A little different format tonight. I found this discussion fascinating:
Truthfully, the discussion back and forth between AGW supporters and deniers was pretty tame. We all know it can get WAY worse than what was written on this thread. Probably helps that technically the site isn’t a political one.
But, the thread certainly does show us who the enemy is.
I wish I would’ve happened upon this discussion while it was on-going–you’ll notice that it took place back in February. Because I believe the people arguing the conservative/denier side of the argument missed a couple points. And I want to make them here.
1. Nowhere in the entire thread does anyone mention that 40 years ago climate scientists swore up and down and sideways that the Earth was entering an Ice Age. I’m 43 years old and I can remember as a little kid believing that. Anyone older than I am would surely remember that, too. So, I wanna know: Why should we believe scientists now when they were wrong then?
2. When I think of Global Warming I think of Al Gore. Why is it he has turned down EVERY chance to debate deniers? Sure, if it’s just some person of the street, I understand. But how about people with in the scientific community who believe global warming models have flaws? When someone claims they believe something but then never choose to defend that something head-on, I get suspicious.
3. In the thread, much was made of the fact that the “metadata” is available. It was hard for me as a layperson to determine whether it is or isn’t. What was clearer to me was that when Michael Mann was given the chance to present his facts in court, he balked. Of course, supporters say that’s no big deal since the data is there for everyone to read, irrelevant to whether he felt comfortable presenting the facts in Court or not. The deniers claim simply that the data isn’t widely available. I have a totally different take on this in contrast to either side: It could be that the data is available but maybe the reason Michael Mann has a hesitancy to present it in Court is because it isn’t true since he’d be under oath. I thought out of this early in the thread and I was surprised nobody brought it up since after all it is a legal blog. It’s no different than Roger Clemens–claiming you never took steroids out in public is very much different than claiming you didn’t take them under oath. One is just simply talk and doesn’t mean anything. The other could have wide-ranging implications. He can publish that hockey stick study anywhere–it’s not against the law, right? But he can’t speak truthfully about the model in court if he in fact falsified data why putting it together. Hmmmmm . . . .
4. This thread also shows what happens what politics and government get involved in scientific study. One more reason why tax dollars shouldn’t go toward scientific pursuits. When this happens, nobody is sure what anybody’s motivations are for taking any position, since we know that getting grants for anything quickly causes the receiver to be enamored of government.
To finish I will paraphrase a podcast I did a long time ago:
Al Gore claims people cause global warming but he burns more fossil fuels than anybody on Earth except Barack Obama. But, conservatives are the kooks . . .
Emails are discovering circulating between global scientists and it looks like they’ve manipulated data to make it look like global warming is more prevalent than it really is. But conservative deniers are the kooks . . .
The same people who claim global warming are the same people who 40 years ago claimed the Earth is getting colder. But deniers are the kooks . . .
Global warming believers on the whole believe it is the #1 threat to mankind while Iran and the Norks are getting nuclear weapons, while China is trying to expand its presence in SE Asia, while Russia gets ready to invade Ukraine, while terrorism continues worldwide, while Obamacare ruins healthcare in the USA, etc., etc., etc. But global warming deniers are the kooks . . .
I think you get my point.