James Hetfield, Metallica
I was having a coffee with a dear friend the other day when the question I have been anticipating (eventually from somebody, not necessarily him) finally came up.
"So, did you happen to see Al Gore's "An Inconvienient Truth"?"
At the time my response was "Not yet" but that I planned on it.
"Right now", I responded, "I am too busy listening too Canada's version of Al Gore, David Suzuki, spread his own environmental doomsday propaganda."
Now before you all go off on me like I have my head in the sand regarding the disgusting way we Earthlings treat our planet...just step back, step off, and hear me out.
One thing myself and some of these self proclaimed environmental saviors will agree upon is the reality that we are not doing ourselves, the animal kingdom, plant life, or our planet any favors when we are pumping out vile amounts of pollutants in the air and dumping ton's of toxic waste into our water systems. We, in many ways, are our own worst enemies. It is an area we need to come together in and unanimously agree to simply clean up our own backyard.
But the bigger question at stake here is "What does this have to do with global warming?" It is one thing to expose what we are doing to our planet but it is another thing to link it to a "possible" warming trend that, at least at this stage of the game, remains an unproven theory based some "loose" science. (Hmmm smells like remnants of evolution)
It was only 30 short years ago these same "alarmists" were decrying the inevitable catastrophe of the approaching global cooling trend. While we were still polluting our planet back then we were, at the time, being told to brace for the next Ice Age. Apparently because the seventies were a little on the chilly side
The other thing to consider in this "heated" (pun intended) debate is the credentials of those who promote their cause by instilling a fear in the populace that provokes a sense of anxious reactionism.
Al Gore is not a climatologist.
Neither is Canada’s David Suzuki.
Yet many will accept what these "Prophets of nature" tell them without scrutiny or question. I would even suggest these people are in a majority. But just because the majority follow does not always mean the teaching itself is accurate or correct.
So what exactly lends these gurus credibilty? Is it their "open mind" to consider ALL science on this subject? In David Suzuki's case, apparently not. On Febuary 15, 2007 David was a guest on the John Oakley Radio show when host John posed a very fair question to the "open minded" Dr. His question? "What about the science that is now surfacing that states that global warming is not man made?" Dr. Dave's intelligent, and might I add, mature response to respectable debate? Nothing! He got up and left the studio. A response befitting to your more "arrogant" evolutionist type that makes the all too common statement: "If it's not my science then it is not science! It must agree with my theory ONLY". That is mighty tolerant of you Dave.
He further demonstrates his love for the environment by traveling the country in his "rock-star-style" diesel-burning tour bus, emitting more greenhouse gases during his tour's (approx. 30 days) than many of us do in an entire year. A bus that is capable of carrying up to 30 people was home only to 8. Comfort and convinience over the enviorment. Nice one Dave! A real environmentalist true to his cause would have peddled it on a ten speed. But alas we are only willing to talk about it not actually make a sacrifice or set the example ain't that right Dave? Al Gore likes to one up they guy by showing up on his private jet. Nothing like ozone killing jet fuel in the air while on your way to save the world from people, well, just like you Al.
So what are the "other" guys saying that had guys like Dr. (ahem) David at a loss for words? And what is the "truth" that Al Gore appears to conveniently ignore? Here is just a tidbit:
"Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Some more...
"Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
And more...
"Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
It was Al Gore himself who said in his film "Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it,"
This is just a small portion of it Al but there it is. As long as we are on the whole "Truth" and presentation issue what exactly are they saying regarding your own misinformed presentation? Well Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia had this to say:
""Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
Are you done picking on ill informed Al Professor Bob? Nope! Alright then, carry on:
""The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
Speaking of Junk science, what did they have to say on the matter?
So here is what it all boils down too. Is there global warming? Maybe, maybe not. Is the science there to positively and accurately conclude that there is indeed a man made connection? No. I would suggest that even if we shut down every coal burning plant, oil well and ocean platforms. Got rid of all our vehicles and planes and simply lived off the avails of natural Earth....at the end of the day we would STILL experience climate change.
If non-climatologists such as Al and David consider themselves pioneers for our environment then let go of the political agendas and listen to the science.
Until next time...
16 comments:
I do agree with you that even if man were not around, the planet would experience climate change... it's foolish to suggest otherwise if you look at Earth's history. However, I do have some problems with what you've said up there.
Now, I'm not a climatologist either, and my specialization is in the 'soft' sciences, so forgive me if I'm not a superstar in issues of climate change and warming/cooling trends.... but isn't the issue surrounding global warming as a potential man-made phenomenon more to do with the thining of the ozone layer and LESS to do w the actual amount of CO2 in the environment? I think that the scientist that you quoted saying that there was no correlation is probably right... but most scientists aren't arguing a correlation between CO2 itself and global warming, but rather the thining of the ozone and global warming (even if that thining is 'caused' by an increase of CO2 and other gases/pollutants).
And also, to dismiss any and all climate change as natural when you yourself agreed that we're destroying our planet is, I think, rather short sighted. I'm not saying we all need to go around doomsaying like David Suzuki, but supposing that our actions affect our planet is just good, responsible, common sense. Sure I have no 'proof' that if I put my hand on a hot stove, it's going to hurt... I mean, I've never done it before, but common sense tells me that hot things will hurt when I touch them. Same thing here... I have no 'proof' that pumping tons of petrol and CO2 into the atmosphere are going to cause bad things, but given what I know about these substances, my common sense tells me it's likely the case.
I think what I'm saying is that we need to be open to ALL the ideas of what might happen... no one knows yet... no one on either side understands exactly what we're doing to our planet. If we try to pre-judge the situation, we're going to miss all kinds of things...
I'm also cautious about "junk science", as i've experienced my fair share of it, first hand.
However, there is a lot of politics involved in this matter, on both sides of the fence. It's terrible, because common Joes, like us, are being denied the ability to decide who's really telling the truth; like with all matters, political.
I think it is wise to producing cleaner, 'greener' fuels, and improve our practices, even if it has nothing to do with climate change. For one, we're running out of fossil fuels, so we have to start setting up alternatives now, for the sake of our children, and their children.
Also, switching off the office lights at night, or avoiding the use of 'standby' on the TV, might not save the Earth, but it will certainly save me a few bob; and i'm sure everyone appreciates the sound of that! [Except for the electricity owners, of course].
Mandora,
"I do agree with you that even if man were not around, the planet would experience climate change... it's foolish to suggest otherwise if you look at Earth's history."
We are off to a good start so far. (You do seem to agree with me more and more these days ;)
"However, I do have some problems with what you've said up there."
Alright so much for my previous statement. That didn't take too long for us to go back to our "head to head" positions LOL
"isn't the issue surrounding global warming as a potential man-made phenomenon more to do with the thinning of the ozone layer and LESS to do w the actual amount of CO2 in the environment?"
This can be a "yes" and "no" response depending on who's argument one considers. For the Al Gore/David Suzuki groupies the argument is that CO2 emissions are one of the direct effects to a depleting ozone. Also that it is the C02 from man made materials that are a big contributor. For the many climatologists now ignoring the politically motivated mainstream perception and are now coming out of the proverbial closet the more scientifically based claim has more to do with sunbursts (solar flares) that are impacting the ozone layer. The other note of interest here is that 15 years ago the claim was that once we destroyed the ozone then it was all over. Today we are told that the ozone replenishes itself.
“but most scientists aren't arguing a correlation between CO2 itself and global warming,”
Correct BUT that is not the message Al and Dave are promoting is it?
“to dismiss any and all climate change as natural when you yourself agreed that we're destroying our planet is, I think, rather short sighted”
Your jumping the gun on this one. I did not dismiss it. I challenged the validity of the claim. If these “Prophets of pollution” can back up their claims with confirmed evidence thru scientific method as opposed to suggestive speculation then I can easily retract my point of view. I still stand by my position that we are not very good stewards of our planet but that does not mean we are the direct cause to global warming. It means we are sloppy and need to clean it up. If we succeed in doing that the current climate trend may still very well continue down the same path it is already “apparently” heading.
A clean planet and environment does nothing to address the potential reality that we may just be warming up and there is nothing we can do about it.
“I have no 'proof' that pumping tons of petrol and CO2 into the atmosphere are going to cause bad things, but given what I know about these substances, my common sense tells me it's likely the case.”
As a student of “soft” sciences then you should also know that true science does not allow for “common sense” and “maybes“. That is not science that is called an ideological perspective steeped in bringing awareness to one’s agenda. One is entitled to “assume” but it is irresponsible of environmentalists to promote an unproven (and often criticized) theory as scientific fact.
“I think what I'm saying is that we need to be open to ALL the ideas of what might happen... no one knows yet”
Fair enough statement. Now try telling that to Suzuki. The environmentalists message is not open for discussion or debate. Regardless of the contrary science. It would rather paralyze the masses thru suggestive speculation by silencing them thru fear.
As a fellow Canadian, you know as well as I do that political accords like Kyoto, which do nothing to actually address the “warming” problem, were brought on by these very “scare” tactics that are manipulated by the environmentalist agenda.
iM,
“However, there is a lot of politics involved in this matter, on both sides of the fence.”
Sadly you are correct. The Kyoto Accord is one of the finest examples of politics. Under that “liberal” inspired disaster, Canada does not actually have to correct it’s pollution problems. Instead we can pay out “Credits” to the like’s of leaders such as Vladimir Putin (Russia) so we can continue to pollute our own air. Is the problem being addressed? No! We just pay a fortune to third world nations so we can continue with the status qou. Wow, now that is some solution.
“For one, we're running out of fossil fuels”
Big oil companies will feed you this line when the hurricane season is weak and they need another excuse to jack up the prices. When Hybrids actually become affordable to the average “Joe” you will suddenly notice an abundance. In Alberta, Canada they figure with just the resources they have tapped into so far (not including what they have not yet begun to drill) their is enough oil for the planet over the next 400 years. In my home Province of Manitoba there is also major drilling that is on the brink of happening in the south western region. There is a lot more oil then we are led to believe but that is a debate for another time.
“Also, switching off the office lights at night, or avoiding the use of 'standby' on the TV, might not save the Earth, but it will certainly save me a few bob; and i'm sure everyone appreciates the sound of that! [Except for the electricity owners, of course].”
LOL This made me chuckle. Speaking of electricity conservation have you read the latest on our environmentally concerned pal, Al Gore?
So i am guessing that you have actually watched the film now then? Interesting that you query the science of Al Gores film that is based on scientific evidence from, among others, the IPCC which consists of over 2500 scientists from 130 nations, the WMO and UNEP which would put well over 5000 scientists behind Al Gore's film.
You may be a bit more picky but that is enough evidence of me.
Lucy,
"So I am guessing that you have actually watched the film now then?"
I will concede that I have not "finished" watching it in it's entirety but fully intend too. I was still very interested in the film presentation. If anything positive can come of this from both sides of the issue that would be the realization of how disgusting we can treat our planet.
"Interesting that you query the science of Al Gores film that is based on scientific evidence"
Al Gore likes to take "science" that does not have any correlation to man made global warming and twist it from a theory too a fact. He misappropriates the "evidence" without the burden of proof thereby misleading the gullible masses.
"from, among others, the IPCC which consists of over 2500 scientists from 130 nations, the WMO and UNEP which would put well over 5000 scientists behind Al Gore's film."
Let me ask you this then Lucy. When the Majority of the "chicken little's" were decrying the onslaught of the fast approaching ice age in the 1970's, did you swallow that theory as well because a few thousand scientists jumped aboard the mainstream train?
Listen to how Professor emeritus of environmental sciences (U of Virginia) Fred Singer said about the IPCC findings when he addressed your very question:
"even if a majority of scientists had voted for human-caused global warming, that's not how science works. Unlike in politics, the majority does not rule. Rather, every advance in science has come from a minority that found that observed facts contradicted the prevailing hypothesis. Sometimes it took only one scientist; think of Galileo or Einstein.
The second thing to consider is the politics that drive the machine behind all this alarmism. It's interesting to note how the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently released it's "Fourth Assessment Report" but only in the form of a 12 page summary "..for Policymakers". Yet the full report it self is apparently 1,600 pages but will not be available until May. The IPCC "claims" that it requires some time to "Adjust" their own scientific report so they can make it consistent with the summary. As Professor Fred SInger again so accuratley points out:
"The summary actually is a semi political document negotiated by delegates from 150 governments. Evidently, the IPCC, which prides itself on being strictly scientific and policy-neutral, wants to make its report politically correct.
This raises legitimate doubts about the scientific credibility of the IPCC's conclusions. The "cleansing" of the report — and the attendant delay in publication — is also feeding wild speculation about climate catastrophes, with many leaks to compliant newspapers."
"You may be a bit more picky but that is enough evidence of me."
Not picky just more skeptical when it comes to questionable theories with weak foundations. I don't run for cover every time a group of chicken little's want to tell me that the sky is falling (Again!). And if the "evidence" has a weak foundation then I am not quick to accept theory as fact regardless of what the majority may say. A final quote from Fred:
"In Europe, the birth rate is decreasing and so is the number of storks. Does this correlation prove that storks bring babies?"
Of course not. So neither am I quick to believe that global warming is man made. As I say with evolution, prove it, don't theorize it too death.
Have you researched Dr Singer? I will let you find out all about him and his other 'revelations'. Hate to have a repeat of the Q incident.
Tip: google Dr Fred Singer OPEC and then Dr Fred Singer and Exxon.
Always interesting reading who scratches who's back and who is buttering who's bread in these things before you make an opinion.
Lucy,
You are a very bright, witty, young (actually I don't know that but I'll go for the brownie points here), and intelligent woman. Your only short coming, of course, is that you lean to the left and that makes you a little predictable.
"Have you researched Dr Singer? I will let you find out all about him and his other 'revelations'"
Before I hit my google search engine let me guess. He probably opposes redundant treaties such as Kyoto and, from your perspective, is on the payroll of the big oil companies correct? Therefore anything he has to say, even if it makes complete sense and is factually supported, it is to be considered invalid. In a typical “left” maneuver you have completely avoided addressing the questions I have posed and instead of addressing the points made by Fred Singer you try to assassinate his credibility. Your losing sight of the original focus here.
I am not interested in Fred’s “loyalties”. If you feel his statements are false or misleading then how so? Dissect his statements by displaying they are incorrect, not true, or flat out lies. Please demonstrate if you feel I am being duped BUT challenge his “science”. Tying him to oil companies, to me, does not invalidate his “evidence”. The spin can easily be thrown back your way. Over 80% of the scientists involved in the IPCC are linked/associated to radical environment lobby groups. I clearly demonstrated their own political agendas in my last response. You seem to think I should accept their invalidated claims because there are 5,000 of them?
What do I need to do here Lucy? Find 5,000 names who are NOT linked to OPEC or any environmental lobby group that disagree with Al Gore in order to even the score? Remember what I am doing here. Al Gore is blaming global warming on man. I am challenging that claim by his weak “evidences” and lame theories. Not global warming itself. Although I am still a little skeptical we are even at that point. (BTW I am almost finished the movie. Fell asleep again last night. Al BORE just seems to make me drowsy)
I am also not hung up on just one Professors opinion such as Fred’s. If you feel he is discredited (although you will not state why and somehow feel this could be another “Q” incident???? who I am not) I will gladly supply you with some more quotes by more credible sources. Tell me these guys are ALL linked to OPEC:
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden: “We find no alarming sea level rise going on, in the Maldives, Tovalu, Venice, the Persian Gulf and even satellite altimetry if applied properly.”
Dr. Paul Reiter, Professor - Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France, comments on Gore’s belief that Nairobi and Harare were founded just above the mosquito line to avoid malaria and how the mosquitoes are now moving to higher altitudes: “Gore is completely wrong here - malaria has been documented at an altitude 2500 m - Nairobi and Harare are at altitudes of about 1500 m. The new altitudes of malaria are lower than those recorded 100 years ago. None of the “30 so called new diseases” Gore references are attributable to global warming, none.”
Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Manager, Wildlife Research Section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada: “Our information is that 7 of 13 populations of polar bears in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (more than half the world’s estimated total) are either stable, or increasing …. Of the three that appear to be declining, only one has been shown to be affected by climate change. No one can say with certainty that climate change has not affected these other populations, but it is also true that we have no information to suggest that it has.”
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: “Mr. Gore suggests that Greenland melt area increased considerably between 1992 and 2005. But 1992 was exceptionally cold in Greenland and the melt area of ice sheet was exceptionally low due to the cooling caused by volcanic dust emitted from Mt. Pinatubo. If, instead of 1992, Gore had chosen for comparison the year 1991, one in which the melt area was 1% higher than in 2005, he would have to conclude that the ice sheet melt area is shrinking and that perhaps a new ice age is just around the corner.”
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California: “The oceans are now heading into one of their periodic phases of cooling. … Modest changes in temperature are not about to wipe them [coral] out. Neither will increased carbon dioxide, which is a fundamental chemical building block that allows coral reefs to exist at all.”
Dr. R. M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia: “Both the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are thickening. The temperature at the South Pole has declined by more than 1 degree C since 1950. And the area of sea-ice around the continent has increased over the last 20 years.”
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, formerly advisor to the World Meteorological Organization/climatology research scientist at University of Exeter, U.K.: “From data published by the Canadian Ice Service there has been no precipitous drop off in the amount or thickness of the ice cap since 1970 when reliable over-all coverage became available for the Canadian Arctic.”
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Colombia, Canada comments on Gore’s belief that the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) is an “invasive exotic species” that has become a plague due to fewer days of frost: “The MPB is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”
And Dr. Timothy Ball (Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg) who currently resides in my old hometown of Winnipeg, Manitoba responded to this question on the global warming issue:
Q: What is the main weakness in the reasoning of Global Warming promoters?
A; That all predictions of future warming are based on computer models that don't work. They can't forecast one year from now so how would they be able to forecast 100 years from now? In addition, all forecasts made by the models to date have been wrong. The other major weakness the assumption that an increase in CO2 from human activity will result in warming. The evidence shows that CO2 does not correlate with temperature change. Even more damaging is that the 420,000 year ice core record shows the complete opposite with temperature changing before CO2 not as hypothesized. The models all assume a doubling of CO2 will occur. They are all programmed to have temperature increase if CO2 increases and they are unable to include feedback mechanisms. For example, an increase in temperature will result in an increase in evaporation that will cause an increase in cloud that will block the sun and cause cooling.
Here is something even more interesting regarding those who “originally” supported the IPCC’s position.
James Hansen was one of the original alarmists who brought forth this notion of global warming in 1988. He was the principal instigator behind the original IPCC protocol in 1992, which claimed that global warming was a serious problem and that carbon dioxide emissions are the cause.
Mr. Hansen now believes that he was wrong, that global warming is, at fact, caused by emissions of other gases. His reasoning is that when fossils fuels are burned, soot and other impurities are also thrown into the air, which prevent solar energy from reaching the earth. The consequence is that the net contribution of fossil fuels to the greenhouse effect is roughly zero.
David MacRae, Le Quebecois Libre
“Always interesting reading who scratches who's back and who is buttering who's bread in these things before you make an opinion.”
As I stated earlier, I am not interested in the loyalties on this subject. The side that claims it is “correct” (Al Gore and his merry band of Chicken Littles) does not supply sufficient evidence to support it. Just numbers of people who agree on a hypothesis. That does not make it a reality. The minority that challenge it are not ALL being bought off by oil companies to say what “they” want them to say. They are demonstrating the science that does exist and saying the problem is not man made. Give credit where credit is due.
So have you researched Dr Singer yet? Still find his words credible? Maybe i just like to have my 'experts' free of bias. If someone is going to lecture me on something i like to know that there are doing it for the right reasons and not because they are having their pockets lined by others.
It not only soils their arguments but those of anyone who uses them as reference.
Lucy,
Uhhh actually I gave you other references. I am quite surprised by your lack of ability to address the subject and, instead, come up with ways to avoid it until I research Fred.
Challenge the science Lucy or concede defeat on this one. I used a couple of links (would you like some more?) and different examples and your hung up on Fred Singer. Using Fred as an excuse to avoid my own questions and points is rather unbecoming.
I expected a little more bite from you. That is a pretty weak "out" your playing.
Per-lease TIO, you resort to an overused and tired ploy to try and shift the blame onto another person to cover your reluctance to challenge your own writing.
You should never be afraid to just hold your hands up and admit you dropped the ball. We all do it, but some of us admit to our hiccups while others try to squirm out of them.
You quoted Dr Singer as part of your evidence, i asked if you have researched him. Either you have and are feeling pretty uncomfortable about him or you haven't and are playing a game of moving the goalposts.
To restrict your wiggle room even more, for the 3rd time of asking, have you researched Dr Singer and do you still stand by his evidence knowing his links to the Oil Industry?
A simple yes or no will move the subject on from this impasse.
Lucy,
"you resort to an overused and tired ploy to try and shift the blame onto another person to cover your reluctance to challenge your own writing."
Huh? WHAT??? I just said the same thing to you. No fair.
In seriousness, just who exactly have I shifted the blame on? You? You have not responded to anything. You are fixated on Fred Singer.
"You should never be afraid to just hold your hands up and admit you dropped the ball."
Done! The moment you get your mind off of Fred and discredit the science challenging the validity of "Man made" global warming. I think as you have gotten to know me over the course of the last year you should know by now that I am indeed a person of humble means. If I am wrong in my perception that global warming is not man made then show me the science. So far 5,000 scientists have not been able to do that.
"You quoted Dr Singer as part of your evidence, i asked if you have researched him."
Indeed I quoted him, BUT not in my original post. Have I researched? Yes! I punched both him and OPEC into google search but I am not sure what it is you want me to find. Your afraid of another "Q" incident (I am not even sure what the H*** that is supposed to mean or if I should even be insulted. I am NOT Q) If you have links then provide them because I am not sure what it is you feel I should know.
If your making a statement that Fred is "paid" off by the big oil companies to make the claims that he does then I would ask only two things of you. Provide the evidence that he has actually been paid. AND if this is the case I sincerely ask you if it is relevant? The IPCC also "paid" their people to support their own "belief" that global warming is man made. These accusations can be flung both ways.
But let's put that aside. As I stated in an earlier thread, regardless of one's loyalties (if they actually have them) if, for example, Fred Singer makes a scientific statement refuting man made global warming, if indeed it is refutable, then show me where the false science is in his statement. Like an evolutionist will attempt to scientifically refute Intelligent Design then show me the science that refutes Fred's.
"To restrict your wiggle room even more, for the 3rd time of asking, have you researched Dr Singer and do you still stand by his evidence knowing his links to the Oil Industry?"
I believe I have answered this above. But for the record, Yes, I still stand by what he provides as you, so far, are unwilling to show me that which conflicts with his evidence.
Now for the third time (and remember I was originally posing the questions to you first so you owe me some sort of response) will you be responding to anything I challenged you on.
I will make it easy for you. Let's completely remove Fred Singer from the equation of my previous statements. In both the article and our continued dialogue I have provided you with numerous statements/evidences from a number of other credible sources who refute the claims of global warming alarmists. No Fred Singer, what say you? Refute the claims and provide your evidence.
"A simple yes or no will move the subject on from this impasse."
I believe I have now removed the impasse. So stop the run around and start responding to some of my "fair" questions I have posed to you and stop behaving like Dr. Suzuki ;)
Okey dokey smokey, firstly the Q incident was just a situation very like this where he used the research of a discredited scienctist which he took exception to me drawing his attention to. I only meant that Dr Singer is also a discredited scientist for the same reasons. Q got the hump and waltzed off into the sunset taking his blog with him although i never for a moment expected you to do the same.
I wanted to just guide you to finding out for yourself.
I have lost the thread of our original comments so let me go back, have a read and start again without the tainted Dr Singer.
HI TIO
I don't really want to interrupt your discussion with Lucy. I was catching up on this whole post and comments and must say I got stuck by the irony of this comment of yours.
Not picky just more skeptical when it comes to questionable theories with weak foundations...
And if the "evidence" has a weak foundation then I am not quick to accept theory as fact regardless of what the majority may say
I guess you don't apply that to religious beliefs.
That's all.
Carry on.
Hi Karen,
"I guess you don't apply that to religious beliefs."
And the answer is Nope! I don't. If you have read the scriptures God is all about "Faith" :)
Remember I am challenging scientific theory. And science demands evidence. Which is exactly what I am doing on a scientififc level.
Beleiving in God is a whole different ball of wax. If science, for example, could actually once and for all, beyond all shadow of a doubt PROVE evolution, it would still not deter my belief in His excistence.
Often when I am challenging scientific theory that is really all that I am doing. I do not bring the God factor in it and yet ironically there is always an atheist (no direct reference to you) in the crowd who does! And then somehow they put the spin on me like I brought it up???
Although I must state that I find it rather ironic that "scientific" minds are quite quick to believe unproven theories and yet claim that it is not an act of faith.
Anyways, I am rambling. Probably because I haven't chatted with you for awhile. Glad you still come around ;)
TIO
In science, a hypothesis is unproven, and many confuse it with theory, because the two words are about interchangeable outside of science.
I just found it ironic that you compartmentalize your life into what must be looked at logically and what can be accepted on faith, but make broad statements such as what I quoted above. Although, in truth, I suppose, we all do that. I do not look for logic in my love for my children for example.
Granted, the "theory" about god is not a scientific one.
Sorry, just musing.
The old grey matter seems to be filled with pellets these days.
I've been around. Just didn't have much to say about (yawn) global warming.
Hope all is weel with you.
Post a Comment