Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating - View Single Post

Sweetwater · 02-02-2007, 01:44 PM

After jdubya’s re-post of the junkscience.com site, I thought I’d have a look and see just what they have to say. Quite frankly, after reading the webpage several times, I’m still not exactly sure what point they are trying to make. The best I can do is that their thesis runs something along the lines of….”The earth is warming, carbon dioxide (greenhouse gases) play a role, man’s production of greenhouses gases have contributed, but only a little bit, and that’s all in the past anyway and we can do no more damage, plus global warming is a good thing.”

The following quotes (italics) are taken directly from the site:

1) Is the earth warming? Junkscience.com says yes.

“So, just about everyone can agree there has been some warming, at least recently.”
“Regarding contemporary global mean temperature change, is it plausible, even likely, there has been a change of around a half-degree Centigrade since the Industrial Revolution? The short answer is "Yes". The long answer is "Yes, certainly.”

2) Do we believe in the metrics being used? Junkscience says we can’t agree on mean temperature, but then cites mean temperature in their argument.

“Of surprise to most people is that we don't even have an agreement on what we mean by absolute mean surface temperature. In addition to this lack of standardization is that there is a general paucity of data.”
“…we have no reason to believe Earth's mean temperature is not changing, or that it does not do so continuously -- frankly, temperature stasis is a myth.”

3) Is human activity responsible, at least in part, for the current warming of the earth? Junksciece again says yes.

“Does increasing carbon dioxide affect Earth's mean temperature? Yes,”
“…human emission of carbon dioxide has likely had some measurable effect”

4) After spending substantial energy to minimize the role of carbon dioxide as a contributor the global warming (citing solar irradiation and other factors), they attempt to placate us by assuring everyone that the effect of CO2 has run it’s course (you’ll just have to read the article to get their argument).

“This strongly suggests that measurable global mean temperature increment from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide has almost run its course.”
“Before long carbon dioxide emission will have exactly no discernable effect on global temperature.”

5) Now here is the coup de grace. Junkscience, after trying to convince us that there is no evidence that the earth is warming beyond what we might expect naturally, they then wish to convince us that a warmer earth is a good thing! They do this in part by saying a cooling earth would even be worse! Who said anything about cooling or that cooling is in anyway an alternative? Several thoughts occur to me concerning the negatives of a warming earth including rising sea levels, decreased salinity of our oceans, dramatic climate changes, etc. are never mentioned. This simply strikes me as the height of disingenuous gobbledygook.

“Do we believe a warmer world would be worse than a cooler world? No, quite the reverse since a cooler world would make feeding the current population significantly more difficult, far more so the anticipated increasing population of the next generation or so. If there is to be a change in global mean temperature then warmer is distinctly preferable to cooler.”

One parting comment. Whenever I see someone use ad hominem in their arguments, it is clear to me that they wish to bolster a weaker argument by belittling their opponents rather than their opponents’ arguments. Here are three:

“Mike "Hockey Stick" Mann”
“Ozone Al”
And reserved for those who don’t buy into junkscience’s thesis: “a bunch of blind Patagonian Sheep”

Judge for yourself.

02-02-2007, 01:44 PM	#102
Sweetwater Ruled only by the tide iTrader: (0) Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Truro Posts: 801	junkscience After jdubya’s re-post of the junkscience.com site, I thought I’d have a look and see just what they have to say. Quite frankly, after reading the webpage several times, I’m still not exactly sure what point they are trying to make. The best I can do is that their thesis runs something along the lines of….”The earth is warming, carbon dioxide (greenhouse gases) play a role, man’s production of greenhouses gases have contributed, but only a little bit, and that’s all in the past anyway and we can do no more damage, plus global warming is a good thing.” The following quotes (italics) are taken directly from the site: 1) Is the earth warming? Junkscience.com says yes. “So, just about everyone can agree there has been some warming, at least recently.” “Regarding contemporary global mean temperature change, is it plausible, even likely, there has been a change of around a half-degree Centigrade since the Industrial Revolution? The short answer is "Yes". The long answer is "Yes, certainly.” 2) Do we believe in the metrics being used? Junkscience says we can’t agree on mean temperature, but then cites mean temperature in their argument. “Of surprise to most people is that we don't even have an agreement on what we mean by absolute mean surface temperature. In addition to this lack of standardization is that there is a general paucity of data.” “…we have no reason to believe Earth's mean temperature is not changing, or that it does not do so continuously -- frankly, temperature stasis is a myth.” 3) Is human activity responsible, at least in part, for the current warming of the earth? Junksciece again says yes. “Does increasing carbon dioxide affect Earth's mean temperature? Yes,” “…human emission of carbon dioxide has likely had some measurable effect” 4) After spending substantial energy to minimize the role of carbon dioxide as a contributor the global warming (citing solar irradiation and other factors), they attempt to placate us by assuring everyone that the effect of CO2 has run it’s course (you’ll just have to read the article to get their argument). “This strongly suggests that measurable global mean temperature increment from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide has almost run its course.” “Before long carbon dioxide emission will have exactly no discernable effect on global temperature.” 5) Now here is the coup de grace. Junkscience, after trying to convince us that there is no evidence that the earth is warming beyond what we might expect naturally, they then wish to convince us that a warmer earth is a good thing! They do this in part by saying a cooling earth would even be worse! Who said anything about cooling or that cooling is in anyway an alternative? Several thoughts occur to me concerning the negatives of a warming earth including rising sea levels, decreased salinity of our oceans, dramatic climate changes, etc. are never mentioned. This simply strikes me as the height of disingenuous gobbledygook. “Do we believe a warmer world would be worse than a cooler world? No, quite the reverse since a cooler world would make feeding the current population significantly more difficult, far more so the anticipated increasing population of the next generation or so. If there is to be a change in global mean temperature then warmer is distinctly preferable to cooler.” One parting comment. Whenever I see someone use ad hominem in their arguments, it is clear to me that they wish to bolster a weaker argument by belittling their opponents rather than their opponents’ arguments. Here are three: “Mike "Hockey Stick" Mann” “Ozone Al” And reserved for those who don’t buy into junkscience’s thesis: “a bunch of blind Patagonian Sheep” Judge for yourself.
	Three-fourths of the Earth's surface is water, and one-fourth is land. It is quite clear that the good Lord intended us to spend triple the amount of time fishing as taking care of the lawn.