Global Warming Denial: Is there a good argument?

[Tanj]

That's not what I'm getting, he was arrested for trying to prevent the clubbing of baby seals. Tried to save the whales chalkenging a Russian whaler. He was there in the early days, don't recall his degree. As far as the OP, he is a meterologist who was a weatherman on Good Morning America and started thw weather channel. If you want to dismiss their credentials thats fine, but at least consider their background and training first. Patrick Moore and Bob Hunter are said to be the founders of Greenpeace, if you know better do tell.

It's not an issue of knowing better, it's an issue of recognizing confirmation bias and an argument from authority. Protesting baby seal clubbing and being president of Greenpeace have no bearing whatsoever on the credibility of your opinion on climate change. Dismissing these as being any kind of credentials is the right thing to do. And that's before we get to the fact that people can post any kind of nonsense and lies on youtube, and there's no mechanism to prevent it.

Even if they were credible, it doesn't make their argument worth listening to. Duesburg is a biologist. His HIV-doesn't-cause-AIDS directly contributed to the deaths of thousands of people.

James Watson thinks black people are genetically stupid. He's one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA.

One or a few pople featured in a youtube video would do not make for a credible argument aginst climate science. Heck, I wouldn't even trust them to sell me a decent pair of socks.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's not an issue of knowing better, it's an issue of recognizing confirmation bias and an argument from authority. Protesting baby seal clubbing and being president of Greenpeace have no bearing whatsoever on the credibility of your opinion on climate change. Dismissing these as being any kind of credentials is the right thing to do. And that's before we get to the fact that people can post any kind of nonsense and lies on youtube, and there's no mechanism to prevent it.

Even if they were credible, it doesn't make their argument worth listening to. Duesburg is a biologist. His HIV-doesn't-cause-AIDS directly contributed to the deaths of thousands of people.

James Watson thinks black people are genetically stupid. He's one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA.

One or a few pople featured in a youtube video would do not make for a credible argument aginst climate science. Heck, I wouldn't even trust them to sell me a decent pair of socks.

I dont know what the Watson comment but he apparently cased that on IQ testing, which is a mean average and slanred toward white Protestant males. Any hoot, these two are credible but I'm considering this solely on the merits of the arguments themselves. You insisted Moore wasn't cofounder of Greenpeace vut he is. That these two were unqualified to speak to this issue because they are on youtube, that's not an actual argument. I think this is a new perspective on an old issue and I appreciate a new perspective that challenges majority opinion.

 

[Tanj]

Any hoot, these two are credible but I'm considering this solely on the merits of the arguments themselves.

For someone arguing on merit you have spent all of your time so far on the credibility of the authors. What merit, exactly?

You insisted Moore wasn't cofounder of Greenpeace vut he is.

No, that was another poster, I insisted it was UTTERLY IRRELEVANT either way.

That these two were unqualified to speak to this issue because they are on youtube

Also not what I was saying. What I was saying is that nothing on youtube can be taken seriously regardless of who is arguing what.

I appreciate a new perspective that challenges majority opinion.

Why?

 

[Occams Barber]

There models out there that show it (Climate Change) will open up vast areas that are now deserts like Australia and Africa

I'm an Australian and I watch out for info related to my country and Climate Change. So far there is no good news. Even as we speak we have a record heatwave (13deg c above average), with major bushfires, in Queensland.

Your claim is news to me. Can I please have a source?

I notice your location is Fiji. Your country along with other Pacific islands is likely to be one of the earliest and worst affected by Climate Change:

How Fiji is Impacted by Climate Change
Fiji told it must spend billions to adapt to climate change​

OB

 

[mark kennedy]

For someone arguing on merit you have spent all of your time so far on the credibility of the authors. What merit, exactly?

As I've said, I consider the credibility to be acceptable, if you don't so be in. I found their perspective interesting and was wondering if anyone else might take in interest.

No, that was another poster, I insisted it was UTTERLY IRRELEVANT either way.

I just don't know what to tell you about, his resume isn't what interested me about his perspective on this.

Also not what I was saying. What I was saying is that nothing on youtube can be taken seriously regardless of who is arguing what.

It's like Wikipedia, ridiculously flimsy source material but other then that I enjoy some of it.

Why?

Because the idea of spending 4 billion a year on something we can't control sounds like the use of every contingency to accumulate power. You seem to think I threw down the gauntlet here, on the contrary, I was just entertaining a different kind of a take on all of this.

 

[Tanj]

You seem to think I threw down the gauntlet here

Not at all, I'm just trying to understand the mindset of someone that finds a youtube video a credible opposition to the scientific consensus.

 

[mark kennedy]

Not at all, I'm just trying to understand the mindset of someone that finds a youtube video a credible opposition to the scientific consensus.

I don't trust the scientific consensus unless I can confirm or verify by some means. I've followed environmental issues most of my adult life and really never gave greenhouse gases and global warming a second thought until I get this little bit of a reason to give it a second look. I don't consider it reliable source material either but I haven't the time or patience to go through the process of tracking the details down. I thought someone on here might have explored the subject matter a little.

 

[Tanj]

I don't trust the scientific consensus unless I can confirm or verify by some means.

Ahh, well, OK Mark. That's me done.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ahh, well, OK Mark. That's me done.

Alright, I mean thanks for jumping into the discussion but I was really just curious.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What massive scale? I only see the thing in ppm scale.

 

[visionary]

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

 

[Brightmoon]

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

. Afraid not! Global warming means simply the the average temperature of the earth rises over time . This doesn’t mean that some places can’t get colder. Nor does it mean that they necessarily get less snow . This has a lot do with how the temperature of the global air currents can change weather. We know this happens because we see temporary changes every summer and winter just from the angle and duration of the sunlight hitting the temperate zones. If you add extra heat energy from the greenhouse effect you can start to see why this can be a problem.

 

[Brightmoon]

a luxuriant vegetation would be extended even to the polar regions.”

This is a screenshot of a reprint of a Scientific American from 1868 . That’s not a typo - 1868. We’ve known about the effects of greenhouse gases for a while

 

[Brightmoon]

Here is a very bad photo of the original 1868 cover

 

[SpiritualBeing]

The warming in the Arctic is unlike anything on record, NOAA reports. A scientist says the pace is greater than any natural cycle

Unparalleled warmth is changing the Arctic and affecting weather in US, Europe - CNN

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Patrick Moore's qualifications (Ph.D. Ecology) and biography are on Wikipedia.

I particularly like this:

Health Effects of Glyphosate
During March 2015 in an interview by French investigative journalist Paul Moreira, which was first broadcast on French television station Canal+ in September 2014, Moore was asked about the safety of the herbicide glyphosate. Moore told Paul Moreira that one "could drink a whole quart of it" without any harm. When Moore was challenged to drink a glass of the weedkiller, he refused, saying "I'm not an idiot" and "I'm not stupid", and ended the interview. The interview came shortly after the release of a World Health Organization (WHO) report adding glyphosate to a list of probable carcinogens.

 

[Brightmoon]

Interestingly enough human-caused pollution in the early to mid 20th century caused a global COOLING (called the "Mid Century Cooling") due to increased sulfate emissions. Once we cleaned up the air in the 1970's the warming due to greenhouse gas emissions picked up again.

The cooling effect due to air pollution was actually masking the warming due to greenhouse gasses . It’s like putting ice into a teakettle with warm water that you’re heating . Eventually the heat will make the water hot . The Clean Air Act of the 70s basically removed the ice ( air pollution) from the teakettle.

 

[USincognito]

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

LOL A lawyer and Heartland shill writing an opinion piece for Forbes?

 

[pitabread]

LOL A lawyer and Heartland shill writing an opinion piece for Forbes?

Op-eds > science, duh.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If we are in danger from global warming we should probably do something about it.