From: Herb Martin (HerbM@LearnQuick.Com)
Date: Fri Nov 25 2005 - 19:44:46 MST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Striz
> > You should be extremely suspicious of any such universal
> > quantifiers (e.g., Entire scientific community) on such
> > controversial issue, or else we must be suspicious of you,
> > your posts, as to accuracy or honesty.
> The conclusions of the IPCC, which has gathered data from a large body
> of scientists,
But not all ("entire scientific community") as you claimed.
> is taken as the concensus view of the scientific
Taken by whom? You have introduced a lost performative
(no real subject in the sentence.)
> Michael Behe may be a scientist, and he may disagree with
> naturalistic evolution, but I would still say that the ENTIRE
> scientific community supports naturalistic evolution.
And on that subject it would be a reasonably accurate
use of the word 'entire' since there is no real dispute
by scientists who work in the field.
> I don't think...
> I'm being remiss in that claim.
You are. Since even a contributer to the panel you site
has offered strong factual evidence that arrives naturally
at a different conclusion.
> > Maybe there is a problem; maybe there isn't. Maybe
> > human activity is staving off the expected (due in
> > geological times) 'next Ice Age' but more likely human
> > activity is having a small effect on natural swings of
> > global temperatures.
> The IPCC concluded that about half of the 1 degree centigrade rise in
> temperature in the last 100 years can be attributed to human activity.
> When something accounts for 50% of the variance, that's signficant to
Perhaps, but you are also claiming that the entire amount
This is as much in doubt scientifically as the amount
and that claim is not generally accepted by everyone
in the field (as you now have been informed.)
> > Before making up one's mind to the point of being
> > "certain" and unwilling to consider additional facts it
> > would do well to hear the explanations of Patrick J.
> > Michaels.
> I'm always open to new data. I don't think that there's such a dearth
> of evidence on this matter that the "jury is still out" as some would
> say about evolution.
So you have read and understood Michaels?
Or are you just assuming he has nothing to offer
you since you 'already know' the answer?
> Evolutionary theory involves a complex,
> multidisciplinary body of knowledge, with gaps and ostensible
> inexplicables, but there's enough data there to be make a sound
> conclusion. I feel the same way about climate change.
Feelings don't count for much in science. Sorry, you
are reasoning from a very poor analogy which may be
much of your problem with logic and evidence.
Analogies are great for understanding and approximation,
perhaps even as roads to investigation, but they can be
terribly misleading when misapplied as you are doing.
> > Michaels is a professor of environmental sciences at
> > the University of Virginia, past president of the American
> > Association of State Climatologists, past program chair
> > for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American
> > Meteorological Society, contributing author and reviewer
> > of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> > Change...
> > Wait a minute! Isn't that the UN Panel you quoted as
> > providing definite evidence and proof of your position?
> > Maybe you should READ what Michaels has to say on this
> > subject so that you can know the disagreements and
> > understand how the actual findings are frequently
> > misinterpreted by the press and others with a political
> > axe to grind.
> > Start with the very affordable:
> > Meltdown : The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by
> > Politicians, and the Media - Patrick J. Michaels; Paperback
> > <
> > 83155&%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance >
> > Or the more expensive:
> > Shattered Consensus: The True State Of Global Warming
> > by Patrick J. Michaels (Hardcover - October 28, 2005)
> > Keep and open mind and research both sides.
> > Things are NOT so clearly decided (among the experts)
> > as the press would have us believe.
> I don't look to the press. I look at the primary literature. I'm
> aware of the controversy.
Then you lied when you claimed the entire scientific
community and dismissed the former poster derisively
without evidence or data to support your point but the
mere claim that the "entire scientific community"
agreed with your point.
You knew there was a controversy but you tried to dismiss
him as an idiot who did not know the question has been
answered completely in your favor.
If you knew of the controversy that was not just rude, but
The question that remained for me was it intentionally
dishonest (a lie) or were you deceiving yourself through
some form of neurotic thinking.
Based on your new claim the question is answered.
> The job of the IPCC is to winnow the data
> and come to an honest and objective (as far as humanly possible)
So have you read the entire report or are you taking
just the "conclusion" as a simple answer to a very
If you have listened to the scientists, even those who
support the human causation you know they are not as a
group so willing to call this question closed.
It is only the press, and those like you, who adopt a
Real scientists are much more cautious in almost all
cases of such controversy.
> Their conclusions often are not as alarming as the press
> would have you believe. In the 2001 report (the last full report), as
> I said, they attribute half of the 1 degree rise in temperature over
> the last century to human activity. CO2 and halocarbons are major
> contributors to that.
> Thanks for the references. Here are a few for you:
You are welcome.
I appreciate the references but would appreciate them
more if you indicated the speficic value of these and
(some of) the reasons you find them useful....
> Climate Change: Scientific Basis (2001):
> CO2 specifically (2005): http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/ccsspm.pdf
-- Herb Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:53 MDT