Living Car Free - Finally watched "An Inconvenient Truth"

The ad hominem technique of "poisoning the well" is often used as a substitue for debate. This is a mistake, IMO. Do you have any factual criticisms of the findings of any of the 500 scientists?

<edit> FWIW, Heartland was merely linking to the work of another man, who in this case works for the non-partisan Hudson Institute.

Questioning the validity of data sources is one of the first steps in in logic, not a logical fallacy as you assert. Hate to bust your bubble, but the "non-partisan" Hudson Institute is a political (not scientific,) thinktank, "dedicated to free-markets," it says so right on their website. They are further known to be critical of, if not outright hostile to, environmentalism in general, so it may not surprise you that they funded a study with a handful of scientists, (who of course didn't list their area of expertise in the study, they may have all been dentists, LOL.)

Oh, and here's a list of notables from the Hudson Institute, (you may recognize some of the names,)-----------------<bold is mine>------<laughing smileys also mine>-----------------
Notable trustees, fellows and advisors

In 1990 fellow Bruce Chapman founded another think tank, the Discovery Institute.

Politicians who have been affilitated with Hudson include former U.S. Vice President Dan Quayle and Governor of Indiana Mitch Daniels.

Other members include:

* Zeyno Baran
* Anne Bayefsky
* Conrad Black
* Robert Bork
* Rudy Boschwitz
* Pierre S. du Pont, IV (emeritus)
* Joseph Epstein
* Joseph M. Giglio[5] (Vice Chairman, Board of Trustees)
* Alexander Haig (emeritus)
* Bernadine P. Healy, M.D. (emeritus)
* Roy Innis
* Donald Kagan (emeritus)
* I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby :lol:
* Betsy McCaughey
* Robert H. McKinney[6]
* John O'Sullivan
* William Odom
* Richard Perle
* Max Singer[7] (Co-founder, president until 1973, currently senior fellow and trustee)
* Irwin Stelzer
* Walter P. Stern[8] (Chairman of the Board of Trustees; Board Member; Executive Committee Member)
* Allan R. Tessler[9] (Vice Chairman, Board of Trustees)
* Richard Weitz
* Ambassador Curtin Winsor, Jr.[10](Board Member)

-----------------
You just got pwn3d quite badly.


Anyway, are you going to adopt this thread as your own and vomit up whatever comes to mind on it constantly, the way you did the Rivendell thread a couple weeks ago? That would be very entertaining.


Try citing a peer-reviewed, respected science journal next time you're desperately Googling for something to fit your agenda, it might not be picked apart so easily, if you can find one, that is. Thanx. :)


<edit>Also, an ad hominem is when I call you names, which I have not had to do, simple logic has been quite effective.

Hey, I didn't even know I had a camp! :D

Seriously, who is stating (other than you) that global warming is not real? Please let me know.

... Brad

Really nice try, but you're not impressing me by hiding behind strength in numbers. 1 billion people can be wrong about something just the same as one person can. I've made it clear that I'm not impressed by herd mentality, so I will not respond to this irrelevant "argument" if you bring it up again in the future.

I think someone already posted a list of 500 scientists who doubt global warming, and you're welcome to read that, if numbers impress you. But please know that I don't endorse them, because I have formed my own opinions on the issue rather than having viewpoints spoon fed to me. If you disagree with anything they say, I don't give a damn, so don't tell me about it.

Meanwhile, I'd really be interested in your answers to my three questions that you left unanswered from my previous post. Those questions were meant specifically for you, by the way, so please don't quote your high-school science teacher.

Questioning the validity of data sources is one of the first steps in in logic, not a logical fallacy as you assert.


"Poisoning the well, another form of ad hominem, attempts to discredit in advance what a person might claim by relating unfavorable information about the person. Poisoning the well has the effect of giving anything else that person says an unreliable sound; thus you may think of it as blanket ad hominem in advance. The fact that a person is on death row and committed many murders does not dismiss that person’s argument against the death penalty; the argument stands on its own merits." http://mil.ccc.cccd.edu/classes/philosophy115/lessons/chapter6lesson12.htm

Regardless, neither Heartland nor Chapman are the data sources in question here. You are essentially arguing that the data sources are unreliable because of who has linked to them, but have not yet addressed any of the actual data sources -- let alone the data.

Anyway, are you going to adopt this thread as your own and vomit up whatever comes to mind on it constantly, the way you did the Rivendell thread a couple weeks ago? That would be very entertaining.
Is that what this is about? You're still pissed because I don't think Rivendell is perfect in every way? :rolleyes:


You just got pwn3d quite badly.

I don't even know what to call this one. Argumentum ad 12 year old?

Try citing a peer-reviewed, respected science journal next time you're desperately Googling for something to fit your agenda, it might not be picked apart so easily, if you can find one, that is. Thanx.
Actually, the 500 cited articles are peer reviewed. Doubtless you are even now in the process of reviewing them in preparation for a carefully prepared and thoughtful rebuttal.

<edit>Also, an ad hominem is when I call you names, which I have not had to do, simple logic has been quite effective.

ad hominem [(ad hom-uh-nem, ad hom-uh-nuhm)]

A Latin (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Latin) expression meaning “to the man.” An ad hominem argument is one that relies on personal attacks rather than reason or substance.
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahcl.html)

Now, is "You got pwn3d" reason, substance, or personal attack?

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]"Poisoning the well, another form of ad hominem, attempts to discredit in advance what a person might claim by relating unfavorable information about the person. That's good because I questioned the source of the information after you posted a link to a conservative thinktank, not "in advance."


Is that what this is about? You're still pissed because I don't think Rivendell is perfect in every way? :rolleyes:No, you just tend to adopt threads then spam them up with your well-informed "observations." I agreed with most of your posts on the Rivendell thread, but you spammed the crap out of it. By the way, the logical fallacy you just used above is called a "Strawman Attack."




Actually, the 500 cited articles are peer reviewed. Doubtless you are even now in the process of reviewing them in preparation for a carefully prepared and thoughtful rebuttal.There aren't 500 articles cited, merely 500 scientists, listed without credentials, on a website that is partisan and political. You still haven't responded to that point. I feel sorry for you.

What, no articles from Scientific American and National Geographic? A journal of climatologists? Maybe if you think I wouldn't catch it you could try to post a link to Rush Limbaugh's blog, or something.

ad hominem [(ad hom-uh-nem, ad hom-uh-nuhm)]

A Latin (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Latin) expression meaning “to the man.” An ad hominem argument is one that relies on personal attacks rather than reason or substance.
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahcl.html)

Now, is "You got pwn3d" reason, substance, or personal attack?Reason. You still refuse to defend the Hudson Institute because you know it's a losing proposition, and now you're playing a shell game to cover up your embarassment.

That's good because I questioned the source of the information after you posted a link to a conservative thinktank, not "in advance."

If you really want to play that kind of game, I'll point out that you couldn't possibly have reviewed all 500 articles prior to your post. And again, the fact that a peer-reviewed paper is cited on the internet doesn't affect the content of the paper in the slightest.

There aren't 500 articles cited, merely 500 scientists, listed without credentials, on a website that is partisan and political. You still haven't responded to that point.

The articles are properly cited in the PDF at the bottom of the page. http://downloads.heartland.org/21977.pdf


What, no articles from Scientific American and National Geographic? A journal of climatologists? Maybe if you think I wouldn't catch it you could try to post a link to Rush Limbaugh's blog, or something.

A quick perusal of the above list reveals sources such as Journal of Geophysical Research; Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology; and A High Resolution Millenial Record of the South Asian Monsoon from Himalayan Ice Cores.

You may have grounds to impugn those sources, in which case you are more widely read than I. It would still be poisoning the well, however.

You still refuse to defend the Hudson Institute because you know it's a losing proposition, and now you're playing a shell game to cover up your embarassment.

I have no reason to defend the Hudson Institute. As far as I am concerned they eat babies. That baby-eaters link to a peer-reviewed paper published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters does not impugn the veracity of that paper.

There are not 500 articles listed there, furthermore no links are given to said articles (approximately 130?) to verify whether what the brief summary at the top of the pdf is true or not, and furthermore it is found at a baldy partisan website with a firm agenda in mind.


I am sorry this is all you have.

Perhaps you could post some links. (The PDF from the Hudson Institute doesn't link to any of these studies. Wonder why?)

Anyway, perhaps a paper from a reputable science publication would speak louder than something from a conservative thinktank? Maybe a journal with "Science" in the title?

Anyway, perhaps a paper from a reputable science publication would speak louder than something from a conservative thinktank? Maybe a journal with "Science" in the title?


Gerald H. Haug, "Climate and the Collapse of Mayan Civilization," Science 299, (2003): 1731-1735

David Hodell et al., "Solar Forcing of Drought Frequency in the Maya Lowlands," Science 292 (2001): 1367-70

Nicolas Caillon et al., "Timing of Atmospheric C02 and Antarctic Temperature Change Across Termination III," Science 299 (2003): 1728-31

Oh Christ, I hate to pwn a guy with Wikipedia especially when you're obviously trying so hard and everything, but shoot, you're kind of asking for it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Go to bed, you'll feel better tomorrow.

There's no question that a great many scientists believe global warming is a man-made phenomenon. And I'm not really in any position to disagree with them, as they certainly know much more about the subject than do I.

But that's not the point. The point is that many other scientists disagree with global warming as a man-made phenomenon, so the argument that there is no argument is false.

Six jours and Kris:

I think it's funny that you guys are arguing about what other people think and scrambling to come up with links to scientists that agree with you. It's like the build up before a grade-school fight that's never going to happen ("oh yeah? well Ricky and Bobby have my back!"). Do you not have views of your own? Dig up some primary records of temperature data and do your own analysis.

I don't have an opinion on global warming. I honestly don't know if it's man-made or not. This entire go-around has centered on my response to the fellow claiming that no scientist disagrees with the popular theory.

Again, the only strong view I have on the subject is that peope who defend their position with ad hominem are demonstrating a deficiency with their argument.

Hope that clears up any confusion.

That's my ****ing point, you thick-head: I'm not simply repeating other peoples' interpretations on data, the way you are. I've formed MY OWN CONCLUSIONS from raw data.

If you truly want to speak with a shred of authority on this, do your own ****ing research, because you'll never convince me that scientists/politicians can't be bought.

You might be in a good position to analyze raw data, I'm not. I don't have powerful mainframe computers at my beck and call, for one thing. For another thing I don't have a PhD in climate science, so I'm not convinced that my own interpretation would be more valid than the interpretation of those who do.

Where do you access this climate data? And where did you learn the analytic skills to interpret it? (If you say "wikipedia" i swear i'll ride my bike off a cliff! :eek:)

I think that we need to take a deep breath and remember that science is fundamentally a method for forming a consensual opinion about reality, based on observable or measurable phemonena. It's not about forming public policy. That's a job left to politicians, think tanks, voters and shlubs like us on the internet.

That said, the current consensus among climate scientists is best expressed by the IPCC. There is a greater than 90 per cent probability that global warming is real, human-caused to a large degree, and it will soon result in serious consequences to humans and other life on this planet.

This is what the scientists are telling us. Now what should we do about it?

You know, I'm not a biologist, but I believe the theory of evolution holds water, and am intelligent enough to see the evidence all around me. I'm sure there's a couple PhDs out there who don't "jump on the bandwagon" and believe in Creationism who work for the Discovery Institute, but it doesn't change the fact that most biologists and scientists in related fields see the sense in it, too.

I am not an astrophysicist or astronomer, but I believe the earth is round and revolves around the sun. I'm sure if you Google enough you can find somebody from the John Birch society with a CPA that disagrees with this, but I think you're pretty safe to assume he's a nut.

I'm not a climatologist, but the overwhelming majority of them believe in anthropogenic Global Warming, and climate data supports this.There are scientists, most of whom are usually funded by the companies that pollute, who dispute this, but not enough to change my opinion on this. Also, from a strictly anecdotal perspective, I've lived in the Southeast US for about 20 years, and I've watched the seasons change undeniably. Everyone down here has. Shoot even the "Rush iz Right" folks will tell you this.

Usually when folks dig in their heels and refuse to see what's in front of their face, despite overwhelming factual evidence, it is a tell-tale sign of an underlying poisonous ideology, usually religious or political, but definitely not scientific.

The Flat Earthers also like to bring up that the earth has been warmer and cooler in the past. True, but these changes happened over long periods of time, not the decades we are looking at now. This is the sort of launching the arrow, then painting the bullseye around where it lands you can expect from these people, though.

Even those who claim that the warming of the planet is not man-made, generally accept that it IS warming. This similar phenomena has happened in the past and is generally referred to with a time period (ie 'Permian- triassic') with 'extinction event' tagged on the end. In general pretty much everything bigger than a squirrel gets it.

We are bigger than a squirrel. We may have technology, we may have bunkers, we may have space travel, but how many ordinary people do you think will be let into the escape rockets?

Even if the warming is a natural event (and i don't believe for a moment that it is) it still needs tackling, or we are over and it'll all be left to the squid...

Hey, I like squid. Maybe they deserve THEIR chance to be at the top of the food chain! :p

One thing I notice about the issue is the tendency to attack anyone who doesn't completely endorse the popular view, by claiming that those people must be creationists, flat earthers, Republicans, or in the employ of polluters. This sort of childish "reasoning" automatically makes me suspicious regardless of the topic or the players.

Moreover, especially on topics like global warming, which are so complex that few laypeople actually have a thorough grasp of things, we end up attacking and defending based upon political ideologies rather than firm understandings. "My expert is better than yours" and "I have more experts on my side than you do on yours" quickly devolves into "All Democrats are A-holes" and "Your mother!". It should always be a matter of concern when a particular issue is linked to a particular political ideology.

Then, of course, there is the long-standing tradition of environmental alarmism. Politicians have a vested interest in dangling boogymen in front of the electorate and telling us that if we do not do something soon -- that something invariably involving the election of them or theirs -- that we will shortly suffer terrible consequences. A left-winger telling us that the boogyman is the environment is no different than a right-winger telling us it is terrorists. I am still surprised at how many people fail to see through this sort of thing, but more surprised at how many people are willing to resort to the gutter to defend their ideology's boogyman.

And regardless of all of that, there still remains the question of what, if anything, should be done about a problem even if we have all decided the problem exists. In the case of global warming, the proposed solutions are almost always unproven, almost always astronomically expensive, and almost always carry a serious risk of unintended consequences, such as the destruction of rainforests in exchange for biofuel.

So I'm not claiming that global warming doesn't exist, or even that we shouldn't do anything about it. I am simply saying that we need to tread carefully, rather than jumping in with both feet and to hell with the consequences.

One thing I notice about the issue is the tendency to attack anyone who doesn't completely endorse the popular view, by claiming that those people must be creationists, flat earthers, Republicans, or in the employ of polluters. This sort of childish "reasoning" automatically makes me suspicious regardless of the topic or the players.

Moreover, especially on topics like global warming, which are so complex that few laypeople actually have a thorough grasp of things, we end up attacking and defending based upon political ideologies rather than firm understandings. "My expert is better than yours" and "I have more experts on my side than you do on yours" quickly devolves into "All Democrats are A-holes" and "Your mother!". It should always be a matter of concern when a particular issue is linked to a particular political ideology.


You make some great points in this post, even though I disagree with some (but not all) of what you say. First, I agree with your point that name-calling is not productive, even i I sometimes resort to it myself. But many of those who deny global warming do have a general mistrust of science, and that mistrust is almost always based on ignorance and superstition rather than an understanding of the data. Many of the more vocal opponents of global warming theory bas their beliefs on their pesonal interpretation of a religious book, and many also tend to disbelieve evolution and other universally accepted scientific theories. (there's been an interesting discussion of this issue in the Economist and in the NY Times science blog (http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/economists-v-ecologists/).)



Then, of course, there is the long-standing tradition of environmental alarmism. Politicians have a vested interest in dangling boogymen in front of the electorate and telling us that if we do not do something soon -- that something invariably involving the election of them or theirs -- that we will shortly suffer terrible consequences. A left-winger telling us that the boogyman is the environment is no different than a right-winger telling us it is terrorists. I am still surprised at how many people fail to see through this sort of thing, but more surprised at how many people are willing to resort to the gutter to defend their ideology's boogyman.

I certainly agree with this paragraph. But I would bring up a point that isn't widely discussed, but which I think is important. Environmentalists have been guilty of making doomsday predictions that turned out to be untrue. For example the "mother" of environmentalism, Rachel Carson, warned that pesticides would destroy much of the life on earth. Obviously this didn't happen. But the main reason that it didn't happen may be that Carson's dire predictions goaded citizens and governments into action. Within a few years DDt had been banned worldwide. Today, 40 years later, eagles, falcons and other species are making a comeback in most areas. This probably would not have turned out as well if Carson had not made her "wild" predictions.

One thing that physical scientists cannot predict is human behavior, including the effects that current scientific knowledge will have on future human behavior. If scientific knowledge convinces people to cut back on GHG production, the result might be to prevent the same global warming that scientists are currently predicting. Should this happen, the scientists will look wrong even though they were larely correct.


And regardless of all of that, there still remains the question of what, if anything, should be done about a problem even if we have all decided the problem exists. In the case of global warming, the proposed solutions are almost always unproven, almost always astronomically expensive, and almost always carry a serious risk of unintended consequences, such as the destruction of rainforests in exchange for biofuel.

So I'm not claiming that global warming doesn't exist, or even that we shouldn't do anything about it. I am simply saying that we need to tread carefully, rather than jumping in with both feet and to hell with the consequences.


Again I agree. If it isn't carefully planned, there is much risk that the cure will be worse than the disease. However, there is a very benign "cure" that is already known. That is to quickly reduce, indeed almost eliminate, the burning of fossil fuels. This step would require research by economists more than by climate scientists, to find a way to effect this without too much disruption of the world economy. One estimate I've read is that it would cost about one to two per cent of the world GDP to switch to sustainable enery, largely with technology that already exists. I believe this is about how much we currently spend on the wars taking place all over the world.

I don't know, maybe something to think about....

Roody, the only thing I really disagree with in that entire post is this:


Environmentalists have been guilty of making doomsday predictions that turned out to be untrue. For example the "mother" of environmentalism, Rachel Carson, warned that pesticides would destroy much of the life on earth. Obviously this didn't happen. But the main reason that it didn't happen may be that Carson's dire predictions goaded citizens and governments into action. Within a few years DDt had been banned worldwide. Today, 40 years later, eagles, falcons and other species are making a comeback in most areas. This probably would not have turned out as well if Carson had not made her "wild" predictions.


IMO, Carson told us the sky was about to fall, politicans made a bunch of noise about it, and very little of substance was actually done.

What was done, moreover, was done through knee-jerk, a la the ban on DDT. We went from one extreme -- indiscriminately spraying the stuff in astounding amounts without any concern at all about consequences -- to another -- a total ban on any use of any DDT anywhere in any amount, again without any concern about consequences. Consequences which, apparently, include millions of malaria deaths in Africa.

Which really brings us to my whole point: we need to think and act in measured steps, and not jump every time a politician produces a new spook.

The only reasons I use my bicycles more often than cars is to lessen pollution. I wish everyone who felt the need to own a car would be car light. I don't hate cars as long as they have the proper pollution controls and are driven by sober competent people. I wish there would be a ban on future road construction. Essentially I'm an environmentalist that isn't all the way to the extreme side of it.

Everyone who has bothered to read this thread this far should go to http://iceagenow.com.
This site has a few years of data about record low temperatures and record rainfall around the U.S.A. and the world. The site is not the prettiest to look at, but it is full of information and proof that most glaciers around the world are growing quickly. Spend time exploring the site because it is not laid out very well. It might take a while to find all the data you want because there is no clear linking structure.

The author of this information is a journalist who has followed this topic for many years. He has put together real data about the climate and what is happening now. He sites scientific data all over the site with links to studies as well as news stories around the world.

For anyone wanting to find a political candidate that actually says he wants to cut our carbon use to 0 in ten years and get off oil in five years look up Mike Gravel http://www.gravel2008.us. I saw him for the first time today (October 1, 2007) on a news story. He is the first democrat I've seen since my adulthood that I would give my vote. Though I prefer Ron Paul because I'm a Libertarian. I did a google search for Mike Gravel and found a Youtube video of him chastising the other candidates at a democratic debate about them all not trying to get the U.S.A. off oil.

So, if those of you who ask what can be done about the global warming situation want a candidate who will actually do something about it Mike Gravel is your guy.

Mike Gravel looks good to me too, and on more than just the climate issue. He has very interesting proposals on taxation, the war, terrorism, citizen participation in government and many others. Of course he'll never be president, and his ideas are too progressive to have a chance, but at least he's putting real issues on the table instead of the phony issues that the mainstream candidates of both parties are wasting time on.

You know, I'm not a biologist, but I believe the theory of evolution holds water, and am intelligent enough to see the evidence all around me. I'm sure there's a couple PhDs out there who don't "jump on the bandwagon" and believe in Creationism who work for the Discovery Institute, but it doesn't change the fact that most biologists and scientists in related fields see the sense in it, too.

I am not an astrophysicist or astronomer, but I believe the earth is round and revolves around the sun. I'm sure if you Google enough you can find somebody from the John Birch society with a CPA that disagrees with this, but I think you're pretty safe to assume he's a nut.

I'm not a climatologist, but the overwhelming majority of them believe in anthropogenic Global Warming, and climate data supports this.There are scientists, most of whom are usually funded by the companies that pollute, who dispute this, but not enough to change my opinion on this. Also, from a strictly anecdotal perspective, I've lived in the Southeast US for about 20 years, and I've watched the seasons change undeniably. Everyone down here has. Shoot even the "Rush iz Right" folks will tell you this.

Usually when folks dig in their heels and refuse to see what's in front of their face, despite overwhelming factual evidence, it is a tell-tale sign of an underlying poisonous ideology, usually religious or political, but definitely not scientific.

The Flat Earthers also like to bring up that the earth has been warmer and cooler in the past. True, but these changes happened over long periods of time, not the decades we are looking at now. This is the sort of launching the arrow, then painting the bullseye around where it lands you can expect from these people, though.

+1000 something to do with this whole common sense thing, I think.

"Its not the carbon, its the consumption."

Something I've been thinking about...
Good thread here. I'll have to read from the start.

Going back to some remarks made last week, to which I haven't had a chance to reply....


The inconvenient conclusion is that we might have to come up with some way to actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere and permanently sequester it. I don't think anybody has any good plans for doing this yet. One idea is to plant lots of fast growing plants (poplar trees, bamboo or whatever), burn them into charcoal--which is almost pure carbon--and bury the charcoal in the old coal mines, which we won't be using anymore. This would presumably reverse the whole process that got us into this mess in the first place.Actually, the rainforests are pretty good for that. Unfortunately, they're being cut down to make way for sugar cane crops, neccessary for environmentally friendly biofuel. One of those "unintended consequence" thingies that all the big, bad "Hold on, let's think this through" enemies of the planet were warning us about.

Right. And this is where the 'common sense' aspect of the thing comes into play. There's been life on earth for a few billion years, during which time plant life --rain forests etc-- has been removing CO2 from the atmosphere and permanently sequestering it. "Permanently," that is, until the industrial revolution. Now we've been taking it out of the ground, as fast as we can, and releasing it back into the atmosphere; and even if I can't calculate the actual amount we've released so far, common sense tells me it's pretty phenomenal. And, common sense asks, how can this not cause climate change? Climate change is not necessarily a bad thing for everyone; clearly some types of plants are very happy about it. But it wouldn't take a very big climate change to make the planet very inhospitable for people.

As is, we are able to grow enough food to feed our population (barely) only by using nitrogen fertilizers created with a large expenditure of fossil fuels (the Haber process or Haber-Bosch process). So as fossil fuels become increasingly scarce, food will become either more expensive or less plentiful or both. That's not global warming, but it is a problem.

Certainly it would be a good thing to let the rain forests do their thing, but don't expect immediate results.

Gee it so obvious! Why don't those flat-earthers get it? Everyone knows that CO2 is causing climate change and it's all our fault!

In fact, there is this one whack job skeptic who is offering $125,000 to the first person who can prove that humans are causing global warming! He says that even though he has offered cash for over 2 months, not even one person has even submitted an entry. (Yeah right:rolleyes:)

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/index.htm

Sounds like an easy $125,000.:p

Going back to some remarks made last week, to which I haven't had a chance to reply....


Right. And this is where the 'common sense' aspect of the thing comes into play. There's been life on earth for a few billion years, during which time plant life --rain forests etc-- has been removing CO2 from the atmosphere and permanently sequestering it. "Permanently," that is, until the industrial revolution. Now we've been taking it out of the ground, as fast as we can, and releasing it back into the atmosphere; and even if I can't calculate the actual amount we've released so far, common sense tells me it's pretty phenomenal. And, common sense asks, how can this not cause climate change? Climate change is not necessarily a bad thing for everyone; clearly some types of plants are very happy about it. But it wouldn't take a very big climate change to make the planet very inhospitable for people.

As is, we are able to grow enough food to feed our population (barely) only by using nitrogen fertilizers created with a large expenditure of fossil fuels (the Haber process or Haber-Bosch process). So as fossil fuels become increasingly scarce, food will become either more expensive or less plentiful or both. That's not global warming, but it is a problem.

Certainly it would be a good thing to let the rain forests do their thing, but don't expect immediate results.

And remember that land plants only sequester carbon for the period of their lifespans (in most cases). In the case of trees, that can be a long time, like several centuries. However, the trees that live this long grow slowly, and therefore sequester carbon slowly.

Gee it so obvious! Why don't those flat-earthers get it? Everyone knows that CO2 is causing climate change and it's all our fault!

In fact, there is this one whack job skeptic who is offering $125,000 to the first person who can prove that humans are causing global warming! He says that even though he has offered cash for over 2 months, not even one person has even submitted an entry. (Yeah right:rolleyes:)

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/index.htm

Sounds like an easy $125,000.:p

CHALLENGE
$125,000 will be awarded to the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming. The winning entry will specifically reject both of the following two hypotheses:
UGWC Hypothesis 1
Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.

UGWC Hypothesis 2
The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered.

RULES
By submitting an entry to the contest, entrants agree to the following terms and conditions:

Entrants agreed to be bound by the UGWC Rules.
Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UGWC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. JunkScience.com reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.
JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from UGWC entries. All determinations made by JunkScience.com are final.
The winner, if any, will receive $125,000 in a single, lump sum payment. JunkScience.com does not promise or guarantee that the UGWC will have any winner.
All entries must represent the original work of an entrant that has been produced specifically for the UGWC.
All data used in an entry must be publicly available and readily accessible to the public.
Entries will be accepted starting August 7, 2007.
A fee of $15 is required for each entry submitted. There will be no refunds of entry fees.
No entries will be accepted after December 1, 2008.
The results of the UGWC will be announced on February 1, 2009.
All entries must be submitted in MS Word or PDF format.
Entries must include a summary or abstract of no more than 700 words for each hypothesis.
Entrants consent to their entries being posted on the contest web site for public review and comment.
Entrants waive all rights and claims against JunkScience.com related to, or arising from the UGWC.

:rolleyes:

Here's another one, in case the first one presents no challenge to you. VVVV
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67&kws=250,000

Gee it so obvious! Why don't those flat-earthers get it? Everyone knows that CO2 is causing climate change and it's all our fault!

In fact, there is this one whack job skeptic who is offering $125,000 to the first person who can prove that humans are causing global warming! He says that even though he has offered cash for over 2 months, not even one person has even submitted an entry. (Yeah right:rolleyes:)

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/index.htm

Sounds like an easy $125,000.:p

To generalize: Just because something is difficult to prove does not make it incorrect.
Look at Fermat's last theorem as an example. Proof that proving a relatively simple concept took 357 years (a lot more than 2 months).
Another question is: Do you really need irrefutable (mathematical) proof that humans are causing global warming? Would proof beyond a reasonable doubt suffice? How about 90%? How about 50%?

Gee it so obvious! Why don't those flat-earthers get it? Everyone knows that CO2 is causing climate change and it's all our fault!

In fact, there is this one whack job skeptic who is offering $125,000 to the first person who can prove that humans are causing global warming! He says that even though he has offered cash for over 2 months, not even one person has even submitted an entry. (Yeah right:rolleyes:)

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/index.htm

Sounds like an easy $125,000.:p

I can offer you a better deal. I'll gladly share a couple million dollars I found today in a brown paper bag while bicycling to work. All you have to do is send me some good faith money. PM me for details about where you should send your money order, or even easier, just send me your name, SSN and a good credit card number. You'll be on easy street in no time.

You'll never get a sweeter deal!