Sunday, December 20, 2009

Another perspective on Global Warming evidence


  1. And again, you refuse to recognize your confirmation bias by posting a video that supports your conclusion without looking for a rebuttal or opposing view.

    If you were honestly searching for the truth about AGW, you'd post two opposing viewpoints and ask for input and, again, I must do what you refuse to:

  2. Greenman says:
    Some book called Unstoppable Global Warming is a crock, written by Avery and Singer.
    Avery works for a “A right wing think tank” so he is bad.
    Singer worked for tobacco companies so he is bad, both by definition.
    In the book the “1500 year cycle” is not global warming, it’s something else – a redistribution of heat possibly associated with ocean currents (we’re not sure). At least he’s hedging on the last point.
    Yes I am politically biased and I’m looking for confirmation, so are you (you keep going to Greenman for confirmation to your bias) – so are we all. But my bias does not enslave people, does not infringe on their freedoms and does not impact their livelihood in the immediate future. Your bias requires worldwide agreement that would require ALL nations to make major changes to their physical and economic infrastructure NOW so that global catastrophe is averted (that may not affect all nations) at some undetermined future date in some undetermined future way.
    Good luck with that.
    Copenhagen showed how difficult that will be.
    You will say my bias will ALLOW the world as we know it to be destroyed (‘cause we can fix it – talk about arrogance) and will result in war, famine, turmoil, extinction and all manner of evils that we can’t even comprehend. BULLSHIT.
    You are the one walking around with the sign that says “the end is nigh” if we don’t believe. Which one of us is crazy?

  3. "Which one of us is crazy?"

    The one NOT using good science and evidence.

    I am fully aware of my tendency to bias. That's why I watch, read and listen to the 'other side'. However, what I discover is that their arguments have gaping holes or downright misinformation. The videos you post are one-sided. This hockey stick video does not attempt to compare Antarctic and Greenland ice cores to each other, unlike Greenman. Your videos make no attempt to lay out a scientific claim and show precisely where the error is. It's all assertions. Greenman and Potholer present the denialist's claim and then point out their errors and back their claims with evidence.

    It is certainly not arrogance to assume we can fix global warming - it is an inevitable step in our evolution to learn to control our environment. We've learned to control viruses, medicine, transportation, etc., why should our environment be any different?

  4. While science and evidence are important to me, they are not the reason I began this blog. Religion and Politics are what I am discussing here. The reality is that they are the two most powerful social forces that shape human interactions, not science. Science is frequently irrelevant in the so called real world (sad but true). I’ve taught Evolution long enough to realize that evidence is irrelevant, even though I still like rubbing their noses in it in the blog, I know it’s pointless. In the case of AGW the orthodox science does not fit my political agenda. Simply put, the line of thinking that requires major governmental interventions into the lives of individuals is inimical to my view of how to make a better country and world. Given that, I’m being perfectly rational in looking for smaller, cheaper alternatives to fix AGW if and when it becomes problematic. Deep down, I don’t really think AGW is as much of a problem as its being portrayed. I may change my mind in the future but right now I’m pleased with Canada’s response to Kyoto, and Mr. Harper’s apparent indifference to Copenhagen. That’s how the country and the world work.

  5. "Religion and Politics are what I am discussing here."

    By posting videos about AGW you are making claims concerning science. Few of your posts (if any) provide political responses. I am responding to your science claims and pointing out errors which should throw doubt into your 'deep down' conclusions. Any science-minded person should recognize that our deeply held beliefs are the ones that most be challenged the most strongly. Religious people have 'deep down' beliefs that their god is real even when the evidence is overwhelmingly stacked against it. It's why religion, god-belief and, I dare say, AGW deniers persist. They cling to what they WANT to believe instead of what they OUGHT to believe.

    Critical thinking is crucial to science but possibly less so with current politics. Politics is about the maintenance of power and not propagation of truth. It is here where I sympathize with Libertarians - less government is better. However, I refine that statement to 'less political government but more science-based government, is better'. I argue that politics, like religion, has suffered from a LACK of scientific thinking. Religion and politics are not wrong, per se, it is their anti-science foundation that is the problem.

    I envision a future where political decisions are left to professional decision-makers and not the population at large. The decision on whether to close a coal plant or change import tariffs should not go to 'public' debate - it's a matter for those most educated about the issues to resolve. Politics is still 'for the people' but there will be a vetting process where those interested in policy changes need to be willing to get educated on the facts.

  6. "By posting videos about AGW you are making claims concerning science."
    Actually I'm voicing my skeptism about AGW, certainly a valid scientific concern (is skeptism now illegal?) - I don't believe the evidence and I certainly don't believe the individuals pushing the idea down my throat(including you). That kind of urgent "lets close the deal now" attitude makes me LESS willing to accept it.

    "They cling to what they WANT to believe instead of what they OUGHT to believe."
    Talk about arrogant - what makes you and your gang so smart?

    "It is here where I sympathize with Libertarians" You may sympathize with libertarians but you really don't seem to understand what it to think like one. I have no problem with religious orthodoxy (some of my best friends are religious)- my problem is with a religion deciding what my values should be, how I must behave in my life etc (AGW has become THE secular religion). There are very many religious god-fearing libertarians, I know them, I respect them and as long as we repect each others freedom/rights I'm happy to join with them to fight for limiting the power of governments and gangs.
    "I envision a future where political decisions are left to professional decision-makers and not the population at large." Welcome to the Soviet Union/NAZI Germany/China/Cuba/North Korea and all of those failed Technocracies or maybe you prefer Meritocracies.
    I think today most libertarians would allow capital markets to decide on issues of major import. Governments would adjudicate differences of opinion, protect patents, property, individual rights in a limited judicial system; police would actually protect life and liberty (instead of what they do now)and a very limited military force would defend the nation without leaving our borders. That is my libertarian dream, preventing me from producing too much carbon infringes on my life. You need to visit then then Then you will see how far from libertarian sympathy you really are.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.