4/9/2007

12 Responses to “Notes From A Proud Global Warming Skeptic (part 7)”

1. But but but…. there’s a consensus!!
   *stamps feet*

   Taltos (c99804) — 4/9/2007 @ 8:13 pm

   
   

2. heh, I posted my post on that link in the last thread for Bradley. He seemed to pass of Lindzen’s remarks.

   Lord Nazh (c4715e) — 4/10/2007 @ 4:31 am

   
   

3. We all know that AL GORE is not only a liar but a big time hypotcrit he should cut down on HOT AIR by putting duct tape over this big fat flapping piehole

   krazy kagu (9a4519) — 4/10/2007 @ 6:04 am

   
   

4. Well surely if a couple scientists disagree with the vast majority of climate experts it means that I should go out and buy a Hummer, leave all the lights in my house on 24/7, and replace the plants in my backyard with concrete, right? Why err on the side of caution when it’s not me but my children or grandchildren who will pay the price if Professor Lindzen is wrong?

   TrojanGuy (0680ff) — 4/10/2007 @ 5:33 pm

   
   

5. TG, there’s just nothing like the old false dichotomy, is there?

   And of course if Professor Lindzen is correct then you AND your grandchildren will pay.

   I think we’d all agree that it’s smart to use energy in the most efficient manner possible because its current sources may very well have a limit, that it’s usually a good thing to reduce expenses and even that trees are good things. Where we might disagree somewhat is whether the doom and gloom crisis, even if true, can be in any reasonable way addressed by humans limiting the extremely small contribution we make to the production of greenhouse gases such as CO2 which literally pales in comparison to the CO2 produced naturally by the oceans.

   Where we might also disagree is that “the science is settled”, that sea levels are rising to such levels that they will threaten millions of people, that polar bears are in danger, that we’re causing all sorts of ice to melt, that malaria and other diseases will increase in a warmer world, and any number of other dogmatic beliefs held by those such as Mr. Gore who are “sure” that “the science is settled”.

   To loosely quote Mr. Gore loosely quoting Mark Twain: “The problem isn’t what we don’t know. It’s what we’re sure we know that just ain’t so.”

   Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 4/10/2007 @ 7:07 pm

   
   

6. TrojanGuy –

   I completely endorse Harry Arthur’s comments in #5. You have indeed set up a false dichotomy. But I also wanted to point out that your argument gives further credence to the notion that current global warming theory has become a religion.

   Here is a conversation that I had in college with a Christian evangelist (Admittedly not the exact quotes here, but the gist of conversation is accurately described):

   Evangelist: Would you consider comitting your life to Christ.

   Me: Umm…No thanks.

   Evangelist: Why not?

   Me: Because I personally don’t beleive that Christ was devine. Don’t get me wrong – I have nothing against your belief. But I just can’t subscribe to it.

   Evangelist: But look at it this way – If you are wrong, there will be tremendous consequences when you die. So what do you have to lose? Why not err on the side of caution?

   [end of conversation exceprt]

   So Trojanguy – This is the exact line of reasoning that you are engaging in. No different. You are going to have to do better than that I’m afraid. You want to stick to your religious beliefs in eco-hysteria? Fine by me. But don’t think that you can get around the problem of scientific proof here by using the “let’s err on the side of caution” canard.

   Justin Levine (b40016) — 4/10/2007 @ 9:32 pm

   
   

7. Um Trojan, I happen to work for a concrete company, so if you were really planning on paving the whole back yard perhaps you would be interested in a business card
   Send me an email
   My people will call your people.

   papertiger (e9a2a0) — 4/11/2007 @ 12:29 am

   
   

8. Justin L, #6, I couldn’t agree more. As an evangelical christian myself, I suspect we might disagree as to the divinity of Christ, but you’ve hit the nail squarely on the head with your narrative which I found very much appropriate. To suggest as the evangelist did, that you should just “err on the side of caution” both trivializes the relationship that I would argue Christ offers those who follow him while diminishing his demand for complete lordship in our/their lives.

   In this respect I believe you have characterized the canard even more succinctly than you may have suspected when you offered the narrative. Not only is anthropogenic warming very much a secular religion with accompanying orhtodoxy, but to suggest that a valid rationale for belief is that we should just “err on the side of caution” similarly trivializes the asserted critical and immenent dangers facing us.

   Additionally, it provides us with a pass to “believe” in concert with the self-proclaimed “consensus” all the while continuing to live our lives in any way we wish without bowing to the asserted critical need to make immediate and drastic changes in our lives – to submit to the “settled science”, if you will.

   If we have the financial means to do so, we need only purchase “carbon credits”, the secular version of indulgences, to assuage our conscience, thereby allowing us to self-righteously declare ourselves “carbon neutral”, a form of secular self-righteousness. We are then free to criticize the “deniers” for not only not believing but for their choices of transportation, energy use, etc.

   Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 4/11/2007 @ 3:03 pm

   
   

9. Look, these people (by that I mean the California government) are moving on this stuff. So far it’s just mean talk to automakers, but how long will it be before they start fitting my face (among other things) for a carbon trapping muffler? We need to be more proactive in bringing reality back to the reality based community.
   I am open to suggestions on how.

   papertiger (54d08d) — 4/12/2007 @ 1:11 am

   
   

10. Start with not voting for anyone from either party who is “sure” humans are causing warming and suggesting that we turn the entire economy upside down to “fix” the problem.

    Since his recent so-called “global warming debate” lovefest with Sen Kerry, that would include Mr. Gingrich.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 4/12/2007 @ 3:31 am

    
    

11. In Litigation, lawyers contesting with corporations often try to avoid technical debates since the side with the most money can hire the best and most expert witnesses (the side with the most money wins any technical debate). This is clearly how the “consensus” on global warming has been achieved. And the stakes in this contest are huge; we are talking about global regulation (anti-competitive regulation of production), barriers to entry for small scale bio-energy, taxation of the poor in the OECD and developing nations who wish access to relatively inexpensive Carbon energy, and of course “Carbon Trading”, a mechanism for financial intermediaries to scam billions in transfers of permits and emission rights from the First to the Third World.

    This last motivation is very important to understand in context; the slave state China is exempt under Kyoto from production regulation but may create permits. This is a huge subsidy to European joint ventures and Euro-Oil companies aligned with the PRC, e.g. BP-Shell. This is why you’ll find these organizations as charter members of the International Emission Trading Association, and indirectly supporting, and coordinating the distribution of propaganda related to global warming, including Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth-a film distributed and managed by fronts linked to the CFR; itself a front for the BP-Shell consortium. See:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1425249672931646464&q=geo+karras&hl=en

    And follow the links there.

    gk (49c582) — 4/20/2007 @ 9:28 am

    
    

12. Global warming is the worlds biggist fruad being carried out by underhanded unscupious persons like AL GORE and his ilk

    krazy kagu (841818) — 5/4/2008 @ 3:05 pm