Monday, April 23, 2007

A Friendly Debate On MSNBC "Climate Change"

Here is a somewhat typical exhange in a discussion forum hosted by MSNBC called "Climate Change". I'm "GeoPete"
Go here to see more:

SlucarelliMessage #87
04/23/07 12:12 PM You can think what you want, we are all entitled to our own opinions. I have looked at petes website and there are numerous area's in it where he leaves out certain information to encourage people to believe in his views. Not giving the public all the facts is a poor way to claim your views as truth.
ReplyReport AbuseEditDeleteHide Options

ChitownMattMessage #88
04/23/07 12:22 PM GeoPete,
Was it not the conclusion of the Vostok ice core data that we should currently be in a period of cooling?
Also, that silly web site you directed me to seems to be much more politically driven than factual. There were more things written about how Kerry and Gore are hypocritical liars than about data on the environment. And what data was presented was only in support of the idea that global warming is a myth with absolutely no counter-point. The articles written on that page are anything, but "emotionally unattached from the results."
That goes right back to my point that many of the posters here seem to be grasping at anything that will support their position as fact and dismissing anything that contradicts as "liberal media bias."

ReplyReport AbuseEditDeleteHide Options
geoPeterMessage #89
04/23/07 01:00 PM ChitownMatt,

Find something factual that supports man-induced global warming, and post it here. I'm seeking logical and reasonable debate. Leave a comment, direct me and others to something scientific that supports your beliefs.

What I have seen in the mainstream media, (especially our host MSNBC) is totally alarmist and sensational in their reporting. It seems impossible to have a rational discussion. People "believe" in global warming passionately, they "feel" certain in their "cause". This is not science. It is politics, and many people have equated environmentalism with a new religion. I agree it has many similar characteristics.

I am a scientist, a geologist for 34 years now. I've travelled, and worked in many environments. I've seen many of the proven and obvious indicators of climate change. I mean things like glaciers, beach terraces, surface and subsurface sedimentary rocks or rock layering. These are facts, science works. Scientists have to utilize measurements, facts, data and theories that are reproducible. But what I see in the arguments for man-caused global warming is not facts and not science, only theorizing, modeling, unproven.

I recognize hype, hysteria, scare tactics, and just plain old BS when I see it and hear it. If you have something rational to show me or tell me, I'm all for it. I'm certainly not going to be very impressed by the likes of Al Gore and now John Kerry, and the travelling global warming carnival of Crowe and David. They're nothing but a joke.

ReplyReport AbuseEditDeleteHide Options
geoPeterMessage #90
04/23/07 01:05 PM Slucarelli,

Of course I'm trying to convince others of my view on the subject of global warming. I'm upfront about that. I struggle to remain polite and I don't publish everything I see or read. There is way to much "stuff" out there to do that. I'm trying to use my experience and judgment to post relevant material. Look here again and you'll find far more logical and rational material than you will most other places.


ReplyReport AbuseEditDeleteHide Options


my2cents said...

It seems lately that I can't open a paper or watch the news without seeing yet again a new threat brought about by global warming. All the presidential candidates are talking about it and those from Hollywood who are speaking out are getting stranger day after day.

For instance, today the AFP reported that Sheryl Crow has some advice on how we can battle global warming, "I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting"

Your blog is a welcome change of pace. Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

It is a grievous error to conclude that because there is no direct "proof" that man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming then the theory is not true and therefore nothing should be done to stop it.

Science is not merely the act of reviewing factual information. In many circumstances it is necessary that we draw an inference based upon the facts that are available to us.

Fact – global temperatures are rising with seriously detrimental effects forecasted
Fact - Co2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat within the atmosphere
Fact - burning fossil fuels adds Co2 to the atmosphere

Inference - burning fossil fuels contributes to rising global temperatures. (This is merely an inference and not a fact.)

However, there is no experiment, observation, or factual piece of data currently know that can be used to “prove" or "dis-prove" the global warming theory?

Science has a long history of inferences that only later became proven facts.

Darwin once inferred the existence of a humming bird with a 12 inch tongue based upon a flower that was twelve inches long. The bird was not observed until only a few years ago.

Einstein was only making an inference about the nature of light, energy, and matter that was not “proven” to be factual until the atom was split some time later.

Since God only gave us one Earth to run our experiments on, I think there is enough evidence to support the theory of global warming and the predicted consequences so dire, that it would be wise for us to do whatever we can to prevent it.

Peter said...

I agree, science begins with a theory, a hypothesis, then we set out to test it, over and over again. If we and others can not repeat the results, then we collect more data and test again. If that fails, we throw out the theory and come up with a new one.

That is all that man-caused global warming is......a working hypothesis. It is not something you rush out in a frenzied panic and throw billions upon billions of dollars at. So say the least, that is not prudent, not scientific, and just plain stupid.

Anonymous said...

The theory that burning fossil fuels is directly contributing to rising temperatures has been around since the 80s. All subsequently observed evidence has supported the theory. You are right to say that there is no absolute proof, but there is no know way to absolutely prove it. (As a geologist, do you believe in the theory of plate tectonics? There is no absolute proof of that one either. The time machine I built didn't work. lol.)
Al Gore’s book was first published 15 years ago; people have been suggesting we try to limit fossil fuels and the release of Co2 ever since. I hardly feel that the current public awareness could be considered a ‘frenzied response.’
If anything I fear it is too little too late.

my2cents said...

Depending on which facts I chose to look at (and which I chose to ignore) I could draw several different conclusions.

Let's add another fact to your three:
Fact: According to ice core samplings, CO2 increases have lagged temperature rise by as much as 800 years.

So, if temperature rise drives the increase of CO2, then the addition of CO2 caused by the burning fossil fuels is irrelevant... pretty much blowing a big hole in your inference.

When you limit the scientific data to suit your desired conclusion, you're liable to cause more harm than good. Science thrives on skepticism. Remember, in his day Darwin was considered a blasphemer, a radical scientist.. a man who chose to go against the prevailing 'consensus'.

As you say, we've only got this one planet. Seems to me we ought to try and get it right.
To do otherwise would be a grievous error.

Peter said...

Depending on which facts I chose to look at (and which I chose to ignore) I could draw several different conclusions."

A scientist is not permitted to ignore fact.....if you do so your conclusions are by definition, invalid.

And science is not a
"game", although when politics and business is added in, it becomes the most cynical an ruthless of games. Why argue, just pay your taxes...

my2cents said...

"A scientist is not permitted to ignore fact.....if you do so your conclusions are by definition, invalid."

That's my point. I hear an awful lot of one-sided arguments trying to pass as science.

Why argue? Debate keeps democracy alive. I don't trust anyone who tries to suppress it.