Global Warming Causes Lighter than Normal Hurricane Season - Page 2

xTYBALTx · 10-04-2006, 05:10 PM

Is what ad hominem?

Are you really not going to read the presentation? I read your article.

Kerostasis · 10-04-2006, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFatKidDeath

No, not Ad hominem or guilt by association. If an author denies (or is skpectical, to be generous) the effects of Global Warming and meets with the President of a country who shares his belief, that's not what anyone would consider Ad hominem or guilt by association.

Furthermore, to quote the article -

"Mr. Crichton, whose views in "State of Fear" helped him win the American Association of Petroleum Geologists' annual journalism award this month, has been a leading doubter of global warming and last September appeared before a Senate committee to argue that the supporting science was mixed, at best."

Would this be a case of Ad hominem?

It depends on what you are doing with that information.

If you are making the argument, "he denies global warming, therefore he cannot be trusted to talk about global warming scientifically", then yes, thats Ad Hominim.

If you are making the argument, "he agrees with the President, therefore he must be wrong because everyone knows the President is a Moron", then yes, thats Guilt by Association.

If thats not the conclusions you were going for, I'd be interested to hear what you were meaning to imply with those facts.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 10-04-2006, 08:26 PM

For the most part, those ridiculing or taking lightly the threat of global warming reminds me the the stupid redneck whose last words where "Hey guys, watch this!" just before he blows up (or is implaled or is mauled by the doberman or falls off the barn...).

Lucky Shot · 10-04-2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

For the most part, those ridiculing or taking lightly the threat of global warming reminds me the the stupid redneck...

Ah yes, the name calling tactic. Your right, I am won over. Your compelling arguments can leave me no other choice but to agree with you.

Lucky Shot

**leejo** · 10-04-2006, 08:59 PM

For the most part the global warming niks remind me of the same old same old: too sure of themselves to consider another point of view, too ignorant of all the facts to get it right.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 10-04-2006, 09:46 PM

I, personally, am not convinced
1. It is a phenomenon that we have any control of.
2. That even if it does happen the human race will be adversely affected. (Hell, it may even, over the long run, benefit the human race as a whole.)
4. Some other natural phenomenon won't counter it.

But I do think that there is enough evidence and enough intelligent people concerned that we need to take it seriously.

And as far as the name calling…. Well, making fun of a situation that you know others are concerned about and take seriously is tantamount to name calling. So you are right, I have lowered myself to those that belittle others concerns. For that I am ashamed. (Not really, it is kinda fun trading barbs.)

And Leejo. Yes, the scientific community has been wrong before and will be wrong again about specific points. Overall the scientific method does come to correct conclusions and betters our lives.

So the question becomes what to do about the current information provided by the scientific community? Make fun of it? Make drastic changes to current policy and lifestyles? Put a bullet in our head? Pretend it doesn't exist?

Or maybe, just maybe, integrate it with other facts like; Oil is becoming ever more scarce and thus more contentious. That there is a lot of money to be made for the individual that comes up with a viable, sustainable, alternative to fossil fuels. That the country where this individual exists will be in a much stronger position than every other country in the world. That the government could foster an atmosphere that encourages individuals to find such a solution. Thus the government could help make our country stronger over the long run.

Instead our government seeks short term gains to benefit the powerful of the moment. They do this by ignoring, belittling, minimizing the current information provided by the scientific community. They do this by pointing out and exploiting the not only the weakness of the scientific method (ie not being able to provide an answer RIGHT NOW THAT CANNOT BE DISPUTED) but also exploiting the fears and ignorance of the general populace.

In short I think we should look at the current concern over global warming as an opportunity rather than a problem.

Lucky Shot · 10-05-2006, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

And as far as the name calling…. Well, making fun of a situation that you know others are concerned about and take seriously is tantamount to name calling. So you are right, I have lowered myself to those that belittle others concerns. For that I am ashamed. (Not really, it is kinda fun trading barbs.)

Would you go as far as saying that the term "Redneck" is a racist term? I would. Should I bother asking what El Gringo Grande means in english? Heck, reading the signature line, can you explain "I’m not racists, I have republican friends." The republican party is made up of one race? I think there is a pattern there.

Quote:

Or maybe, just maybe, integrate it with other facts like; Oil is becoming ever more scarce and thus more contentious. That there is a lot of money to be made for the individual that comes up with a viable, sustainable, alternative to fossil fuels. That the country where this individual exists will be in a much stronger position than every other country in the world. That the government could foster an atmosphere that encourages individuals to find such a solution. Thus the government could help make our country stronger over the long run.

You have not kept up with recent science as some interesting things have been discovered. Oil is not considered to have been derived from Dinosaurs. Nasa found abiotic methane (geographically occuring, not derived from decaying life) on Saturn's moon Titan. http://www.spacescan.org/entry/metha...l-fuel-theory/ Oil isn't a Fossil Fuel, that's been debunked. Oil happens naturally and with the recent discovery of oil in the Gulf of Mexico puts the kabosh on the world being at Peak Oil. http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/07092006/244...ll-deeper.html

We don't know everything about everything and this drum beat over global warming is fear mongering and drives the worst kind of peer pressure among the intellectual elites. Look, anyone can build a computer model to try to predict the future. Their ability to predict the future impresses me as much as statisticians who try to predict the outcome of the BCS. Interesting stuff worth discussing at the watercooler, not something to plan my life around though.

Lucky Shot

**eGoatBoy** · 10-05-2006, 02:15 AM

"A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground."

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...rtainties.html

She's a warmin' up gents...

Get used to the idea.

Cheers.

Kerostasis · 10-05-2006, 08:33 AM

1° over 100 years? That might be frightening...except Leejo's link above points out scientists were complaining of a 2.7° drop! over just 30 years, just a few decades ago. If it dropped 2.7° over 30 years, then came back 3° over the next 30 years, then clearly a 1 degree variation is absolutely nothing to be concerned about. Sorry.

**TheFatKidDeath** · 10-05-2006, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

It depends on what you are doing with that information.

If you are making the argument, "he denies global warming, therefore he cannot be trusted to talk about global warming scientifically", then yes, thats Ad Hominim.

If you are making the argument, "he agrees with the President, therefore he must be wrong because everyone knows the President is a Moron", then yes, thats Guilt by Association.

If thats not the conclusions you were going for, I'd be interested to hear what you were meaning to imply with those facts.

I left out Eater's of the Dead as another of Crichton's books that I enjoy - the movie stunk, however.

I came to the conclusion that it's incorrect to call Crichton's visit to the White House neither an Ad hominem nor Guilt by Association because:

1)He and the President share a core belief about the lack of science on Global Warming. I'm reasonable certain the President invited the author because of "State of Denial" validates his viewpoint. I'm sure Crichton knew he was visiting the White House not for a debate on the book but to offer advice and reaffairm the President's viewpoint on the issue.
2)Crichton has been a "leading doubter of global warming".
3)Appeared before a "Senate committee to argue that the supporting science was mixed, at best."
4)The American Association of Petroleum Geologists' - not exactly a Global Warming theory proponent - gave him a journalism award.

I don't think it's unreasonable to draw a conslusion based on those points.

AMosely · 10-05-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Just read the presentation. I doubt it'll change your mind, but it will at least give you an idea of where we're coming from.

I read it, but I have no idea where you're coming from. I'm very familiar with Crichton. Have you ever read his autobiography? I have. He's pretty much consumed with the same questions we all are about our species and our obsession with science, technology and the concept of progress. Late in his career (the present time), he's beginning to reach some of his own conclusions. This is where/when I start to disagree with him. He has studied complexity so intesely over the years that he is now blinded by it - or has at least resigned himself to taking the position that the Earth's complex systems are far too complicated for human beings to understand at a high level:

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Crichton

By a complex system I mean one in which the elements of the system interact among themselves, such that any modification we make to the system will produce results that we cannot predict in advance.

Furthermore, a complex system demonstrates sensitivity to initial conditions. You can get one result on one day, but the identical interaction the next day may yield a different result. We cannot know with certainty how the system will respond.

Third, when we interact with a complex system, we may provoke downstream consequences that emerge weeks or even years later. We must always be watchful for delayed and untoward consequences.

Apply Crichton's logic to the complexities of climate change. While I completely agree that 'global warming' has been trumped up, dumbed down, overestimated and underestimated by politics, the media, and even members of the scientific community, the question of climate change and human impact on climate change remains poignant. I trust the scientific community because I work in an academic environment and therefore know or have known many of its members. When the vast majority of an academic community reaches a consensus - when dozens of studies, using different models, indicate trends all pointing in a particular direction, it deserves attention.

My question to those who believe that climate change is a non-issue is this: Even if climage change is not the emergency that some believe it is, what is the problem with applying pressure on industry to decrease harmful pollutants that have been proven to not only contribute to atmospheric change, but also negatively impact human health?

xTYBALTx · 10-05-2006, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

When the vast majority of an academic community reaches a consensus - when dozens of studies, using different models, indicate trends all pointing in a particular direction, it deserves attention.

My question to those who believe that climate change is a non-issue is this: Even if climage change is not the emergency that some believe it is, what is the problem with applying pressure on industry to decrease harmful pollutants that have been proven to not only contribute to atmospheric change, but also negatively impact human health?

The models have shown only moderate success in replicating past weather patterns. This is after a decade (more, really, but I'll be courteous) of tweaking. Why should we trust these models to predict weather one hundred years into the future when they aren't even adept at replicating past weather paterns? That strains credulity.

Furthermore, you downplay the disparities between models. They point in a similar direction, certainly, but the estimates vary widely. And, of course, the actual rate of warming - or cooling - could show no relation whatsoever to the models' estimates. Nature is not bound by a supercomputer's conception of it. No one knows that global warming is not going to happen. Nor does anyone know that it will.

Why shouldn't we base policy upon incomplete, divergent, and unreplicable science? Well, that should be obvious.

I believe that you hit the nail right on the head here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

He has studied complexity so intesely over the years that he is now blinded by it - or has at least resigned himself to taking the position that the Earth's complex systems are far too complicated for human beings to understand at a high level

Your assertion that he is 'blinded by' complexity theory notwithstanding, I'd say that you put it pretty well. Of course, Crichton would go a step further, I suppose, and say that human beings are incapable of understanding any complex system at a high level.

AMosely · 10-05-2006, 01:55 PM

I am still looking for an answer to the question:

Even if climage change is not the emergency that some believe it is, what is the problem with applying pressure on industry to decrease harmful pollutants that have been proven to not only contribute to atmospheric change, but also negatively impact human health?

Let me ask it a different way. Say you have a chimney that is building up with creosote to the point that it may become a fire hazard. The fact that creosote is flammable has been proven, however the circumstances leading up to its ignition are too dynamic to predict. Do you invest the money in cleaning the creosote in order to reduce the potential for fire, or do you wait and see because you haven't had a fire yet?

**leejo** · 10-05-2006, 02:01 PM

Why don't you think market forces and technology can't handle the problem?

Not enough people are buying what you're selling, so you want to use government to force people to behave the way you desire. Is that basically it?

Steeler · 10-05-2006, 02:35 PM

Being an amoral and anarchist network, market forces have a notoriously bad track record on environmental, health, and public safety issues. That is why we have things like Superfund, the EPA, and the FDA. Just as there are some things best handled by the free market, there are some things best handled by governance.

10-04-2006, 05:10 PM	#16 (permalink)
xTYBALTx Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 3,762	Re: Global Warming Causes Lighter than Normal Hurricane Season Is what ad hominem? Are you really not going to read the presentation? I read your article. __________________ Current good song: Justice - Stress "$250,000 a year won't get me to Central Park West."

10-04-2006, 08:26 PM	#18 (permalink)
El_Gringo_Grande Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: OKIE HOMY Age: 39 Posts: 2,327	Re: Global Warming Causes Lighter than Normal Hurricane Season For the most part, those ridiculing or taking lightly the threat of global warming reminds me the the stupid redneck whose last words where "Hey guys, watch this!" just before he blows up (or is implaled or is mauled by the doberman or falls off the barn...). __________________ Sen. John McCain (AZ) For President '08 --- I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host. - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

10-04-2006, 08:59 PM	#20 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,524	Re: Global Warming Causes Lighter than Normal Hurricane Season For the most part the global warming niks remind me of the same old same old: too sure of themselves to consider another point of view, too ignorant of all the facts to get it right.

10-04-2006, 09:46 PM	#21 (permalink)
El_Gringo_Grande Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: OKIE HOMY Age: 39 Posts: 2,327	Re: Global Warming Causes Lighter than Normal Hurricane Season I, personally, am not convinced 1. It is a phenomenon that we have any control of. 2. That even if it does happen the human race will be adversely affected. (Hell, it may even, over the long run, benefit the human race as a whole.) 4. Some other natural phenomenon won't counter it. But I do think that there is enough evidence and enough intelligent people concerned that we need to take it seriously. And as far as the name calling…. Well, making fun of a situation that you know others are concerned about and take seriously is tantamount to name calling. So you are right, I have lowered myself to those that belittle others concerns. For that I am ashamed. (Not really, it is kinda fun trading barbs.) And Leejo. Yes, the scientific community has been wrong before and will be wrong again about specific points. Overall the scientific method does come to correct conclusions and betters our lives. So the question becomes what to do about the current information provided by the scientific community? Make fun of it? Make drastic changes to current policy and lifestyles? Put a bullet in our head? Pretend it doesn't exist? Or maybe, just maybe, integrate it with other facts like; Oil is becoming ever more scarce and thus more contentious. That there is a lot of money to be made for the individual that comes up with a viable, sustainable, alternative to fossil fuels. That the country where this individual exists will be in a much stronger position than every other country in the world. That the government could foster an atmosphere that encourages individuals to find such a solution. Thus the government could help make our country stronger over the long run. Instead our government seeks short term gains to benefit the powerful of the moment. They do this by ignoring, belittling, minimizing the current information provided by the scientific community. They do this by pointing out and exploiting the not only the weakness of the scientific method (ie not being able to provide an answer RIGHT NOW THAT CANNOT BE DISPUTED) but also exploiting the fears and ignorance of the general populace. In short I think we should look at the current concern over global warming as an opportunity rather than a problem. __________________ Sen. John McCain (AZ) For President '08 --- I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host. - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

10-05-2006, 02:15 AM	#23 (permalink)
eGoatBoy Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC Age: 40 Posts: 2,375	Re: Global Warming Causes Lighter than Normal Hurricane Season "A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground." http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...rtainties.html She's a warmin' up gents... Get used to the idea. Cheers. __________________ \|TG-6th\| eGoatBoy The 6th Devil's Brigade \| TG Must Read \| Timezones

10-05-2006, 01:55 PM	#28 (permalink)
AMosely Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Maine Age: 33 Posts: 2,536	Re: Global Warming Causes Lighter than Normal Hurricane Season I am still looking for an answer to the question: Even if climage change is not the emergency that some believe it is, what is the problem with applying pressure on industry to decrease harmful pollutants that have been proven to not only contribute to atmospheric change, but also negatively impact human health? Let me ask it a different way. Say you have a chimney that is building up with creosote to the point that it may become a fire hazard. The fact that creosote is flammable has been proven, however the circumstances leading up to its ignition are too dynamic to predict. Do you invest the money in cleaning the creosote in order to reduce the potential for fire, or do you wait and see because you haven't had a fire yet?

10-05-2006, 02:01 PM	#29 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,524	Re: Global Warming Causes Lighter than Normal Hurricane Season Why don't you think market forces and technology can't handle the problem? Not enough people are buying what you're selling, so you want to use government to force people to behave the way you desire. Is that basically it?

10-05-2006, 02:35 PM	#30 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,925	Re: Global Warming Causes Lighter than Normal Hurricane Season Being an amoral and anarchist network, market forces have a notoriously bad track record on environmental, health, and public safety issues. That is why we have things like Superfund, the EPA, and the FDA. Just as there are some things best handled by the free market, there are some things best handled by governance. __________________

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Senator Inhofe's speech on global warming	leejo	The Sandbox	0	09-26-2006 10:59 AM
We miss you in IRC.	Iceberg	General Discussion	27	01-30-2006 02:30 AM

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links