Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: thoughtomator
As another poster linked to you earlier, there's a petition with 17,000 names of scientists on it that says global warming as man-made phenomenon is bunk. That's evidence against claims that "a majority of scientists" buy into it.

That's no evidence at all if 17,000 are a minority of scientists. We need to look at percentages, not absolute numbers.

think it's pretty clear why there are no such elements. First, any study by an invested entity (such as a vehicle manufacturer or an energy company) would be discarded out of hand.

Not if it goes against what people are experiencing. Not if it goes against what other disciplines (say biologists, or oceanographers who map ocean currents) are reporting.

How much time have I spent on this, when you haven't even presented a single piece of evidence in support of it?

You have not presented a single piece of evidence that proves global warming ISN'T real. Unless you are a specialist, I don't attach much weight to your arguments. I don't mean this as an insult. I'm saying that only specialists are qualifed to judge. I'm no specialist either, and that is why I was posting the link to the specialist's explanation. I specifically asked a Freeper, knowing that his political agenda doesn't lean left.

2,985 posted on 02/17/2005 10:00:37 AM PST by A Ruckus of Dogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2971 | View Replies ]


To: A Ruckus of Dogs

Okay, we have a basic problem of logic here. When someone asserts something, it is up to that person to prove it; it is not automatically assumed true in the absence of such proof. In this case, the assertion of man-made global warming is the basic hypothesis. We've been hearing about it for two decades so far, and nothing even close to approaching proof has been discovered, despite many millions upon millions invested in trying to do so.

I don't need to be a specialist to follow Logic 101. The burden of proof is on the asserter. Negatives cannot be proven. No argument can change these facts.


2,991 posted on 02/17/2005 10:05:00 AM PST by thoughtomator (If Islam is a religion, so is Liberal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2985 | View Replies ]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs

I am an earth scientist who has not only studied the global warming question myself, but I met the woman I married while we were in grad school and she was doing atmospheric modeling for her degree in the meteorology department. Good enough?

I was very vocal against those who were not using sufficient caution in their leaps onto the Global Warming bandwagon, and it cost me research funding and departmental support. My wife was quieter, but she was not happy with the distortions that were out there.

However, even she--a registered Libertarian!--and I--die-hard conservative--admit that there's good evidence for climate change (I didn't say "Global Warming," per se) occuring. The questions I pose, though, are:

1) Is it anthropogenic? The history of the earth has generally been warmer than now, so is the current warming trend just "getting back to normal" and nothing to do with humans?

2) Does it matter? Even if we haven't caused it, we have to live with it, so does the origin matter, except for #3....

3) Could we even do something about it if we tried? Certainly, the question of "blame" is important if we want to know if we can "fix" things if they get too bad.

4) What is the best approach? Anti-capitalism isn't the only possible approach to consider. Perhaps our best hope is to keep ourselves prosperous enough to develop remedies via a vibrant capitalist economy.


3,082 posted on 02/17/2005 4:58:12 PM PST by Gondring (They can have my Bill of Rights when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2985 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson