On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 19:06, Wayne Mackintosh <[email protected]> wrote: > Steve, > > Well said and excellent post!
Wayne, I fear that you don't know what you are talking about. Are you also a global warming denier/"skeptic"? Or just grotesquely politically correct, treating all points of view as equally to be respected? If it's something else, please tell us what. On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 18:36, Steve Foerster <[email protected]> wrote: > The use of the word "denialism" to describe climate change skeptics is > the most obnoxious tactic in political discourse today, Nowhere near it. Calling yourself a skeptic when you accuse the entire scientific community of fraud and conspiracy is one of the more obnoxious tactics in political discourse today, but it does not compare in nastiness with Dog Whistle race politics and some other practices. See my page http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Code_words for a large and extremely snarky set of translations of the widespread but unacknowledged greed, racism, and intolerance. Countering lies and intentional ignorance with facts, using clearly defined terms supported by evidence, is not a tactic. It is a central part of the Scientific Method. We cannot settle the issues between us by arguing about language. Let us begin with facts. I need to know which scientific data, theory, and conclusions you accept, and which you reject. 1) CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. Here is the chart of CO2 in the atmosphere for the last 50 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg Do you believe that this dataset has been faked? If so, how? 2) Do you accept the data on the burning of carbon? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere "Emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year." "The oceans have absorbed about 50% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released from the burning of fossil fuels, resulting in chemical reactions that lower ocean pH. This has caused an increase in hydrogen ion (acidity) of about 30% since the start of the industrial age through a process known as “ocean acidification.” Do you believe that these measurements have been faked? 3) If both of those are true, and also the established fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, does it follow that global warming is man-made? If not, what would count as sufficient evidence? 4) If global warming were real and man-made, do you accept that we would have to do something about it? 5) Who are the reliable sources among the Global Warming Deniers/"Climate Change Skeptics", many of whom have obvious conflicts of interest in working for the carbon fuel industry? After you answer those, I will give you links to CO2 in the oceans; to air, water, and land temperatures; to the melting of ice and permafrost; to tree-ring and other archaeological data on CO2 and warming; and a good deal more. > and I would > like to think that in a community like ours it would be entirely > unwelcome. Denialism is a widespread and well-documented phenomenon, whether or not you accept that you suffer from it. See, for example Mistakes Were Made (but not by me). We have had in recent times AIDS denial, Holocaust denial, Global Warming denial, evolution denial/Creationism/Creation Science/"Intelligent Design; economics denial (Voodoo Economics), Apollo moon mission denial, 9/11 denial, vaccine denial, and a number of other such movements. Each has the same characteristics, as did fluoridation denial, Communist conspiracy theories, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and much more. > In the highly charged environment we have when it comes to > this issue, where there is so much noise and the truth is so often > hidden by melodramatic rhetoric on both sides, The noise is entirely on the shrieking deniers' side. Scientists speak calmly about data, conjectures, evidence, theories, peer review, experiments, confirmation, refutation, and the like. I will cite examples sometime, and you can do the same. I will then refute your examples. Actually, let us begin with Senators James Inhofe, R-OK, and Al Gore, formerly D-TN, and look at their rhetorical styles. Start here. http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20091129/LETTER/911289999/1078&ParentProfile=1055 When Democratic Sen. Harry Reid announced last week that any vote on the climate change bill was being postponed until 2010, Republican Sen. James Inhofe from Oklahoma, the leading climate change skeptic in the Senate, said to Barbara Boxer in a Senate speech: “It's over. Get a life. You lost. I won.” > it is not only fools > and liars who are skeptical of global warming, it is entirely possible > to hold that position in good faith. Only if you are willfully ignorant, as I propose to demonstrate to you that you are. > Edward, if you want to point out how the science behind this works, > and explain why those who are skeptical (1) that climate change is > occurring, and (2) that it's human caused, and (3) that it will be a > very bad thing for humanity, then that's great -- I for one admit that > I could use a better understanding of it. OK. I have started above. If you give me a list of points that trouble you, I can tailor my presentation to your difficulties. Here is a good summary: http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20091129/LETTER/911289999/1078&ParentProfile=1055 Politics aside, what is the evidence that humans are largely responsible for global warming? The argument is very simple actually. Since 1750, CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere have risen from 280 ppm to 394 ppm, methane levels have risen from 715 ppb to 1775 ppb, and nitrous oxide levels have risen from 270 ppb to 319 ppb. CO2 measurements since 1955 have come from atmospheric monitoring stations around the world, while measurements before 1955 come from ice cores in Antarctica and deep sea cores around the world. According to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, there has been a direct correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperatures. (Global temperatures are partially inferred by examining the percentage changes in tropical, subtropical, and cold water species of plankton in deep sea cores). At 394 ppm, CO2 concentration is the highest it has been in the last 400,000 years. Measurements of human-caused (anthropogenic) greenhouse gases show even greater increases than the atmospheric increases. Excess CO2 is absorbed by plants during photosynthesis, but with deforestation, the plants cannot remove all the anthropogenic CO2. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 13 of the warmest 14 years since 1880 occurred in the 14 years between 1994 and 2009. But there is much, much more. > But to repeatedly use such > a term in a transparent attempt to morally equate climate change > skeptics with holocaust deniers is hateful and divisive. Please stop > it. No. It is equivalent, and could lead to even more deaths of people whom most Americans consider not to matter much until they are actually dying. You stop it. Let me give you a historical example. Henry Ford was taken in by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an obvious forgery. But as one of my math professors used to say, it may well be that something is obvious, but it is not obvious that it is obvious. Henry Ford was anti-Semitic in what you call good faith, until he had the forgery process and motives explained to him. How would he know? you might ask. Well, he could have asked. Lots of people would have told him. It was no secret. And neither is this. So thanks for asking. Normally, I would not want to carry on a conversation so seemingly irrelevant to this list's purpose. But I maintain that epistemology is fundamental to everything we do, and this is an excellent test case. Every child growing up has to decide what to believe because others say so, and what to check up on. Also, how to check. Who is reliable on a particular subject? Should I check even on those people? > Sincerely, > > -=Steve=- > > -- > Stephen H. Foerster > http://wikieducator.org/steve > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "WikiEducator" group. > To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org > To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] -- Edward Mokurai (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) Cherlin Silent Thunder is my name, and Children are my nation. The Cosmos is my dwelling place, the Truth my destination. http://www.earthtreasury.org/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
