Poll: Has this winter changed your view about human affect on climate change?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hi hiphil - I'm with you on this one, and I've spent some time trying to argue my case (never come across the website you linked to, though, so I'll have to have a look at it! )

Penguin's right, though - I only signed up a couple of months ago and I'm up over 100 posts already - Our point of view is difficult to argue in this crowd!

Still, it's kind of fun

Welcome to the forum!

C-Bob

[parmenides3]

Morning, all. There's a reference to 'friends of Science' here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...ends_of_Science

as well as something similar on wikipedia, linked to on the above.

As the Wikipedia site says, being funded by the oil industry is not de facto proof that their claims are false, but it does suggest that there may be issues with their credibility.

The main claims cited on Wikipedia - no measured warming in past 30 years, Urban Heat Islands, etc., have all been extensively refuted in the literature. For an alternative view of Tim Ball, you could also try doing a name search on 'Deltoid'; http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/

Whatever your views on this, please feel free to offer your arguments, as C-Bob does; it is always worthwhile exploring the science, as well as the other issues.

:)P

[Mondy]

[Admiral_Bobski]

So what you're saying is that global warming is just a load of old pants...?

C-Bob

[Mondy]

Yes

[Admiral_Bobski]

Yes

A Good point well made!

C-Bob

[Stratos Ferric]

Hi hiphil - I'm with you on this one, and I've spent some time trying to argue my case (never come across the website you linked to, though, so I'll have to have a look at it! )

Penguin's right, though - I only signed up a couple of months ago and I'm up over 100 posts already - Our point of view is difficult to argue in this crowd!

Still, it's kind of fun

Welcome to the forum!

C-Bob

Two interesting points there: one explicit, one implicit.

The explicit first: it's not hard to argue - this a free to ente thread. I think what you mean is that it's hard to convince anyone fo your viewpoint, and perhaps there's a reason for that lying I the implicit point you (inadvertently) make. That inadvertent point, is that in "arguing your point" you are talking at, rather than listening to. Most of the pro G-W "community" can argue thir position with facts, data and science, AND - and this IS the crux of advocacy - can disassemble most of the rational arguments of the "antis". The antis tend to rely on "I don't believe it", or "how can it" type homilies. You'll start convincing THIS commenttor / observer as and when the quality of the argument improves: i.e. tell the pro G-Wers why there case is wrong.

The ancient Greeks used to teach logic, reason and advocacy / debating skills. It's a great shame that we don't still. Knowing orbelieveing something may be necessary for good argument, but it is certainly far from sufficient.

A Good point well made!

C-Bob

...two classic cases in point. In what way is a vaguely amusing picture of pants on a line "a good point well made"? It's a position, not an argument.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Two interesting points there: one explicit, one implicit.

The explicit first: it's not hard to argue - this a free to ente thread. I think what you mean is that it's hard to convince anyone fo your viewpoint, and perhaps there's a reason for that lying I the implicit point you (inadvertently) make. That inadvertent point, is that in "arguing your point" you are talking at, rather than listening to. Most of the pro G-W "community" can argue thir position with facts, data and science, AND - and this IS the crux of advocacy - can disassemble most of the rational arguments of the "antis". The antis tend to rely on "I don't believe it", or "how can it" type homilies. You'll start convincing THIS commenttor / observer as and when the quality of the argument improves: i.e. tell the pro G-Wers why there case is wrong.

The ancient Greeks used to teach logic, reason and advocacy / debating skills. It's a great shame that we don't still. Knowing orbelieveing something may be necessary for good argument, but it is certainly far from sufficient.

...two classic cases in point. In what way is a vaguely amusing picture of pants on a line "a good point well made"? It's a position, not an argument.

For everything there is an answer - my use of the word "argue" implies a two-way discussion, a tete-a-tete, in which one viewpoint is firmly established over the other. It is, therefore, difficult to argue my case as I have been, as yet, unable to establish my viewpoint (i.e. convince anyone else of its legitimacy). It is a common misunderstanding that "to argue" means "to shout down" in some way. The verb "argue" is, in its most basic form, a synonym for the verb "debate". Frankly, I resent the insinuation that I do not listen to other viewpoints. I, for one, do not "rely on 'I don't believe it' or 'how can it' type homilies". If you have read any of my posts before then you should know this - I argue by counterpoint, not by dismissal (mostly ) A large part of my argument has always been that CO2 is neither as Big nor as Bad a Wolf as seems to be made out, and I have always attempted to offer suggestions as to why I belive this to be the case.

As for your second perceptive observation...The "point" is that Mondy believes that GW is "a load of old pants", and it is well made by virtue of the fact that it is both bold and amusing. I will quite happily send you a cheque for 5p with which to buy yourself a sense of humour.

All the best,

C-Bob

[snowsure]

As for your second perceptive observation...The "point" is that Mondy believes that GW is "a load of old pants", and it is well made by virtue of the fact that it is both bold and amusing. I will quite happily send you a cheque for 5p with which to buy yourself a sense of humour.

All the best,

C-Bob

It may be that the "point" made causes problems due to its much earlier inclusion on, dare I mention it, iceagenow. Despite the lack of proof that the site author is in the pay of anyone connected with the oil industry, explicit or implicit reference to that site causes immediate questioning of the posters creditability (At least by some contributors on this site.)

Brave words at the end there Capt! I do not wish to associate myself with them, though, due to my respect for SF. (Very funny though!)

[Mondy]

Most of the pro G-W "community" can argue thir position with facts, data and science, AND - and this IS the crux of advocacy - can disassemble most of the rational arguments of the "antis"

What a load of cow dung. A "them" and "us" argument, as long "us" [we] stick to 'our' facts/stats etc.

Why is it the 'pro's become almost defensive when the 'anti's' start attacking?

Isn't the best form of defense, attack?!

Anyway:

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

[Admiral_Bobski]

It may be that the "point" made causes problems due to its much earlier inclusion on, dare I mention it, iceagenow. Despite the lack of proof that the site author is in the pay of anyone connected with the oil industry, explicit or implicit reference to that site causes immediate questioning of the posters creditability (At least by some contributors on this site.)

Brave words at the end there Capt! I do not wish to associate myself with them, though, due to my respect for SF. (Very funny though!)

Ah, well, I always like to check out Iceagenow, just for a laugh! I'm not an advocate of that site, and it bugs we somewhat that sites such as that bring down the good name of skeptics everywhere, but sometimes I read something on there which compels me to look up other, related issues (so it's not all bad!).

I've always had some good measure of respect for SF, too, up until now... I find it sad that a couple of people on a forum can't have a good-natured chuckle over something without it irking a third party. Some might argue that the post by Mondy was not good-natured, but I would disagree - it is important to keep a sense of humour about everything. But what annoyed me the most by SF's post was the fairly aggressive insinuation that I don't know what I'm talking about, and a fairly grave mischaracterisation of me.

Sorry to go on about it, but not all skeptics are Iceagenow-ers...!

C-Bob

Ps - Mondy...thanks for the link...I've been looking at solar cycles for the last week or so and it's interesting stuff, but complicated. This article is a good reminder that the 11-year sunspot cycle isn't the only solar cycle with any bearing on Earth.

PPS - By the way, the comment "Our point of view is difficult to argue in this crowd" was supposed to be complimentary, as it was supposed to suggest a high quality of counter-arguments on the forum. Perhaps I should be more explicit next time...

Edited January 20, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

What a load of cow dung. A "them" and "us" argument, as long "us" [we] stick to 'our' facts/stats etc.

Why is it the 'pro's become almost defensive when the 'anti's' start attacking?

Isn't the best form of defense, attack?!

Anyway:

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

That link is such an alwful load of old tosh I don't know where to begin.

It contains not one piece of evidence. Oh, yes, it's full of assertion, of statement, of claim, but figures, facts, evidence? NOT A JOT.

So, lets see his evidence can we? His preferred graph of solar output perhaps? A figure by him explaining away how all the Giga Tonnes of anthro CO2 haven't effected atmospheric CO2 concentrations and where they've gone (down the hole in the North Pole perhaps?)? Blimey, he even denys the GH effect ? It's a joke.

C'mon, I'm open to sceptic stuff (heck, I don't want to believe it'll warm more, let alone degrees more) but lets at least try and make it credible.

Edited January 21, 2007 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

Surely it is enough to see the subject matter of the other links at the bottom of the article of their chosen subject matter?

Very 'nay sayer -ish', umpteen factual reports on the warming in Russia over the past year but they choose one unfounded hypothesis...........what can you do to open the eyes of those who choose to be so blinkered?

When I propose catastrophic collapse of the Ross Ice shelf over the next 15yrs I am pushed aside because my assertions are based on my own personal observations of scientific literature and the sat images available but not so when some joe starts spouting what they need to hear......so unfair.

[parmenides3]

When I propose catastrophic collapse of the Ross Ice shelf over the next 15yrs I am pushed aside because my assertions are based on my own personal observations of scientific literature and the sat images available

Surely not, G-W! :(P

[Admiral_Bobski]

Just a quick point that the link posted by Mondy is to a news website, not to a scientific website - news articles rarely quote facts or figures with articles such as this. Secondly, I would hardly say that one article by a dissenting scientist constitutes "focussing on one unfounded hypothesis" - it's just a news story: there are dozens of other articles on the site with differing opinions. Of course, if "they" refers to Mondy then of course a person who doubts the theory of GW is going to choose a single article against the argument rather than one of the articles that supports the assertion. That's the point - finding the other side of the argument...

I wouldn't take a news report at face value, and I intend to look at this scientist's credentials when I have time (heck, he's probably on Sourcewatch...most nay-sayers are...).

Still, I think that it is an important reminder that there's more to the debate than meets the eye...

C-Bob

[Gray-Wolf]

Surely not, G-W! :(P

If I'd have been rooting around for 'contrary evidence' then many more would have voiced support I suspect. People tend to listen until they hear what suits them and then stop listening, even if there is more to hear.

[senior ridge]

What about DGW? Deliberate global warming. There's plenty of gas/oil around the Arctic Circle............ :lol:

[The Penguin]

When I propose catastrophic collapse of the Ross Ice shelf over the next 15yrs I am pushed aside because my assertions are based on my own personal observations of scientific literature and the sat images available but not so when some joe starts spouting what they need to hear......so unfair.

I don’t think it’s fair to say that your views on the Ross ice shelf have been pushed aside G-W; the number of responses to your previous comments on the subject would imply, to the contrary, that they have been widely considered.

However, it is fair to challenge you in a situation when your conclusion seems to be despite the evidence you so carefully collected rather than drawn from that evidence. There still appears to be no scientific support for the timescale you impose on the catastrophe you foresee.

[Admiral_Bobski]

With all due respect to Gray-Wolf, because you're obviously an intelligent person who does his research, I would have to agree with The Penguin. The scientists you contacted seem to be reasonably sure that there's no fear of anything catastrophic happening in the near future, yet you stand by your assertion. However, when we who play Devil's Advocate in the GW debate assert something that goes counter to the received wisdom, we are pushed aside for much the same reason. As I said before, it is not unreasonable to expect a person opposed to GW to look for the articles that are "what they need to hear", or rather are supportive of their viewpoint.

C-Bob

[parmenides3]

C-Bob, G-W: Hi. It doesn't seem right to say that if your own thoughts or ideas are replied to - in good faith - with other people's thoughts and ideas which are different to yours, that you are being 'pushed aside', even though it may feel that way to you at the time. In both cases, we are dealing with matters where some of the 'knowledge' we have, at least, is open to interpretation. This allows for all of us to have a different slant on the material, and therefore something to say about it.

My feeling is that G-W has a reasonable cause to be concerned about the state of the Antarctic, as this is a position held by the head of the BAS (not surprisingly, you might say, but there it is). There are also legitimate uncertainties about how certain elements in the global 'system' will respond in the next few years to the changes we see around us; so this worry, whilst it is not (at the moment) at the top of the scientists' lists, is still justifiable, given the state of our knowledge and understanding of the system. At the very least, I'd say it justifies keeping an eye on over the next few years.

As far as going counter to the 'received wisdom'; there is nothing wrong in this at all. Personally, it's a favourite attitude of mine. But it isn't the same as going counter to reason or logic. The biggest single problem to the arguments against AGW is not that they are 'different', but that, in most cases, they are either illogical or unscientific. it should be clear that a lot of the so-called 'skeptic' arguments are straw men, or simply fail the falsifiability test. This does not mean that a person is not allowed to have doubts about AGW, of course, but it must be accepted (from wherever we are arguing) that these really should be legitimate doubts, as C-Bob's about CO2 are, rather than simply repetitions of well-worn 'denialist' guff from dodgy websites.

I happen to believe that C-Bob is genuinely trying to make sense of something which is not clear to non-climate-scientists, and is entitled to his doubts about AGW, though I hope that a long enough look at the science supporting the debate will eventually show him that the scientists have got it right - that CO2 warms the planet - but that it is up to him, and all of us, to reach an understanding in our own way and our own time. Therefore, I would encourage all points of view to be both expressed and heard. After all, if the 'truth' about AGW is so self-evident, then it should be easy enough for others to explain, in a polite, unpatronising and non-dismissive way.

Neither of you should feel 'pushed aside', and both of you ( and others) must continue these interesting and important subjects.

Lecture over.

:)P

Looking forward to the AR4.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Thanks for that P3 - you're absolutely right I was trying to be as respectful as possible to GW because I believe that his concerns are not entirely unfounded, just as I feel are mine(a fact that you have graciously accepted on many occasions!). It is wrong for people on either side of the debate to "push aside" the views of others. I do try not to do this (although I may have been guilty of it in the past ) but rather to counter the argument with something substantiated or accept defeat on that point and move on to another.

If everyone intends to keep this one big happy forum then we should treat each other respectfully, and, if there is no evidence to the contrary, respect each others' opinions.

Long may the debate live!!

C-Bob

[Mondy]

C-Bob..have you seen the latest. You couldn't make this up...now we're all supposed to give up working and live in a caravan. It gets better - wait until you see how she heats it!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6287107.stm

She no longer drives, buys organic, locally-sourced food and uses a wood-burner to heat her home

eh???????????

A wood-burning stove, for chrissakes ! And what does she think you get when you burn wood?

If ever i saw a case of self-righteous finger pointing [gone wrong] , then it's this.

Edited January 23, 2007 by Mondy

[Admiral_Bobski]

C-Bob..have you seen the latest. You couldn't make this up...now we're all supposed to give up working and live in a caravan. It gets better - wait until you see how she heats it!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6287107.stm

eh???????????

A wood-burning stove, for chrissakes ! And what does she think you get when you burn wood?

If ever i saw a case of self-righteous finger pointing [gone wrong] , then it's this.

The really interesting thing about the article is the figures quoted - reducing her CO2 emissions by a half cost her over four times as much money! That sounds economically viable, doesn't it?! The fact is that I'd love to give up working and live in a caravan, but I can't afford to do it...and the more taxes and restrictions that are imposed on us in an effort to reduce CO2 emissions, the worse off I'm likely to be, making it yet harder to give up work and live in a caravan...!

What would have made this report noteworthy is if, rather than just not taking the plane, she had managed to get the flight cancelled. The CO2 was still churned into the atmosphere by that flight, despite her not being on it - a fact that is echoed in the grander scale of things by the fact that our CO2 reductions aren't worth much if every other country refuses to co-operate. Still, you've got to love the BBC, eh?

C-Bob

Edited January 23, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Mondy]

Indeed.

The Beeb - the only thing it does well is comedy.

[Devonian]

Thank god the BBC don't do cynicism, they'd go to any expense for the services of you two ...

She wants to live in a caravan and not fly? Then it's her choice. Shes's not dictating how others live. But those who fly willy nilly and generally burn fuel dictate to those like me what kind of atmosphere I have to live under and how much anthro climate change I have to put up with. So, as per usual, the cynics have it back to front - it's people like you fellas who are doing the dictating by your intransigence towards any change that might reduce our impact.

cynics.

Edited January 23, 2007 by Devonian