Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

[jefferson_dem]

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics
January 17, 2007

Posted by Marc Morano 202-224-5762 [email protected] (8:50pm ET)

The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website.

See: http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html This latest call to silence skeptics of manmade global warming has been the subject of discussion at the annual American Meteorological Society’s Annual conference in San Antonio Texas this week. See: http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual

"It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement," Cullen added. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD >

<SNIP>

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

[kristopher]

1. perspective

"Marc Morano is communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano works under Senator James Inhofe, majority chairman of the committee.

Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election <1> and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.

Morano was "previously known as Rush Limbaugh's 'Man in Washington,' as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine." <2>"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

Be involved, but, be informed; and never forget the Law of Unintended Consequences.

[jefferson_dem]

2. Thanks for the info. That's helpful to know.

Surely, Marc is putting this out there to demonstrate the supposed "strong arm" tactics of those who appreciate the truth of global warming and won't allow the freedom to be ignorant.

To me, it's clearly a good thing that the scientific community is starting to step up and call out the few remaining flat-earthers.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vickitulsa]

3. Inhoff is a fox guarding the henhouse.

He's been one of the booming voices of evil insanity in my state for decades. Every time he opens his mouth, he embarrasses and enrages anyone with a little common sense or a true concern for the environment.

When Mother Earth finally starts killing off her human inhabitants due to their own toxic despoiling of her once-splendid bounty, I hope people all across the nation remember what that SOB Inhoff did to harm our planet and every one of us when he was in a position to do so much good....

[Roland99]

48. My but that certainly explains a LOT!

[Supersedeas]

82. Douchebags of Corporate Propoganda and a pocket full of coins

[Party Line]

4. Climate Code,eh?

I might have to add that show to my Season Pass Manager(tivo for you tv-haters.)

[BushOut06]

6. I certainly hope so

I really hope this shuts these ignorant right-wing motherfuckers up for good. Anyone who denies global warming should not only be stripped of their certification, but should also not be allowed to teach.

[aceman2373]

50. Ya, and they should be thrown in the deepest darkest

dungeon never to be heard from again!

[Zhade]

86. Yeah, like anyone said that.

:eyes:

[melm00se]

7. cast out the non-believers

then, we'll stone them in the village square.

[Coventina]

8. For a meteorologist to deny global warming is like an M.D.

denying that germs exist.

[hatrack]

9. Nice straw man!

But hey, thanks for playing!

:eyes:

[melm00se]

12. not really...

as comments and demands like this one play right straight into the hands of those who state that global warming opponents are ridiculed and minimized. the better way of dealing with "deniers" not to attack them directly ('stone them in the village square'), that just makes them martyrs, but rather to address them (and their beliefs and contentions) directly.

remember, there are 2 ways to break the vase on the table: one way is to knock the vase off the table and the other is to knock the table out from under the vase. if one technque isn't working, why not try the other one?

[Robbien]

15. Keep propping them up

Laying out a case that everyone should treat these deniers with respect. Be reasonable says you.

There is a lot of money to be had in supporting these pretend scientists. If you haven't stood in line for your share, you should. You've earned it.

[melm00se]

16. not at all

take the blinders off and see that there are multiple ways of attacking any problem (and personal attacks are the least, in the long run, effective)...and a head on attack, in this case, is and has been met with a pretty good defense that blunts the message and makes the defenders look like they are in the right (they attack the message, not the messenger, you could learn something there). what do you do? change tactics: attack the underpinnings of their case

[Robbien]

18. Good denier support post

Keep the denial promotion going. More posts, bigger payoff.

The problem you try to hide is that the people who are paying for these deniers (and their supporters) have a big network and lots of money. They would love to "engage in dialogue" just to keep their theories promoted. Engaging in dialogue gives their denials more weight.

But hey, you got a chance to post another denial support post, so there's that. Go ahead and add it to your chit for reimbursement.

[Psephos]

40. Good suppression of opposing points-of-view post

If you think that suppression of alternate arguments advances science, then let me tell you a little story about Galileo....

Any argument that relies on suppression and name-calling seems to me to not be able to punch on its own. Prolly seems that way to a lot of other people. Let the process work. No one argues about the sun rising tomorrow, because the evidence is manifest. Soon it will be so with climate change, too. (Already is, AFAIC.)

He who establishes his argument by noise and command, shows that his reason is weak.
- Michel De Montaigne

I'm sure you now think I am, to use your term, a denier. Actually, I'm emphatically the opposite. What I'm saying has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with toleration of opposing points of view in the interests of good science. Skepticism is an indispensable element of the process. Squelch it at your (and our) peril.

Peace.

[Zhade]

91. Point out where she called for suppressing alternate arguments.

Scientists refusing to endorse their denial of scientific fact is hardly suppression of free speech - the deniers don't have some mythical right to endorsement of their delusions.

[Psephos]

92. Acts of suppression do not require calling for suppression

If I shout down a gay speaker by calling him names and questioning his motives, I am suppressing him even if I don't explicitly call for him to be silenced.

Actions are more eloquent than words.

Peace.

[Zhade]

129. Calling out people for denying established fact in scientific debates...

...is not suppression. It's pointing out the obvious - that the deniers are starting with a wrong premise.

I'm sorry, I don't think calling for accuracy in the debate is suppressing anyone.

[thinkingwoman]

134. what established fact?

That the earth is warming? Or that this warming period is primarily/soley caused by humans?

The earth is warming is fact. Part two is theory.

[Zhade]

142. Okay, here's where I laugh at your grasp of science.

Part two is only a "theory" to those DENYING it.

[thinkingwoman]

144. Circular reasoning.

Makes me laugh. Now we're both laughing.

It won't change anything.

Again I ask, not expecting an actual answer from people who claim to have one, what is the evidence used to compare this warming period to the previous one that occurred hundreds of years before thermometers were invented.

Just one link, to one peer-reviewed article, that address the issue in depth with a clear explanation of the cause of the previous warming period and how it differs from this one other than sciencespeak for "because we said so." Just one.

[Kber]

155. Link below

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm

snip
Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
Through the study of ancient ice cores from Antarctica it is possible to compare atmospheric concentrations of the dominant greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere with temperature variations over the past 400 thousand years of the earth's history (Fig 1). A visual comparison of the two trends indicates a very tight connection between their performance, with fluctuations in one plot almost exactly mirrored in the other for more than 400 thousand years. But suddenly in the 1800s, as the Industrial Revolution takes off, atmospheric CO2 concentrations begin an unprecedented upward climb, rising rapidly from 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) in the early 1800s to a current level of 376 ppmv, 77 ppmv above the highest concentrations previously attained in the course of the preceding 400 thousand years.


Not linked, but you can get an idea of envorinmental conditions via ocean sediments (microscopic creatures that create tine shells vary the thickness of their shells depending on the average temperature. You can also tell the carbon concentrations in the water by analyzing the composition of their shells. This typically gives you 20 - 25 thousand years of record though, compared to the ice cores which go back somewhat further.

[thinkingwoman]

160. Pretty link, but...

It doesn't answer either of these questions/points of clarification that I asked in my previous post:

1. what is the evidence used to compare this warming period to the previous one that occurred hundreds of years before thermometers were invented?

2. address the issue in depth with a clear explanation of the cause of the previous warming period and how it differs from this one other than sciencespeak for "because we said so."


Content contained at the link you provided focuses on proving that the earth is warming--which I don't dispute--and that CO2 is rising--yup.

CO2 began rising sharply with the industrial revolution, which begs the question "Why did it take approximately 200 years of sharply rising CO2 before temps rose equally sharply?"

Another interesting point made at the link you provided is that the earth temp is as warm as it has been since 1400. Well I should hope so, since that was LIA time was it not? Obviously we're not still in that brief cooling period today.

Most of the graphics plotting CO2 levels contained at the link you provided deal with 1800s to present, which do nothing to address the Medieval Warm Period, and are thus irrelevant as explanations to the questions I asked. However, one graph is intriguing--the one claiming to track CO2 over the last 400,000 years.

Assuming that the levels plotted on that graph are completely correct--that no mistakes have been made in calucuations or the suppositions and assumptions required to make calculations--it appears (and I'm getting eye strain looking at it) that there is a slight bump in CO2 just before a dip that looks like it corresponds with the LIA. Therefore, the slight bump before could correspond with the Medieval Warm Period. If so (if I'm reading the chart right), and IF that rise in CO2 CAUSED the warm period, WHAT caused that bump in CO2?

That's an important question, because it certainly was not man/industry during that time period. In fact, according to that graphic, it cycles up and down periodically and began cycling up well before the medieval warming period. A better understanding and explanation of why and how CO2 cycles and how temps correspond could help determine once and for all if the current warming cycle is completely natural, natural but accelerated by man, or completely the fault of man.

Once again, I will reiterate, because this is a point few seem capable of grasping...there is NO doubt that the earth is warming right now. The evidence is clear about that. There IS doubt about WHY. The fact that a large number scientists have agreed to agree (ie formed a consensus) about a possible cause does not mean they have evidence to back it up. If they did, or do, they should be sharing it rather than calling for fascist tactics to silence critics.

The best way to silence critics is with overwhelming evidence--not that the earth is warming, but WHY the earth is warming. As I have been posting for more than 2 days on this thread, evidence proving WHY the earth is warming at this time, or the most recent time before this, is not contained in these links and papers and proclamations, which is why people who don't lap up everything science says at first glance are asking questions. The fact that questioners are in an apparent minority says more about the people NOT asking questions than it does about those who are. Science is supposed to be skeptical, supposed to ask questions, supposed to make comparisons, ferret out all variables, question again and lay out evidence.

Again I ask, where is the evidence about the cause of this and the previous global warming?

P.S. I am personally well aware of a number of ways of estimating temps from periods before reliable instruments, but all have flaws. What I am asking is which methods global warming is caused by man bandwagon scientists are using and which they are ignoring/discarding. This is necessary information to properly evaluate scientific proclamations about the causes of climate change. I have scoured paper after paper and repeatedly fail to find direct explanations of the models used and how their flaws have been compensated for in order to draw conclusions.

[krispos42]

124. My boss doubts global warming is a serious effect

He is of the opinion that it is over-hyped. That we in a period of a natural cycle that is characterized by somewhat warmer temperatures.

An direct attack is useless against hin on this issue, so I look at him an say "We're burning billions of tons of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood a year, right?"

"Yes," he'll admit

"And all this carbon dioxide that we'll putting in the air was trapped underground for millions of years before, right?"

"Yes," he'll admit again.

"Okay, so then the absolute best case scenario is that all the carbon dioxice we're emitting is having zero effect on the world, right?"

"Yeah," he'll admit a third time.

"So, do you thing we'll living the absolute best-case scenario?"

He'll grin and say "Probably not."

"Well, there you go, then."

The last time we talked about his the El Niño came up, which has been affecting the weather patterns. My statement on this was that it will give us a temporary spike in temperatures, then when it goes away, the temps won't come down.

FWIW, he's not a fundie. Conservative, yes, but intelligent, educated, and he's seen the world courtesy of the US Army.

[Shakespeare]

107. Global Warming "skeptics" SHOULD be ridiculed and minimized.

They pose a direct threat to our survival.

[Zhade]

87. Belief has nothing to do with it - science deals with fact, not belief.

These fools are denying the facts about climate change, and certainly don't deserve the approval of an organization that actually, you know, understands and appreciates those facts.

Withholding professional scientific endorsement of people who lie about and deny the science is hardly stoning anyone. These people don't automatically have the right to have their delusional stance lauded.

[goforit]

165. Hilarious! A little humor when the sky is falling..literally, LOL!!!

[The Stranger]

171. I was waiting for this and wonder about the agenda for such a bizarre response.

[truthisfreedom]

10. It's the language that poisons the debate. The phrase "believe in global warming" creates

unnecessary confusion.

One does not "believe in the sun" or not. One either accepts the scientific proof that the sun exists, or one is living in a dream world. There is no leap of faith involved. If one does not "believe in global warming," it simply indicates that person has no grasp of scientific principles and will either have to choose to learn the facts or continue to bury their head ever deeper into the sand to try to escape reality.

[dropkickpa]

11. Exactly!

:applause:

[kestrel91316]

33. Not believing in global warming strikes me a bit like saying

one doesn't believe in witches (aka Wiccans).

They exist. Get used to it.

[IntravenousDemilo]

83. When most people hear "witches", though, they don't immediately think of people who practise Wicca.

They think of old, green-faced hags who ride around on brooms and can turn you into a newt by waving a magic wand or make you burst into flames by looking at you and incanting.

And no, those don't exist, any more than ghosts, goblins, vampires, and werewolves do.

But global warming does exist. So I'm not so sure about your analogy.

[thinkingwoman]

43. The question isn't whether or not to "believe" in global warming

The question is whether or not to "believe" that there is overwhelming evidence of the CAUSE of global warming at this time.

The globe has warmed before, and likely will again. The challenge for science is to determine the rate, extent, and causes of this warming cycle, and to do so without much objective data (particularly with regard to temps) from centuries and millenia past.

To "believe" that science has all the answers about global warming at this point is the same as to "believe" that hysteria is a real medical condition suffered by women that can be cured by orgasms.

Honestly, both extremes have their heads in the sand on this one.

[Zhade]

88. Thank you. It's not about belief at all - climate change exists. It's undeniable.

That it's accelerated by the explosion of human carbon-burning industry is also undeniable.

You nailed it.

[gasperc]

13. the critics have lost all credibility

I don't think we should try and stop freedom of speech. But when people say stupid and confusing statements on purpose. They should get called on it immediately. One ice storm won't turn the global warming debate around. The credibility of the critics is dwindly rapidly. Let these idiots make their stupid statements. Then we pull out the pictures of the rapid re-treat of glaciers, the 9 year warming trend, ocean warming, coral bleaching, permafrost melting, this list is long and growing. Mankind CAN NOT ADAPT to this kind of change this rapidly. We built huge cities around the construct of fairly predictable weather patterns. Flooding will eventually get so bad, huge plots of land must be abandoned. The costs will be staggering. If summer temps continue to rise, electrical systems will fail more and more frequently. The grid will take decades to upgrade.

this story continues...

[Cha]

17. Yeah, it's the

future existence of the goddamned planet we're talking about.

If certain scientists refuse to understand, by willful ignorance, the data then they should be discredited. Go back to school get some learnin' just like their dumbass leaderboy, bush.

[Zhade]

89. When did they have any?

And no one's saying they can't speak - they just shouldn't be surprised that their denial of scientific fact equates to a loss of support from actual scientists.

[jpak]

14. Wow!!!!111

:wow:

[atomicdawg38]

19. Dangerous slope..

We know better than to deny dissent.

[Coventina]

21. Nobody is denying them the right to speak.

But if I went to see a Dr. who denied the existence of germs, I sure would hope his license would get pulled.

These cretins need to have their credentials pulled as well. They can continue to say whatever they like.

[Lorien]

27. You took the words right off of my keyboard

it's not dissent, it's intentional misinformation.

[thinkingwoman]

44. Sure they are

Speak up and we'll fire you absolutely IS denying someone the right to speak, as anyone fired for speaking up against this gov't in the past 6 years can certainly attest.

Meanwhile, you've equated the scientific evidence supporting the existance of germs with the scientific evidence NOT that the globe is warming, but that the present warming is the fault of man (and woman). Those evidence piles aren't even in the same league.

[Coventina]

51. Please provide links showing where the scientific community

1) Says that the human factor has NO part of the current global warming

2) That the problem is not serious

3) That the best option is to do nothing about it

And by "scientific community" I mean scientists whose studies do not come with a religious or a corporate bias.

[thinkingwoman]

93. Please provide a response

to things I actually posted, not words you've put in my mouth.

1) Says that the human factor has NO part of the current global warming

I never said the human factor had NO part in it.

2) That the problem is not serious

I never said the problem wasn't serious

3) That the best option is to do nothing about it

I never said the best option was to do nothing. I said I am wary of doing something before we completely understand the mechanism of climate change. I also said that reducing pollution is always a good thing in my book. Reduce away. Seriously.

[Coventina]

98. Okay then, about the "muzzling" issue, please see my post #85

Stripping crackpots of scientific credentials is not a violation of free speech rights.

[thinkingwoman]

105. That's your opinion.

I, however, don't need to muzzle people who disagree with me.

To each their own.

[Coventina]

118. How is it "muzzling"?

They are still allowed to say whatever they want!

[thinkingwoman]

122. Asked and answered. nt

[Coventina]

126. Indeed, they are still free to speak. n/t

[thinkingwoman]

130. In your opinion. nt

[PaulaFarrell]

127. WE will only completely understand the mechanism of climate

change once it has occurred. By then it will be too late. Are you really saying, let's do more research, research, research, but not actually do anything tuntil we aboslutely know 100% for certain exactly what is going to happen? Does that actually occur in any branch of science?

By the way CO2 is not pollution, it's just a normal part of the carbon cycle, and we could not live without it. However, the earth has devised ingenious ways of storing excess carbon which we have been tramnpling all over.

[thinkingwoman]

133. I completely disagree with your premise

I do not believe we can only understand the mechanism of climate change AFTER it has happened. That would be like asserting that we can only understand weather AFTER it happens--there goes predicting the spring thunderstorm and tornado season.

And if your premise was correct, what would be the basis of claims that the climate is in crisis in the first place? If we can't understand it until it's over, where are the doom and gloom predictions coming from? Can't have it both ways.

[PaulaFarrell]

147. And I completely disagree with yours

The basis of the claims that the climate is in crisis NOW, are the things which have already occurred - temperature rises, melting ice sheets, melting permafrost, ocean acidification (coral reefs dying), species migrating in response to climactic shifts, etc. Scientists predicted all these effects but could not know EXACTLY the extent or the rate of these (ice sheets melting - much faster than predicted; permafrost melting - much faster than predicted), which is what you seem to be demanding we know before we take action. Climatology is an empirical science, there are an enormous number of variables, and we are experiencing something for which we have no past data. That, to me at least, does not mean we should sit around on our butts waiting for 100% certainty before we act. We know for a fact that we are increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere and that this correlates almost exactly with recent temperatire increases. If a river is rising, do you wait until it's at your door before you put the sandbags out, or do you take pre-emptve action, even if, in the end, if stops rising before it gets to you? We are in exactly the same position now vis-a-vis climate change, the flood is coming, we don't know exactly how fast or exactly how high the waters will rise, but if we don't take action now we risk lolsing the whole house - in this case, the planet.

Weather cannot be predicted 100% accurately (as you well know), and a weather forecaster cannot predict a tornado - tornadoes are enormously unreliable, forming and fading seemingly at random. All a forecaster can do is predict that certain conditions will occur which are likely to spawn tornadoes. If you really are a thinking woman, I think you should read some of the literature out there. I'll help you out by giving you some links:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn9903

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/global-warming-consensus-vs-certainty.html
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630

[thinkingwoman]

149. Forecasters cannot predict a tornado?

Funny, I haven't been surprised by a tornado here in Indiana for more than 20 years. Each time there has been a tornado in this state it has happened on a day when forecasters warned of "favorable conditions" and also posted appropriate watches and warnings in advance of the actual tornado. Weather forecasters do a remarkable job of predicting tornadoes, actually, and if people would heed warnings there would be far fewer injuries and deaths.

The rest of your post, like many others on this thread, misses the point entirely. My questions of the science global warming bandwagon have nothing to do with evidence that the earth is warming. It is. The question, however, is why, exactly, and what, if anything, should be done about it. This planet has been experiencing climate cycles since it was formed. It is a natural part of planetary life. Only just recently have humans grown such enormous egos that they believe they are responsible for the weather and should change it to their liking.

Until scientists thoroughly understand climate change, it is folly to play with it or attempt to influence it beyond the common sense task reducing pollution (and yes, this includes the natural substance of CO2 when it is manmade--spewed by industry--and not what occurs "naturally"), which humans should do anyway and routinely. Perhaps if people focused on that instead of "sky is falling" proclamations, efforts at reducing pollution would be more successful.

Meanwhile, you personally have given in to the great urge to attempt to use my screen name as an insult. Nice try. It didn't hurt my feelings, but it did add to the divisive belittling that is so prevalent on DU these days when people encounter ideas they don't like, which pollutes the entire website. Was it worth it?


P.S. Thanks for the links, but I have no desire to read more of the same. Do your links contain evidence comparing this warming period with the last one (pre-manmade CO2 spewing into the atmosphere) and explaining how that comparison is scientifically valid without temp readings in the past? If so, I'll be happy to follow them. If not, I won't waste my time.

edited to add: subject verb agreement and clarification of manmade CO2

[PaulaFarrell]

148. And I completely disagree with yours

The basis of the claims that the climate is in crisis NOW, are the things which have already occurred - temperature rises, melting ice sheets, melting permafrost, ocean acidification (coral reefs dying), species migrating in response to climactic shifts, etc. Scientists predicted all these effects but could not know EXACTLY the extent or the rate of these (ice sheets melting - much faster than predicted; permafrost melting - much faster than predicted), which is what you seem to be demanding we know before we take action. Climatology is an empirical science, there are an enormous number of variables, and we are experiencing something for which we have no past data. That, to me at least, does not mean we should sit around on our butts waiting for 100% certainty before we act. We know for a fact that we are increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere and that this correlates almost exactly with recent temperatire increases. If a river is rising, do you wait until it's at your door before you put the sandbags out, or do you take pre-emptve action, even if, in the end, if stops rising before it gets to you? We are in exactly the same position now vis-a-vis climate change, the flood is coming, we don't know exactly how fast or exactly how high the waters will rise, but if we don't take action now we risk lolsing the whole house - in this case, the planet.

Weather cannot be predicted 100% accurately (as you well know), and a weather forecaster cannot predict a tornado - tornadoes are enormously unreliable, forming and fading seemingly at random. All a forecaster can do is predict that certain conditions will occur which are likely to spawn tornadoes. If you really are a thinking woman, I think you should read some of the literature out there. I'll help you out by giving you some links:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn9903

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/global-warming-consensus-vs-certainty.html
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630

[depakid]

61. Actually those piles are in the same league

Global Warming-- Signed, Sealed, and Delivered
Scientists agree: The Earth is warming, and human activities are the principal cause.
by Naomi Oreskes

An Op-Ed article in the Wall Street Journal a month ago claimed that a published study affirming the existence of a scientific consensus on the reality of global warming had been refuted. This charge was repeated again last week, in a hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

I am the author of that study, which appeared two years ago in the journal Science, and I'm here to tell you that the consensus stands. The argument put forward in the Wall Street Journal was based on an Internet posting; it has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal — the normal way to challenge an academic finding. (The Wall Street Journal didn't even get my name right!)

My study demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement within the scientific community that the Earth is warming and that human activities are the principal cause.

Papers that continue to rehash arguments that have already been addressed and questions that have already been answered will, of course, be rejected by scientific journals, and this explains my findings. Not a single paper in a large sample of peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 refuted the consensus position, summarized by the National Academy of Sciences, that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

More: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0724-28.htm

[thinkingwoman]

94. Great! Can you explain...

Why the earth warmed 400 years ago? Did humans cause it then? Cows? What?

And then explain how that is different than now--both in terms of the cause(s) of warming, the extent, the duration, and the resolution of that warming period.

I'll hold my breath.

[Doremus]

110. I believe that if you open your mind and your Google browser, you'll find

that the rate of warming is far greater, accelerating faster, right now than during other periods of climate change.

It is a fact. No need to speculate, surmise, postulate or think wishfully.

[depakid]

113. Things like "rate"and "acceleration"

as well as "correlation" and "causation" are sometimes difficult to distinguish if people haven't had much science background (which unfortunately, too many Americans haven't).

Also, there's scope and scale to consider.

"Objection: It was just as warm in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) as it is today. In fact, Greenland was green and they were growing grapes in England!

Answer: There is no good evidence that the MWP was a globally warm period comparable to today. Regionally, there may have been places that exhibited notable warmth -- Europe, for example -- but all global proxy reconstructions agree it is warmer now, and the temperature is rising faster now, than at any time in the last one or even two thousand years.

Anecdotal evidence of wineries in England and Norse farmers in Greenland do not amount to a global assessment.

On its website, NOAA has a wide selection of proxy studies, accompanied by the data on which they are based. Specifically, they have this to say on the MWP:

The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today, however, has turned out to be incorrect."

Much more, plus linkage: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/221054/33

[thinkingwoman]

116. Assessments like "haven't had much science background"

are easy to make via computer, about people one has never met and knows nothing about.

It's also easy to toss in a few non-sequitors and completely make up "objections" and assertions the poster did not make.

Such a response not only fails to add to the debate, it attempts to derail it and avoid complicated issues entirely in favor of pushing conformity through bullying and belittling.

Sadly, such responses are now the norm on DU.

[depakid]

135. The point is: There is no debate.

That's what Dr. Oreskes found in her review of the literature.

Anyone who wants to "debate," at this stage- given all the evidence, well, they're pretty much in the same camp as "the earth is flat" type folks. How should someone counter that? By coddling?

It'd be nice to know, thinkingwoman.

How should one deal with people who refuse to accept basic, proven facts?

I'm kind of at a loss here.

[thinkingwoman]

141. Given all WHAT evidence?

Again, I have asked repeatedly for links to the evidence (these "basic, proven facts you speak of) that this warming period is fundamentally different from previous warming periods, and how that evidence was obtained and analyzed given the profound lack of temperature readings before a couple hundred years ago.

Link?

The rest of your post is typical ad hominem attacks which may intimidate others, but just make me laugh. That may explain your loss.

[depakid]

152. Here's what you may need

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

http://www.realclimate.org/

Read through these, and then maybe we can talk sensibly.

[thinkingwoman]

161. See my post #160

If your links have answers to those two quesions, specifically, please cut and paste. Otherwise I won't be wasting my time reading through more evidence that the earth is warming but merely assertions and "consensus" agreements as to why.

As for talking sensibly...that's highly subjective. I don't feel anyone has responded sensibly to me throughout this thread and given the weekend is over and work begins eating up my time again tomorrow, I've pretty much given up on it happening.

If you can cut and paste answers to my questions restated for what feels like the millionth time in post #160, I'll respond. Otherwise, I don't see the point in continuting the discussion.

edited to correct typo: carpal tunnel is a bitch.

[depakid]

166. "...wasting my time reading"

Therein lies your difficulty.

It's really kind of sad- to see what seems to be an otherwise intelligent person afraid to change their mind even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

[thinkingwoman]

167. MOTSBS

More of the same bullshit:

1. Profound lack of reading comprehension
(I said I wouldn't waste any more time reading links that only prove warming--which I agree is happening--and will only read links that discuss evidence of a cause--as opposed to theories and consensus nonsense--NOT that I didn't read global warming information. Geesh that was a PATHETIC attempt at an insult.)

2. Ad hominem personal attacks to deflect from inability to address issues at hand, or comprehend a few words in a post.

3. Lack of links to actual hard evidence of CAUSE of warming

Carry on. You're helping my case.

[depakid]

174. You have no case AND you refuse to read!

I've cited three of the best sources available anywhere on the net in this thread. Colby Beck's piece in Grist How to talk to a climate skeptic is particularly well organized and useful.

In a matter of minutes, you can find just about every "argument" the so called "skptics" make- along with proof of why they're BS.

But you won't "waste your time" reading it, so what else can people to do but go ad hominem? Especially when your screen name is "thinking woman." Can you not see the irony there?

There is a worldwide scientific consensus on Anthropogenic global warming. No credible scientist disagrees with that- and NO papers refuting that have been published in any peer reviewed journal since 1993.

It's not "just a theory" any more than gravity or entropy are merely theories.

[thinkingwoman]

176. Baseless accusation

You have absolutely nothing but your opinion and misreading of my posts behind your assertion that I "refuse to read".

Seriously that's ridiculous and beneath further response.

[thinkingwoman]

117. Good thing I didn't hold my breath.

Sorry you couldn't trouble yourself with a single link to a well presented argument about how the previous warming period has been assessed, analyzed, and compared with this one, and how scientists overcome the lack of measured temperatures in that previous time period (what evidence they use) to arrive at their conclusions.

I've read many, many assertions that the warming is greater and faster now, but none bother to explain how and why that conclusion is supported beyond the sciencespeak version of "because we say so."

That's really not good enough for me. Too much "speculate, surmise, postulate" and wishful thinking for my taste.


Edited to correct typo.

[toopers]

52. I do not think that scientists are denying global warming . . .

the debate is over the cause.

[depakid]

153. There is no debate- not among scientists

The causes and most of the mechanisms are fairly well understood.

What will happen to any given region, that's much harder to model or predict.

The only "debate" about the human causes of global warming is among people who read he said/she said stories in the so called "mainstream" media.

[thinkingwoman]

162. This is just not true.

Please provide links to evidence that proves the causes and mechanisms of climate change.


Note: do not waste time with links to sites proving the earth is warmer as that does not address evidence of WHY.

[WindRavenX]

163. you asked why the earth went through a warming spell 400 years ago...

...are you familiar that the sun is a variable star and that 400 years ago and up until today we are in the middle of a more intense period of solar activity (solar flare maxima)?

This is hypothesized to be what is mostly responsible for climate swings in the past. The problem is that today, due to us fucking up the carbon cycle with putting out so much CO2, the mechanisms for global climate equilibrium is gone and we are experiencing a run-away effect.

[thinkingwoman]

168. Finally, someone admits it on this thread

Solar activity may be a cause of global warming.

Actually, I'm well aware of the fact that sun "is a variable star" and that "up until today we are in the middle of a more intense period of solar activity" but thanks for mentioning it.

It's an important point, and one of the best criticisms of the "consensus" notion that man is responsible for this latest batch of warming.

Again (and again and again) I ask for the hard evidence scientists have to definitely prove their "consensus" conclusion that this latest warming period is primarily caused man instead of just the latest in a series of natural warming periods possibly caused by solar activity.

Again (and again and again) that evidence is impossible to find discussed anywhere. All that is discussed is the "consensus" conclusion. I don't take "consensus" conclusions at face value, no matter how many people try to bully everyone to do so. There have, after all, been so many "consensus" conclusions that turned out to be utter BS in the past.

Two of my favorites include:
Brontasaurus (a complete and utter fuck up)
Hysteria in women (a completely and utterly made up illness stemming from sexism and malpractice)

Science makes mistakes. They arrive at bogus conclusions. It happens. It doesn't mean scientists are bad people or anything other than they are humans, not gods. Blind allegiance to them ranges from blasphemy to plain stupidity, depending on one's sprititual persuasion.

Believe what you want about the cause of global warming. But without hard evidence explaining not only the cause, but how this period differs significantly from past periods attributed to solar activity, it is "belief" not proven fact.


P.S. Just for fun...what is the evidence (not theory, not supposition, not wishful thinking) that the "mechanisms for global climate equilibirium is gone"? This warming period is hardly unusual in length, and not proven to be unusual in severity, so how do we know that the climate won't right itself? That is a sweeping generality about something man/science knows relatively little about. We have a long way to go before man fully understands climate, climate change, and weather.



Edited to ferret out typos. Apologies if I didn't find them all.

[WindRavenX]

175. you misunderstood me

In no way am I claiming global warming is caused by solar activity. It isn't.

We have messed with the carbon cycle by putting too much CO2 in the atmosphere--it isn't being removed and is causing a runaway greenhouse effect.

And we're 99% responsible for it.

Further, I reject your statements about science because it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

[thinkingwoman]

177. 99%?

Talk about statements with no basis in fact. That's the funniest I've heard.

Believe what you want. I'm not interested in changing your mind, and you won't change mine. No assumptions or accusations you make about my background and understanding of the issues changes my past experiences and extensive knowledge base about how real science and peer review take place these days and why it's always important to move slowly toward conclusions and acceptance of them. Sticks and stones, you know. Or maybe you don't.

Time will tell the truth about what's causing this latest round of global warming, and I'm fine with that.


P.S. You seem like someone who needs the last word to feel secure and superior. Go ahead. I don't mind.


edited to add a phrase I misplaced.

[Chemical Bill]

22. We know better...

than to not confront lies and liars.

Bill

[atomicdawg38]

23. I'm not saying that

But to stifle science is wrong. Let science debate and we stay out of it.

[Chemical Bill]

26. Science isn't something...

that mere mortals have no hope of understanding. From what I've seen, global warming deniers are not citing scientific data to back up their arguments, just lies and insults. Oh, and my degree is in chemistry.

Please study. "An Inconvenient Truth" would be a good place to start, as there is much science explained in it.

Bill

[crispini]

29. Science has HAD their debate. It's over.

Have you seen "Inconvenient Truth"? an overwhelming majority of scientists agree that global climate change is being caused by mankind.

[kestrel91316]

35. Where the hell have you been? The debate is over.

[Nederland]

63. The debate is not over

Sure, the debate on warming is over. The debate on the causes and magnitude are far from over. I think you obviously need to read up on the subject of global warming.

[NickB79]

74. I read scientific journals

In the journal Science, for example, not a SINGLE peer-reviewed paper debunking the consensus that humans are behind the warming has been published in the past 14 YEARS!

What are you reading that leads you to believe there's still a substantial debate left?

[Coventina]

75. Get ready for a long wait.

I've been waiting for a response to my request for links.

[Nederland]

79. You don't get it

Let me try to be perfectly clear.

Yes, there is no debate that global warming is occurring and man-made.

As I said, however, there is significant debate over the causes and magnititude of global warming.

Get it?

Try reading this website and educate yourself a little bit on the subject:

http://www.pewclimate.org/

[NickB79]

114. I have read that website before

"The growing scientific consensus is that this warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities including industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, and changes in land use, such as deforestation. Projections of future warming suggest a global increase of 2.5ºF (1.4ºC) to 10.4ºF (5.8ºC) by 2100, with warming in the United States expected to be even higher. In addition to warming, increases in sea level and changes in precipitation, including more frequent floods and droughts, are likely. These changes, over time, are referred to broadly as "climate change"."

So, how is this different from what I posted previously? The cause is release of greenhouse gases, such as CO2 and methane, by human activity. No one can deny this any longer.

I will agree with you on the question of magnitude still being up in the air though. So far, the possibilities are wide open, with possibilities such as "bad", "really bad", "really really bad", or "we're totally fucked" all still in the running for the final magnitude of global warming. Hopefully the scientific community can narrow that down a bit within the next few years.

[Nederland]

145. Disagree

The way that we should react depends entirely on the magnitude of the change. As you mentioned, the predicted increase varies widely from 1.4ºC to 5.8ºC (with, I should emphasize, a probability curved skewed toward the lower end). Now the proper way to respond to a 2ºC rise is vastly different than the way you should respond to a 5ºC rise. A 2ºC rise is actually fairly easy to deal with and calls for action that simply deals with the consequences of the warming. A 5ºC rise however, calls for action that deals with the causes of the warming. That's why Kyoto is a joke. Even if the proposed reductions in global emissions are met (and they probably will not be given the trend inside China), the result is a mere 15% reduction in CO2 which is practically worthless and totally unnecessary especially if the real rise turns out to be on the lower end of the scale (which, as I mentioned, is the more likely outcome).

[kestrel91316]

34. They can dissent ALL THEY WANT. They just shouldn't expect a

ringing endorsement of their views by their more enlightened colleagues.

[yardwork]

20. Is there any proof that the Weather Channel actually promotes this?

The link leads back to an extremely right-wing source. Is there any proof that this is a true report?

[Red1]

25. Who Cares?

the country doesn't need american corps to agree with the workers opinions,
without the workers the corps wouldn't exist.

red1

[Taoschick]

128. Did you follow the link to the original comments?

http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html

[depakid]

24. It's high time we had some accountability in this country

These people are like Holocaust Deniers- or more like tobacco company "scientists" who for decades were paid off to deny the connection with lung cancer.

I might even go one step further, and start reviewing broadcast licenses. After a few were yanked, I suspect that upper management and senior editors might actually start to police themselves and take serial liars like John Srossel off our public airwaves.

[NoodleyAppendage]

28. The point is...even if pollution isn't causing warming, what's the harm in curbing emissions anyway?

While the bulk of the evidence appears to support pollution as a causative for global warming, there will always be naysayers. To these individuals I typically ask:

"What would be the harm in cleaning up the air anyway? Are carbon emissions contributing to the health of your family? Is clean air worth less than a 30-minute drive in a Hummer?"

This generally shuts them up.

J

[ItNerd4life]

181. Woo-hoo! Someone with the same perspective

The earth is warming, that's proven. What's not known is why. Why was the earth much warmer in the 11th - 13th centuries than it is now? Nobody knows for sure.

But, why take a chance? Why not reduce pollution and C02 emissions and have a safe environment? I've said this also, it usually causes people to stop talking and start thinking.

I then mention that we have pollution laws in place because business abused the environment. What harm is there in adding in C02 as a pollutant?

[Junkdrawer]

30. The AccuWeather Effect...

AccuWeather is the Central Pa. firm for whom Ricky Santorum wanted the US. Meteorological Service shut down.

One of AccuWeather's biggest customers is the offshore oil industry.

And guess what? AccuWeather meteorologists appeared regularly on Fox News to diss Global Warming. Now that Global Warming is pretty much accepted by the public, I'm guessing they're working their agenda at all the conferences and trade shows.

[lynne]

31. Stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism?

What next, burning books that have an alternate theory? Sorry, this is scary and dangerous, IMO. I remember the great "Global Freeze" theories of the 1970's. What if this had been done then?

[Coventina]

32. There's a big difference between being a skeptic and a denier

All scientific data is supposed to be scrutinized with skepticism, that's what good scientists do.

The scientific community has resoundingly concluded that global warming is real and a serious threat to life on this planet.

The scientists who continue to deny global warming fall into two groups: those in the pay of vested interests, and those that have a religious bias (making their scientific credibility zero anyway). They do not deserve to be considered as credible.

Plus, how many record highs has the planet set in the last decade?

How many record lows were posted in the 70s? Comparing the "global freeze" cranks to the overwhelming evidence for global warming is not credible at all.

[Psephos]

41. The scientific community has not reached consensus about the cause

You're blending the near-consensus on warming, with the decidedly fractured range of opinions on what's responsible for the warming.

Less than a thousand years ago, the Danes had established farming communities on Greenland (ever wonder why they called it Greenland, btw?), because a centuries-long warming period had freed the Southern Greenland landmass of ice and given it a climate similar to Scotland's. Three hundred years later, those farms were buried under hundreds of meters of ice, while Europe shivered through a Little Ice Age that regularly froze the Thames solid.

Human-contributed greenhouse gases were obviously not the cause of either of those shifts.

I staunchly believe climate change is underway right now. Let's allow good scientific debate to sort out the causes (political thinking, like religious thinking, is about dogma, not open inquiry). Politically, we'd be wise to assume that human activity is a major factor, and work to limit greenhouse emissions. That is, and should be, a progressive objective. Meanwhile, let science work through the evidence. Anyone who thinks there is a simple answer is unfamiliar with nonlinear causality in general, and the workings of climate in particular.

The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.
- Bertrand Russell

Peace.

[Coventina]

42. The issue of this thread has been global warming deniers

Who said anything about shutting down debate about causes?

The rise in global temperatures is causing the Siberian permafrost to melt, which will only speed things faster. That's a "natural" cause, but just as dangerous as the human causes.

The point is, we have to acknowledge that it's REAL and that if we don't take action soon, the whole planet will suffer untold damage.

[thinkingwoman]

47. If man is not the primary cause

Meaning if this warming trend is not the result of pollution, then there is no action that can be taken.

In fact, action taken to alter the planet's climate, in any case, is risky without further research into what triggers these periodic climate shifts and how they naturally progress and resolve themselves.

You may be eager to mess with mother nature, but I am not. Tinkering with things we know nothing about, imho, can lead to the whole planet suffering "untold damage."

[Coventina]

49. Um, if you have been reading any of the recent scientific findings

you would know that what scientists are saying is that human causes have kicked off a feedback cycle in the climate.

Go right ahead and pretend everything is okay though.

I hope before we all die I get to tell you "told you so."

Here are some links for those who would like to deny that we are headed for serious trouble, or think that we shouldn't bother to do anything:

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp#1

http://www.livescience.com/globalwarming/

http://environment.about.com/od/faqglobalwarming/f/globalwarming.htm

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/03/root18.html

[thinkingwoman]

95. I'm not stupid

Just because I disagree with you.

I know, that is blashemy here at DU. Certain topics DEMAND compliance. But that doesn't change fact, or lack thereof.

[Coventina]

97. So what are you saying?

Are you saying you read my links but still don't believe action needs to be taken on global warming?

I never said you were stupid, either.

[thinkingwoman]

106. It's true you never said I was stupid

I should have posted that I'm not ignorant of the issue just because I disagree with you.

Do your links contain an explanation of why the earth went through a similar warming period several hundred years ago without man made pollution but suddenly this warming period is solely/primarily because of man?

If so, I'll be happy to read them.

What I have found in all of my reading to date, however, is that the evidence clearly supports the assertion that the earth is warming but does not adequately address how this period differs from the one in the 1500s or thereabouts.

[Coventina]

119. Volcanic and solar activity are what scientists have found

were the likely causes of the Little Ice Age, which was primarily documented in Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

BTW: In my research, I found that trying to debunk the current global warming crises by trying to compare it to the LIA is a common right wing talking point. So you might want to investigate where you are getting your information. Plus, DU tends to frown upon the use of DU to spread right wing talking points.

[thinkingwoman]

121. Nice try

I don't happen to be right wing. I've been on DU since 2001 and I've never been interested in spreading right wing talking points.

But since you brought it up--the frequent use of non-sequitors, ad hominem attacks and attempts to stifle/silence dissent are standard-issue right wing tactics.

Now, back to topic at hand:

Scientists, and their groupies, who favor drawing conclusions based on limited data (ie. temp records for less than 200 years of the life of this planet) and refusing to compare observed events with similar events in the past, are engaged in junk science. Authentic and valuable science thoroughly investigates all variables, all similarities and differences and every possible cause of an event before drawing conclusions, and admits when there isn't enough data to draw a complete conclusion.

[thinkingwoman]

123. P.S. Comparing the LIA to current warming cycle

Would be ridiculous. Why compare a warming cycle to a cooling cycle? You meant comparing the current warming cycle to the MWP, right?

[Coventina]

125. You brought up the LIA in the first place!

I never thought it had anything to do with the current warming cycle.

[thinkingwoman]

132. No I didn't. I did not ever type: little ice age. nt

[Coventina]

154. Okay, I owe you an apology

It was another poster who brought up the Little Ice Age.

For some reason I got them confused with you, and for that I apologize.

[thinkingwoman]

169. Hey don't worry about it

Not a problem. :hi:

[Zhade]

143. No. You're not stupid. You're just wrong. Dead wrong.

As several people have proven in this very thread.

[thinkingwoman]

150. No one has proven anything...until now.

This latest post of yours, claiming I have been "proven" wrong, shows exactly how low your standards of "proof" are, which actually bolsters my case that there is no "proof" of the cause of the latest warming cycle.

There IS "proof" that the earth is warming.

There are "theories" as to why, and how warm it will get, and how long it will last, and what the consequences will be, but those are all theories, suppositions, and predictions, not evidence, fact, or "proof."

[Nihil]

56. "there is no action that can be taken"?!

> You may be eager to mess with mother nature, but I am not.
> Tinkering with things we know nothing about, imho, can lead to
> the whole planet suffering "untold damage."

Hey ThinkingOstrich, the whole planet IS suffering untold damage ...
"untold" simply because people like you are busy trying to bury the
news about man-made extinctions TODAY, climate change TODAY and
pollution TODAY.

No rational person supports the delusional smokescreens of "orbital
sunshades" and other such crap but the real "tinkering" (as you put it)
has been taking place over the last few centuries, at an exponential
rate.

That is why we need to STOP fucking up the planet NOW, not in a few
decades, not in the next century but NOW.

[Coventina]

58. Thank you.

:pals:

[Psephos]

77. Calling others names makes your argument seem like it can't stand on its own

ThinkingWoman is not saying there's no warming going on. She's saying there's no definitive understanding of what's causing it. There's a range of scientific opinions. Naturally, we think those scientists whose views reflect our own to be future Nobel winners, and those whose views are contrary to be mendacious shills. :eyes: Thankfully, science values the clash of ideas much more than politics.

ThinkingWoman has earned her nickname, IMO.

History is full of examples of how incomplete understanding of complex systems caused us to make them worse through misguided efforts to make them better. (Cane toads, anyone?)

The scientifically prudent thing to do currently is to assume that human activity is having a big impact on climate change, and work right now to diminish the most obvious components of that. But we also have to be clear we don't know for sure if we're targeting the right thing. Perhaps human activity is the sole agent, perhaps it's one of several influences; further research, better models, and increased understanding of nuances in the interaction between ocean and atmosphere will eventually yield the answer. But not quite yet.

What if it's not greenhouse gases, but agriculture, that's responsible for the greatest effect? What if it's a misunderstood consequence of high-atmosphere aerosols, and not CO2? What part does cyclic variation in solar output play? Have we altered surface albedo in ways that cause Earth to hang on to more solar radiation, and if so, can we reverse it? What if we spend too much time focused on a lesser contributor because of a political dogma and ignore the thing that's actually more important?

These are just off the top of my head. A knowledgeable climatologist would have many more. The climatologist would also point out that climate is a classic example of a chaotic, or nonlinear, system (in pop terms, it's subject to the "butterfly effect"). The stock market, human emotional states, and the flow of traffic are also well-known examples. The salient feature of a chaotic system is that common-sense ideas of cause-and-effect do not apply. One cannot predict the outcome from the initial conditions. (People interested in a greater understanding of how the world actually works might consider reading James Gleick's book Chaos: Making A New Science.)

I completely agree we need to, as you put it, stop fucking up the planet. You'll never find anyone who disagrees we shouldn't be "fucking up the planet." Unfortunately, each person you ask will have a different answer for what exactly that entails.

We should promote, not inhibit, the exchange of scientific debate so that we can find the answers in the shortest possible time. The application of critical thinking skills will help identify the worthiest ideas. Squelching debate will not.

Peace.

[Nihil]

170. There is a difference between "stifling debate" and "allowing fraud".

> ThinkingWoman is not saying there's no warming going on.
> She's saying there's no definitive understanding of what's causing it.
> There's a range of scientific opinions.

In that case she is wrong.
There *is* a definitive understanding of the contributory factors
that are causing it - the "range of scientific opinions" is about
the contribution each factor makes, not that each does contribute.

> ThinkingWoman has earned her nickname, IMO.

Fine, I was obviously feeling snarky on Friday afternoon and only
responded w.r.t. her posts on this thread.

> The scientifically prudent thing to do currently is to assume that
> human activity is having a big impact on climate change, and work
> right now to diminish the most obvious components of that.

Agree completely.

> But we also have to be clear we don't know for sure if we're targeting
> the right thing.

Also agree.

> Perhaps human activity is the sole agent, perhaps it's one of several
> influences;

Disagree completely :-)

There is no doubt that it *is* only "one of several influences".
I don't know of a single scientist (or non-scientist for that matter)
who is claiming that "human activity is the sole agent".

> What if it's not greenhouse gases, but agriculture, that's responsible
> for the greatest effect?

As in agriculture that has been around for >5000 years but only decided
to affect the climate in the last 200? If the dramatic change had only
arisen in the last few decades then I might go along with that hypothesis
but given the timescale involved, it isn't a contender.

> What if it's a misunderstood consequence of high-atmosphere aerosols,
> and not CO2?

Agreed, this is a serious contributor and has been proven so over the
geological record ... but not with the same rapidity as currently being
observed - since the industrialisation of Man.

> What part does cyclic variation in solar output play?

Again, there is no dispute that this is a contributor and most models
incorporate this evidence but, absent any evidence of an IR-only nova,
this does not explain the recent history.

> Have we altered surface albedo in ways that cause Earth to hang on
> to more solar radiation, and if so, can we reverse it?

Other than by melting ice (polar, tundra and temperate glacial) over
the last century or so, we simply do not have the means of determining
terrestrial albedo changes. The evidence that we do have supports the
positive feedback aspects (melting the ice will increase retained heat).

> What if we spend too much time focused on a lesser contributor
> because of a political dogma and ignore the thing that's actually
> more important?

That's effectively what this whole debate is about (i.e., the original
topic of the thread) as the scientists are objecting to the political
activists masquerading as scientists and proposing the removal of the
latter's "scientific" disguise.

> The application of critical thinking skills will help identify the
> worthiest ideas. Squelching debate will not.

Agreed (again). The key here is not for the scientists to squelch those
who dissent but for the PR elements of those dissenters to stop promoting
their sponsors as somehow representative of the scientific bodies who have
already exercised their critical thinking and identified the frauds as
not having worthy ideas.

Peace to you too.

[thinkingwoman]

96. Reading comprehension

requires actually reading every word, as opposed to cherry picking to make a point.

I said IF man is not the cause, THEN there is no action to take.

The only rational argument to what I posted, would be to claim that man should alter the climate even if the cycle is natural. If you want to defend that position, go ahead.

I did not, in any post in this thread, claim to know one way or the other if man is the cause. Unlike many people on both sides of this debate, I hesitate to draw conclusions based on what little evidence has been presented.

Before another half-post reader jumps in here, let me clarify about evidence: I feel there is PLENTY of evidence that the earth is warming. What is lacking is evidence of a CAUSE.

There are theories, which may turn out to be correct. But first these theories will have to explain previous warming cycles that occured before man started buring fossil fuels.

[Nihil]

172. Comprehension also requires clarity in writing

> I said IF man is not the cause, THEN there is no action to take.
> ...
> I did not, in any post in this thread, claim to know one way or
> the other if man is the cause.
> ...
> I feel there is PLENTY of evidence that the earth is warming.
> What is lacking is evidence of a CAUSE.

My objection is not to your IF..THEN but to your repeated statement that
there is a single cause and that if "man" is not this single cause then
the world should not change things until this single cause is determined.
This provokes great irritation in me as there is NOT a single cause
(and I know of no scientists who claim otherwise) and so postponing our
actions until a non-existant "single cause" is found is simply suicide.

> The only rational argument to what I posted, would be to claim that
> man should alter the climate even if the cycle is natural. If you want
> to defend that position, go ahead.

That is not accurate. There is no question that man has already altered
the environment (or is there? am I misreading you again?) and that many
of those ways in which the environment has changed have an effect on
the climate (e.g., SO2 emissions, aircraft aerosols, CO2 emissions).
The question is one of "how much" not "if".

My contention (stated previously) is not that man should alter the climate
by means of additional large-scale tampering ("sunshades" or increasing
albedo using reflectors to compensate for lost ice) but, simply, by means
of reducing the initial interference: reduce/eliminate the man-made SO2,
reduce/eliminate aircraft aerosols, reduce/eliminate man-made CO2, etc.).
We should not (even "must not") continue to alter the climate of this
planet by action or inaction.

Human interaction with the climate has been proven. The true debate is
over the amount due to human action compared to the other factors.
I interpreted your defence of the deniers as being a plea for continuing
the lack of restraint on humans until some magical answer was found.
If you regard that as a failing in "reading comprehension", so be it.

PS: I apologise for the ad hom (ad fem?). As I said in .170 above,
I was obviously feeling snarky on Friday.

[thinkingwoman]

178. Apology accepted, but not needed

We all feel snarky sometimes. Well, most of us do. I don't really trust people who don't, do you?

Now to the meat of your post:

"Human interaction with the climate has been proven. The true debate is
over the amount due to human action compared to the other factors.
I interpreted your defence of the deniers as being a plea for continuing
the lack of restraint on humans until some magical answer was found.
If you regard that as a failing in "reading comprehension", so be it."

Perhaps it wasn't a failure in reading comprehension so much as an attaching of an agenda not supported by my text. But this paragraph does clarify your reaction and provides me an opportunity to clarify as well.

I was not defending anyone's postion in this debate. I was rejecting silencing tactics, which always seem facist to me. Believe me, my gut reaction to creationists and racists and lots of other "ists" is a wish to force them all to sit down and shut up. But that's not what our principles demand in this nation. We HAVE to let everyone speak, or we risk not being allowed to speak ourselves. That's a simple fact about liberty--use it or lose it. Your interpretation, as you put it, that I was making "a plea for continuing the lack of restraint" is something you brought to the argument, not something I advocated. In fact, I specifically said in several posts on this thread that I supported reducing pollution (and I include natural substances man spews into the atmosphere in that term).

Further, I'm not advocating waiting for a magical answer. I'm advocating caution and recognition that science doesn't have all the answers and good scientists admit as much. They don't claim to know things they cannot prove. And they admit when they cannot prove what they think is true, and often is found to be true down the line when technology catches up and they can perform better experiments. It is true that human interaction with the climate is suggested by the evidence. But the extent is the key and scientists just don't know the extent yet. They THINK they do. But proving it conclusively is another matter. If there was definitive proof, the whole consensus nonsense would be unnecessary. Nobody has to "agree to agree" about something they can prove.

Finally, if I stated that I thought there was a single cause to global warming, I mistyped and I'm sorry about that. I don't believe there is a single cause. In fact, I believe that the issue is far more complicated that some activists think, and that if it were so simple, it would be easier for scientists to definitively prove cause and effect.

Nevertheless, thank you for your reply. I appreciate your clarifications and the chance to add my own.


P.S. LOL on the ad fem!

[Nihil]

179. Thanks

> I don't believe there is a single cause.
> In fact, I believe that the issue is far more complicated that some
> activists think, and that if it were so simple, it would be easier for
> scientists to definitively prove cause and effect.

Sounds like we agree on the important bits. :hi:

[thinkingwoman]

45. Well said

There is a vast difference between denying the globe is in a warming period, and questioning the cause.

Good science demands more rigorous research to determine the cause. Anyone claiming to know the cause for certain at this point is furthering an agenda. Plain and simple.

That being said, I'm always for reducing pollution and eliminating our dependence on oil. Both can be done without squelching debate.

[kristopher]

108. Vikings

My understanding was that naming the ice island "Greenland" and the habitable island "Iceland" was a deliberate strategy by the Vikings to confuse their enemies.
For the past 500,000 years the CO2 level and the average global temperature have demonstrated a precise correlation. (Check the dates of the Ice Ages). During that period the highest level of CO2 was around 280 ppm. We are now at about 380 ppm.

Those interested might also want to direct some of their attention to another result of the CO2 we're pumping into the air - ocean acidification. The ocean is absorbing large quantities (about half) of the CO2 we're emitting. As a consequence we are changing the ph balance of the ocean. If you've ever owned or maintained a pool or aquarium you know that this is a pretty important fact.
Climate changes and the disruptions that result might well be the most benign consequence of burning fossil fuels.

[Odin2005]

137. It was called Greenland by Eric the Red to get gullible suckers to settle there.

[fastfowardtheater1]

37. Scientists are never wrong.

I remember when brave scientists all agreed that we should replace harmful butter with trans fat Margarine goodness. :sarcasm:

Seriously no matter what your opinion on global warming this should scare you.

When we start casting out "heretics" it is no longer about science it is a religion.

[WindRavenX]

39. no, it's about them not being scientists

There is 0 peer reviewed work that has been done by global warming skeptics-- they don't use science when voicing their opinions.

As it has always been in science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

They provide no hypothesis, evidence, or research to support their claim.

Kudos to Heidi.

[Nederland]

55. Response

There is 0 peer reviewed work that has been done by global warming skeptics

Then you have nothing to worry about. People that aren't getting published fade to the wayside and the scientific consensus moves forward. That's the way science works and is supposed to work, so just let it. There is absolutely no reason to interject politics into this. Let the system work as it was designed to work.

[Coventina]

59. Unfortunately, politics have been injected by our government

which has muzzled scientists with evidence that global warming is real, and that it is a serious threat.

So, "the way science works and is supposed to work" has already been tampered with.

The people in the Bush administration have been actively working AGAINST science, and promoting the quacks.

[Nederland]

62. Question

When you say that the Bush Administration has "muzzled" scientists, what do you mean? Can you give me an example?

More importantly, isn't "muzzling" exactly what you are advocating here, only on the other side?

[Coventina]

64. Here you go:

NASA Scientist: Bush Stifles Global Warming Evidence
http://www.space.com/news/bush_warming_041027.html

more links:

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/09/10/bush/index_np.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1046388,00.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/01/news/warm.php

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0608-05.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/03/tech/main510920.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?ex=1275883200&en=22149dd80c073dd8&ei=5089

I could go on.....

This isn't about muzzling scientific freedom. This is about not letting quacks and cranks pose as real scientific authorities.

[Nederland]

66. The problem is

...who gets to decide who the "quacks and cranks" are?

The best solution is to let everyone speak their peace, no matter how ridiculous you believe it to be.

[Coventina]

67. The problem is, the people who are governing the world's biggest polluter

are stifling the scientific community.

Please provide links showing that these quacks and cranks (as I define them) have legitimate studies supporting their claims that are accepted as such by mainstream scientific opinion.

[Nederland]

68. You didn't answer the question

WHO gets to decide who the quacks and cranks are?

[Coventina]

69. In this particular instance, it is an AMS "Seal of Approval"

so it would be the American Meteorological Society.

[Nederland]

70. Let me get this straight

If I understand you, you believe that the premier organization of any particular field should have the power to decide who the quacks and cranks are, and silence them if they deem it necessary?

[Coventina]

71. Who said anything about "silencing" them?

Snake oil salesmen are free to say whatever they want.

And no, your category of "the premier organization of any particular field" is way too broad.

But, in general, I think the scientific community has been fairly responsible about declaring who is legit and who is not. That doesn't mean that well-meaning scientists don't disagree sometimes. The truth will out eventually. And you know what? I really am hoping global warming isn't real. I'd love to wake up in the morning and not worry about being one more day closer to the death of the planet. Unfortunately, all signs point to otherwise. That's the difference between wishful thinking and facing reality.

I'm still waiting for you to provide links to global warming deniers that are accepted as legitimate.

[WindRavenX]

73. you're not getting any links from that poster

Because there ARE no legit global warming skeptics that are scientists and have peer reviewed work.

That's what anti-reason individuals do--they ignore the fact that the scientific method is THERE entirely to be utilized by skeptics, but they just decide to play politics and shout that we're "silencing" skeptics, which is hilarious.

Just as anti-evolutionists have been told to form a testable hypothesis to show alternatives to the tested and true Darwinian model of natural selection, they instead chose to sit on their ass and cry about all the mean scientists who are silencing them.

Waaaaaa to them :nopity:

[Nederland]

78. I have no links

...because there are none. That's my point. You obviously haven't been reading what I've been writing so this discussion is rapidly becoming a waste of my time.

[Coventina]

81. I thought your point was that important voices were being silenced.

If I misunderstood then I'm sorry.

[Nederland]

84. No

My point is that nobody has the right to decide who is an "important voice". You and I may agree that the "important voices" on the subject consist of people that have been published by peer reviewed scientific publications. However, I would be loathe to establish that as a precedent. Some of the greatest scientific ideas in history were rejected by the scientific establishment of the day.

[Coventina]

85. Well, it seems we are trying to compare apples & oranges

You are correct that sometimes new scientific findings or discoveries are dismissed by the scientific establishment, this is particularly true of the past, not so much now. With new technologies and better communications systems at hand, it is usually fairly easy to replicate and authenticate someone else's findings fairly quickly.

But when you have someone speaking out against the body of evidence, and they cannot produce any evidence of their own, it is fair to question that person's legitimacy. If they are a meteorologist, and they are denying that globabl warming is real, and most likely caused by human activity, and they cannot bring any evidence to the table to show that they are right, then they deserve to have their credentials stripped from them.

No one is saying that they can't continue to say what they like.

[depakid]

72. It sounds to me like what the poster is saying

is that CREDIBLE scientific organizations shouldn't lend their name or credential to people who spread propaganda and misinformation that's not backed by sound evidence and practice.

See post 61 above, which references this article by Naomi Oreskes:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0724-28.htm

[Bill McBlueState]

112. the AMS isn't going to silence anyone.

Just withhold their seal of approval.

I think organizations are free to approve of and disapprove of whomever they want.

[SemperEadem]

101. Scientific facts sifts them out

the question really is: who gets to determine the facts for you? A quack with an agenda or a credible scientist?

[SemperEadem]

100. no, that's not at all what's being debated here

no one is saying that they cannot speak their minds--that's the hole you keep falling into.

What IS being said is that they should not be awarded a scientific credential when they choose to deny scientific facts. There is void the size of Jupiter between the two.

And the Bush admin has muzzled scientists when they disagree with the scientific conclusions of the scientists.

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/K/0/pub0070.html
WASHINGTON, April 16 -- TODAY, the FDA admits hiding the potential risk of anti- depressants to children: The FDA barred its top expert from testifying at a conference convened to determine what guidance the FDA should give to the public about new studies linking anti- depressants to suicide in children. The expert concluded that children given anti-depressants were almost twice as likely as those given a placebo to become suicidal. (New York Times, 4/16/04)

This isn't the first time the Bush White House has misused science for political gain:

-- Misleading the Public about the Health Risks of Mercury: "Throughout an E.P.A. draft of the proposed regulations circulated in November, a White House staff member crossed out the word "confirmed" from the phrase describing mercury as a "confirmed public health risk." In some instances, sentences in the final proposals were changed to mercury "warrants regulation. In another case, a toxicologist with the Office of Management and Budget recommended changes to a sentence saying children exposed to mercury in the womb "are at increased risk of poor performance on neurobehavioral tests." The final sentence that was published said children "may be at increased risk.'" (New York Times, 4/7/04)

snip

-- 'scientists and Nobel Laureates Say Bush Administration Has Censored Reports: In late February, more than 60 influential scientists, including more than 20 Nobel laureates, signed a statement saying the administration had disbanded scientific advisory committees, placed unqualified people on other panels and censored reports by others when their scientific conclusions conflicted with administration policies. (New York Times, 3/30/04)-- Global Warming: "In late May (2002), the White House approved a climate report that was then submitted by the State Department to the United Nations, though it contained far more dire projections of harm from global warming than Mr. Bush had publicly accepted. The president quickly distanced himself from the report, saying it was "put out by the bureaucracy." New copies of the report have been changed to emphasize scientific uncertainty about the effects of global warming."(New York Times, 9/15/02) More of the article at the site.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?ex=1296190800&en=28e236da0977ee7f&ei=5088

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.

[Bill McBlueState]

111. this isn't about people who publish

It's about TV weather forecasters. Whatever the science is, a TV weatherperson with an agenda can say whatever they want. Cullen is just advocating that if they spread misinformation, they shouldn't get the endorsement of a scientific society.

[hatrack]

38. Please name one peer-reviewed study of the "Global Freeze" theory, as you call it

Name one scientist who advanced this theory.

Name one scientific organization which endorsed it as a valid scientific theory.

Name one professional group, like the AMS or the Royal Academy or the NAS, which stated during the 1970s that the overwhelming consensus was that the Earth was cooling.

Name ONE ARTICLE, ONE SCIENTIST or ONE GROUP which supported these ideas at that time.

Name ONE.

[hatrack]

46. *Crickets chirping*

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Nederland]

53. Here you go

"Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate"
published in Science, July 1971.
written by S. Ichtiaque Rasool and Stephen H. Schneider

The paper examined the possible future effects of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution such as smog. They concluded that greenhouse gases were regarded as likely factors that could promote global warming, while particulate pollution blocks sunlight and contributes to cooling. They theorized that aerosols were more likely to contribute to climate change in the foreseeable future.

Please understand me. By no means was the scientific community as united around the theory of global cooling as it is now about global warming. However, it is completely wrong to imply, as you have done, that no scientist ever proposed the idea. The poster is correct in asserting that global cooling was a theory that had a moment of popularity in the early 1970's. However, that moment was rather brief as our understand of climate change increased and the empirical data shifted to support the theory of global warming instead.

Here is a good Wikipedia article on Global Cooling with about a dozen references to scientific papers published in the early 1970's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

[Ezlivin]

60. Global dimming is real and somewhat ameliorates the effects of global warming

PBS had a special on this called "Dimming the Sun."

The BBC has also published information on this.

The first clue came from an unlikely and tragic event.

In the days after 9/11, aircraft across the USA were grounded for three whole days.

Surprisingly, there appeared to be a change in the weather.

Scientists found the difference between day and night temperatures was one degree greater than usual.

It appeared that the lack of contrails had led to clear blue skies and an increase in daytime temperatures.

It seemed to confirm that contrails are contributing to a phenomenon known as "global dimming", blocking out radiation from the sun and cooling the planet.

[NickB79]

76. And if you actually read that report

You would find that they didn't come down in support of the "Global Freeze" hypothesis at all. They stated, as you pointed out in your quote, that greenhouse gases could warm the planet, while particulates could cool it. They then went on to say that depending on what way the world's energy production went in over the next few decades, the planet could either cool or warm. As coal plants were forced to install scrubbers and more natural gas turbines came online, the particulates in the atmosphere declined and global warming kicked in, JUST AS THEY POSTULATED IN THEIR PAPER.

[Nederland]

80. Got a link?

I ask because your description of the paper contradicts what the Wikipedia article says. I'd like to be able to judge for myself.

[NickB79]

115. From your own Wiki link above

"Greenhouse gases were regarded as likely factors that could promote global warming, while particulate pollution blocks sunlight and contributes to cooling. In their paper, Rasool and Schneider theorized that aerosols were more likely to contribute to climate change in the foreseeable future than greenhouse gases, stating that quadrupling aerosols "could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 C. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!" As this passage demonstrates, however, Rasool and Schneider considered global cooling a possible future scenario, but they did not predict it."

[WindRavenX]

99. that link contains theories that are now ralmost completed rejected

The vast majority of the scientific communitiy concluded from the research done in the 70's, including CO2 levels, that there world wasn't cooling, it was heating up.

[Nederland]

102. No shit

But the poster asked for a single peered reviewed article predicting global cooling and I gave it to him.

[WindRavenX]

104. predicting is not the same as having evidence

That's the crux of the issue. I can think of tons of reasons why we might be warming up-- increased geothermal activity, solar flux, etc. I can also think of a ton of reasons why there might be blips on the radar, metaphorically speaking, on recorded cool years on record in the 1960s. It was proven that in the late 50s and 60s, use of nuclear weapons actually created cooler seasons--remember "Silent Spring"?

Back to evidence: there is no evidence for sustained global cooling or that global warming doesn't exist. That's the literature I think I and a few other DUers were asking for.

[Nederland]

146. Read Post #38

You are confused.

[WindRavenX]

156. Actually, I'm not

Quite frankly, this thread is getting absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe some people are actually having a hard time with the seriousness of the issue.

adios.

[SemperEadem]

103. wikpedia isn't exactly encylopedia brittanica

anyone can go in and post to that site and they could post wrong information.

I'm not saying... I'm just saying...

[LanternWaste]

180. Much like an aeronautical engineer

Much like an aeronautical engineer would be stripped of his credentials if he says that the law of gravity is bogus, and then we later find out he's on the payroll of the Anti-Gravity Commission...

[Seldona]

36. This should be done in all fields of science.

Amazing to me that in 2007 we are still having to fend off people who would base SCIENCE on an ancient goat herder's religion.

[enough already]

54. She's 100% right

This problem has been conclusively proven to be real and man-made and anyone denying it should be stipped of any and all certifications, credentials, etc.

[Nederland]

57. Looks like she is backing off slightly

From here recent reply on the subject:

<snip>

I've read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn't confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.

<snip>

http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11592.html

[Zhade]

90. That doesn't sound like backing off to me.

It sounds likes she's reminding anyone who spreads the lie that she wants to stifle free speech that these deniers are free to speak, which was never in doubt - they just shouldn't expect scientists to endorse their denial of scientific fact.

[Bridget Burke]

65. More info on Marc Morano--the tool who posted this story.

Marc Morano, is the Communications Direcotr for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works dealing with environmental issues ranging from climate change to endangered species legislation.

Former Senior Staff Writer for CNSNews, and is previously known as Rush Limbaugh’s “Man in Washington” as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine, Marc's reporting has made national news with appearances and coverage on The O'Reilly Factor, Special Report w/ Brit Hume, USA Today, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, the American Spectator and Human Events, as well as online with National Review, Newsmax.com, WorldnetDaily, and the Drudge Report.

He has also appeared on Politically Incorrect, NBC and ABC News and the McLaughlin Group. He has also reported for a wide variety of radio programs, including the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Oliver North Shows. Mr. Morano has both White House and Capitol Hill press credentials.

www.changingworldviews.com/guestcommentaries/marcmoranocom.htm

Are the "Moranos" the Italian branch of the famous "Moran" family?

Yes, I see that the Dr Cullen has moderated her speech. But I'm sure she has not changed her opinion.

[NotGivingUp]

109. for all the trolls in this thread...there has not been free speech practiced here for

quite some time. when the corporate elite have control of the airwaves, newspaper, etc. dream on you stupid trolls...free speech my ass. when the tables are turned, you're all a bunch of chatty kathy dolls...just pull the cord and all they can say is free speech...free speech...free speech. you all make me sick.

[Zero Division]

120. Recommendation for those interested in climate change: RealClimate.org

It's not necessarily the best site for those unaccustomed to scientific terminology, but they do thoroughly address criticisms from those who are skeptical of human-caused climate change.

http://www.realclimate.org/

[WindRavenX]

131. why are you stifling skeptics?

:sarcasm:

Great link, thx!

[originalpckelly]

136. What the fuck? Everyone has the right to air skepticism...

My goodness, without skepticism we'd still believe that the Earth was the center of the universe. Global warming is real. However, under this policy, even someone with strong evidence to the contrary, would be lose their AMS seal.

In science we don't "pick" one side or another of a debate, every theory is judged by the amount of evidence to support it.

Right now, and probably always, there is not a lot of hard evidence to dispute global warming, but who knows, there may be some.

Science is about the truth, what ever it may be, no matter how unsavory. The very problem with the global warming deniers is that they are attached to a single theory with little supporting evidence.

Deniers don't just air skepticism, they specifically state with no evidence to support it, that global warming is merely hype.

But skeptics ought to be championed. Maybe she should have called for those whom outright deny the existence of global warming to lose their seal, because they have come to a conclusion not supported by evidence, and that shows a lack of ability in any scientific field.

[depakid]

138. Only in America

Would a person say:

"Deniers don't just air skepticism, they specifically state with no evidence to support it, that global warming is merely hype.

But skeptics ought to be championed."

:wtf:

Yep- just as the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" and the Bill of Rights has no such thing as a 4th Amendment.

[Odin2005]

139. The Denialists use anti-science Postmodernist rhetoric to fool people.

As I stated in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3158586&mesg_id=3159493

Much of the denialists' rhetoric consists of denigrating the scientific consensus using PoMo sophistry.

[WindRavenX]

140. yeah, that was a great post btw

It disturbs me how many people don't seem to understand that not all opinions should be given equal weight.

Everyone's got a right to an opinion, but not their own facts.

[tabasco]

151. If you're not a scientist but a lobbyist,

they should be able to kick you out of the scientist club. But by all means go join the lobbyist club.

[WindRavenX]

157. This thread has become a joke.

I'm printing it out.

[Coventina]

158. You can say that again.

Although link after link has been posted with evidence showing that the earth is warming, that a major component of the cause is human activity, and that the results will be catastrophic, the evidence is dismissed because "the earth has warmed in the past."

And that every crank, quack, and snake oil salesman is entitled to respect by scientific organizations, or their right to free speech is being stifled.

:eyes:

[WindRavenX]

159. it's the same horseshit with evolution

There are gaps, of course there are gaps, but some people just want to dismiss it entirely...

This is why science education is so badly needed in this country...

[vireo]

164. "Climate Code" on now

Dr. Cullen responds to critics at 56 minutes.

[ohio2007]

173. Wind talker code breaker