And What Type "Denier" Is This Guy?

[rushmc 23]

Written by and printed in the WSJ today by Daniel Botkin, president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara



GLOBAL WARMING DELUSIONS


Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life -- ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary, says Daniel B. Botkin, president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Case in point:

This year's United Nations report on climate change and other documents say that 20 percent to 30 percent of plant and animal species will be threatened with extinction in this century due to global warming -- a truly terrifying thought.
Yet, during the past 2.5 million years, a period that scientists now know experienced climatic changes as rapid and as warm as modern climatological models suggest will happen to us, almost none of the millions of species on Earth went extinct.
The exceptions were about 20 species of large mammals (the famous megafauna of the last ice age -- saber-tooth tigers, hairy mammoths and the like), which went extinct about 10,000 to 5,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age, and many dominant trees and shrubs of northwestern Europe.
But elsewhere, including North America, few plant species went extinct, and few mammals.
We're also warned that tropical diseases are going to spread, and that we can expect malaria and encephalitis epidemics, says Botkin. But scientific papers by Prof. Sarah Randolph of Oxford University show that temperature changes do not correlate well with changes in the distribution or frequency of these diseases; warming has not broadened their distribution and is highly unlikely to do so in the future, global warming or not.

Source: Daniel B. Botkin, "Global Warming Delusions," Wall Street Journal, October 17, 2007.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

How about this guy?

Type I, II or III?

Quote

Chill out.
Stop fighting over global warming -- here's the smart way to attack it.

By Bjorn Lomborg
Sunday, October 7, 2007; B01

All eyes are on Greenland's melting glaciers as alarm about global warming spreads. This year, delegations of U.S. and European politicians have made pilgrimages to the fastest-moving glacier at Ilulissat, where they declare that they see climate change unfolding before their eyes.

Curiously, something that's rarely mentioned is that temperatures in Greenland were higher in 1941 than they are today. Or that melt rates around Ilulissat were faster in the early part of the past century, according to a new study. And while the delegations first fly into Kangerlussuaq, about 100 miles to the south, they all change planes to go straight to Ilulissat -- perhaps because the Kangerlussuaq glacier is inconveniently growing.

I point this out not to challenge the reality of global warming or the fact that it's caused in large part by humans, but because the discussion about climate change has turned into a nasty dustup, with one side arguing that we're headed for catastrophe and the other maintaining that it's all a hoax. I say that neither is right. It's wrong to deny the obvious: The Earth is warming, and we're causing it. But that's not the whole story, and predictions of impending disaster just don't stack up.

We have to rediscover the middle ground, where we can have a sensible conversation. We shouldn't ignore climate change or the policies that could attack it. But we should be honest about the shortcomings and costs of those policies, as well as the benefits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100501676_pf.html

[rushmc 23]

Kind of matches up with my post. I wonder how many times will it take for some to see that this cycle has happened before? Research suggests it was just as rapid and maybe even less extreem than researchers are "predicting" today.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,070]

He is not a denier as far as I can tell, since he is not denying that man's emissions of CO2 are warming the planet rapidly. He is correct that at the end of the last ice age, there was a warming period that melted much of the ice. Of course, it was far slower than what we are seeing now. (~.008C/decade as opposed to .02C per decade, or 2.5 times slower.)

During that slower warming, 20 mammalian species (top predator species generally) could not adapt in time and became extinct. During a faster warming, it stands to reason that more than 20 mammalian species will be at risk for extinction.

So the question becomes - is it a good idea to drive warming that quickly? Would losing 50 of the top mammalian species be OK with us? If not, perhaps we should think about it now, rather than after they are all dead.

I see your posting this as a good sign. The article implicitly acknowledges that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly. Do you now agree with that?

[rushmc 23]

No

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,070]

>No

Ah, too bad. It was a pretty reasonable article overall. If it's a given that we're warming the climate, what should we do about it? One argument (given in this article) is "nothing, because increasing the temperature won't be all that bad." That could be a valid argument, but I think you need a LOT more research to validate that position, since we're already seeing effects no one's predicted. You also have the issue of who pays for things like relocating Alaskan towns and Bangladeshi cities.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

No

Pretty pointless of you to post it then.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>No

Ah, too bad. It was a pretty reasonable article overall. If it's a given that we're warming the climate, what should we do about it? One argument (given in this article) is "nothing, because increasing the temperature won't be all that bad." That could be a valid argument, but I think you need a LOT more research to validate that position, since we're already seeing effects no one's predicted. You also have the issue of who pays for things like relocating Alaskan towns and Bangladeshi cities.

You once again imply there is something we can do about natural cycles of our weather. I do not think that is the case.

As for your dire predictions? Funny, but I understand you need to keep up the story. You know, just like the Limabaugh story. That one (from your point of view) is not true either

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Did you miss this part of the article

"But that's not the whole story, and predictions of impending disaster just don't stack up."

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

No

Pretty pointless of you to post it then.

Just like all of yours me thinks!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,070]

>You once again imply there is something we can do about natural cycles
>of our weather.

We cannot do anything about natural cycles of weather. We can do something about the changes we are causing.

>As for your dire predictions?

No dire predictions. It won't be like the movie "The Day After." It will happen slowly, over decades. Heck, it's starting now; towns are sinking into permafrost, alaskan towns are considering relocating because of the lack of sea ice, and the northwest passage is opening. Better to consider how to deal with these problems than to stick our heads in the sand and pretend they are not happening, or that they will never affect us.

>"But that's not the whole story, and predictions of impending disaster just
>don't stack up."

Like I said, no impending disasters, just changing problems. We won't have category 8 hurricanes; the ones we have will just be slightly more intense. The rains won't suddenly stop anywhere; droughts in some areas will just be slightly longer. The seas won't swallow LA; low-lying areas will just see slightly more flooding.

It's getting hard to keep up with your "the climate isn't changing/the climate is changing but it's not our fault" flipflops by the way. If you really believe that the climate is changing but it's not our fault, fine. Your credibility will be enhanced if you don't post every right wing "the climate isn't changing" article. If you really believe that the climate IS changing but that we have nothing to do with it, fine. Just pick a position other than "whatever Newsmax says today."

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

No

Some additional proof for you ...

http://www.thehumorarchives.com/joke/Proof_of_global_warming

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

He is not a denier as far as I can tell, since he is not denying that man's emissions of CO2 are warming the planet rapidly....

But he certainly didn't say anything about man's emissions of CO2 contributing to the problem.

Quote

During that slower warming, 20 mammalian species (top predator species generally) could not adapt in time and became extinct. During a faster warming, it stands to reason that more than 20 mammalian species will be at risk for extinction.

Nice assumption.

Quote

So the question becomes - is it a good idea to drive warming that quickly? Would losing 50 of the top mammalian species be OK with us? If not, perhaps we should think about it now, rather than after they are all dead.

More "fill in the blanks". I missed where he said anything about our driving the warming.

Quote

I see your posting this as a good sign. The article implicitly acknowledges that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly. Do you now agree with that?

No. That's bullshit. Where did he imply that? In the title, perhaps?

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

But he certainly didn't say anything about man's emissions of CO2 contributing to the problem.

He does in his website.

Quote

No. That's bullshit. Where did he imply that? In the title, perhaps?

In his website.

Rushmc would probably be particularly disappointed to find that the good Dr is also very happy that global warming is such a global talking point these days.

He also has one of the most universally sensible comments on the situation that I've seen in a long time.

Quote

Forget about empty debates as to whether or not global warming is going to bring catastrophe and whether it is our fault. Take action that is carefully chosen to both combat global warming and benefit living things with or without global warming. And be particularly careful not to act in such panic as to do things that are dangerous and damaging to life on Earth. In short, think about it the way my geologist colleague thought about buying earthquake and wildfire insurance in California.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

No. That's bullshit. Where did he imply that? In the title, perhaps?

In his website.

Maybe so, but the post I responded to only addressed the article.

Perhaps you can provide a link to where he specifically says that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantlyly

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No. That's bullshit. Where did he imply that? In the title, perhaps?

In his website.

Maybe so, but the post I responded to only addressed the article.

Whether the information is taken from the website or the article the upshot is the same. The man shows no sign of being a denier.

Quote

Perhaps you can provide a link to where he specifically says that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantlyly

Take a look round. I found his website and his opinions to be very interesting, you might too.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

So the article I just posted is from a right wing denier? You posted earlier in this thread you agreed with much of what he said???

I am so confused......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

No. That's bullshit. Where did he imply that? In the title, perhaps?

In his website.

Maybe so, but the post I responded to only addressed the article.

Whether the information is taken from the website or the article the upshot is the same. The man shows no sign of being a denier.

His statement was "The article implicitly acknowledges that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly."

Can you identify the subject in that sentence?

I guess you might be right if you ignore what he actually wrote.

Quote

Quote

Perhaps you can provide a link to where he specifically says that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly

Take a look round. I found his website and his opinions to be very interesting, you might too.

Nice dodge.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

His statement was "The article implicitly acknowledges that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly."

Can you identify the subject in that sentence?

I guess you might be right if you ignore what he actually wrote.

Yep, and he wrote implicitly, not explicitly. Given the current weight of scientific opinion in favour of anthropogenic warming it's probably fair to say that any article on the subject that does not explicitly deny anthropogenic warming implicitly acknowledges it.

Quote

Nice dodge.

Took me 10 seconds to find on Google. Try it and you might learn something, then again you are incapable of even finding information you contributed to a thread more than 10 minutes previously so you may have some problems. Regardless, my days of spoon feeding you information are over.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

His statement was "The article implicitly acknowledges that manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly."

Can you identify the subject in that sentence?

I guess you might be right if you ignore what he actually wrote.

Yep, and he wrote implicitly, not explicitly. Given the current weight of scientific opinion in favour of anthropogenic warming it's probably fair to say that any article on the subject that does not explicitly deny anthropogenic warming implicitly acknowledges it.

Stop! Stop! I'm getting dizzy.

Quote

Quote

Nice dodge.

Took me 10 seconds to find on Google. Try it and you might learn something, then again you are incapable of even finding information you contributed to a thread more than 10 minutes previously so you may have some problems. Regardless, my days of spoon feeding you information are over.

Sorry sport, I asked because I went to his website and scanned a few of his articles on Global Warming. Didn't see anything about manmade CO2 emissions are warming the planet significantly.

Seems like he's intentionally avoiding the subject.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

Seems like he's intentionally avoiding the subject.

I absolutely agree. I think he is avoiding the subject as much as possible, since he is far more concerned with planning for the future (ie. how can we and our ecology survive GW as unscathed as possible) than getting bogged down in political recriminations right now.

What he does do, however, is call for people to try and reduce the scale of the global warmed future by cutting their CO2 emissions. Would be strange for him to do that if he didn't think CO2 emissions were having an effect, no?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

Moving the goal posts, eh?

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

Moving the goal posts, eh?

No.

Give me one reason why he would ask people to temper the effects of GW by reducing CO2 emissions if he did not think that manmade CO2 was a driver of GW.

Hit me baby.

Edit: Although I see where you've moved the goalposts. I guess the only way you'll accept that a person believes in anthropogenic global is if they say the exact words "Manmade CO2 emissions significantly warm the planet"?

Wierd.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Moving the goal posts, eh?

No.

Give me one reason why he would ask people to temper the effects of GW by reducing CO2 emissions if he did not think that manmade CO2 was a driver of GW.

Hit me baby.

Edit: Although I see where you've moved the goalposts. I guess the only way you'll accept that a person believes in anthropogenic global is if they say the exact words "Manmade CO2 emissions significantly warm the planet"?

Wierd.

This is rich.

Do you really believe what you're saying?

[jakee 1,563]

Yep, take a look up the thread and you can quite clearly see the point where we turn from phrases such as "implicitly acknowledging"and "implying" to a rather different phrase of "specifically stating". You'll also notice that it is in one of your posts. A quite clear shift of goalposts by you.

Now, I've demonstrated that the Dr does think that manmade CO2 is contributing to GW and that he is not a GW denier. Why would I need to do more than that? Why would you feel the need to have a statement from the Dr precisely matching your choice of words?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?