[Vision2020] Warning From Copenhagen: 2500 Participants: 1400Scientific Presentations: Warming Irreversible For a Thousand Years

[Glenn Schwaller]

Very nicely argued.

One can go back and forth until the sea levels rise and drown us all.
But the point is, despite all the wailing to the contrary, the debate
is not over.  Only those who are not committed to their opinions and
beliefs will back away from a debate.

A final thought:  If our progressive government is so intent on
forcing the populace to “go green” (the introduction of the Cap and
Dividend Act of 2009, a bill that could impose carbon credit
requirements on every US business)  why did Congress simultaneously
abandon its plan to continue with its own purchase of carbon credits?
Obviously the 2 year experiment was a dismal failure, yet Congress
pushes on, intent in their ever-increasing arrogance and hypocrisy.

GS

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Chasuk<chasuk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 07:45, Jo Campbell<philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The number of scientists who accept global warming is overwhelming,
>> not tens like you acknowledge. If your list is supposed to make a
>> point, then why wouldn't the other list make an even stronger point?
>
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Gary on this one.
>
> Global warming is either caused by humans, or it isn't.  Actually,
> let's add a third choice: global warning is exacerbated by humans.  So
> we have:
>
> 1.  Global warming is caused by humans.
> 2.  Global warming is exacerbated by humans.
> 3.  Global warming is happening, but the existence or the actions of
> humans aren't contributing to it in any measurable way.
>
> I phrased choice number as I did three because we obviously exert some
> influence on our environment -- more than a zero sum influence, even
> if our existence/actions on global temperature are so negligible as to
> be insignificant.
>
> I'm assuming that we know indisputably that global warming is
> occurring.  Or maybe I shouldn't assume that.  Relatively speaking, we
> didn't crawl out of the muck that long ago, and we didn't invent
> science until very, very recently.  Which means that our scientific
> observational skills are new.  I know that we've learned to
> forensically interpret the body of Mother Earth via geology and other
> clever ologies, but deciphering climatic history is a science that we
> will be figuring out for a long time.
>
> That's the strength of science.  It allows us to logically (and
> without shame) revise our conclusions.  It isn't dogmatic.
>
> Those who insist that we KNOW that global warming occurs and that it
> is caused by humans certainly seen dogmatic to me, but that is another
> subject.
>
> Anyway, so we have global warming that is almost indisputably
> occurring, and the majority of scientists possessing expertise in
> relevant disciplines apparently all concur that it is our fault.
>
> Then have we already established that the majority are never wrong?
> Have we already established that consensus determines fact, even in
> matters of objective reality?
>
> If the answer to both of the above questions is "yes," then Gary
> doesn't have a leg to stand on.  If the answer is"no," then we can
> still have a conversation.
>
> Gary's point wasn't that numbers of believers determine fact, but that
> many of those embracing the minority conclusion hold equally germane
> credentials, and that being in the minority doesn't make them wrong.
> In other words, he is saying, "You apparently place great stock in the
> credentials of your scientific heroes, so here is my list of
> credentialed scientists who disagree with their position vis-à-vis
> global warming, which should, logically, compel you to acknowledge
> that this dispute isn't settled, after all."
>
> Of course, Gary is right, and you know it.
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>