Letters to the Editor
-
Sam Scam Sham's arguments against global warming science (1)
"*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.
-
Sam Scam Sham's arguments against global warming science (2)
"*The smug morality of GW believers."
-- Like I said, this is an emotion-based reason. Sorry for being smug, but I could be the most polite Boy Scout in the world or the biggest asshole in the world, and it doesn't have any bearing on whether the science is true.
"*The scientists didn't have answers for the senators who posed difficult questions."
-- Anecodotal at best. I remember somebody's post in here to that effect. I'm guessing this whole incident has been trumped up and exagerrated. But it's moot anyway. Whatever some guys did at a meeting is irrelevant to the question of whether the GW science is true or not.
"*The way GW is blamed for everything from allergies (and even boredom) to yellow fever."
-- Has no bearing on the truth or untruth of GW science. Who is making such assertions? They should be considered on a case-by-case basis. It is true that we can't jump to conclusions over every short-term thing that occurs, and I guarantee you the majority of GW scientists are well aware of this. The bulk of GW science is based on a study of thousands of years of climate history and other long-term evidence, not on stuff like "It was really hot yesterday."
"*The bald-faced lies surrounding the organic food industry and genetically modified foods."
-- Has no bearing on the truth or untruth of GW science. Not only that, but it's off-the-map in terms of relevance to the subject.
"*The fact the people pushing this "emergency" haven't changed their ways."
-- Has no bearing on the truth or untruth of GW science. This seems to be related to reports that Al Gore had a crazy-high electric bill. But there are also reports that he had his entire house re-done with solar panels and other energy-saving, eco-friendly measures. The man does have a large house...maybe he should live in a teepee. Again, this has no relationship with the scientific question of whether the phenomenon is real.
"*The bottled water nonsense."
-- Has no bearing on the truth or untruth of GW science. You're just padding your list with other things that annoy you.
"*Organizing concerts for Madonna's Kabbalah Club."
-- Now you're really just padding (and degrading) your list. Do you expect people to take you seriously? You're actually making a pretty good argument in favor of global warming by representing the other side in such a silly manner.
"*The rampant anti-Americanism."
-- Has no bearing on the truth or untruth of GW science.
I'd say about 95% of your reasons are based solely on emotions (that makes me feel icky so I am against it), and the rest are anecdotal, peripheral, or weak.
For somebody so concerned with truth, you don't follow your own principles at all.