Joined: April 2008
|Quote (Robin @ July 08 2011,10:40)|
Sorry to take so long to respond to this, Trubble - was away on a trip. Anywhooo...
|Quote (Trubble @ June 30 2011,15:55)|
|Quote (Robin @ June 29 2011,09:35)|
|See...this kind of defensiveness is a real clue that you have an agenda. People without agendas merely ask, "what's a global warming denier?" and then discuss the concept. By immediately distancing yourself from the issue ('no really...I don't have a dog in this fight!!!') and at the same time calling us "zealots", you've tipped your hand.|
Great. That's the very reaction I wanted to preempt. My fault, I probably should have approached the counter with more care, like George placing his order with the Soup Nazi.*
Funny. However, yet again you imply that in order to deal with this subject, we (the Global Warming Nazis) need to handled with defensively (that's what George did AND still didn't get any soup). Seems an odd way of being "neutral" on the subject. Just sayin'...
|I used "you zealots" as a tongue-in-cheek reference to the kind of person who would immediately see my questions as masking some kind of anti-science agenda. In retrospect, perhaps a bad choice of words, but I didn't actually think people here would be that sensitive.|
Here's the thing - if you actually thought we wouldn't be "that sensitive" AND you didn't really have an agenda to poke the bear, you'd have just asked the question neutrally to...you know...start a neutral discussion. Folks who have been here for a long time can toss out tongue-in-cheek comments and get a chortle (or guffaw or giggle or even a reference to their mom**), but your opening with such as a way of introduction smells defensive right off the bat and really does scream "AGENDA!" Sorry if I misinterpreted your message, but that's the way it comes across.
|My "agenda" was to try to elaborate the denier label. It seems to be thrown around pretty carelessly at times, so I was curious where people here draw the line. I gave specific examples in order to get specific answers, instead of generalities. Several people provided thoughtful answers. To them, thanks.|
|My own view is that global warming is real, is serious, and is at least largely caused by human activity. But I also think drastic action is impractical right now, so we should be looking at what is realistically doable. I know some would label that view as "denial", which is why I asked.|
Just curious - why didn't you just state this in the first place?
I'm really shocked that anyone would find the above position to be one of denial in that you've not actually denied anything. Not that I don't recognize that there are people out there who are irrational and/or who don't actually take into account what someone actually writes or states, but I really can't believe the majority of folk dealing in this issue are that way. Of course, it has become rather political, so what do I know?
In any event, I certainly don't see the above as falling into the denial category. Seems rather straight forward to me.
|Also for the record, I've been coming to this site almost daily for about five years, mainly for the funny and to keep up with the creationism issue, which I find fascinating. I just don't make posts, because I don't have any particular expertise in science, just a layman's interest and an undergrad anthro degree.|
Good to know, though I'm sure you'll forgive those of us who don't know what lurkers are regulars. ;)
|Oh...and the area of research isn't in the early stages; it's been going on for quite some time.|
Well, I guess it's all relative. If you're sitting in a doctor's waiting room, an hour is "quite some time." Genetics research has been going on for about a century. It seems to me global warming research didn't get serious attention until the 1980s, making it a relatively new field (my stereo speakers are older than that). Yes, I misspoke to say it's in its early stages, but I still think there's a lot more work needed on some critically important questions.
Global Warming/Climate Change research has been going on since the 1930s. Guy Stewart Callendar did simple model calculations back in 1938 noting the contribution of CO2 to the increase in temperature. Helmut Lansberg expanded on this back in 1946. This isn't a relatively new field. People have gotten that impression since there was such a media frenzy around the subject in the 80s and because, unfortunately, human memory is short.
The real issue though is that most folks confuse Global Warming science with Global Warming policy. The former may well inspire a stance on the latter, but to blame the former for the need for the latter - as so many denialists seem to do - is just inane. Further, to try to equivocate the former with the latter - as the media and deninalists do with abandon - just makes those folks and their arguments look ignorant and petty.
I don't necessarily disagree that more research is warranted, but I do disagree with the reasons. There aren't any "critically important questions" from a scientific POV. There may well be some (likely a bunch) from a policy POV, but those are not going to be addressed by more research. Those questions can only be addressed by people sitting down and agreeing to discuss issues honestly and agreeing to make hard, fact-based decisions. Period. Whether man's energy use is a 98% factor in climate change or a 0.00342% fact is irrelevant to the question of whether we, as humans, determine that we can affect the current rate of change and whether it is in our interest to do so. The former is a scientific question, the latter is policy question.
Do I feel chastened? Hmmmm... No.
Well, I was chastising you for not even doing a quick Google search before making a blanket claim. Given that you appeared defensive and appeared to have an agenda, it seemed that you were just making something up. Even though you apparently aren't starting from an agenda and are actually just a layman doesn't excuse not doing a rudimentary search. Research isn't limited to the professional scientists and really...in this day and age of information, it isn't hard just to check a few sources.
|* For the humour-impaired or terminally suspicious, no, I'm not comparing anyone here with Nazis. It's just a Seinfeld reference. You could look it up.|
** For Louis or Arden
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.