"Why Americans are Skeptical of Their Role in Global Warming" (aka Global Climate Disruption)

[F8L]

Originally Posted by boulder_bum

As a Bible-thumper myself, I want to say that I appreciated the OP's article, and will probably end up sending it to my pastor, who I discuss such issues with. We're both mild environmentalists who are still learning about the science behind the movement.

That is what I like to hear. Open-mindedness of the like E.O. Wilson spoke about in his book "The Future of Life" and how many christian orgnizations are taking and active stance on global issues regarding the environment and how we cannot always assume that just because they are religious organizations that they are not interested in environmental issues, are out to exploit it, or simply take dominion over it. Thanks mate!

Amazon.com: The Future of Life: Edward O. Wilson: Books

Amazon.com: The Future of Life: Edward O. Wilson: Books
Amazon.com: The Future of Life: Edward O. Wilson: Books

[ufourya]

Originally Posted by F8L

What is ironic is that you are on the wrong side of that schism, you are definately in the former. Common sense is just that, common, it does not make it accurate. Please spare me anymore Roy Spencer or Tim Ball quotes or I'm going to next day air you a set of pom poms so you can be a bit more vivid when you cheer your favorite men.

I'll spare you the Roy Spencer quotes even though he has been recording the most accurate temperature measurements available since 1979.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

[ufourya]

Originally Posted by F8L

Actually I find the debates with Tim Bikes often enlightening and/or they force me to re-examine the data I think I know or he brings something to the table I may have missed. So with respect to him and a couple others I actually get something out of these debates. With regards to the "cheerleaders" of our threads I get absolutely nothing out of arguing with them because their arguments are not based on science that is obtainable, they cannot argue the science for themselves so they simply post quotes from whoever their "Champion of the Cause" is and are generally too antagonistic for me to want to have anything to do with them. This can happen on both side of the climate or environmental debate I'm afraid.

I do, however, find it amusing that the claim to not be politically driven yet they have a number of stereotypical traits that belies that claim. #1 The generally live in the Midwest or southern states (highly conservative areas like Texas, and Florida) #2 They are old or older and have not been in college since the 1970s or earlier. #3 Generally use politically-based user names, titles, avatars, signatures, etc.. #4 They usually restrict their posting to volatile subjects like politics, religion, and environmental issues and you rarely see them posting in the tech, help, or introductory forums unless there is a political slant to it, e.g. guns, war, peak oil, etc..

Not everyone fits these stereotypes of course but more often than not if you really look at who you are arguing with will start to observe a reoccurring theme. This stereotyping would work the same way for the uninformed or impressionable "liberal hippy" as well. <shrug>

I find it amusing that those who think they are knowledgeable of the science of climate change and use the IPCC and realclimate.org as their sources are so easily led astray.

I do, however, find it interesting that they are politically driven and the stereotypical traits confirm that. #1 They generally live on the East or West coasts (highly liberal areas such as California, New York and Washington State where they pay draconian taxes and their teachers, judges and politicians tell them what to think) #2 They act in very immature fashion and have no doubt been ‘educated’ in ultra-liberal universities where political correctness restricts free speech (as well as thought) and ‘disciplines’ such as gender studies (oh, my God – women and men are different) have transplanted courses such as Western Civilization #3 Generally they use politically-based or politico-environmental user names, titles, avatars, signatures, etc. #4 They post hundreds or thousands of times wherever they wish, having been deluded into thinking what they have to say is important because they are expert in everything. They feel free to condescend; after all, their parents have repeatedly told them how overwhelmingly intelligent they are.

Of course, there are exceptions; they’re just difficult to find in this thread.

[SageBrush]

Originally Posted by ufourya

- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson.

This must be more vomited Inhofe spin. I chose Dr. Simpson at random and googled a bit. Turns out the 'smoking gun' is a letter Dr. Simpson wrote to colleagues that was mostly a warning to avoid politics, but she did indeed (as of early 2008) voice skepticism that the data thus far was unimpeachable, although she was unclear whether she had the most reservations surrounding causes or eventual effects.

Anyway, here is the punchline: denialists will never bother to reprint the following, from the exact same letter:

What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.

If I am bored I look a little further into another of Inhofe's sic fourya's scientist "skeptics"

So, so predictable

[SageBrush]

I am much less forgiving of religious obstructionism, even if now passed, than F8L. I want them to take responsibility for the damage caused by their stupidity, and make amends. I suggest starting with the realization that religion does not inform science.

Of course I would have guessed that torturing (or was it *just* the threat?) of Galileo -- who ushered in modern science -- would have been enough. Obviously not. I'll not hold my breath that endangering the world will do the trick.

[double-rant-on]
My memories are still fresh of strident christians from around 5 years ago screaming that AGW was blasphemy, that humans doing god's work (that is, earth scale change) was the word of Satan. How utterly ARROGANT could a godless liberal be !? Any day now I fully expect to hear the same people scream that GW is god punishing humanity for it's liberal excesses. They will rejoice in the vindication of their belief in, and desire for, the end of the world.

Will the wider christian world go into mass hysteria ? Hardly. Will US evangelical sects become even more fundamental, more hateful, more fear driven ? I have little doubt.
[end]

[ufourya]

Originally Posted by SageBrush

This must be more vomited Inhofe spin. I chose Dr. Simpson at random and googled a bit. Turns out the 'smoking gun' is a letter Dr. Simpson wrote to colleagues that was mostly a warning to avoid politics, but she did indeed (as of early 2008) voice skepticism that the data thus far was unimpeachable, although she was unclear whether she had the most reservations surrounding causes or eventual effects.

Anyway, here is the punchline: denialists will never bother to reprint the following, from the exact same letter: If I am bored I look a little further into another of Inhofe's sic fourya's scientist "skeptics"

So, so predictable

"...What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical..."

...and the very next sentence is?

[SageBrush]

Inhofe's, and by extension your, skepticism leads you to conclude that AGW is a conspiracy of liberal enviromental wackos to perpetrate fraud on the greatest scale ever imagined on the good christians of America.

Dr. Simpson's skepticism leads her to conclude that the IPCC opinion must be accepted and the Gore recommendations for action be implemented.

Just my curiousity, can you see the difference ? Do you really think that Dr. Simpson would ally herself with Inhofe ? Or agree to have a sentence of her letter be used out of context to further the AGW denialist agenda ?

With all due respect, wtf is wrong with you ?

[ufourya]

Originally Posted by SageBrush

Inhofe's, and by extension your, skepticism leads you to conclude that AGW is a conspiracy of liberal enviromental wackos to perpetrate fraud on the greatest scale ever imagined on the good christians of America.

Dr. Simpson's skepticism leads her to conclude that the IPCC opinion must be accepted and the Gore recommendations for action be implemented.

Just my curiousity, can you see the difference ? Do you really think that Dr. Simpson would ally herself with Inhofe ? Or agree to have a sentence of her letter be used out of context to further the AGW denialist agenda ?

With all due respect, wtf is wrong with you ?

I'm afraid you have jumped to unwarranted conclusions. While I do indeed believe there is fraud involved, it comes from politicians who wish to gain and use power. They, in league with environmentalists who seem to believe that all bad things real or imagined result from mankind's malfeasance, misuse inconclusive scientific data.

This grab for power and the belief that centralized control over something as complex as worldwide energy usage has grave consequences for economies and freedoms. I see no reason why Christians should be any more or less worried than Buddhists or atheists. With all due respect, that's a knuckleheaded inference to draw from my comments. Now Americans do have much to lose by allowing themselves to be ruled by a global elite who have no love for them. Alas, the placing of 'cap and trade' restrictions and other such artificial programs amounts to a tax that will be most deleterious to underdeveloped and developing nations, while having a miniscule effect on reducing temperatures a century out.

As to Dr. Simpson, she says that as a scientist she is a skeptic. So her other conclusions are based on emotion or some other unscientific source, right?

More 'vomit' from Inhofe:

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

[ufourya]

I hear from Al Gore that James Inhofe waterboarded these unfortunate scientists so he could use their confessions in his propaganda campaign:

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton Universityand Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

[ufourya]

These 31,478 scientists are convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.

Global Warming Petition Project