Re: Talk about Ad Hominum!baal_kriahSeptember 7 2006, 19:29:49 UTC
I've read them. I found them thoroughly unconvincing; mostly just cavilling over details, but giving absolutely no reason to contradict the basic physics of more CO2 in the atmosphere means higher energy retained in the system. The criticism is good if it causes further refinement in the models and predictions, but it's downright evil if it's seized on by short-sighted vested-interest fools in order to dig in their heels against doing what's desperately needed.
Re: Talk about Ad Hominum!baal_kriahSeptember 7 2006, 19:26:35 UTC
No, you're a fool for refusing to acknowledge the ample evidence of the probably quite catastrophic consequences of what we've poured into our atmosphere as a result of our industrial processes. 700,000 years of ice core samples show a clear correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, and also show that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is currently the highest it has been in those 700,000 years. Only a fool (even a famous author fool) can pretend to him or herself that because it's not 100% certainty (nothing ever is until it happens, no reasonable scientist would ever call a prediction 100%) then therefore it's not happening. It's a question of risks; the potential damage is great enough that we should definitely do something about it even if the odds are only 50% (and they are much greater than that). I suppose you also believe we should do nothing about protecting ourselves from a catastrophic impact from space because the odds for any given decade are only 1 in a thousand.
( ... )
Re: Talk about Ad Hominum!gentlemanjSeptember 7 2006, 19:33:57 UTC
I will assume that your passion has left your good manners in the dust. I may forgive you for being so rude, but I refuse to discuss this further until you calm down and stop acting like a teenager.
Re: Talk about Ad Hominum!starshinewaySeptember 7 2006, 19:41:02 UTC
Well it is clear that we need to look quickly for alternatives to fossil fuels etc....but a lot of carbon dioxide is realeased naturally into the atmosphere - like every time a volcano erupts - the truth is we (humans) just don't know how much we are to blame. To call a friend a fool for taking this into consideration is - well - ungentlemanly(even if it is your own journal.) Please, you two, fight like brothers as you usually do!
Re: Talk about Ad Hominum!gentlemanjSeptember 7 2006, 19:45:57 UTC
I am doing my best to argue in an honest and civilized way. My sources are available, and I am open about my skepticism about what amounts to a national hysteria. I am appalled that my friend, who has in the past debated with me in a respectable way, has been reduced to name-calling--it argues strongly that he has no better arguments to present. Pity.
Re: Talk about Ad Hominum!baal_kriahSeptember 7 2006, 20:00:35 UTC
Let's be clear. I didn't post a message saying that you are a fool. I posted a general statement about people who ignore the facts on this issue. You were the one who jumped up publically to say that I was calling you specifically a fool. I put the shoe out, indeed, but I didn't force you to try it on in front of everyone.
Re: Talk about Ad Hominum!gentlemanjSeptember 7 2006, 20:07:30 UTC
I am not ignoring the facts---I am simply asking "what exactly are the facts?" I presented a list of individuals who have written papers in respectable scientific journals that call those "facts" into question. Perfectly reasonable debate. And your response? Calling me a short-sighted fool three times and a total fool as well. I really expected better from you. You might have replied with telling me where your sources could be found--I am always open to reading data--but instead, you simply insult me. And if this is being thin-skinned, then I am.
Re: Talk about Ad Hominum!baal_kriahSeptember 7 2006, 20:16:51 UTC
You never gave any evidence that you had read the article I linked in this post because you never responded to a single thing in it, you just referred to some other stuff that also does not refer to the specifics of the article I linked. So why should I assume you want a serious discussion when you don't begin by offering a serious discussion. I know of absolutely no reputable source that claims there is no warming occuring. The skepticism over how much and whether humans are causing it is indeed there, but I haven't seen any scientific study in recent years that says it isn't taking place at all. Give me a serious argument about the methane content of the earth's permafrost, and the temperature required for it to release catastrophically, and I'll consider it. Know-nothingism isn't something I generally waste my time responding to with anything but "What a fool!".
Re: Talk about Ad Hominum!gentlemanjSeptember 7 2006, 20:39:56 UTC
Know-nothingism--apart from the American Nativist Party reference--seems to imply refusing to read or discuss a subject that might contradict one's prejudices.
As you know, I am not a scientist. I am an historian. I do not have a pile of information on permafrost or methane releases. But I suspect the kind of emotional hysteria I see about this subject is being carefully fostered and used by people who have a political agenda.
As for you, I don't believe that you are a climatologist either, and you are getting extremely worked up. You will probably not be around to see any serious catastrophic changes due to global warming, but you will be around to wonder what happened to all your friends.
Re: Talk about Ad Hominum!baal_kriahSeptember 7 2006, 22:19:10 UTC
I don't believe that you are a climatologist either, and you are getting extremely worked up. You will probably not be around to see any serious catastrophic changes due to global warming, but you will be around to wonder what happened to all your friends.Firstly, I obviously know a hell of a lot more about this than you do. I, at least, have read on both sides of the issue, and I've been a general reader in science, especially physics and astronomy, for most of my life. I've taken introductory meteorology at UCLA with an eminent professor in the field (one of the worst lecturers I've ever had, btw). You've demonstrated no evidence of ever having read anything but material that panders to what you desperately seem to want to believe (and then you wrongly accuse me of doing just that). Frankly, I'm disgusted by your short-sighted and selfish attitude on this issue. I have children, and amazingly enough, I even care about the unknown generations of humans to come. I won't get any pleasure out of telling you "I told you so"; besides I'll
( ... )
Re: Talk about Ad Hominum!gentlemanjSeptember 7 2006, 22:43:59 UTC
Hmm. Selfish? Short-sighted is debatable--although I expect you won't agree!--but selfish? How, exactly is my questioning the validity of theories selfish?
As for butchering me and other "ostriches," I'm glad to see you will only limit your lust for murder and canibalism to those who disagree with you. May I suggest a big Amarone? It goes well with liver..
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Please, you two, fight like brothers as you usually do!
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
As you know, I am not a scientist. I am an historian. I do not have a pile of information on permafrost or methane releases. But I suspect the kind of emotional hysteria I see about this subject is being carefully fostered and used by people who have a political agenda.
As for you, I don't believe that you are a climatologist either, and you are getting extremely worked up. You will probably not be around to see any serious catastrophic changes due to global warming, but you will be around to wonder what happened to all your friends.
Reply
Reply
As for butchering me and other "ostriches," I'm glad to see you will only limit your lust for murder and canibalism to those who disagree with you. May I suggest a big Amarone? It goes well with liver..
Reply
Leave a comment