|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 14:21:21 [Permalink]
|
NASA Top climate scientist has a different opinion
Griffin's comments immediately drew stunned reaction from James Hansen, NASA's top climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.
"It's an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement," Hansen told ABC News. "It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change."
Hansen believes Griffin's comments fly in the face of well-established scientific knowledge that hundreds of NASA scientists have contributed to.
"It's unbelievable," said Hansen. "I thought he had been misquoted. It's so unbelievable."
Several other NASA climate scientists contacted by ABC News echoed Hansen's comments, saying an overwhelming majority of their colleagues believe global warming is an urgent issue that society should be addressing. The scientists asked that their names not be used because they did not want to jeopardize their careers. |
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 06/01/2007 14:22:13 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 15:34:00 [Permalink]
|
| I heard those statements from Griffin on NPR and about lost my shit. First of all, Jerome, this does not support your argument because in his statements, Griffin agreed that global warming was real and that it was most likely caused by human beings. What he's disagreeing with is that global warming is necessarily a bad thing for people. The reason this is such a nuts statement is because even if all things being equal another climate might be better, all things are not equal. Humankind has arranged civilization around the current climate, and so any major changes in the environment that happen relatively quickly will be devastating to much of humanity just because it is change. Any change would be costly and require a lot of re-adjustment, and the people who suffer the most will be those who are already currently at the bottom of the economic and power structures - which is most people. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 17:29:08 [Permalink]
|
| Not to mention the rest of the bioshpere, marf, which has been evolving within a certain band of variability for the last few hundred thousand years right along with us. Take the climate outside that band - it's leaving now - and it's probable that many species will simply go extinct over the long term. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 06/01/2007 : 18:13:11 [Permalink]
|
Would somebody please tell me exactly what the world wide scientific consensus argees upon?
There is a world wide scientific consensus of what exactly?
Thanks in advance.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 18:49:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Would somebody please tell me exactly what the world wide scientific consensus argees upon?
There is a world wide scientific consensus of what exactly?
Thanks in advance. |
And so now all is admitted: you had no idea what the consensus is about, but yet you still had the arrogance, Jerome, to claim that it was "debunked."
Brilliant! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 18:57:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Would somebody please tell me exactly what the world wide scientific consensus argees upon?
There is a world wide scientific consensus of what exactly?
Thanks in advance.
|
There is a world wide consensus if climatologists who agree that the earth's atmosphere is warming and that human's are contributing to that warming well beyond what they would expect if the warming were solely due to a natural cycle. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 20:11:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Would somebody please tell me exactly what the world wide scientific consensus argees upon?
There is a world wide scientific consensus of what exactly?
Thanks in advance. |
 So can we all agree that you have no idea what you're arguing for or against? That would clear things up some. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 20:17:44 [Permalink]
|
Kil-Thank you for the response.
To Others--The reason I asked the question is to see what you all thought you were arguing for. I seems that your augments change depending on what evidence I present.
Ricky, Cune, and Dave would you like to state what you are arguing for?
What does the world wide consensus agree upon?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 20:48:47 [Permalink]
|
Jerome wrote: Ricky, Cune, and Dave would you like to state what you are arguing for?
What does the world wide consensus agree upon? |
Ricky, Cune and Dave didn't bothering answering you because the answer was already obvious.
For instance, I wrote BEFORE you asked: | Griffin agreed that global warming was real and that it was most likely caused by human beings. |
Kil kindly repeated what I just mentioned and what everyone else was already clear on: | There is a world wide consensus if climatologists who agree that the earth's atmosphere is warming and that human's are contributing to that warming well beyond what they would expect if the warming were solely due to a natural cycle. |
So should the rest of them sound like broken records just because you are playing dumb? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 06/01/2007 20:49:15 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 21:04:13 [Permalink]
|
To Others--The reason I asked the question is to see what you all thought you were arguing for. I seems that your augments change depending on what evidence I present. |
You started the topic, so you should be the one who defines exactly what consensus we are talking about. And you did just that in your OP link. People who are "climate skeptics" say:
| Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown"... |
A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel's
conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global
warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,' and became convinced that humans are
not responsible for rising temperatures.” |
Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the
atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." “Even if we
halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase
relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global
temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. |
I'd continue quoting people from your source, but I see no point to it. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 22:16:14 [Permalink]
|
Each point of the consensus I debunked, people tend to redefine the argument.
So:
What is; exactly, the scientific consensus are you defending?
What are you arguing is the scientific consensus?
These should be a simple questions; if unable to define what you are defending you should question your motives of defending an undefinable argument.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 23:42:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Each point of the consensus I debunked... |
You haven't debunked anything except that you know what you're talking about. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2007 : 23:47:43 [Permalink]
|
Dave, as you have yet to define what the consensus is that you are arguing for shall assume you are arguing just to argue?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2007 : 00:13:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, as you have yet to define what the consensus is that you are arguing for shall assume you are arguing just to argue? |
No, you're obviously just feeling entitled to take a refusal to answer a question as something other than a refusal. You are demonstrating to everyone that you're willing to make wild guesses when faced with a lack of evidence. Too bad for you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
Debunked-"world wide scientific consensus"
Topic Locked
