Seattle Times: "The truth about global warming"

Rando - no I don't "endorse creationism." Do you? Not sure what that has to do with anything being discussed here. I picked up this story in multiple other news sources today, by the way, so this was not "created" by two news outlets. This was not an appeal to authority on my part in order to prove some science, just pointing out that it's not only "liberal environmentalists who think the US is bad and that GWB is an idiot" who are concerned about global warming and believe the mainstream of scientists who assert that humans are causing/speeding the warming . I think that trying to cast the debate in terms of "I'm open to science but anyone who thinks GW is caused by humans is clearly a liberal enviro who is letting their politics cloud their thinking" is, well, lacking in respect and ignores reality. The notion that scientists who are concerned about GW are heavily biased ignores the backcound, funding, and apparent bias of the minority of skeptical scientists.<br><br>I've also read up on the science, and have talked with friends who are scientists who have read and understood more of the supporting detail than I'm able to, who believe that the science that raises GW concerns is more than just a political slant. At a gut level, I find the fact that the current warming is far faster than prior moves out of ice ages to be a compelling counter-argument to the numbing spin of "but it's just a natural cycle, don't you guys get that ice ages have repeated through the millenia?" I acknowledge there's uncertainty and controversy, as there is with most aspects of science, including various aspects of physics, and yes, evolution. <br><br>But I'd refer back to my link well above to the study that shows that folks tend to buy into data that reinforces their pre-existing beliefs (democrats and republicans each hearing what they want to hear). I'm sure I'm doing that to some extent here, though frankly I would be a lot more happy if I thought GW was a crock and we don't need to worry or take any corrective action. Might you also be tending to agree with data that confirms your own thinking as well, Rando?

It is logical that humans are contributing to GW. It has been demonstrated that there is a warming trend. However I agree with the following quote from the article posted above:<br><br>Focusing on man-made global warming is "self-delusion on a grand scale". (end quote)<br><br>The GW debate includes a little science and a lot of politics. Prudent measures are wise to reduce GH gasses and other environmental degradation. The shocking thing is that some lib-enviros hold greater respect for a critter or for 'the earth' than for humans and their communities. Some lib-enviros just want someone else('s taxes) to pay for their agenda(s). <br><br>"Scientists", whomever that is, have certainly gone a long way to discredit their "science" by supporting such fallacious theories such as the decline of the Spotted Owl and the measures taken, many other dishonest applications of the ESA, and especially the voluminous manure pile of lies and bad science included in the salmon issue. Although there is validity to theory of human-caused GW, there is much more hype and exaggeration.<br><br>Go back to the title article for this thread. The scientists referenced there do not state without doubt the significance of human-caused GW effects. Concern with the issue is warranted. Reasonable measures in regard to the problem frame the debate.

When I was doing debate in high school, we studied logical fallacies, and there was one called "poisoning the well," wherein one would attack some aspect of either the opposing debater or of one of their sources, rather than attacking the core content of the argument. Excellent repeated use of that technique! It is very compelling on a visceral level, hence it's common use. We also learned about "stripquoting" wherein one picks just the tidbit of content that, when isolated from its surroundings, supports one's own point. Again, excellent use of this technique. It's actually kind of fun to watch.

Quote Randonnee: <br><br>&gt;The GW debate includes a little science and a lot of politics. <br><br>And herein lies the problem. The scientific consensus is clear and definative: human activity is causing large scale changes in the earth's environment. period. end stop. <br><br>The few voices that say otherwise are not Galileos or Copernicuses, they are either "experts" speaking far outside their area of expertise, or dinosaurs who prefer to not look at hard data.

Go back to the title article for this thread. The scientists referenced there do not state without doubt the significance of human-caused GW effects.

<br>Good advice, Randonee. I did that and found it quite relevant to rebutting your recent comments here. Here's what I think is a fairly representative quote from the content of that article (supporting Korup's posting):<br><br>"As one study after another has pointed to carbon dioxide and other man-made emissions as the most plausible explanation, the cautious community of science has embraced an idea initially dismissed as far-fetched. The result is a convergence of opinion rarely seen in a profession where attacking each other's work is part of the process. Every major scientific body to examine the evidence has come to the same conclusion: The planet is getting hotter; man is to blame; and it's going to get worse."<br><br>Yes, you can also find a quote (from a politician) in that article to the contrary, but it's clearly not the gist of the article, and is followed up with comments on how out of sync with science the popular "it's a hoax" view is. The article goes on to talk about the questionable funding sources and motives of some of the very few naysaying scientists, again contrary to the notion that the mainstream scientists are the ones with a political axe to grind and thus prone to bad science - again a quote from the article:<br><br>"But climate researchers say skeptics are recycling discredited arguments or selectively using data to make points. And as Oreskes showed, few skeptics publish in peer-reviewed journals, which check for accuracy and omissions."<br><br>The article ends with:<br><br>"The fact that so many scientists think it's likely a truck is heading for us means that the last thing we want to do is close our eyes and lie down in the road."

Good responses korup and Jim. We may not convince each other. When I have time, I may look at it again to try to see what you are saying. I do appreciate your responses, I will look at the data.