Forum Index > Stewardship > About this "Global Warming" bushwa
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Lono
Member
Member


Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 930 | TRs

Lono
  Top

Member
PostWed Apr 02, 2008 9:44 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Fair enough, but I would counter that Global Warming is too easily co-opted by the deniers, who point to the 3 feet of snow outside their door as evidence that Global Warming is a myth.  When you try to point out that Its a Great Big World and there are hundreds of thousands of miles aside from your neck of the woods at risk from the effect of the increase in the mean temperature of the rest of the Earth, they bring out supposed evidence of Global Cooling.  That's the real shame, folks unable to look outside their own backyards and see a problem brewing.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gone
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 1051 | TRs

gone
  Top

Member
PostWed Apr 02, 2008 9:47 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Let me see if I've got this right, Malachai Constant.  Folks ought not to speak unless you judge them to know what they're talking about, and if they don't come down on your side of an unsettled scientific question they're deniers.  Got it.

Zealot: One who espouses a cause or pursues an object in an immoderately partisan manner.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11164 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Apr 02, 2008 9:50 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
What the crack up is is the 'denier' label doesn't even really hold water. It is perfectly legitimate to deny what cannot be shown to be factually true. This word is intentionally chosen for it's emotional impact, yet what it reveals about the user is that they are claiming what cannot be shown to be fact, is fact.

That's denial of a far more insidious and sad type, as it indicates they are not even using proper logic while claiming to be following science.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 14176 | TRs
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
  Top

Member
PostWed Apr 02, 2008 9:56 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
ewb wrote:
Let me see if I've got this right, Malachai Constant.  Folks ought not to speak unless you judge them to know what they're talking about, and if they don't come down on your side of an unsettled scientific question they're deniers.  Got it.

Zealot: One who espouses a cause or pursues an object in an immoderately partisan manner.

1. Anyone can speak on anything they want. Dave is a special case because he is a professional advocate for a position on gun control (which I tend to agree with). My concern is his credibility.

2. Global Warming is not an unsettled scientific controversy.

3. People who deny global warming are deniers by definition.

4. As far as being partisan is that because I cited John McCain with approval while dissing the Chinese Communist Party?

--------------
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 16013 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostWed Apr 02, 2008 9:58 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
I suggest we start with putting the GW topic off limits, since no minds are changed either way and it always turns to politics.

I haven't seen it turn to politics other than references to Gore.  As far as no minds being changed, I suspect you're mistaken about that.  The more discussion we've had the more I think people have been able to see the credibility of the arguments, myself included.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
gone
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 1051 | TRs

gone
  Top

Member
PostWed Apr 02, 2008 10:04 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant wrote:
2. Global Warming is not an unsettled scientific controversy.

Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Dave Workman
Member
Member


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 3659 | TRs
Location: In the woods, by the big tree
Dave Workman
  Top

Member
PostWed Apr 02, 2008 10:37 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom wrote:
Dave Workman wrote:
I missed Gore on 60 Minutes. I was working, as I am right now.

Here you go.  May be a waste of your time unless you choose to view it with an open mind.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3980795n

I always look at things with an open mind. You know, like Christmas Eve homicides in Carnation..

Thanks for the link.  I'll watch it on my lunch break.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Backpacker Joe
NWH Joe-Bob



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23290 | TRs
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
  Top

NWH Joe-Bob
PostWed Apr 02, 2008 1:25 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant wrote:
ewb wrote:
Let me see if I've got this right, Malachai Constant.  Folks ought not to speak unless you judge them to know what they're talking about, and if they don't come down on your side of an unsettled scientific question they're deniers.  Got it.

Zealot: One who espouses a cause or pursues an object in an immoderately partisan manner.

1. Anyone can speak on anything they want. Dave is a special case because he is a professional advocate for a position on gun control (which I tend to agree with). My concern is his credibility.

2. Global Warming is not an unsettled scientific controversy.

3. People who deny global warming are deniers by definition.

4. As far as being partisan is that because I cited John McCain with approval while dissing the Chinese Communist Party?


Is this guy a denier  Mal?  No credibility?  Hmm?

In Climate Confusion, noted climatologist Roy Spencer shows that fears about global warming are vastly exaggerated and are driven by politics, not truth.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 14176 | TRs
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
  Top

Member
PostWed Apr 02, 2008 1:34 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
He seems to indulge in indulge in non scientific thinking in a number of items.

"On the subject of Intelligent design, Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."

And yes he is a denier and a member of the Heartland Institute - a right wing think tank.

Isn't Google wonderful doh.gif

--------------
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
treeswarper
Alleged Sockpuppet!



Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 9043 | TRs
Location: Don't move here
treeswarper
  Top

Alleged Sockpuppet!
PostWed Apr 02, 2008 3:24 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Al Gore, GW and Chuck Norris.  Who would win?  My bet is that Chuck would whup them good!   What is Chuck's opinion on this climate business?
Will the Vikings return to Vinland now that the climate is warming again?
I think I need a drink!

--------------
What's especially fun about sock puppets is that you can make each one unique and individual, so that they each have special characters. And they don't have to be human––animals and aliens are great possibilities
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Lono
Member
Member


Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 930 | TRs

Lono
  Top

Member
PostWed Apr 02, 2008 3:37 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Me, I'm waiting for the first sighting of a grizzly bear along the Sammamish plateau.  Should be entertaining.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
ASBrauer
Nerd



Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 1469 | TRs
Location: Selah,WA
ASBrauer
  Top

Nerd
PostThu Apr 03, 2008 10:01 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Toonces wrote:

Vaccinations at Gunpoint in a Brave New Orwellian World

Couldn't help but notice this.....but wasn't Brave New World written by Aldous Huxley? Not George Orwell?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Gray
Lazy Hiker



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 1063 | TRs
Location: Seattle, WA
Gray
  Top

Lazy Hiker
PostThu Apr 03, 2008 11:02 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Toonces wrote:
Hey Dave your first "source" cited has a BoD filled with Exxon, Amoco and GM execs.     rotf.gif

Any reason I should bother reading any further?   hmmm.gif

The first step of the Scientific Method, IIRC, is "Observe with a questioning mind.".

You've already made your mind up, so yeah, I guess there is no reason for you to look at anything else, because it won't matter.

/shrug

The biggest discoveries of scientists throughout history have been by people who did not just accept the accepted, who looked at things with a questioning mind, skeptical eye, and dared to come up with their own opinion on the matter.  If you don't have the capacity to look at new and/or conflicting evidence, and have the possiblity of your opinion changing.... there isn't much hope. Your first opinion on a subject will be your last, and you'll fight for it tooth and nail.

Can you think of any scientific theories that have been universally accepted within 20 years of their formation? How about one that were, and haven't been overturned or modified in the ensuing decades and centuries afterwards?

--Gray
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
touron
Member
Member


Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 10300 | TRs
Location: Plymouth Rock
touron
  Top

Member
PostThu Apr 03, 2008 12:10 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Lono wrote:
Me, I'm waiting for the first sighting of a grizzly bear along the Sammamish plateau.  Should be entertaining.

If evolution is accurate, look for the grizzly to be driving an H2 with a hemp sack of grubs stowed in the back. hmmm.gif

--------------
Touron is a nougat of Arabic origin made with almonds and honey or sugar, without which it would just not be Christmas in Spain.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 14176 | TRs
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
  Top

Member
PostThu Apr 03, 2008 12:43 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Gray wrote:
Toonces wrote:
Hey Dave your first "source" cited has a BoD filled with Exxon, Amoco and GM execs.     rotf.gif

Any reason I should bother reading any further?   hmmm.gif

The first step of the Scientific Method, IIRC, is "Observe with a questioning mind.".

You've already made your mind up, so yeah, I guess there is no reason for you to look at anything else, because it won't matter.

/shrug

The biggest discoveries of scientists throughout history have been by people who did not just accept the accepted, who looked at things with a questioning mind, skeptical eye, and dared to come up with their own opinion on the matter.  If you don't have the capacity to look at new and/or conflicting evidence, and have the possiblity of your opinion changing.... there isn't much hope. Your first opinion on a subject will be your last, and you'll fight for it tooth and nail.

Can you think of any scientific theories that have been universally accepted within 20 years of their formation? How about one that were, and haven't been overturned or modified in the ensuing decades and centuries afterwards?

--Gray


Actually this is a total misstatement of the scientific method. The most commonly accepted steps are observation, hypothesis, prediction and experiment with each step followed by peer review. The observation step is an observation of nature not of statements least of all those posited without peer review.

Most of the successful theories that I know of were generally accepted (by scientists) within 20 years including univeral gravitation, Newtons laws of motion, evolution, electromagnetic wave theory, the photoelectric effect, special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics etc. None of these theories have been discarded although most refined such as Newtons laws of motion modified by special relativity and universal gravity by general relativity. In each of these cases the modification is related to special cases which were not contemplated at the original. It is folk myth that they laughed at Newton, Darwin, Edison or Einstein each of there scientists were respected and rewarded when they put forth their theories. The theories that have been discarded are those supported by despots such as the biology of Lysenkoand the cosmology of popes. I have left out universal acceptance by the public because that is largely irrelevant.

--------------
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > About this "Global Warming" bushwa
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy