Inquisitive Minds Message Board › Global Warming Debate

Global Warming Debate

Anne C.
user 9665090
Medford, MA
Post #: 12
To clarify, this is the continuation of the global warming debate that has been occurring on the comment section of the meetup page. I feel it is time to move it here.

Jim, I reviewed the article you posted from the Examiner and want to point out a couple of things. One, when I clicked on the links provided in the article, directing one to other articles, I noticed that both of the other articles were by the same man -- Tony Hake. I thought, "Hmm...perhaps I should learn a bit more about The Examiner in general and Tony Hake in specific." So I next clicked on the link titled "Climate Change Examiner" in the byline. This brought up a list of all articles in The Examiner that relate to climate change. Every single one of them was anti-AGW (man-made global warming), and some were anti global warming in general, man-made or not.

So, this is not unbiased reporting, which is fine, as long as no one tries to pass it off as such. It's perfectly fine for a columnist to have a leaning, and in fact, that's what separates a columnist from a reporter, who is supposed to remain unbiased and report on both sides of the argument.

This brings me back to when you and I were discussing this over email and I requested that, before we commence the debate, we decide on what we will allow as reputable sources. In my list of possibilities, I included Sesame Street, more in a joking manner than anything else. You responded, "Let's hear from everybody, including Sesame Street." I responded then and I reiterate now -- I believe this is the crux of our ongoing argument: you lack discernment.

So, should Tony Hake's columns be used as sources in this debate? Probably not, however, if he cites sources in his columns that come from less-biased media, that would be good.

Accordingly, looking at your second link -- it is a blog, and the introductory paragraph under the author's name is this:

"James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is"

Now, as a woman who prides herself on being right about everything, I feel a kinship with this man. But only in jest. I would never seriously contend that my views should be cited as sources in an actual debate, unless they were views about filmmaking, editing or comedy writing, about which I do consider myself more of an expert. So, though I like this man's humorous grandiose sense of self, I must say that citing him as a source is most likely not a good call in a debate where one is trying to honestly examine both sides of the issue.

Finally, with regard to peer-reviewed journals rejecting material that is contrary to the majority opinion, I noticed that this man has had several against-the-flow articles published, as is evidenced by this quote provided by you:

"Having published several against-the-flow papers in climatology journals I did not expect a smooth ride..."

That kind of speaks against a conspiracy to silence him outright, yes? Also, we need to ask ourselves why papers are rejected in general. Are all papers accepted? Should all papers be accepted? Even ones by Sesame Street?

Let's put it this way: Should a paper by a member of the Flat Earth Society be accepted in a scientific journal, in the interest of fairness and balance?

Richard Hoagland was once the Science Adviser to CNN and mingled with the likes of Carl Sagan. Then he started contending that photographs taken during a fly-over of Mars showed pyramids, a sphinx-like statue and other remnants of an advanced society. He was able to give a presentation to the United Nations in which he presented his "data', which consisted of mathematical "connections" between these structures. Of course, the connections were determined by looking at angles, distances...etc., and then seeing if those figures matched anything in math that we currently know about. For example, the angles of structures A, B and D, in relation to structure H, are three numbers in the Fibonacci sequence!! Evidence of intelligence!

It became clear that poor Richard had gone off the deep end. He still contends that there is a massive NASA coverup, and among the new things being covered up is an advanced society on the dark side of the moon.

I don't think that Richard's papers are being published anymore. I don't think he is going to get another audience before the United Nations. Is that evidence of a conspiracy against him?

I'm not saying that James Delingpole is a loon like Richard, but I am saying that his choice of alarmist and incendiary words (libtards, for one), combined with his inaccuracies like this:

"The so-called “sceptical” view – which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled ‘Barbecue the Polar Bears’ in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I’VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN’T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, the majority view."

(The majority of climatologists support AGW)

...lead me to not view him as an unbiased, reputable source.

Make sense?

I would like to address actual issues, such as the medieval warming period, but as I tried to establish in our email debate, we MUST agree on what we will allow as reputable sources before going in to the debate.
Somerville, MA
Post #: 1
I think there are genuine disagreements about climate-change projections, and then there are people whose work falls outside the scientific community, and whose claims really can't be taken seriously.

Science makes advances all the time, and sometimes it takes crazy-big leaps, either because of someone's stroke of genius, or by sheer luck, or because technology suddenly provides huge new capabilities. But if tomorrow, someone came out and said, for example, that diesel fumes are good for human health, the burden of proof would be on THEM to show how everything everyone else has said is false.

Ditto with anyone who claims either that climate change isn't real, or that man has nothing to do with it: PROVE that all the data showing warming was falsified, or misread. PROVE that we're not emitting carbon dioxide, or that it's irrelevant. PROVE that nature, all on its own, has previously increased temperatures this fast, and without any cataclysm to provoke it. PROVE that the glaciers and ice sheets aren't melting, and all those photos are falsified. PROVE that the average temperatures this winter weren't the warmest on record. PROVE that a phenomenon that is well-demonstrated, the greenhouse effect, ceases to occur on an atmospheric scale (we *know* it occurs in actual greenhouses, or else we wouldn't have all those lovely plants; I'm taking advantage of that principle right now to accelerate my seed-starting).

Yes, the majority can be wrong, but if scores of climatologists around the world, often working in countries where they'd be *substantially* more popular and well-paid if they denied climate change, have reached similar conclusions, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt. I also think that finding 2 or 3 mistakes, TOTAL, in the 1,000-plus-page IPCC report is astoundingly good; of course perfection would've been better, but I'd like to see how many errors we'd find in 1,000 pages' worth of the New York Times, or pretty much any book.

What's also interesting to me is how much passion goes into the denial. Why do people get so incensed about climatologists making mistakes, or being snippy, or being passionate about the need to take action (which seems perfectly reasonable to me, if your daily work has convinced you the world is going to hell), but not equally incensed about, say, pharmaceutical researchers, or economists, or engineers? Much, much worse has been PROVEN, beyond any question, about ethics horror shows in other fields, yet you don't see anywhere near the level of outrage about them.

Just as important for me is the question, "What's the point?" Sure, of course I want climate science to be as good as possible -- I want all the science that guides our lives to be top-notch. But using "ClimateGate," the vast majority of which has been proven to be pure crap, to block any attempt to pass climate legislation in this state, and to try to convince people that this is all a massive conspiracy to destroy America, is INSANE. Do we really want our kids and grandkids to depend on petroleum products and coal? Are we really SO in love with gas fumes and smog and volatile gasoline and heating-oil prices that we'll fight to the death to protect them?

Wouldn't the world be an immensely better, safer, more enjoyable place if we had clean air, energy-efficient homes and vehicles, and no need to blow up mountains for coal, or destroy the ocean floor for oil? If we were asked to pay $100 or $200 per person per year for the next 10 years to make this happen, and at the end of that period, it turned out that having 600ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere was actually safe, I'd still feel it was worth it for those other reasons. Plus I believe a green-energy economy would be good for the U.S. -- just like Mass. is a much happier place with its Route 128 economy than with a bunch of old mills producing textiles, chemicals and metal products.
Anne C.
user 9665090
Medford, MA
Post #: 13
My God, Marion. I'm ready to switch teams and propose marriage. love struck
Powered by mvnForum

Our Sponsors

  • Diesel Cafe

    Primary base for IM's discussion

  • Orleans

    IM's Favorite Destination for Food and Drinks

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy