<p>Hunt, I think the candidates will adhere to those standards. I believe, however, that there is a 100% probability of the 527 groups (of which the Swifties were an example, bankrolled by a Bush supporter) will swim in the gutter again. These are the folks who circulate the “Obama is a Muslim” “McCain has a black baby” crap, along with incessant focus on things like Hagee vs. Wright, Cindy’s millions vs. Michelle’s raise, etc.</p>
<p>kluge, you would do well by starting from the point of accurately representing my views before you then jump to the assertion that they are based on a knee-jerk orthodoxy. With respect to AGW, I have never stated that it is a “phony theory concocted by “liberals” who have successfully suppressed all research which would disprove it.” I have said that there IS research and expert analysis that questions various aspects of the theory in terms of the cause for the warming, the severity of the impact of warming and what, if anything should be done about it. Note that the existence of this research does NOT mean that the research on the other side is “phony” or concocted by liberals as you claim my view is. In addition, there is indeed evidence of repression of scientific findings as well as “spinning” of the results coming from those who hold the power of the microphone on this issues. This has been well documented by even current participants within the IPCC.</p>
<p>Finally, let’s explore your notion that you adhere to the concept of “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. In the case of AGW, your claim is that it is a settled science and that only those who are “old” or non-experts or cranks disagree with the “fact” that AGW is real and that it presents a significant threat to the world and that the only way to deal with this threat is through government mandated mitigation of greenhouse gasses. This is quite an extraordinary claim that should be subject to extraordinary proof. Instead, what we have is a case of the documented spin/exaggeration that was put on at least one of the chapters of the IPCC report (that of the impact on hurricanes). We also have Al Gore using “borrowed” CGI from a movie and trying to pass it off as reality. We also have other experts whose studies contradict either the cause, seriousness or resolution to AGW. </p>
<p>Your only “proof” is that some of those who disagree with this claim are retired or non-experts in your opinion (even though their expertise is probably 10-fold what yours is). That, to me, does not constitute “extraordinary proof”.</p>
<p>My point is that it is NOT settled science and that before we proceed to put our economy in serious jeopardy with the only beneficiary being China and India and with the ultimate impact on the global environment being a net negative, we need to get more answers through more study. In the meantime, I see no reason to not pursue dual-objective technologies such as nuclear which, even if AGW does not amount to a serious concern, will at least help wean us off from imported oil.</p>
<p>Sorry, FF, AGW is real, and it does pose a serious threat to our children’s and grandchildren’s generations. And only fringe types dispute that at this point. You’re the one who keeps trotting out websites touting unschooled religious TV weathermen, conned British outdoorsmen, and a bunch of retired geezers “boldly” proclaiming that they’re “skeptical” (sans research) to the cynical applause of the denier claque as “proof” that there actually* is too!* a viable controversy over whether climate change is (a) happening and (b) is impacted by human greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>The actual debate on those issues is over in the bona fide scientific community. It’s only a “debate” among internet blog groupies and the right wing brainwashed class. You’ve claimed that
Sorry. Your claims are “extraordinary” in the face of the actual scientific consensus. Trying to recast denial as “serious questions” <a href=“mumble…%20mumble”>I</a>* doesn’t change that. There really actually isn’t “debate” in the scientific community on the basic premise of AGW. There’s lots of debate and research into the exact nature of the consequences of it, timelines, glaciers melting, and all the interesting questions that come when you ask "What will happen if we raise the average temperature of the entire Earth by a degree or two? But the arguments you repeat “We don’t really know… We shouldn’t actually act until we’re more certain… It might not be a bad thing.” - all taken straight from the very successful Tobacco end game playbook - are not actually a valid reflection of the actual state of scientific understanding circa 2008. We actually do know that it’s happening. We actually do know that greenhouse gas emissions add to the warming. We do know that very tangible consequences will flow from doing nothing about it. Why do you feel compelled to drag your feet? Is it because you’d rather eat worms than admit that Al Gore was right about something? </p>
<p>Your claims about the lack of consensus in the scientific community are “extraordinary.” Actual scientists are unaware of a “controversy” - at least among qualified scientists. Your “proof” of the existence of a “debate” - Sen. Inhofe’s pathetic lists of denier “experts” - doesn’t make the grade.</p>
<p>The use of the word “denier” is a purposefully inflammatory ad hominem attack attempting to equate the skeptical with those that deny the Holocaust. It does not address the issue and shouldn’t be used in intelligent discourse. It is used only to demean, not to inform.</p>
<p>OK, bdmrad - got a better term? I’m just trying to be concise here. And “skeptic” strikes me as an oxymoron in this case, designed to cast an utterly unwarranted aura of individual investigation over the credulous consumers of slick PR. I’m open to suggestions on an alternate, neutral term. But as it is, the folks who frequent the tin-foil hat blogs are in denial and are anything but skeptical. So what would you call them?</p>
<p>FF–question: Do you know what the greenhouse effect is, and can you explain (not quote from blogs, but in your own understanding,) what is, and the science behind it?</p>
<p>I like skeptic. It is not an oxymoron in itself but “skeptical believer” would be. I believe that there is climate change - I believe the Earth is not a static system - I believe that the human race will perish as did the dinosaurs. I don’t believe that we can significantly change the climate by driving Priuses, or switching to florescent light bulbs. It seems the only way to shut down man’s contribution to climate change is to shut down civilization.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh good grief! Anytime “denier” (whose literal meaning is simply, “a person who denies”) is branded an “ad hominem attack”, it’s time to take one’s ball and go home.:rolleyes: FF is beyond “skeptical” on this issue. He literally “denies” that there is any validity to the claim that we are experiencing a global temperature shift, precipitated by the actions of man-kind. Kluge “denies” that there’s any validity to the evidence FF has put forth in defense of his position. They are both “deniers”, of opposing views. The term makes no value judgment, and takes no side!</p>
<p>And if ever there was a thread that has gone far astray of it’s original topic, this one is it!</p>
<p>I have no problem with the verb “deny.” “Denier” was initially used in this context as a way of inferring moral equivalence of those that doubt some or all of the tenets of AGW with those who deny the Holocaust. The use cheapens both. It IS an ad homenim attack, no matter how you slice it.</p>
<p>We should be saving our ad homenim attacks for politicians, not each other in this forum (wink) How do you do those emoticon thingees here?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>et tu Poetsheart?</p>
<p>Which part of:
and
equates to, "He literally “denies” that there is any validity to the claim that we are experiencing a global temperature shift, precipitated by the actions of man-kind. "??? Good grief indeed! Are we now to trust people who can’t or refuse to read to make rational conclusions about climate change and the economy? Or is this just the typical debating tactic of the left where it is an easy cheap shot to put words into someone’s mouth that were never spoken and in fact contradicted a few post up? You’re better than that, PH.</p>
<p>
So, as a believer, you’re not a “skeptic”? Or… you are? :)</p>
<p>To be blunt, I don’t consider anyone who simply repeats the opinions which fit most comfortably within their belief system to be a “skeptic.”</p>
<p>Fundingfather, disguised denial is denial nonetheless. “We need more study. We shouldn’t do anything until more study has been done” - a delaying tactic employing constantly moving goalposts - was a tactic perfected by the Tobacco companies. If you’re not prepared to accept that a consensus exists now you never will be - plain and simple. Your acceptance of lists of TV weathermen, conned and embarrassed outdoorsmen, attention-seeking has-beens and outright frauds as “proof” of a bona fide scientific “debate” speaks for itself. You make clear which answer you want to hear, and feign willingness to defer to scientific proof while constantly raising the bar for the amount of proof you demand before taking any action. That’s “denial” - just a slickly packaged example of the genre.</p>
<p>Seriously - the 9/11 conspiracy theorists had “scientists” and “engineers” on their side, too - as good as the denier’s guys. Why don’t you demand “more study” into that one?</p>
<p>Interesting how a thread about Comrade Clinton veers towards Global Warming. Should we not debate Global Frigidity? Or should it be Glacial Frigidity?</p>
<p>A few scientific organizations who have published statements concurring with the reality of AGW: </p>
<p>
[Scientific</a> opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations)</p>
<p>From the same article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And, in the interests of getting this thread somewhat back on topic:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, our candidates also have consensus!</p>
<p>In fact, McCain is more activist on this point than some Democrats. It’s created a problem for “green” organizations, because he’s extremely green on this issue, but not so much on others.</p>
<p>McCain’s words:
</p>
<p>Xiggi - Clinton is yesterday’s news. I know it will come as a great disappointment to you 
but I don’t think anyone cares anymore. You’ll have to retire your anti-Hillary zingers for the forseeable future. America = short attention span. “Hillary who?” Happened to my guy (Edwards) happened to Huckabee. America’s ready for round 2.</p>
<p>Time to move on.</p>
<p>Besides, that particular zinger doesn’t work, because she’s actually pretty hot, in a dominating kind of way.</p>
<p>kluge, your continued denigration of anyone who disagrees with your “concensus” is growing tiresome. Your continued insistence that only TV weathermen, etc, are “deniars” is akin to a 3 year-old who stubbornly insists that he will get his way and hold his breath until he does. You know darn well that there are serious scientists out there that have serious reservations about some or all of the fundamental conclusions of you and Al Gore. Remember, for your view and conclusions to be correct, ALL of the following need to be true:
- the Earth is undergoing a sustained pattern of global warming
- man is responsible for a significant portion of this warming by greenhouse gas emissions
- the net results of AGW will be enormously negative
- mitigation techniques are feasible which will reverse this trend</p>
<p>Then if ALL of this is true, you must still address the issue that this is a GLOBAL issue and that if the US and Europe “take the lead” on this, there is no way that third world/emerging countries will automatically follow. The more likely scenario is that by increasing the economic burden of doing business in the US and other modern economies, more business (and jobs) will be shipped to China and India where, not only the emissions of CO2 be greater per unit of output but also particlate emission will be horrendous. Hence the net result will be greater CO2 emmisions and a ruined US economy.</p>
<p>Now, back to the issue of the TV weathermen. Are you saying that Tim Patterson is “just a TV weatherman”?<br>
</p>
<p>Or, how about Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his research in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves. He has published over 200 books and scientific papers. He was the lead author of Chapter 7 (physical processes) of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC on global warming (2001). He concludes:
He also echoes the “sexing up” of the IPCC summaries from the actual report:
</p>
<p>Notice a pattern here? People directly involved with the writing of the IPCC reports over the last two issues have complained about the science of the report being overwhelmed by the sensationalized and highly political public statements. I find it ironic that generally the crowd that was most crtitical of the claimed sexing up of the WMD evidence in Iraq are willing to cast their fate with an organization who truly is sexing up its reports.</p>
<p>I see two kinds of denal on climate. On one side, there is denial that climate change is happening, that humans are a cause of it, and/or that it’s really a problem. Really, the scientific consensus on this is pretty strong.
On the other side, though, I see a lot of denial of the likely economic impact of strong measures to cut CO2 emissions. The sort of cuts that some legislators and international advocates are talking about will have serious impacts on the economy, and can’t be achieved without drastic cuts in energy consumption, as well as the building of hundreds of new nuclear power plants. Barring some technological breakthrough that just isn’t on the horizon, making serious inroads on emissions would require the West to signficiantly reduce its standard of living, and it would require the developing world to agree to limit its aspirations.</p>
<p>FF–I’m confused by where you stand. You continually quote people who question that AGW actually exists. That’s a completely different question from how to go about mitigating its effects. There’s no sense in discussing mitigation with you, if you don’t acknowledge the process. If you do, why do you keep wanting to argue its reality, and quote people who don’t think its real? Which place are you at?</p>
<p>Garland, </p>
<p>using the kluge methodology of taking a random sample, here is what one of your scientific bodies actually says in its report:
If this is “settled science” why do they advocate additional research into understanding “what is happening”, to “refine projections of changes induced by anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases” and most of all, “to analyse opportunities and threats presented by these changes”? I thought all of this was "settled"and that the only thing to research now, was how to stop the process. Yet, they acknowledge that they don’t even understand if the “opportunities” outweigh the “threats”. This recommendation is precisely what I have been advocating. Thanks for the support.</p>