Just another thought I had about global warming. Who is to say that our climate a few years back was the perfect climate? What if we are headed to the perfect climate? It is possible. What is not possible is that humans can control the climate of the Earth. What is also not possible is to take 100 years of poorly collected data and predict the future of the Earths climate. One final thing that is not possible, even if we kicked global warming into high gear, driving a hybrid or not letting us drill for oil and having $5 a gallon gas will not change a thing, besides putting us in recession and making people lose their jobs....all in the name of global warming!!!
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
He certainly is entitled to his own opinion. However, scientific studies are best refuted by scientific studies and informed debate rather than rhetoric than makes right wingers squirm with glee.
"I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming."
Aside from this guy's ego, where is his argument? What has he done to further the debate? His comments are recycled talking points.
Andy, you are pulling a page out of the playbook. I have cited MANY scientific studies that state global warming is at worst a naturally occuring event. You might find some that say we are all going to die in 10 years. Then, I state a very simple and scientifically accurate fact that the data used in these "scientific" studies proving global warming have no statistical significance. They cover, at best, 100 years of an Earth that has been around much more than 1,000. Even at 1,000 that would be 1% of possible data.
Game, that is your argument which has been addressed time and time again.
Care to answer the questions I posed in my post, or is ignorance part of your playbook?
The questions at the bottom of the post?
So, not answering your questions makes someone ignorant. Due to the low bar you give to that term, how can you be a liberal?
My politics aren't liberal so your asinine assumptions are dead in the water (as always).
The founder of the Weather Channel doesn't put much stock into global warming. Okay. He offers no substance to his position. I'll ask again- what has he done to further debate?
“He offers no substance to his argument”
The data set is flawed, and those whom disagree are ostracized! Does that not scare you?
Andy, I appreciate your chicken-little mentality.
At the heart of the globwarm debate is the fact that scientist are not sure. Some are convinced the sky is falling, some are not convinced. If you get down to the nitty-gritty, a person arguing the globwarm theory admits they’re not sure and falls back to “the better safe than sorry” argument.
“What does it hurt” to assume the worse they argue. To which I say, remember the false DDT and Alar scares and the countless lives hurt and lost due to the false and libel fear mongering.
At its heart, the debate is all about control. If this doesn’t work, something else will be “invented”. Andy, you are sheep and you are legion…God help us!
Blamin, your analysis is beautiful. "The data set is flawed! Who cares if the Weather Channel Founder offers nothing substantial!"
That's the basis for a sound intellectual discussion....
Andy
Follow along … if you can … the data is flawed …. It’s not a “representative” sample … what is probably incorrect assumptions have been made … when those assumptions are questioned, the questioners are ostracized.
Now, re-read it slowly if you must. You claim to be on the side of science, why are questioners so feared by the sky is falling crowd?
Blamin, you made a sound, fact based argument...but it looks like Andy's religion is global warming just like Jim's. They CAN NOT and WILL not listen to anything that doesn't bow down to it. Showing over and over and over how the data is insignificant does not matter...and he has yet to even comment on it...
That's funny. I don't recall to ever have professed my faith in global warming. Rather, I'm waiting for someone, anyone to answer the initial questions I posed. Global warming adherents make their claim on science. The best route to refute them is through science. The founder of the weather channel relied on talking points. Following along? Is that too difficult for you?
We shall see if you can give an answer that isn't straight from the right wing playbook.
Since I don't have a right wing playbook, why don't you go ahead and answer for me.
andy, citing concensus is not science. YOU LOST WHEN YOU RESORTED TO THAT OLD CANNARD!
Come on Andy,
What’s your “initial question?”
It seems to be, not a question, but an argument. You attacked the validity of the “weather channel” guy. Not just his validity, but you did an amateur phsyco analysis and questioned his “ego”.! Why would one do such a thing? I guess it’s easier to question his sanity than address his points.
Not unusual for the gobwarm crowd.
Now, Weather Channel Founder? Oh!!! Is he a scientist?
Everybody seems to have an opinion. Let's give our scientists a chance to find out what's happening. Let them decide. Not the corrupt politicians or crazy radio talk show hosts! Please...
Blamin, you're as slow as PCD. That is nothing to be proud of. As I said in my initial post, he had no point aside from recycling talking points. "I know I am correct." How convincing.....
PCD, global warming adherents do not use scientific studies to advance their cause? That's a new revelation.
Please show me a post where I have professed my undying support for global warming. It's laughable that your thought processes can't fathom that possibility simply because I don't buy what this guy is selling.
andy,
It doesn't take much to see you bought into the "consensus". Not studies, not facts, but the consensus of Global Warming. It is a crock made up of whole cloth.
Andy,
I think the point in this article is simply that this particular meteorologist has come out opposed to the GW claims. At some point, the interviewer needs to ask questions of the interviewee to get the type of info you seem to require. But for the article and John Coleman's opinion, there didn't seem to be the interest in your questions. Coleman doesn't need to present scientific studies to support that his personal research has left him unconvinced. The guy's been in the business for a long time. I would think he could read the papers of the GW people and decide they lack real evidence or logic or strength of argument. In other words, presenting studies would make for a stronger article, but it isn't required for someone of his experience to see problems in the pro-GW papers and arguments.
I don't know what you do for a living, but if you fancy yourself at least of average ability, and someone from across the country presents some new thing for your business, don't you think you could see problems that exist without having to find research papers that contradict the new thing? Your opinion would be based on your own experience and that experience could be all you require to boldly state that the new thing is worthless. Is your experience based opinion worthless without supporting studies?
"I think the point in this article is simply that this particular meteorologist has come out opposed to the GW claims"
He has not been active as a meteorologist since the 1950's. His credibility in the republiecan mindset comes from the fact that he started a successful business. If the fact that he started the weather channel gives him more credibility than the average meteorologist (who probably DOES understand science and therefore believes that anthropogenic global warming is occuring), then shouldn't the position of the Weather Channel itself hold even more weight?
Many meteorologists and scientists have used common sense and said that man made global warming is silly.
Post a Comment