Quote:
I disbelieve in AGW because there is no credible scientific evidence for it. Period, end of story.
That is mere rhetoric. You need to present a coherent argument with evidence for your case. You also need to demonstrate that you understand the issues involved.
No, its a proposition about a state of affairs that you have yet to so much as attempt to refute. You still seem to think that I'm going to spend hours upon hours, or even days, gathering information to demonstrate to your satisfaction the crux of my argument. This is a message board, not a professional journal, nor is it a university classroom, nor am I going to work that hard and spend that kind of time for this kind of forum. Have to done your homework yet? Its past due. I've provided a number of links and names through which you could spend literally weeks of solid reading and study coming up to speed on the salient criticisms of AGW and its actual status in the professional literature. As I recall, one essay I posted listed 25 well known problems with the theory. You want me to elucidate, in detail, all of this while you sit back and play 20 questions with the evidence (this is how Johnny Cochran got O.J. off. Stall, ask endless, repetitive questions, dig your heels in and keep banging the same drum "you haven't answered my questions yet" and,"You need to present a coherent argument with evidence for your case."
Well, the many essays, reports, and links to websites containing masses of peer reviewed material are there and I don't feel the need to make the case in detail here for the sake of both brevity and the fact that I have not the time to do so.
I've already said I will tackle this issue point by point, counterpoint by counterpoint, but nobody seems willing to do it that way. I have already laid out both the basic scientific basis for my rejection of AGW (lack of substantive evidence for it and the large uncertainties and ambiguities within the data admitted by the majority of climate scientists, including most of those who suspect human influence). I have also laid out a larger set of claims about the philosophical and political background of the AGW movement. You have failed to address any of these claims.
Your claim that 'AGW is an ideology as much as a scientific theory' shows that either you do not understand what an ideology is, or you do not understand what a scientific theory is, or possibly both. If you wish to refute AGW, please return to the original thread and do so.
This has no become unserious to the extent of self parody on your part. What we really have here Fortigurn, is a leftist on the run who has nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. It might at this point be appropriate to just lay your philosophical or political cards on the table and cease the pseudo sophisticated head gaming.
You've just done it again. You have previously claimed that your objection to AGW is based on objective scientific grounds, but in your original post in this thread (and again in this thread), you have labeled AGW an 'ideology', and expressed an ideological objection to it. You do not object to it on a rational scientific basis, but on ideological grounds. You then seek to justify your rejection by appeal to science.
I have been crystal clear over and over again that AGW is both a scientific theory (or better, a hypothesis, as none of its major claims have as yet been empirically verified) and an ideology to the Left. I don't think the typical ideologically committed Leftist cares one whit about the truth of the scientific claims or not except to the extent that he hopes its true so that the political and social transformations he believes will be required to mitigate climatic catastrophe can be implemented with little popular resistance. Obviously, AGW can be both a scientific theory (to the scientists) and an ideology (to the ideologues and politicized scientists--like James Hansen or Michael Mann, as just two examples, or much of the IPCC membership).
Your attempts to blow ink into the pool are clever and consistent, but ultimately, just lawyer-like double talk. You make a nice pretense of close questioning for the sake of clarification, even though its long been obvious what your doing is using the technique to divert the debate from the subject at hand to finely honed quibbling over grammar and the fragmentary nature of the debate. Unless you really think I'm fool enough to spend the rest of the week posting thousands of words of text from peer reviewed studies and the commentary of earth scientists so you can dismiss it with a wave of your hand, your quite clearly loony.
I'll tackle the subject in one of two ways, like most subjects are tacked in forums such as this. One will be in broad generalities about the science and the movement behind it. The other will be one scientific point at a time, in order and in small bite sized chunks.
I'm happy to discuss both. First you can prove that it's an ideology, in this thread. Secondly, you can answer my still unanswered question in the other thread.
First, I answered your question Mr. Cochran, and secondly, if your are not, at this point in the social history of the western world, aware that AGW is a fundamental principle within the ideology of the environmental movement, and that the theory itself,
is itself, an ideology, representing the long claimed destructiveness and cruelty of :capitalism" and its failure as an economic model, as well as the overall negative and malignant influence of modern, industrial mankind per se upon the earth, then it would indeed, take near a book length essay to lay out a logical, coherent argument elucidating the matter (I have no idea what you mean, in the sense of my claim, that you wish it "proved". Philosophy and ideology, and the complex psychological, sociological, and cultural aspects of each are little given to "proof" in the sense of showing you one's satisfaction that such and such is the case in the sense that it would satisfy clear cut empirical or factual sense. We can look at the nature of the claims made for AGW by environmentalists and by politicized scientists who have ,allowed ideology to corrupt their scientific judgment, and weigh the evidence, but I doubt if "proof" is what you'll find there. given the way in which AGW has been handled in the media, in Hollywood, within the environmental movement and the Democrat Party, I think the overwhelming evidence indicates distinctly that AGW has a strong ideological component. It
needs to be true regardless of whether or not it is true. Overwhelming evidence one way or the other I should think, but not "proof" in an absolute way such that a clever arguer could not deny the matter. If you don't want to believe that AGW is as much an ideology as a scientific theory (because accepting that proposition lays the ax to the root of the tree, so to speak, in that if the theory of AGW is more important as tool of cultural warfare than as an accurate appraisal of a state of affairs in the natural world; if there is a powerful political movement deeply invested in AGW being true and committed, as it has been, to making it appear true in the popular media even though the no evidence exists that it is, then even the scientific enterprise itself becomes suspect, as has been the case with the large quantities of government grant money flowing into AGW research as well as government funding of environmental groups supportive a AGW), then you need to explain the almost 25 year media and political hysteria on the subject promulgated by virtually the entire American and international Left and the deep investment the Left, and the environmental movement per se, has in it, and this,
given the overwhelming lack of evidence for it.
Now, on to another Comsimp...
Mmmm... Delicious red herring, fresh from the BS sea. So you're once again resorting to the typical neoconservative line that ideological or political views invalidate evidence. Typical...
I'm neither Jewish nor am I new to the conservative intellectual tradition (boy, did you let your prejudices out of the bag with this one). I have no, no idea where you think I claimed that political views invalidate evidence. That is precisely the problem with AGW, an incipient Lysenkoism that has crept into climate science and corrupted the ability of serious scientists to do straight, non-politicized scientific work in that area.
Did you even bother to read any of the information on that link, Coggins? If you did, you might notice that the site actually supports the notions that 1. there is a dirrect causal relationship between CO2 and other greenhouse gases and climate change, and 2. that the pre-industrialization era evidence shows a marked downward trend in CO2 levels/global mean temps and post-industrialization era evidence shows the exact opposite.
There is no known direct causal link between CO2 and the present trivial warming that has occurred over the last century. You cleverly used the term "climate change" here, whether as a proxy for "Global Warming" or "Anthropogenic Global Warming" I don't know. The Greenhouse Effect, which is slightly dependent upon CO2, which is less than one percent of terrestrial greenhouse gases, is not the same thing as "climate Change", nor is there any known direct link between CO2 and any warming known in geological time. In virtually all major warming trends seen over millions of years in the past, CO2 rise lags temperature rise. The present warming is minor, and well within historical parameters. The 1930s were warmer, on average, that today, the Medieval Warm Period was warmer (Vikings spread to Iceland and Vinland (Wineland) and grew grapes there), and the Roman Warm Period (5th century BC to 1st century AD) was substantially warmer, warm enough that grapes were being grown in South Central England from the 1st to 4th centuries. Britons also grew wine grapes in England during part of the MWP.
