|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:52 am Post subject: ... |
 |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Why rely on an oil-and-tobacco lobby to publish your findings if you have bona fide findings to publish?
Because it's all rigged?
These are the trappings of the truther and Intelligent Design crowds.
Let's be perfectly clear: the evidence provided in this thread against anthropogenic climate change is almost identical to the strategies of those who attempt to assail evolution or show that 9/11 was an "inside job".
Look at this list. Look at this guy's credentials. Look at these findings published by political action committees.
1)
| Quote: |
| Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions. |
Now then, instead of more shenanigans like hurling massive blocks of text to bolster one's position, let's play fair ball.
2)
| Quote: |
| Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses. |
Note: I just edited wikipedia so that "gasses" has only one 's'.
Disclaimer: Having edited wiki for numerous grammar nazi errors, the "wikipedia defense" of dismissing wiki as a source fails on the source info for the page I'm citing.
So, in the search for truth on this subject, I submit 2 lines of argument:
1 and 2 above. A shift in consensus on this issue would be indicated by an institutional shift as opposed to bleatings about how many scientists disagree or their publishing record on crap that doesn't relate to this issue.
In other words, lists of dissenters are meaningless in terms of consensus. If there are so many, then we'll see it reflected in the academies.
What we are looking for here is a respected international body (not an individual) with an established record of peer-reviewed scientific contributions showing a dissenting voice.
I, for one, am fully ready to abandon views of climate change as anthropogenic when I see change in the above.
I'm no scientist, but let's see:
1) Trees are a primary carbon sink, but their function as such is slow. Every time a tree is cut down and burnt, you're releasing an amount of carbon that won't be reclaimed until a similar tree grows. Not all trees are burnt, but more are than meet the rate needed for replacement.
2) At the same time, humans are digging and drilling up massive amounts of coal and oil, burning it, and releasing that into the atmosphere.
All of this results in massive pollution. Even if the consensus wasn't that this is contributing to climate change, the consensus would still be that countries dirtying our limited resource of air are polluting it for all and not just themselves. As such, there is a strong argument for a carbon market.
It dismays me when a grown man cites ideologues while complaining about ideologues. It dismays me further when he persists in cut-and-paste tactics as a substitute for proper argument. One is led to guess about what substance his argument has. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Enrico Palazzo
Mod Team
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
The Climate Change Climate Change
The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.
Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.
If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)
The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.
Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.
The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.
Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.
This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.
Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone. |
|
??????????????????????????????????????
This is way over the 300-400 count limit. The TOS says 300 words.
We are a bit lenient and say 400 is okay, but 800 is too much of an eye sore. Quote the link. People can go to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ha. Mrs. Gopher told on me to the mods. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Ha. Mrs. Gopher told on me to the mods. |
But you really should shorten your posts. I don't have time to read all that, but I do have time for you to read them all, shorten them, and highlight the good parts. 
My cut-and-pastes have gotten shorter. It is not that hard to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
