Global Warming Fear Religion

[1969912 0]

I wasn't directing anything at you specifically, but at a large group of people. The "denier" label doesn't bother me personally, but it does not reflect well on the group (don't know what to call the group, GWer's?).

It wouldn't be too surprising if there some kind of procedure or instruction manual that details the proper terminology, how to apply it, and how to effectively deal with "deniers". The whole thing seems so structured and designed to mark "deniers" as some kind of outcasts; there's the different levels of denier, the use of "contrarian scientist", etc. You may not understand how people might see it that way, and that's understandable, but a lot of people do see GWer's that way. It's probably way too late, but a little PR wouldn't hurt.

Any comments on the reported death threats?

How about on the AMS controversy?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

>I have the guts to admit the proof is not yet in. You don't

Yes, you're braver and smarter than me because you don't believe all those lying scientists. Have a good night!

Hey Bill. I JUST BELIEVE SCIENTISTS THAT YOU DONT!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited to add: I sould have stated it this way. There are a group of scientists you believe in. There is another group of scientists I believe in. The difference. You call mine deniers sceptics and other names. I only say I disagree with the conclusions of your scientists and call those that perdict catostrophic dire consequenses " alarmists"

That's kind of what I was getting at. Coming up with names and labels, and subcategories for labels, etc. does not sound very professional or "scientific".

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Channman 2]

Quote

>Fact not yet in? Man is or is not the cause.

RushMC, Jul 2006: ". . . the hoax of 'man made' global warming."

RushMC, Jan 2007: " If man has any effect it is nearly un-measurable."

RushMC, Mar 2007: "No, I do not think or believe man is the cause."

I have to commend you for starting to change your position! I am glad you are no longer married to the idea that "it's all a hoax." Many other former deniers are doing the same as more and more data becomes available. I'm confident the more you look at the data out there the more you will understand what's going on.

Bill, in the furture I would appreciate it if you would not use anything I might have written in the past, pointing out possible flaws in my positions that I've taken here from time to time. It could be a big pill to swallow.

[billvon 3,116]

>There are a group of scientists you believe in. There is another group
>of scientists I believe in.

Yep. And from what I can tell the ratios are about 95 to 5.

>You call mine deniers sceptics and other names. I only say I disagree
>with the conclusions of your scientists and call those that perdict
>catostrophic dire consequenses " alarmists"

I don't think scientists who question data are deniers. I call politicians who deny everything about climate change deniers.

>You call 'everyone' that does not agree deniers.

Nope, sorry.

But if you think up anything else tonight that you think I do, be sure to let me know!

[billvon 3,116]

>It wouldn't be too surprising if there some kind of procedure or
>instruction manual that details the proper terminology, how to apply it,
>and how to effectively deal with "deniers".

Probably true - just as I am sure there are denier groups that have their procedures to deal with alarmists. Manipulation of public opinion is a refined science, nowadays. Google how the tobacco industry learned how to do this in the 50's by denying the science behind tobacco health issues.

>Any comments on the reported death threats?

Death threats are bad. Don't like em, no sirree.

>How about on the AMS controversy?

The Heidi Cullen thing? I'm not sure. Would I want a doctor fired if he didn't believe in evolution, and didn't agree that bacteria could evolve? If he was in charge of antibiotic planning for a hospital, and his beliefs could potentially cause a serious health problem - yes. But if he just believed that God created us, but believed that bacteria do indeed evolve, as we have shown they do? Then it would be a non-issue.

Likewise, would I want a meteorologist who did not believe in the basic physical processes that drive weather, and who had a strong belief that we did not emit CO2, or that it did not cause warming, or that warming did not influence weather? Nope; I would hope that person would be fired, because his beliefs could cause erroneous forecasting that could cause misery for farmers, people who live in New Orleans (and other coastal towns) etc etc. But if he could put his 'religious' beliefs aside when he forecasted weather, and was able to concentrate on the science, then no problem.

[1969912 0]

Quote

>It wouldn't be too surprising if there some kind of procedure or
>instruction manual that details the proper terminology, how to apply it,
>and how to effectively deal with "deniers".

Probably true - just as I am sure there are denier groups that have their procedures to deal with alarmists. Manipulation of public opinion is a refined science, nowadays. Google how the tobacco industry learned how to do this in the 50's by denying the science behind tobacco health issues.

>Any comments on the reported death threats?

Death threats are bad. Don't like em, no sirree.

>How about on the AMS controversy?

The Heidi Cullen thing? I'm not sure. Would I want a doctor fired if he didn't believe in evolution, and didn't agree that bacteria could evolve? If he was in charge of antibiotic planning for a hospital, and his beliefs could potentially cause a serious health problem - yes. But if he just believed that God created us, but believed that bacteria do indeed evolve, as we have shown they do? Then it would be a non-issue.

Likewise, would I want a meteorologist who did not believe in the basic physical processes that drive weather, and who had a strong belief that we did not emit CO2, or that it did not cause warming, or that warming did not influence weather? Nope; I would hope that person would be fired, because his beliefs could cause erroneous forecasting that could cause misery for farmers, people who live in New Orleans (and other coastal towns) etc etc. But if he could put his 'religious' beliefs aside when he forecasted weather, and was able to concentrate on the science, then no
problem.

I read about Phillip Morris today. Pretty interesting. It's almost like they have commando disinformation squad.


Ha. I was joking about the Denier Briefing Manual, guess what? http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics Pretty thourough. I WILL read it


Explaining the AMS situation that way, it makes a little more sense. Would believing just what you wrote be sufficient, or would one also have believe that we are in almost a crisis situation?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[billvon 3,116]

>Would believing just what you wrote be sufficient, or would one also
>have believe that we are in almost a crisis situation?

If I am parsing that sentence correctly -

In both cases I don't think we have to be in a crisis situation, nor do I think we're currently _in_ a crisis situation. Temperatures will continue to go up as long as we keep emitting lots of CO2. Indeed, even if we stop, temperatures will keep climbing for a while before concentrations decline significantly, since CO2 has a fairly long half-life in the atmosphere.

So now it's more of an economic choice. Is it cheaper to stop burning coal now, or relocate most of the people in Bangladesh? Cheaper to reduce CO2 or put in desalinators to make up for the change in rain patterns? Personally I don't think "just let them die" is an option, and historically we do try to help out in such situations (floods/droughts.) So the question becomes - what's cheaper in the long run?

Unfortunately, we have two sides who are determined that no one has that conversation. One side is saying we're all going to die tomorrow, the other side is claiming that scientists are in league with the UN and trying to destroy America's economy. And in that climate nothing gets discussed rationally.

[1969912 0]

We should have been gradually phasing out coal plants over the last 30 years, GW or no GW.

To clarify the AMS question, I believe we are generating CO2, and that the rate has been rising since whenever, 1880?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, thus it will trap heat in the atmosphere/earth. Changes in the temperature of the climate will without a doubt alter the weather, melt icecaps, change the ecosystem of the oceans, as well as the earth's landmass. Chenges of that nature could cause dangerous weather phenomena such as hurricanes, and could kill all kinds of things. The cimate is in fact warming.

EDIT: While I believe all of the above, I'm not convinced that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary driver behind this temperature increase, although it must contribute to some extent.


Would that statement indicate that I may have trouble perfoming my weather forecaster duties safely, thus requiring that my AMS certification be denied/revoked (Let's asume it's your decision, but use her criteria if you know it)

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>There are a group of scientists you believe in. There is another group
>of scientists I believe in.

Yep. And from what I can tell the ratios are about 95 to 5.Hmm, and this is the first time I can remember seeing you admit there are "scientists" on the other side of the debate. I too see progress

>You call mine deniers sceptics and other names. I only say I disagree
>with the conclusions of your scientists and call those that perdict
>catostrophic dire consequenses " alarmists"

I don't think scientists who question data are deniers. I call politicians who deny everything about climate change deniers.

>You call 'everyone' that does not agree deniers.

Nope, sorry.

But if you think up anything else tonight that you think I do, be sure to let me know!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>You've come up with labels for skeptics which are tasteless and an
>insult to Holocaust Survivors.

No insult intended, and the label (as I explained above) is not one I apply to people who question this or that. It's applied to people who do nothing more than deny; indeed, they base their arguments not on science but on denying other people's work.

Oh, I gotta call BULLSHIT on this one. You seem to regularly use that label as a demeaning insult.

I think it's pretty clear it's intended to be an insult, right up there with other inflamatory terms that frequently get tossed around here, like neo-con and chickenhawk.

[Amazon 7]

When the label fits I guess it just needs to be worn.

[billvon 3,116]

>Oh, I gotta call BULLSHIT on this one. You seem to regularly use that
>label as a demeaning insult.

Are you offended by it? If so I will change it.