furnace is usually turned off by 1st or 2nd week of May, but this year we even needed it on Sunday, June 1st. No doubt the response will be something along the lines of one month does not make a trend. While I agree, the global average since 1/07 is decreasing, not increasing. At least from the data I’ve seen.

Taking into account the delay in solar cycle 24 getting started, the PDO shift in the Pacific ocean, the Chaitan volcano eruption, etc. and the trend could well continue for a while.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

My concern is that economic changes based on environmental causes need more prudence and expertise on economics then I see being brought to bear on the issue. It is more than a climate system; it’s a world wide economic system.

There’s a lot of potential for human misery here caused more by the cure than the cause.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The truth is one issue; what to do about it, that’s another. However, the truth is what it is. You can only make things worse by trying to solve the problem you wish you had, instead of the real one.

 

[jman507]

The truth is one issue; what to do about it, that’s another. However, the truth is what it is. You can only make things worse by trying to solve the problem you wish you had, instead of the real one.

There is always that problem when you try to theoretically solve a problem, then do so in actual conditions.

I would say it is wrong to say it is “only make it worse,” I would use “typically make it worse.” One could, using means to solve a different problem (thought to be an issue, but isn’t), on accident help a real problem, but then that can lead to another problem if you have to solve the problem again. I would be sure that, that would be common enough in the medical field. I’m sure you could also find it in economics.