Comments on: Climate change controversy

By: Cedric Katesby

Cedric Katesby — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:28:08 +0000

One of the strongest kinds of human evidence is called “testimony against interest.” When a person says something that goes against their precommitments in a court of law, the jury sits up and takes notice. Does that cut both ways or are you only applying that kind of thinking to the "environmentalists"? Do the oil companies get a free ride? If the environmentalists who fervently support global warming... Forget the enviromentalists. Stuff 'em. Bury them all in a big hole together with any subconscious prejudices you may hold against them. Good riddance. You have a scientific question? Do the smart thing. Turn to the scientific community. Go to the best. The very best. NASA is a good first port of call.

By: Scott Somerville

Scott Somerville — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:39:43 +0000

I guess I’m thinking more like a lawyer than a scientist on this one. I REALLY haven’t done any research of my own on this topic. That leaves me relying on the reasoning of others. As an attorney, I weigh evidence all the time–but it’s human evidence, not lab reports.

If the environmentalists who fervently support global warming were changing their opinion about nuclear power, I’d sit up and take notice.

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:33:50 +0000

That’s a strange response, isn’t it Scott?

Surely what gives you confidence in scientific findings is the evidence, the rigour of the scientific analyses, the authority of the scientists involved and the number of different converging forms of evidence and scientific conclusions.

That’s pretty massive in the case of the IPCC conclusions.

Now, of course many of the advocates for humanity taking action to reverse global warming trends are also advocating for nuclear power – for obvious reasons. Some of them may be opposed – again for obvious reasons.

But that doesn’t add to or delete from the confidence one feels in their conclusions about climate change trends.

By: Scott W. Somerville

Scott W. Somerville — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:35:55 +0000

I’d have more confidence in the global warming theorists if they were calling for nuclear power as early and often as possible.

By: Cedric Katebsy

Cedric Katebsy — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:35:15 +0000

Plato sounds like another climate warming denier. All mouth, no science.

What the bet that he disapproves of other scientific theories too?

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:40:05 +0000

plato – you didn’t mention any straw men?
Your “what of” are easily answered by a little bit of investigation on your part (have a look at http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/global-warming-misrepresentations/ here, for example).

Who claims it is either or climate change alleviation of world poverty. Surely both.

And what we are finding is that many technological advance that are being made to divert away from fossil fuels actually benefit the economy.

By: plato

plato — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 01:25:59 +0000

I cant count how many straw men i saw in this post, i must congratulate your ability to feign objectivism.

what of models missing hotspot?
what of natural variability and climate change precedents?
what of recent cooling?

and regarding action, i love your thoughtful attitude but you didnt give much thought to the fact that it will cost 300 billion a year for ten years to globally respond to climate change, but it will only cost 90 billion a year to eradicate global poverty and provide basic social services to the entirity of the under developed world.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:03:37 +0000

If you're having trouble with the Skeptical Inquiry article, check out this post and especially the comments. I have culled through the first 100 or so here.

By: Paulidan

Paulidan — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:08:20 +0000

Check the latest numbers, ∆(T) for the previous 16 months is about -.77C, about the entire warming trend that is supposed to be breaking the earth. lulz, busted.

By: wattsupwiththat

wattsupwiththat — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 04:47:42 +0000

On number 5, I beg to differ, LOUDLY

Dr. James Hasen, of NASA Goddard Institute for Spaece Studies (GISS) climate modeler, recorder and tabulator of sea and surface temperature, interviewee on hundreds of newspaper, magazine, radio, and TV articles, is in fact an “activist”. He lobbied for coal fired power plants not to be built in Kansas, intimidates heads of state worldwide, and now is creating his own version of carbon trade policy. Don’t beleive me? read this:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080604_TaxAndDividend.pdf

Some recent posts (all in PDF) to the Hansen mailing list included:

June 4, 2008: Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend — No Alligator Shoes!
May 29, 2008:: Dear Governor Greenwash: Governors’ actions fall short
May 29, 2008: Letters to Governors Kaine and Pawlenty: Includes Kaine’s response
Apr. 14, 2008: Governor Gibbons and Three Coal Plants: A conversation with the Nevada governor
Apr. 10, 2008: Yankee Ticket Prices and Fossil Fuels
Apr. 1, 2008: Dear Prime Minister Rudd: A Letter to the Australian Prime Minister
Mar. 31, 2008: Mr. Rogers and Darth Vader: A Letter to the Duke Energy CEO
Jan. 2, 2008: The wrong choice for Massachusetts. Op-ed published in The Boston Globe, Jan. 2, 2008. (Download as PDF)
see them all here http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

Yet the man decides the climate science too. This is a conflict of interest.