-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Global warming
- Thread starter mamab
- Start date
Werbung:
Yeah the seed vault is pretty cool. On a worldwide scale it makes sense to me to have a backup of that stuff somewhere. Its gonna cost them something like 5 million bucks to build it, and once its fully operational they expect to visit it only once a year.
mtatum4496
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 227
I had heard of the seed vault and think it is an outstanding idea. Certainly is a forward thinking concept, and I applaud anyone who is trying to do something constructive to keep our planet alive.
As an aside,
There was an article in the Boston Globe last week that accused global warming deniers of being the same as holocaust deiniers. I thought this was inexcusable. I wrote about it on my blog (shameless plug) and I wanted to see if anyone following this discussion saw the original peice.
There was an article in the Boston Globe last week that accused global warming deniers of being the same as holocaust deiniers. I thought this was inexcusable. I wrote about it on my blog (shameless plug) and I wanted to see if anyone following this discussion saw the original peice.
Pfft, ignore the rhetoric. It's best if we discuss such potentially heated matters with recourse to reason, as you imply yourself. To do otherwise would attract the dangers of actually identifying with a stance for some political motivation.
As a way to continue this thread….
I saw this article on the Drudge Report yesterday. I like the Czech President’s answers. I think he does a better job making some of the points I have made here. He is also very critical of the IPCC report. Let me know what you think.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
I saw this article on the Drudge Report yesterday. I like the Czech President’s answers. I think he does a better job making some of the points I have made here. He is also very critical of the IPCC report. Let me know what you think.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
I think it still has to come back to who do you trust. Spending just a few hours digging into this is more than any of us can do, and we haven't even scratched the surface of the legitimate science issues here. You could spend years getting yourself up to speed and still not be qualified to really pronounce judgment on the topic.
There are big names on both sides of the argument. That said, there are far more big names on the side of "global warming is happening and mankind is primarily responsible" than not. I know polls are not hard science, but lacking an ability to do the science myself I have to decide to trust some group of people. In this case I've gotta go with the IPCC as the largest body of credible scientists on the topic. (Though as Andy pointed out, that warming is happening and we are responsible is not a sufficient condition for us to immediately jump to corrective action.)
I posted back in '06 about the larger issue of how do you decide what science to believe when nearly all of it is over your head. Lots of things these days from global warming to heath care to diet come back to very very deep science that laypeople are not going to be able to verify. While my belief in science is still unquestioning, I do have concerns about my (and other peoples) ability to ferret out the real experts, with sufficiently objective opinions to make judgments. The means by which we do that as a society will get more and more important as individual fields of science get further and further over the average lay person's head.
There are big names on both sides of the argument. That said, there are far more big names on the side of "global warming is happening and mankind is primarily responsible" than not. I know polls are not hard science, but lacking an ability to do the science myself I have to decide to trust some group of people. In this case I've gotta go with the IPCC as the largest body of credible scientists on the topic. (Though as Andy pointed out, that warming is happening and we are responsible is not a sufficient condition for us to immediately jump to corrective action.)
I posted back in '06 about the larger issue of how do you decide what science to believe when nearly all of it is over your head. Lots of things these days from global warming to heath care to diet come back to very very deep science that laypeople are not going to be able to verify. While my belief in science is still unquestioning, I do have concerns about my (and other peoples) ability to ferret out the real experts, with sufficiently objective opinions to make judgments. The means by which we do that as a society will get more and more important as individual fields of science get further and further over the average lay person's head.
I thought I would add a post today to try to get this stirred up again 
.
Here is an article by Rep. John Linder (R-GA). He points out some of the similarities between the Global Warming debate and another debate when scientist thought it was best to sterilize certain people for the betterment of mankind. The last half of the article points out some good holes with the Global Warming arguments. Enjoy.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070218-100445-1207r.htm
.Here is an article by Rep. John Linder (R-GA). He points out some of the similarities between the Global Warming debate and another debate when scientist thought it was best to sterilize certain people for the betterment of mankind. The last half of the article points out some good holes with the Global Warming arguments. Enjoy.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070218-100445-1207r.htm
Before I read the article, didn't I see somebody griping about how somebody compared global-warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers?
The most effective way around the connotative "oh nooo you din't!" is simply to point out the weaknesses in the arguments themselves- be they rhetorical, argumentative or logical fallacies.
The most effective way around the connotative "oh nooo you din't!" is simply to point out the weaknesses in the arguments themselves- be they rhetorical, argumentative or logical fallacies.
Very funny dong. Check out the article. There is a difference between the illustration he uses and the Holocaust Deniers equivalence. Rep. Linder does point out some very interesting problems with the Global Warming science.
Heh, sorry, I felt like having a zing! moment.
Now, I've read the article, and to me the difference between this analogy and the Holocaust deniers is not immediately clear. It's still an emotivist rhetorical tactic.
But more importantly, the criticisms aren't addressing the actual issue. The thrust of the debate (not the knee-jerking shouting match) is asking how responsible humans are for changes in the climate, relative to or irrespective of every other natural force around. To quote Linder as an example:
This is a claim that some people (including the brainwashed layperson) would make, but even the IPCC report is careful to make the distinction. Therefore if he didn't realise that he was drawing an errorneous inference, he was being plain snarky.
Now, I've read the article, and to me the difference between this analogy and the Holocaust deniers is not immediately clear. It's still an emotivist rhetorical tactic.
But more importantly, the criticisms aren't addressing the actual issue. The thrust of the debate (not the knee-jerking shouting match) is asking how responsible humans are for changes in the climate, relative to or irrespective of every other natural force around. To quote Linder as an example:
If he wasn't being rude, he was being overly presumptuous. Such a question is reactionary to the proposal that the rise in CO2 levels generally has been influenced by human activity. If were to extrapolate an argument from this point, Linder implies that the claims being made are that humans solely or predominantly are responsible for the CO2 levels, and global warming in general.
This is a claim that some people (including the brainwashed layperson) would make, but even the IPCC report is careful to make the distinction. Therefore if he didn't realise that he was drawing an errorneous inference, he was being plain snarky.
It Rep Linder’s article, he starts out discussing a previous point in time where scientist argued for something without really having the science to back it up. That is the same case as today. He is trying to draw an exact parallel. The “holocaust denier’s article” attempted to draw a parallel, but was comparing Global Warming to something that simply cannot be denied. The IPCC report states that it is 90% certain that Global Warming is being caused by mankind. That means there is a 10% chance it isn’t. There is somewhere around a 0% chance that the Holocaust didn’t happen. Rep Linder was taking the method “scientist” use today with Global Warming and used a previous time that method was used to illustrate a problem with the Global Warming theory.
Rep Linder’s question is a good question. If CO2 levels 20 years ago were comparable to CO2 levels 400,000 years ago, and we were being told that man was causing global warming 20 years ago, then who was causing global warming 400,000 years ago?
Rep Linder’s question is a good question. If CO2 levels 20 years ago were comparable to CO2 levels 400,000 years ago, and we were being told that man was causing global warming 20 years ago, then who was causing global warming 400,000 years ago?
Hurray for more armchair science!
Here's that ice core data he's referring to in the article.
You can see that temperature and CO2 (and CH4) do move largely in sync. Whats more for the past 400,000 years CO2 levels have stayed between 180 and 280 ppm. (That is until the back half off the last century, where they're closing in on 400 ppm)
So he would be correct in making the statement that CO2 levels change regardless of mans involvement, its not a flat equilibrium. That has never been in dispute though, so I'm not really sure the relevance. If there's a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and we are net increasing the CO2, then we are net increasing the temperature.
It seems like you're making the argument that because there are cycles we can't do anything about, we shouldn't address the components that we can do something about. Am I misunderstanding you?
Here's that ice core data he's referring to in the article.
You can see that temperature and CO2 (and CH4) do move largely in sync. Whats more for the past 400,000 years CO2 levels have stayed between 180 and 280 ppm. (That is until the back half off the last century, where they're closing in on 400 ppm)
So he would be correct in making the statement that CO2 levels change regardless of mans involvement, its not a flat equilibrium. That has never been in dispute though, so I'm not really sure the relevance. If there's a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and we are net increasing the CO2, then we are net increasing the temperature.
It seems like you're making the argument that because there are cycles we can't do anything about, we shouldn't address the components that we can do something about. Am I misunderstanding you?
Werbung:
Okay Andy...but I think we already clearly established some time ago that it's unreasonable to be all misanthropic and believe the hype that humans are killing the earth all on their own effort, as the thrust of the extreme portions of global warming theory would have you believe. Actually, when I put it like that, I'd say this part isn't the science, it's the part that tries to shock people into thinking about accountability via overcompensation.
At any rate, I see the difference now (duh). I still hold that what he said wasn't proper, merely because he is clearly acting from a political agenda of his own and so to take him seriously would leave him open to the charge of pot calling the kettle black.
Also, I already answered Linder's question in the post immediately preceeding yours...but I think Framed makes a similar point in a simpler fashion.
At any rate, I see the difference now (duh). I still hold that what he said wasn't proper, merely because he is clearly acting from a political agenda of his own and so to take him seriously would leave him open to the charge of pot calling the kettle black.
Also, I already answered Linder's question in the post immediately preceeding yours...but I think Framed makes a similar point in a simpler fashion.
