Global Warming Denialism at the New York Times

_{Barry Arrington

September 6, 2016

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Who knew?

From Jan. 25, 1989:

After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

Of course, this is before those same scientists began cooking the books in the service of expanding government power.

Comments

Here's a question: If the scientists were wrong in 1989, that is, according to the scientists in 2016, then how will we know--and when will we know--that the scientists in 2016 are correct? Do we have to wait another 26 years, and billions of dollars? Would you like to venture an answer wd400?PaV_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

Global warming IS "man-made"; it's made in factories around the world. That is, "warming" didn't begin until humans stopped recording temperatures and electronic digital thermometers began being used in their place. That's when "corrections" began to be introduced to temperature readings. Eliminate the "corrections," and there has been no warming for over a century. Yes: it truly is "man-made." wd400: Despite your protestations that your single intent was only to point out that simple reflection refuted what Peter stated--and then later linking this to a more general criticism of UD; i.e., that so much of what is commented upon can be simply dismissed--your basic premise still remains this: "Scientists know best." IOW, you protect the Ivory Tower--which is no more than an "argument from authority"--and from its lofty heights you "dismiss" the amateurs. Isn't there a word for this?PaV_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

wd, My face is in my hands and I'm shaking my head. Denial isn't a river in Egypt. It's what we see in your comments.bb_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

The whole point of wd400’s comment in 6 was to demonstrate that Peter was wrong to suggest that Al Gore was demagoguing the climate issue.
But, as I have said, it wasn't. Also, I'd be amused to know which of my posts here you think "histrionic".wd400_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

"It didn’t, the trend which wasn’t statistical significant in 1987 has continued for the last 28 years." No it hasn't. It has been slowed back to statistical insignificance since 1998. Big deal. Climate does that. Nothing world ending about it. Especially when you remember the plethora of failed predictions. I mean, we were just missing the "coming anthropogenic ice age" of the '70's and it had the same cause and identical promises of doom and gloom. The fact that the hypothesis pointing to human CO2 emissions as "the cause" is so simplistic, despite the incredible complexity of the system, and the revival of Lysenkoism, indicates this "crisis" is purely political....claims of consensus (the business of politics) included. Amazing that Materialists can deny the ubiquity of evidence pointing to God that is obvious to all throughout history. Yet buy this bridge on the mere scraps of legitimacy offered by the cons selling it.bb_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

Yes, wd400, people can read it all, but they probably won't take the time to go up and down the thread to do so. And your comment counts on that. So I will lay it out for them. In the OP I quoted the New York Times from 1989:
After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.
In comment 5 Peter wrote:
That was before Al Gore discovered how useful a political issue it would be. The Dems are seen to be more environmentally aware. What better way to frighten the uninformed masses into voting for the Democratic party.
In comment 6 wd400 wrote:
Amazing how almost every scientist working in the field across the entire world was fooled by Gore’s trick to win votes in the US…
In comment 7 bb responded to wd400:
Thanks for the argument from authority.
In comment 10 wd400 lied about making an argument from authority
I didn’t make an argument for anything, much less one from authority.
Finally, in comment 11 I called wd400 out on his lie, after which he went berserk, doubling down on his claim that he made no argument, much less one from authority. Well, let’s see: First, let us define terms. My dictionary defines “argument” as “a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point.” In comment 5 Peter made the point that Al Gore was demagoguing the climate issue to frighten the uninformed masses into voting Democratic. The whole point of wd400’s comment in 6 was to demonstrate that Peter was wrong to suggest that Al Gore was demagoguing the climate issue. And why was Peter wrong? Because Gore’s view was supported by “almost every scientist working in the field across the entire world.” In short, wd400’s comment in 6 was a statement, reason, or fact against Peter’s point – i.e., he made a brief argument. Let’s define another term. The phrase “argument from authority” means to argue that a proposition is true not by appealing to evidence but by appealing to someone in authority, such as an expert. It cannot be seriously doubted that wd400 made an argument from authority. Instead of appealing to any evidence whatsoever, he appealed to the opinion of the majority of “scientists in the field.” So, putting it together, wd400 clearly made an argument, and that argument was based on an appeal to authority. Therefore, when he said “I didn’t make an argument for anything, much less one from authority,” he was plainly lying. wd400, your unseemly histrionics in response to being caught out in your lie only compound your culpability. Really, stop it. The only seemly response at this point is to take responsibility for your actions and apologize to your readers.Barry Arrington_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

You know Barry, I'm pretty sure folks can read this thread and decide who should be embarrassed. I'm feeling pretty OK. I'm still curious why you see the need to behave like this so frequently, but I guess we won't get an answer.wd400_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

Stop it wd. You are embarrassing yourself.Barry Arrington_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

It wasn't a lie at all. Seriously, what compells you act like such a drama queen over this?wd400_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

wd400 @ 12
Talking about feeling shame, don’t you feel some when you climb into high dudgeon about trivial comments
Nice turnabout maneuver. I am the one who should feel shame for catching you out in your lie, because in your view as lies go it was not a big one. That would be funny if it were not so pathetic.Barry Arrington_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

Andrew: And to further the absurdity of it all, it’s an abstraction that Causes Bad Things To Happen. Unless abstractions can interact with matter, they have no causation Sounds like materialists are jealous they don’t have an Angry God to invoke. What a joke. How do you figure?velikovskys_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

then Global Warming doesn’t exist. It’s an abstraction represented by a cartoon squiggly line. Completely imaginary. what imagines it?velikovskys_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

And to further the absurdity of it all, it's an abstraction that Causes Bad Things To Happen. Sounds like materialists are jealous they don't have an Angry God to invoke. What a joke. Andrewasauber_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

if the material world is all there is
...then Global Warming doesn't exist. It's an abstraction represented by a cartoon squiggly line. Completely imaginary. Andrewasauber_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

old army:From a purely materialist perspective, I don’t get the concern. Man gonna do what man gotta do. Right? Interesting theory, it seems to me if the material world is all there is materialists would be more concerned about the quality of life ,not less.velikovskys_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

From a purely materialist perspective, I don't get the concern. Man gonna do what man gotta do. Right?OldArmy94_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Andrew: Are you suggesting that Global Warming Theory has changed since 1989 such that it no longer includes unexpected changes? Global cooling has not been an unexpected change so far, just the opposite.velikovskys_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

asauber - even with unexpected changes, a trend can still be up. Now some of the trends are more expected (e.g. this year's el nino), because climate scientists have spend the last quarter of a decade learning even more about their objects of study.Bob O'H_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

velikovskys, Are you suggesting that Global Warming Theory has changed since 1989 such that it no longer includes unexpected changes? Andrewasauber_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Andrew:So, the warming trend could result in causing a cooling trend. Maybe. It didn't, the trend which wasn't statistical significant in 1987 has continued for the last 28 years.velikovskys_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

From the article and says all you need to know about Global Warming Theory:
But scientists concede that reactions set off by the warming trend itself could upset these predictions and produce unanticipated changes in climate patterns.
So, the warming trend could result in causing a cooling trend. Maybe. Science of the highest quality. Andrewasauber_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

The same article also says
Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ''cast doubt'' on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures, nor do they have a bearing one way or another on the theory that a buildup of pollutants is acting like a greenhouse and causing global warming. He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth's surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations. Readings taken by other scientists have suggested a significant warming worldwide over the last 100 years. Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration's Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, has reported that average global temperatures have risen by nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit in this century and that the average temperatures in the 1980's are the highest on record. Dr. Hansen and other scientists have said that that there is a high degree of probability that this warming trend is associated with the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other industrial gases that absorb and retain radiation.
In what sense is that global warming denialism? (and yes, in the following paragraphs they do report a contrarian view, i.e. that the theory is right but the empirical trends weren't towards warming)Bob O'H_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

BB, I didn’t make an argument for anything, much less one from authority.
You only have yourself to blame when no one believes you. Barry's right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw-nCdwxAXYbb_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

I merely wanted to point out that Peter couldn't have thought through his comment. If you want to call that an argument then fine, but I wasn't saying global warming is true because almost all scientists that work on climate believe it be so. Talking about feeling shame, don't you feel some when you climb into high dudgeon about trivial comments like this? It's all very theatrical, I guess. But not very helpful.wd400_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

wd400
I didn’t make an argument for anything, much less one from authority.
I understand that liars are going to lie. But I don't understand why you would tell such an obvious one. Your implied argument in comment 6 was that Peter was wrong about Gore in comment 5. And the argument rested on nothing but your implication that "almost every scientist" agreed with Gore. This is obvious to anyone who looks at the two comments. Have you no shame?Barry Arrington_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

Asauber, Sorry if I failed to live up to the high quality of the posts in this thread... BB, I didn't make an argument for anything, much less one from authority. I just find is interesting how often the comments here can't survive even a few seconds of contemplation.wd400_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Amazing how almost every scientist working in the field across the entire world
I think its almost amazing that people like wd40 just go around the internet regurgitating spam like they have nothing better to do. Andrewasauber_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

New Study: Majority of Climate Scientists Don’t Agree with ‘Consensus’ - July 31, 2015 Excerpt: Nearly six in ten climate scientists don’t adhere to the so-called “consensus” on man-made climate change, a new study by the Dutch government has found. The results contradict the oft-cited claim that there is a 97 percent consensus amongst climate scientists that humans are responsible for global warming. The study, by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, a government body, invited 6550 scientists working in climate related fields, including climate physics, climate impact, and mitigation, to take part in a survey on their views of climate science. Of the 1868 who responded, just 43 percent agreed with the IPCC that “It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of [global warming] from 1951 to 2010 was caused by [human activity]”. Even with the “don’t knows” removed that figure increases only to 47 percent, still leaving a majority of climate scientists who do not subscribe to the IPCC’s statement. The findings directly contradict the claim that 97 percent of climate scientists endorse the view that humans are responsible for global warming, as first made by Cook et al in a paper published in Environment Research Letters. Cook’s paper has since been extremely widely debunked, http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/31/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/ “Deniers” in their midst – All is not well in Nobel Prize Land - Anthony Watts - July 7, 2015 Excerpt: Today, one of the nobel laureates who was an attendee has spoken out.,,, Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘Global warming is a non-problem’ ‘I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.’ Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics in 1973, declared his dissent on man-made global warming claims at a Nobel forum on July 1, 2015.,,, “I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Dr. Giaever announced during his speech titled “Global Warming Revisited.”,,, Giaever now mocks President Obama for warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”. Giaever called it a “ridiculous statement.” “That is what he said. That is a ridiculous statement,” Giaever explained.,,, “How can he say that? I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet,” he added.,,, “When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever explained. Giaever said his climate research was eye opening. “I was horrified by what I found” after researching the issue in 2012, he noted. “Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”,,, “Then comes the clincher. If climate change does not scare people we can scare people talking about the extreme weather,” Giaever said.,,, “If anything we have entered period of low hurricanes. These are the facts,” he continued. “You don’t’ have to even be a scientist to look at these figures and you understand what it says,” he added. “Same thing is for tornadoes. We are in a low period on in U.S.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/07/deniers-in-their-midst-all-is-not-well-in-nobel-prize-land/
bornagain77_{September 7, 2016
September
09
Sep
7
07
2016
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

"Amazing how almost every scientist working in the field across the entire world was fooled by Gore’s trick to win votes in the US…" Consensus is the business of politics, not science. With all those scientists, you would think at least one model forecasting catastrophe would bear out by now. Take a look at The big list of failed climate predictions. Thanks for the argument from authority.
Global warming, due to greenhouse gasses, is the latest in a long series of one-factor theories about a multi-factor world. Such theories have often enjoyed great popularity, despite how often they have turned out to be wrong.
-Thomas Sowell, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434836/donald-trump-campaign-finance-reform-global-warming-fate-americabb_{September 6, 2016
September
09
Sep
6
06
2016
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

Amazing how almost every scientist working in the field across the entire world was fooled by Gore's trick to win votes in the US...wd400_{September 6, 2016
September
09
Sep
6
06
2016
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply