Dear Magnus,

I am very sorry that you are bored and annoyed with the articles that I have posted. I thought they were interesting. But to each his own.


Woland

I'm not sure, but I think I'm gonna go with EsnRedshirt for the win there.

Not that the way supporters of either side argue has anything to do with the validity of the claims they support. And by "supporters," I mean the "arm chair" variety, not (necessarily) the one's who are originating the claims on either side.

I know who started it

How could man not have impact on the environment? But what arrogance to think we arre the only or worst cause and that somehow we are going to destroy our planet. I mean please put jup for me how many of the "we must act now or we are doomed" scenarios have come true vs how many were hype.

I said it before when you have to use scary terms like "DEATH TAX" your point is probably not a great one. Same with warming in my view. The science is dubious at best and before drastic action is taken needs some more noggin floggin.

That is the point, Danny. The fear of anthropogenic global warming is being used as a cudgel to batter the industrial west into submission, and to dismantle the industrial civilization that makes this forum possible. Even if there were such a thing as a "world climate," even if the historical climate record were good enough to substantiate claims of change, even if the warming of the end of the XXth century were out of the usual bounds of historical variability, and even if that warming were shown to be even partially the result of industrial activity, the evidence that the change would bring about any of the horrific consequences with which the AGW enthusiasts like to titillate each other is simply not there. And therefore, the political agenda of the AGW movement --and that is what at least some of its leaders and proponents admit that it is, a redistributionist, socialist poltiical movement-- should be rejected by all thoughtful, sensible, reasonable people.

Happy New Year's to all!

Woland

Pass me another overcoat & stoke the fire while I read all these posts on Global Warming.

Happy New Year backacha Woland & to all !

Have fun,
John

I like this Woland....

while on the subject of sea cows (manatees) I like 'em. A herd lived under our brow when I was in Kings Bay Georgia, here is a link that references them to save the Canadians the time to verify if this is true:

http://www.georgiawildlife.org/node/1809

They are very cool animals and harmless. They do have the habit of spinning off the wash behind props on boats and also enjoy swimming just under the surface. The areas they live, such as Tampa, really needs to regulate the boating in those areas to avoid injuring and killing these gentile critters.

Quick story. New Jersey raised sailor was fishing on the pier on the base, we had great fishing, and we were loading cargo and watching him fish because we men do that sort of thing. He suddenly jumps up screaming, throws his pole into the river, and runs, screaming, toward the ship. Security grabs him and he is just blathering and pointing. Turns out a very large manatee had raised his head to look at the guy fishing, this was about a 12 footer, and the kid thought it was some kind of sea monster! He later became an avid fan of the sea cow. Oh, we also had a girl on board who we called the sea cow (also the spud beast), she gave a....uh....medical condition to over 20 guys, which tells you how low our standards were.

Woland, you speak with the certainty of a 15-year-old. On what SCIENTIFIC basis to you base your bold claim that "the evidence that the change would bring about any of the horrific consequences with which the AGW enthusiasts like to titillate each other is simply not there".

You consistently substitute bravado for evidence.

Happy new year.

John

Magnus,

For heaven's sakes, I'm only stating my opinion. I don't think I state my opinions with any more certainty than you do.

On the other hand, it would be nice to be 15 years old again. So thanks!

And have a very Happy Healthy and Prosperous New Year 2011!

Woland

John is very into the whole global warming thing, it is a religion to him. So anything stated against it he takes very personally. Basically to state that we are not all going to burst into flames only to be put out by rising water levels is the same as inviting the pastor at that Westwood (or whatever it is ) Baptist Church that protests at funerals to be the guest of honor at a gay parade and that he has to wear a banana hammock.

So what you do to make him happy is you link to some very true article about the sins of global warming and he is not only happy no matter how odd it is he'll buy into it. He may not right not to try to defend himself but you get the idea:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker......nibalism

Santa, have you ever seen me promote the "whole global warming thing"? AFAIK, all I've ever done is call BS on the deniers. In fact, I have consistently maintained that I am not a climate scientist and do not have the training or knowledge to properly assess the scientific literature.

It is perhaps convenient--or maybe even funny--to ascribe a position to me that is not my own. But it isn't honest.

John

"Richard Wentworth's lips tightened to a grim gash. If the Global Warmer succeeded in raising the world's temperature just a few more degrees, New York City would be flooded by the melting polar ice caps, killing thousands and allowing the Global Warmer's 'Black Divers' to loot the submerged city at will. Fury filled Wentworth's soul. The Global Warmer had to be stopped. The salvation of New York was again entirely in the avenging hands of The Spider!"

- "The City that Had to Tread Water" by Grant Stockbridge

Never said you were a leader John, you be one of the flock. What is AFAIK?

As Far As I Know.

I recently read there's a new effort to prove Obamas citizenship. It got me to thinking. There's confusion these days about theories and proofs. You get the right names together to back you and you spin a good yarn and you can theorize on anything and get all of Western society to accept your theory as a proof.

Did I tell you that all automobiles made by Chrysler feature a gingerbread man that damages gaskets while you sleep? It's not much. Just a theory I've been working on.

Really, with enough time and money a person can prove anything these days.

That's not actual proof; that's razzle-dazzle.
I think what you mean is that with enough time and money, a person can CONVINCE A LARGE NUMBER of anything.
If the lie is big enough, people will buy it.

That's exactly my point Steve. I know that theories aren't real proof. However, for whatever reason everyone around us is presenting theories and expecting them to be accepted as proofs. They even have the audacity to get angry when a theory is treated like a theory.

I have a question. Why is the theory of evolution taught in school? Do they work at all to explain that it is only a theory? Do they cover any other theories of universal creation? The modern theory of evolution does not allow for a bat. You cannot evolve a bat.

We are raising kids to treat theories as facts.

Perry, are you aware of school science curriculum? Do you know what is taught about theories? What do you know about the nature of scientific theory?

What case could you make for teaching "universal creation"--whatever that is?

John

Perry, I think you're begging the question for Creationism, which is currently outside the realm of the scientific method, relying on an intelligent, eternal, creative entity (a religious focus).
That could change in the future, it we empirically discover the 'mechanism' of intelligent design. At present, we have not.

Evolution is taught in school because the fossil record gives it sufficient legitimacy as a theory worth studying as part of scientific inquiry.
A good science teacher teaches evolution as a theory formulated through persuasive evidence in the fossil record, and in the laboratory (look how quickly one-celled organisms evolve to adapt to new conditions). He does not teach macro-evolution as a finalized 'fact,' but rather as a theory BACKED by persuasive facts.

A good Sunday school teacher teaches that Yahweh created the universe and all in it to his ends, but teaches it as something miraculous and beyond the ken of humankind, not as measurable science. He might show where science underlines "God's machinery in action," but does not claim to be able to show you "a cherub in a test tube."

By the by: while the evolutionary tree for bats is indeed sketchy (even painfully minimal), it may not always be so:
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/4/684.full

@Magnus; @Steve

I am very aware of scientific theory being that I am a scientist. And that is why I have a problem with what I'm seeing. While I am not arguing for teaching creationism I know that it is a theory. I had a Western civilization class in college that taught creationism as a theory and they make persuasive arguments for creationism using archeological evidence that backs events in the bible, specifically in Egypt. Why pitch one theory over another? I hear you screaming because one has more validity than another. Then again you and I didn't sit next to one another in that Western Civilization class. Doesn't really matter. It's a theory. It's those persuasive arguments that give a theory validity in an individuals mind. Our kids don't get to choose which arguments to hear. Some people have something to gain by pitching one theory over another. That bothers me.

@Steve your right. A good science teacher pitches a theory as a theory. I went to school and I know what they are doing. I was taught to believe any other explanation other than evolution is pure madness. To me that is not the way to treat a theory whatever that theory may be.

Maybe we're digressing from the point. My point is that global warming is yet one more theory that has such a strong following in the hearts and minds of people that you'd think macaws were roosting in our Christmas trees. Lot of people are going to benefit from that way of thinking. We'll make 10 different kinds of electric cars over the next decade and that's going to shift a lot of money around. Never mind that those cars will be charged using electricity generated by burning fossil fuel. And that loss of potential energy through conversion will ensure that those vehicles will burn even more fuel by proxy than what our current vehicles do.

I'm only making one point and I'm only asking for one thing. Treat a theory as a theory.