Letters to the Editor
Xrandadu Hutman
Published Letters: 2714 Editor's Choice: 52
-
How Scam Sam degrades the discussion: An exercise in 5 parts
[Read the article: Real inconvenient truths]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Part 1: Sam says he objects to the "DOOMSDAY" alarmist message of global warming scientists.
Part 2: I respond that scientists aren't trying to senselessly scare people in the same sense that Y2K people were, but they are trying to issue a serious warning about something they think is important.
Part 3: Sam counters that scientists are indeed trying to scare us, talking about catastrophes and the like.
Part 4: I write, "So your objection, then, is to the idea that something bad will happen?"
Part 5: Sam responds, "If 'catastrophe' is merely 'something bad' to you then you're crazy. And disrespectful to me. I treat you seriously, why can't you do the same? or are you just rude and stupid?"
So there it is -- the discussion has gone from a simple exchange ("why do you object to scientists expressing what they think could happen from global warming?") to ad hominem insults "are you just rude and stupid?"
The question still has not been answered. What exactly is wrong with what scientists are saying? You claim that you object to the "doomsday" message or style. Okay, so why do you object to this? Do you object because you think it is untrue? Okay, so why do you believe it is untrue? That is, why do you believe the facts point to a different conclusion?
-
Sam Scam Sham's arguments against global warming science (1)
[Read the article: Real inconvenient truths]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"*Gore won't debate that Lombourg guy, Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen, or anybody else."
-- I don't know the details, but this has no bearing on the truth or untruth of GW science.
"*There is a historical new age back-to-the-land connection to the solutions."
-- Has no bearing on the truth or untruth of GW science. Modern chemistry has distant connections to alchemy; this doesn't invalidate chemistry.
"*The post-9/11 rush to irrationality."
-- What a vague and pointless reason. If anybody in post-9/11 times has rushed to irrationality, it's right-wingers and warmongers, not GW scientists. There was plenty of irrationality to go around prior to 9/11 (Y2K, Art Bell, etc.). And GW science did not emerge spontaneously after 9/11.
"*The complexity of the "problem" compared to the simplicity of the solutions."
-- Has no bearing on the truth or untruth of GW science. The existence of a problem and the debate over what should be the solution are two entirely different and separate things. If you have a problem and somebody prescribes a ridiculous solution, it does not mean you don't have the problem.
"*The C02 graph is the opposite of the temperature graph."
-- Quite false. I'm calling shenanigans and dishonesty here. The C02 graph shows a direct linkage to temperature.
"*What's happening in Europe."
-- Has no bearing on the truth or untruth of GW science. Only on how people are responding to it. Separate issue.
"*The Nazi attitude of groups like Greenpeace."
-- Has no bearing on the truth or untruth of GW science.
"*The scare-them-to-death approach."
-- Has no bearing on the truth or untruth of GW science. Which approach would you prefer people use? Please explain how you think people should act if they are convinced that GW science is real, and how they are failing to act that way.
"*The "science" of predicting the weather 100 years from now."
-- What does this mean? Why is science in quotes? You seem to be making a straw-man argument. No scientist claims pure foreknowledge. They make projections based on formulas that represent observed measurable causal relations. They make short-term projections and test to see if they work. Then they make longer-term projections. They never claim they are certain -- that's not what science is about. But they do say "given the evidence we have now, and our current understandings of how things work, this is where we will be in the future." They do this for all sorts of things, like measuring fish populations in the ocean, etc. Scientists do this for many subjects and it is hardly illegitimate.
"*The "science" of flawed computer models."
-- If a computer model is demonstrably flawed, scientists will be forced to admit this and correct the model. Other models will be constructed with refined algorithms. I haven't seen any evidence of such flawed computer models that would lead anyone to believe that all of GW science is false.
"*The carbon trade-off scheme."
-- Has no bearing on the truth or untruth of GW science. Once again (and again...and again...) you confuse criticism of proposed solutions with the completely separate issue of whether the phenomenon is occurring in the first place.
"* Savitri Devi Mukherji."
-- Who? (I'll Google him later but I doubt this one individual has any bearing on the truth of GW science.)
"*The argument that global warming stopped in 1998."
-- I believe you are referring to measurements that show temperature steadily rising year after year, but not rising in 1998. I am not sure how this would invalidate anything, though it does bring up a question of how that year was different (were the measurements wrong? was there a backward slide in temperature? etc.). It could be that it was simply a colder-than-average year. But only a fool would point to this anomaly and say, "That does it! GW science is a complete fabrication!"
"*The way people are labeled "deniers" like the Holocaust."
-- Has no bearing on the truth or untruth of GW science. I agree it is distasteful to make such an association, but face it, "deny" is the best word for "a person who when faced with a truthful thing continues to disregard it." That said, people who deny (errr...pick your favorite synonym) GW are more and more coming to resemble people who deny evolution -- as legitimate criticisms shed away, more and more of their left-over reasons turn out to be emotional, political, or religious. In your case, almost every reason you've listed is emotion-based as opposed to rooted in science.