Here.
Update:
Welcome, Birdforum readers!
If you've enjoyed exploring the shockingly bad science of the Ivory-bill fiasco, you may also enjoy exploring the details of the current global warming debate. There are many parallels, and interestingly enough, Don Kennedy plays Don Kennedy in both cases.
For some details of the skeptical viewpoint on global warming alarmism, check out this posting.
Also see this blog post.
“Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
1 hour ago
Posts
14 comments:
Tom,
I would like to point out two things.
1. One one side, James Inhofe is a notorious and rabid supporter of big business and industry over the environment, and will do and say anything to promote his extremist right wing values. He has called people in support of the environment "Nazis" and the EPA the "gestapo". I know all is fair in politics, but his agenda is definitely driven by the far right wing. His skeptics guide is driven by industry and consumptive interests.
2. The other side, run by the environmental left seems to feel that it is in our best interests to make extraordinary claims about the direction of the earth. I have always felt that the alarm bell ringing has not necessarily taken into account a more wholistic viepoint, but there are some environmental alarms that I see every time I travel. Humans have affected the environment very visibly wherever you go.
Finally, I have serious questions about global warming myself, but have problems sifting through the morass from both political sides. The basic political agendas that seem to drive the debate, are: do we cut back on our current way of consuming and using energy, or all ahead full bore till the last oil well dries up.
I was wondering if you are staking out a position on the side of Inhofe, or are charting a more centrist course?
"I was wondering if you are staking out a position on the side of Inhofe, or are charting a more centrist course?"
I know essentially nothing about Inhofe, and I'm not charting any course.
If we end up having more global warming discussions on this blog, I'd very much want them to be tightly focused on the science itself, rather than the politics.
I've recently devoured as much information as possible from all sides of this debate. At this point, it seems clear to me that the media hype has been outrageous.
"..it seems clear to me that the media hype has been outrageous."
And this issue cannot be ignored in how the public discovers or perceives anything in the 21st century. If you were to use media coverage as a barometer of what is most important to the legal community you would think that missing young white women dominated discussions in the legal community.
This problem with “crying wolf” means that we have no way of knowing what the real discoveries or threats are. With outrageous media hype on most everything a potential real threat, like global warming, can be lumped with the cultural trivia of the moment.
If we end up having more global warming discussions on this blog, I'd very much want them to be tightly focused on the science itself, rather than the politics.
If you quote Inhofe, Monckton or Al Gore, you are entirely entering a political discussion. They have political agendas that are not divorced from their science. They are all convinced that their science reinforces their political beliefs.
Politics is the art and science of influencing people. It's not a dirty word. The only reason to discuss the science of global warming is to enter the art of influencing people.
And that is as it should be. If a subject or point of view isn't worth influencing people then why bother? So please, delve fully into the science and the politics of global warming.
At this point, it seems clear to me that the media hype has been outrageous.
Yes, but on what side of the argument? There's the rub.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
No matter how you feel about global warming, this statement from "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" is far more honest than anything Monckton or Fitzcrow has ever said about global warming and IBWOs, respectively.
Fitzcrow still puts out press releases speaking as if the Arkansas sighting was proved and excepted by every one.
http://www.realclimate.org/
The above site is nominated for one of the Best Science Blogs. If I were you, Tom, and I were really interested in the subject, I'd read that blog from top to bottom, regularly, like I do here, and contribute your thoughts in the comments.
Btw: James Inhofe is a bad joke.
1. Yes, I've been reading realclimate.org.
2. "Btw: James Inhofe is a bad joke."
Again with the completely unsupported blanket statements. Please go through his claims regarding global warming science and tell us very specifically why one or more of them is incorrect. Please don't stray off onto other unrelated topics (HIV, intelligent design, etc).
In order to make this comment section more useful, I may experiment with more stringent comment moderation.
"No matter how you feel about global warming, this statement from "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" is far more honest than anything Monckton or Fitzcrow has ever said about global warming and IBWOs, respectively."
I'm getting increasingly frustrated by these vague, blanket statements.
Regarding Fitzcrow, we've discussed in very great detail the specifics of his taking liberties with the truth.
If you're going to contend that Monckton or Gore are being a little dishonest or completely dishonest on the issue of global warming, that's just peachy. Just give us very specific examples of what they're saying and exactly why you contend that it is untruthful.
In another comment, someone wrote: "So please, delve fully into the science and the politics of global warming."
Again, in my opinion, discussing partisan politics is a big distraction to a serious discussion of the scientific arguments here. That "hockey stick" graph is either reasonably correct or it is not, and partisan politics has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific truth. Current political arguments cannot possibly have any effect on medieval global temperatures.
To ibwo_atheist: please note that on my own blog, I get to decide whether we expand the discussion from IBWO junk science to what I perceive as global warming junk science.
If global warming discussions continue here, I'll probably change the name of this blog.
Current political arguments cannot possibly have any effect on medieval global temperatures.
But haven't you proven that they do? It's history. And about history, we can and often do disagree. Monckton has used some questionable or correct data to support his graph. We all decide which. That's politics. You can't go back to the middle ages. Therefore political arguments and science will both determine medieval global temperatures.
I'm not being cute here. It's the way the world of ideas, and yes politics, works. Embrace it. Admit that you are in a political discussion. It's ok.
That "hockey stick" graph is either reasonably correct or it is not
That's like saying either the luneau video shows an IBWO or it does not. Now what does the majority of scientists say. They say it does not show IBWO.
Well, that is the same with the hockey stick. Either Mann et al has it right or they don't. Since it's a statistical study, anyone can argue both the source and the statistics. And guess what? On such a political subject, someone did and are.
But where do the great majority of scientists sit? They believe the truth is more with Mann than with the doubters. for now.
You, Tom, will never ever prove which is correct once and for all. Because it involves analysis of Mann et al methods and data. But that is happening in a peer reviewed way as we speak. There's no yes or no answer. There's only statistical probabilities....and politics.
In truth, global warming science is not an argument between Monckton, Inhofe, and Gore, except in the political realm. It's an argument between Mann et al and McIntyre et al.
If you really want to try to keep the politics out (good luck), you should be discussing the above two scientifically opposed groups. Then you may get the discussion that you seem to be seeking.
But, warning, it is heavy statistics.
"But where do the great majority of scientists sit? They believe the truth is more with Mann than with the doubters."
Source, please.
Post a Comment