Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to surrender it too soon or to the first comer.Millions of gullible world citizens have surrendered all sanity and skepticism to worship at Reverend Albert Gore's altar to Gaia.
-- George Santayana
Do not allow yourselves to be deceived: Great Minds are Skeptical.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
Meanwhile, here are quotes from some of the world's leading scientists to remind us that the science is not "settled," nor is there a consensus. Both very unscientific terms, by the way:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
This collection of quotes comes courtesy of Mark Morano, dedicated staffer to Senator James Inhofe, Republican, Oklahoma. Senator Inhofe uses his good offices to expose the Global Warming panic. Go here to see his official Senate web site and the latest report.
26 comments:
No one that I know is arguing that we know for sure that global warming is the problem it is being made out to be (may human fallibility live on). As I have already explained, it is not worth the risk to be skeptical about this one, because in this case, skepticism = haphazard + dangerous. Skepticism is/was always synonomous with caution. I'm skeptical about everything I hear, but not to such an extent that I am left in inertia. I am, if nothing else, a man of action; and what that means is that at some point I have to pick a cause and fight for it.
You might be right, Silverfiddle; no one is arguing that 'the science is in' (whatever that means) what we are arguing is that there is a good chance that if we don't take some serious action soon that our future oppurtunity to take action is not guaranteed. It may be too late in 10 years.
N.B.
Why don't you apply this skepticism to your religion? Just a thought.
I have applied very stringent skepticism to my religion, and my faith survived to be even stronger than before.
Saying "it's not worth the risk to be skeptical" is the same as saying "don't be skeptical." Both statements produce the same imperative: Do Something (that wastes trillions)!
This is an invented crisis, and there are respected, responsible scientists saying so.
I feel like Pascal. But... what if you're wrong?
It's not as if I can't find twice as many of these quotes in reverse.
All I know is that Vancouver usually experiences temperatures of 1-2 degrees above freezing at this time of year, and it's minus 8outside, not including windchill.
It's getting colder! The point is that climates are rising and falling all over the world, and records are being broken in the extremes. If you think snow in Vegas is just natural climate fluctuation... I don't know what to say.
All you fucking care about is being conservative. You're not after truth worth shit.
Here's how I explained how stupid your position is through scientific reasoning:
"If you had you would know that even though the future is uncertain, just the 50/50 chance (although I think it's higher in my favour) of catastrophy (if inaction on crisis) warrants that we take action.
Action:
scenario (1): If all the scientists are wrong, and we wasted a whole bunch of money for nothing, that's bad.
s (2): If they right, and we saved ourselves (despite some economic hardships) it's completely worth it.
In-action:
s(3) we didn't take any action, and nothing happened. We save ourselves from economic hardship.
s(4) we didn't take any action, and we end up in catatrophy the likes of which we have never seen.
The best bet is always to take some action, even if we're light o the pedal, so as to stave off disaster.
If you've taken a scientific reasoning course, or some sort of utilitarian business course, you'll know that taking action is the right course of action (pardon the pun)."
Also, I don't think the gov't should spend trillions dollars. How about just giving a 3000 dollar rebate to anyone who buys a hybrid/electric/etc... car, but not from the gov't. Make anyone who buys a hummer pay 4000 dollars, and then give the profit back to tax payers. The gov't can stay revenue neutral that way.
Also, experts on both side??? First off, those are all the global warming skeptics in the world you've just quoted. There are 100 fold more that believe we should take action on the environment (not that any of this necesarily means anything either way).
I'm skeptical!!! I'm not sure I'm right, or you're right. I want to hedge my beds. Doing nothing is hap-hazard, and just aburdly unconscientious.
I wouldn't get the cops to take every truck or inefficient vehicle off the road, or have every carbon emmiting factory shut down and demolished to make way for a green tech. plant all funded by the gov't.
But some action... a rebate for people who buy hybrids, or a carbon tax that is revenue neutral (the profit goes back to all the citizens equally). I don't see that as spending trillions, or not being skeptical??? I see that as being cautious.
Mind you, I'm not happy about it either. I hope you're right.
guys, guys. take it easy.
i just got off the phone with my 10th grade social studies teacher, and he said the whole global warming scare is a farce. further, he said if we do absolutely nothing in response, nothing bad will ever happen to the earth.
i'm sure you both will agree that that just about settles the issue.
thank goodness that's settled...
He predicted something that came true. That's science; that's why I used him. My point wasn't that he knows anything special, but if he was able to predict the ice up in the arctic melting well before it did... that's science. That was my point.
If you think it's a complete hoax, well, there's a lot of evidence that says different. It would be willfully ignorant of you to say that you're sure the future of the planet is safe.
The point of all the quotes on this last post were as a response to the overwhelming amount of global climate change evidence and scientific community warnings.
I mean, there are two universities in my area. UBC and SFU. Niether of them have a single faculty member that is warning that climate change is a hoax.
When people predict things like icebergs melting (IN THE ARCTIC, which is not something anyone would just... you know, guess would happen) that means that there is something to the science of climate change.
I'll give lip service to human fallibility again. I might be wrong, but it's just as likely, if not more so that you guys are wrong.
And the whole action vs. in-action thing showed you what we logically have to do something in response to even the possibility of global climate change.
I don't know how anyone can respond to that. If you're able to, you should write in to the journal of philosophical studies or something.
Fotusc, you say something about logic and civility in your profile, no? Well, you're not following logical thinking on this issue, you're just sticking to your guns blindly.
Another Nietzsche quote:
"Convictions are a greater enemy to truth than lies."
And I explained why your skepticism almost redefines or at least re-connotes the world skepticism... so, there you go.
Relentless: Your Pascal reasoning shows 2 options good, 2 options bad, one of each for action and inaction, so you really didn't prove anything. It also smacks of false dichotomy: Cost of action that wasn't needed = some money gone vs. cost of inaction that was needed = total global catastrophe.
My point is not to insult, but you sounded more like President Bush back in '03 trying to convince everybody why we needed to invade Iraq.
Free scientific inquiry is being stifled globally. That doesn't come from me, it comes from prominent scientists. If you believe in global warming/climate change you get university positions and research grants. If you are a "denier" you get no research money and you are ostracized. Very unscientific.
You accuse me of stubbornly clinging to a belief in spite of the "truth." But what I think is irrelevant. More importantly, are all these scientists stubbornly ignoring "facts," and if so, why would someone who has dedicated her life to science do such a thing?
Science is not a 10th grade popularity contest. Just because you have more people on your side doesn't mean you are right.
The global warming crowd's fervid adherence to orthodoxy has left it in a untenable position. They had to change the name to "climate change" to keep the dubious enterprise going.
Of course there's climate change! The climate changes all the time!
What causes the changes requires more study. Studies of ice sheets and tree rings, as well as contemporaneous writing show earth experienced climate change, so-called, prior to the industrial revolution.
We may indeed be causing climate change, but this has not yet been proven. The global warming Stalinists will brook no challenge to established orthodoxy. How very unscientific.
Precise science: Water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and CFCs are, in order, the most abundant greenhouse gases.
Ranked by contribution to the greenhouse effect:
Water Vapor: 36-70%
C02: 9-26%
Methane: 4-9%
Ozone: 3-7%
It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive.
If science can only narrow down the most significant contributor to a >30% range, how precise can the science be?
Look up Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age if you think we know anything about climate.
Not saying do nothing, not saying do anything... saying we don't understand the process and anyone who tells you it is hard science is either too arrogant or a liar.
~Finntann~
You guys are both missing my point, and your responses are demonstrating that you have either not read or not comprehended what I've written.
My grade 10 teacher predicted something that happened with a belief in climate change. That's science. When predictions based on theories come true, that strengthens the theory substantially.
There were not two bad and two good 'options'. There are 2 good, 1 bad and 1 catastrophically bad possibility. It is our duty (logically) to minimize the possibility of the catastrophically bad possibility from happenning.
There is no way around this. That you didn't understand it Silverfiddle is not my problem.
Again, Finntann, I'm not saying it's a 'hard' science (whatever that means). All I'm saying is that it's possible that climate change is real, and WHETHER IT IS NATURAL OR MAN-CAUSED we must do something about it.
I've never said that it was man-caused. I've always said that that is irrelevant, so stop re-stating what I agreed we don't know, Silverfiddle!
The original name "global warming" was an innaccurate name. The name "climate change" was and still is an accurate labelling of what is said to be happening.
The point is that dramatic (not regular, always happened always will happen, no big deal) climate fluctuation in either directions will eventually doom us if we don't stop them from happenning.
N.B.
The reason climate change deniers don't get prominent university chairs and research funding is the same reason creationists don't. They're idiots.
The universities have to see some sort of possible finding through the research to fund it. When it's a dead end, they don't fund it.
I don't know what the motive of otherwise intelligent scientists is to occupy themselves with proving evolution or climate change wrong. I just know that these people are on the wrong track, and their research doesn't deserve funding.
More to come in a later post...
You miss the point that bad science does not make for rationale action. The dispute is not over whether or not carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, we all agree on that. What is in dispute is: 1. the significance of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. 2. The theoretical reconstruction of a millennial scale temperature record...ie. the data put into the model for the years 1000-1850.
The entire global warming debate hinges not upon green house gases, current temperatures, or melting sea ice, but upon the validity of the MBH98 statistical model.
What impresses me the most, and calls me to question the validity of the analysis is that the majority of 'scientists' who question it are statisticians. Paleoclimatologists are making an assertion based on statistical analysis, the fact that statisticians question not only their model, but their math should be a significant factor in the debate. What a biologist or archeologist thinks is frankly irrelevant.
In the 1970's the current consensus was that we were doomed and heading into the next ice age, now it is the greenhouse. I do not question climate change, in fact it is the only constant proved factor involved in all this.
What is to be question is whether or not we know enough, understand enough to even hypothesize.
Yeah, and I suppose Galileo and Copernicus were idiots too, since they argued against the current scientifically accepted hypothisis that the sun revolved around the earth.
To use a phrase Silverfiddle is fond of... you are all thrust no vector. Try reading Chicken Little.
~Finntann~
You're claiming to be the modern day... COPERNICUS!
Are you fucking kidding me? There is falsifiabilty, burden of proof and whole lot more which makes the scientific method 100 times better than it was during Copernicus' time.
If we're not sure exactly what is causing climate change and therefore not what we can do to stop it, shouldn't we try whatever we can to at least prove it to be the wrong method (e.g. reducing green house gases). Your alternative seems to be to do nothing because we're not certain it will work. This is just ridiculous thinking.
That wasn't consensus in the 70s. That was a fringe scientific belief like yours is today.
If there are 10 different possible ways to stop climate change (which you admitted is real) and we're not certain which will work, does that mean we should throw our hands in the air and give up?
If you can't see how idiotic this reasoning is I can't help you.
You assert that we are in a period of climate change directly attributable to anthopogenic factors, I assert that you have not proven anything outside of normal climatic variation.
I will grant you 1 degree celsius upward trend between 1850 and 2008, now prove that it is of any statistical significance at all, and/or that it can be directly attributed to anthropogenic causes.
I never claimed to be the next Copernicus, you asserted:
The reason climate change deniers don't get prominent university chairs and research funding is the same reason creationists don't. They're idiots.
and...
I don't know what the motive of otherwise intelligent scientists is to occupy themselves with proving evolution or climate change wrong. I just know that these people are on the wrong track, and their research doesn't deserve funding.
Your introduction of evolution and creationism is a distractor, irrelevant to the discussion. To set the record, I believe in evolution and am not a creationist.
Your position that anyone who disagrees with you is either an idiot or on the wrong track just illustrates how the greatest thing you are afraid of is being proven wrong.
Your line of reason is basically:
Something is happening and we must do something about it.
When you don't even know to any great certainty what is happening, or what we should do.
It's called a knee-jerk reaction.
I do not disupute the warming trend from 1850-current, what I dispute is your interpretation of it and your exaltation of mass-media pop science.
Remember, Phrenology was a science once too!
~Finntann~
Knee-jerk... SOMETHING!!!!
Even if it's a shot in the dark we have to start doing something. I don't think it requires 1 trillion dollars from any gov't.
Revenue neutral ccarbon tax. We have it here in BC, and that's why I got a about... 100 and I think another 100 dollar check in the mail from the gov't. Any money they make off the carbon tax is equally distributed to tax payers.
If everyone tries this, and it doesn't work we'll try something else until something does work. Not doing anything because we're not sure what will work is absurd.
And, yes, you're saying that you and others who think like you are the next Copernici. Why else would you use his name? BTW the church was in charge of science when Galileo and Copernicus discovered what they did. That's why what happened to them was allowed to happen. Don't you fucking dare compare the secular scientific scholarship of today to what it was during that horrible time when the church controlled scientific inquiry, research and what was to be called truth/science.
That's the falsest dichotomy I have ever heard. Comparing todays science with that of the dark ages.
So, in the age of Copernicus the church controlled science...
and today? Politics and the Media control science!
You fail to see my point about Copernicus is not to compare them to my position, but simply to point out that sometimes the scientific establishment is WRONG!
I have more respect for those folks who stick to their positions, consequences be damned, than those who pocket the grant money and parrot the party line.
What makes you think the Dark Ages are over? You've simply traded one master for another.
Try freethought! I'll stick to my position that the empirical evidence does not support a verdict at this time, instead of allying myself with one camp or another for convenience or acclaim.
I will continue to espouse the position that your hypothesis is unproved, yet I won't vehemently oppose you. No harm, outside possible economic consequences, can come from reducing carbon emissions.
And friend, the false dichotomy is yours, presupposing that science and the church in the middle ages are mutually exclusive, when if fact historically they were mutually intertwined. Your falsehood is assuming that in today's modern world of academia, there is 'pure' science.
Cheers!
~Finntann~
Well, that's an interesting notion you bring up. I agree that science can and is often wrong (and will continue to be in the future) afterall progress is just refuting old paradigms and discovering new theories, ideas and concepts to replace them. I don't think we're anywhere rear the dark ages, I think that's an exaggeration, but I see what you're saying.
I think we pretty much agree if I'm hearing (actually, reading) you right. I'm not an economist and I am not shy to admit that, but would forcing grocery stores to not give customers plastic bags, giving incentives to people who buy fuel efficient vehicles (which is not just an environmental thing), and... I don't even know... just sort of the other fairly standard measures to protect the environment already implemented in many places with no real economic hardship (relative to places with no environmental policies); if you agree on most of these implemented slowly and cautiously so as not to send too great a shock to the economy of any place and to give it time to adjust itself, and for new industries to be born out of the policies, I don't see where the disagreement is.
I'm still not sure that climate change is a complete boogie-man, so I would be more cautious to ignore the most prominent academic researches in climate science, but, aside from that we pretty much agree; or...?
The gov't would be intervening into the market if they didn't allow grocers to put your groceries in a plastic bag. If the gov't payed for your recycling and even gave extra incentives that would be intervention as well. It wouldn't devastate the economy or cost a trillion dollars, but it's still gov't intervention. You guys are okay with that?
If so, I would have to completely change my opinion of you guys. A fre-market idealogue wouldn't even be okay with reasonable gov't intervention.
The free market is working on solutions right now: more efficient solar, wind, and biofuels that don't end up starving people. T Boone Pickens has been a big advocate of wind power. He is developing infrastructure and attracting investors. He also tried to get government money to fund his windmills. I am all for him up to the last part. If his idea's so dang good, it doesn't need government money.
i really cant believe that relentless is completely ignoring my 10th grade science teacher. i can see disagreeing with the flawless logic of foutc and finntann, because it's logic. and clearly relentless has problems with logic, history and facts. so he relies on fantastical predictions made by 10th grade social studies teachers. so i went out and found a 10th grade social studies teacher, and he told me that global warming, or climate change, or whatever the heck those scaremongers are calling it these days is a joke, and that nothing bad will ever happen to the earth as a result of global warming. i mean, how can relentless just ignore that? come on, the guy was my 10th grade social studies teacher. what more does one need?????
You're funny; but you missed the point again. He made a prediction that came true based on the theory of climate change. You guys were saying that this wasn't science, well... that's exactly what science is.
Also, the only reasoning that has made any sense came from me. If any of you admit that there is some chance that climate change is real, then we have to do something about it; logically that is.
It may be a good idea, Silverfiddle, but it may need some gov't help to get it off the ground, especailly when you consider how new and risky it is, or at least perceived to be.
After all the free market doesn't necessarily produce the best, but more likely what seem like the best. I don't think there will be an antique shop in 100 years. Everything they make today seems to be built to collapse over a couple years.
I don't know whose gonna starve if there are tax incentives for alternative fuel businesses. You're ideologing it again.
I don't even know why I discuss things with you guys. Not one of you will ever change your minds on any issue. I'll see you guys around though. Ciao:)
The thing is; you don't even take that as insulting.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.