« Kansas is to evolution as Oregon is to global warming | Main | Things I know, things I don’t »

August 24, 2005

Comments

(1) Why such hostility here?
(2) Should we go around firing any professor we disagree with?
(3) What makes you so absolutely sure that George Taylor is wrong?

Can you please present me with some material that suggests that (a) global warming is happening, (b) humans are causing it, (c) it will have catastrophic results, and (d) perhaps most importantly, that a cost-benefit analysis indicates that it will be worth it for humans to reduce CO2 emissions?

Thank you.

Leon-

You sound like one of those Intelligent Design guys asking for scientific proof of Darwin's theory.

Sid-

Cute response, but can you present this material or not?

Leon, I suggest you read the links in my most recent post (other than today’s) on this subject:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2005/08/kansas_is_to_ev.html

The RealClimate links are particularly edifying, as well as the statement by the science academies of every major industrialized nation. Like I said in the post, there is no doubt that global warming is real, humans are helping cause it, and something needs to be done about it. Those are facts.

I’m not angry at Taylor personally, but I do take it personally when scientists put their conservative political views ahead of good science needed to keep the earth habitable for future generations.

Did you read the Willamette Week article? Or , like many global warming-deniers, are you basing your skepticism on nothing more than what unscientific right-wing, oil industry funded "think" (actually "unthink") tanks say?

The article is tremendously damning of George Taylor, much more than I have been. It's also damning of the entire global warming-denying movement. Here's a quote:

"It is hard to find a single peer-reviewed journal that agrees with Taylor's views. A report last December in the journal Science found that of 928 major peer-reviewed academic papers on the subject of climate change, all supported the consensus view that a significant fraction of recent climate change is due to human activities."

Leon, there's the proof. As Sid observed in his comment, asking for scientific proof of what has been proved scientifically shows that the person asking for such proof is either (1) uninformed of the facts or (2) ignoring known facts.

Human caused global warming is a fact. It's up to deniers of this fact to prove otherwise. And, they can't. Because it is a fact.

Thanks for the feedback.

I did read the WW story. Unfortunately, the author lost credibility with me when he said that Portland has shown that you can reduce CO2 without cost (even though in the previous sentence he said that Portland's C02 went up). This peculiar logic indicated to me that he was biased.

In any event. I have printed out 10 articles about global warming that you have posted on your site. I will try to read them this evening.

I don't have a stong position one way or the other on this issue. I am currently uninformed about all the facts here. I am eager to learn more about it.

Kudos Brian, for stimulating reflection, researching and discovery upon this urgent and timely issue!

Hello,

It was indeed good to see the Willamette Week article. Too bad the major media have trouble conducting any analysis of the contrarian movement ...

My search for more information was prompted by a whole lot of tripe on the Lars Larson show about this topic - one of his guests today was George Taylor. At least three of the points he made have been addressed and refuted, as noted at WeTheSheep.net/warming. Of course, Lars was just lapping it up. It makes you wonder just how many of these contrarians have their hands in the pockets of Big Oil (either that or they're frightened to death that this means we need to make some changes). Keep up the bloggin'!

As the author of the Willamette Week piece, I'd like to correct Leon Horren's post about the article.

Leon writes: "I did read the WW story. Unfortunately, the author lost credibility with me when he said that Portland has shown that you can reduce CO2 without cost (even though in the previous sentence he said that Portland's C02 went up). This peculiar logic indicated to me that he was biased."

Apparently, Leon did not real the article very carefully. I did not say Portland has shown that you can reduce CO2 without cost.

What I wrote was: "...the city shows that fighting global warming may be possible without hurting the economy."

So there you go: a journalist is misquoted. And then, based on a misquote, the journalist is accused of being biased.

So here's a topic for discussion on this blog: Why do global warming skeptics find it necessary to resort to personal attacks against people they disagree with? Why can't people debate this issue solely on the facts? I'm beginning to understand why.

"So here's a topic for discussion on this blog: Why do global warming skeptics find it necessary to resort to personal attacks against people they disagree with? Why can't people debate this issue solely on the facts? I'm beginning to understand why." -- Paul Koberstein

I think you will find, if you read through very many blogs and journals at all, that attacking a person being debated with to be standard form. Before the world of blogs, when listening to a debate, I felt personal attacks to be a sign of bad form on the part of whomever was launching the personal attack, as opposed to staying with the topic being discussed. It was as if this was a tactic used by persons without much strength for their side of the debate. Blogs have illuminated the practice as common. Too bad. Debate, on any topic, is how we move concepts and ideas forward. Personal attacks defuse the interest in the topic itself and put everyone in a position of defensive measure.

It doesn't matter whether global warming or climate change is a direct or inderect cause of human activity.
It is real and the "blame game" doesn't get us anywhere.
We should realise the economic dangers that climate change presents to everyone on this planet and work to make our impact on global warming as minimal as possible.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Strange Up Salem

Welcome to HinesSight

  • Salem Political Snark
    My local political rants are now made on this badass blog. Check it out. Dirty politics, outrageous actions, sleaze, backroom deals — we’re on it. 

  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • Church of the Churchless
    Visit my other weblog, Church of the Churchless, where the gospel of spiritual independence is preached.

  • Welcome to HinesSight. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...