If person A is advocating policy changes based on an alleged impending crisis, and person B doubts the claims of person A, upon which person should the burden of proof fall? In any sane society, the burden of proof would fall on the person A.
Imagine if the burden of disproof were to fall to person B. Our society would be a mess. If I wanted new windows, I could hurl rocks through them and then blame it on my neighbor. It would be all but impossible for him to prove that he didn't throw the rocks, and I could get my neighbor to pay for my new windows.
It is plainly obvious upon whom the burden of proof should fall, but the global warming alarmists want to shift the burden of disproof to the skeptics. You have seen it recently on this blog, and now the JT is getting in the act. "What counts is that predictions of global warming have not been refuted by strong evidence" says the JT.
True enough, but will shift the burden of proof at our own peril. Or perhaps we could use this new standard for a worthy cause.
Did you know that a giant Easter Bunny will be arriving from Mexico in ten years to eat up all of our crops and our children? We must act now and build a fence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
There is plenty of evidence out there to the contrary.
The advocates are not even willing to listen to it.
There were dozens of experts not allowed to speak at the Balie conference as conferees could not tolerate having their opinion questioned.
I'm sure of one thing. This science is not settled. We just have lots of people not willing to consider differing views and Al Gore the prophet of Doon is leading the rhetoric war.
I think that the global warming alarmists "are" attempting to show proof (not to be confused with truth). Possibly, it is more a question of the reliabilty of the evidence and the ulterior motive of the defense.
Cal, I hope it did not come across that I think ALL global warming advocates are attempting to shift the burden of proof. I do not think so. But after "the debate is over" argument, I think the "prove that I am wrong" argument is gaining in popularity. Both should be considered very childish arguments.
[wave hands]The matter is settled.[wave hands] Man causes global warming.[wave hands] These are not the droids you're looking for. [wave hands]Empty your wallets...
"Cal, I hope it did not come across that I think ALL global warming advocates are attempting to shift the burden of proof."
Nope, that's why I specified "alarmists".
Thanks Cal for the clarification.
Nemo referenced a paper by Douglass et al on another thread that was recently published in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society. It talks about some of the problems with manmade global warming theories. This paper is very important for the reason that I have been talking about for years: for the models of global warming to be occurring due to greenhouse gasses to be correct, the Stratosphere should be getting hotter faster than the troposphere (where we all live). It isn't. We have data from ice cores with which we can estimate temperatures many thousands of years ago but have data from the Stratosphere and beyond starting less than one hundred years ago, first obtained from balloons then planes. This has been known for years but no one talks about it.
I will also mention that global warming science is different from any other “branch” of science. Science requires observation, experimentation, advancement of hypotheses, more experiments – and if you’re lucky, you end up with a theory. Particle physics, chemistry, botany, cellular biology, and even computer engineering – all require experiments. Taxonomy is a bit different, however molecular genetics now allows experiments in those areas too (one can’t describe a new species in Indonesia simply based on appearance and dissection anymore – you need to examine the DNA and look at linkages to other species; this is why some new species are sometimes described that were right in front of our noses). Global warming science only requires observations and plugging data into computer models. I am unaware of a single experiment designed to test the hypothesis of greenhouse gas-induced GLOBAL warming.
I have said this many times but I’ll say it again. We cannot (and will not within the next two decades) build a computer model that accurately predicts the daily functioning of a single living cell, not even a simple prokaryotic cell. The millions of inputs, machinery and outputs are still coming together. How can anyone with a straight face tell you with even the remotest degree of certainty that a computer model of the entire planet is correct (especially when one outcome from those models is incorrect as shown by Douglass et al)?
One of the issues that truly disturbs me about the global warming hype is the fact that there are many pollutants being released into the atmosphere and water that we have known are dangerous (through experimentation, not computer modeling) for many years. Things like mercury, PCBs, cadmium, lead – and as people dance around getting Nobel Prizes and making money, we have moved most of our consciousness toward CO2. No harm in protecting us from CO2? Tell that to all the people who will get cancer in the next few years, and I assure you that not a single one will be caused by CO2.
T'was the night before Christmas...
...and Algore said that "they" predict the North Pole will disappear while Santa is delivering presents to all the good little boys and girls all over the world. Santa will not have a home to go back to, so Algore is demanding that the UN impose a global Santa fund (GSF) which will be used to fund "Earth coolers". These coolers will have the additional benefit of creating new jobs in China, as a result of the new production of anti-global-warming technologies. Coincidentally, Algore is a majority stock holder in the manufacturing plants.
True story.
I honestly don't see why we need a computer model to prove this in the first place. It takes a basic understanding of fundamental Earth science. The greenhouse effect exists due to a large number of gases, including carbon dioxide. This effect allows heat to be let in to our atmosphere, but does not allow it to escape. This process allows our planet to remain at a livable temperature, which is good. But now, with carbon emitting power plants and automobiles, we have caused an increase in the greenhouse effect. This is leading to an increase of our Earth's temperature.
To me, it doesn't take much more convincing than that. Explain to me why that is so hard for you to wrap your head around.
Oh man... I sure hope those Earth coolers don't contain CFCs.
Oh yeah and blah, blah, blah, blah...
OK - so not only don't we need the experiments, we don't need the computer models either. Michael - before you pull out the snottiness ploy - try getting a PhD, several faculty positions, and publish a number of journal articles. Oh yes, and try actually reading some of those scientific papers instead of just watching some You Tube documentary.
I forgot - try using your artificial intelligence - Google - to examine the point I made about the computer models and the warming of the Stratosphere.
Michael Gibson said:
"This is leading to an increase of our Earth's temperature."
Really? Consider the following...
South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades.
In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918.
Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007.
In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941.
In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.
Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze.
In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest.
Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4 of this year, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12
degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.
These items (and more!)were compiled by geophysicist, adjunct scholar, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma David Deming.
Nemo, all those things you listed were "caused" by global warming. It's happening, just like Algore and Mikey said it would. Your laundry list is simply evidence PROVING their point.
By the way Michael Gibson invented MySpace AND text messaging.
Sorry Caledonication, we were always at war with Eurasia. Oceania is our ally. War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; Warming is Cooling.
Huh, explains why my jelly tasted like peanut butter this morning...
Just do yourself a favor and look up "Effects of global warming" on Wikipedia.
I never get my information from Youtube, by the way. I get my information from the science I have been taught all my life combined with common sense. (See my previous explanation of global warming causation). Argue with that. Don't criticize me because I'm not a scientist.
YouTube is kewl. My God I can literally waste hours browsing YouTube while my family goes hungry because I can't get up for work! Oh well! Huhuhuhuhuuh!
Nemo, Just do yourself a favor and go to YouTube. It's frickin' awesome!
Talk about sidestepping. I know you're being sarcastic, but I addressed a question to you. I answer your questions. Answer mine.
Uh, what's your question, dood?
and I was not being sarcastic. I was telling the truth.
Then that doesn't make any sense. I said I did NOT get my info from youtube.
Then why do you care what I say to Nemo about my obsession with YouTube? Do you think this entire blog revolves around you? GOD Michael you really are self centered!!
Nemo is on your side. I don't understand your logic.
How can Nemo be on my side? I don't even know Nemo.
Well he was showing facts and figures showing that the Earth was cooling. That kind of goes along with your argument.
Michael, I've looked at the Wikipedia entry you spoke of. Looking at the citations leads me to the only one conclusion: Wikipedia should not be used in any serious discussion of global warming (Salon.com is not my idea of a real source). Can you point me to a peer reviewed article that supports carbon warming? Just for the record, I did not want to show that global cooling could be taking place but rather that recent climate data calls into question many, if not most, of the global warming predictions. Did any bit of the data give you pause or is your faith so strong as to trump reason?
The greenhouse hypothesis - like the "pressure cooker concept" - is a HYPOTHESIS. Michael described the logic of the HYPOTHESIS. What a friggin laugh riot this is!
Michael doesn't reference You Tube videos - but he does reference Wikipedia? I actualy thought that was sarcasm. Just the science you were brought up with and common sense? Good luck !
Why is salon.com not credible? It isn't a hair products magazine like you might have assumed. And even if it isn't a credible source, there are 142 more to look through. You can go to Google scholar and search global warming and bring up about 247,000 articles. I am not about to scour all of that, and I will admit that there are probably a number of them that argue against the issue, but I would take a guess and say that about 95% of them go with the general assumption that global warming is taking place.
I know that Wikipedia may sometimes be not the most reliable source, but the majority of the claims on that page do have citations and the sources seem, for the most part, reliable. I won't argue about the greenhouse effect. To deny that would be to deny any rational thought.
Done with you - bask in your ignorance.
Right back atcha!
Michael, Wikipedia is not considered a credible source for most high school papers. It is not peer reviewed. Those citations in Wiki may be just propaganda or even wholly untrue. In the future, you may want to use sources in actual science journals or peer reviewed studies. Using conclusions from individual scientists can be tricky, the source here may be trying to push some personal agenda. If you find say over 400 prominent scientists in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology (Some of those profiled having won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding
contribution to their field of expertise) then I would call that a source worth worth listening to on man-made global warming. Check the date on the source also. The newer the source the closer to the truth is a good general rule. Theories are always being tested and refined (the true nature of science) and you need to get the latest revision to ensure credibility.
Just one more item:
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
December 20, 2007
Nemo - you are absolutely correct on all counts! The other frustrating thing (among many) for me is the fact that funding agencies/research centers like the National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Health, etc. are getting pittance increases next year ($7 million for NCI for example) while the funding for the various earth science departments are being gloriously funded. Scientists in all of the areas you mentioned are feeling it and some people who have had grants for 20 or even 30 years are losing their funding. Life saving research in areas including heart disease, cancer and diabetes is being shortchanged to pay for global warming work.
Wait - when Al Gore gets cancer there will be an instantaneous cry for research. Remeber when Christopher Reeve became paralyzed? I felt very sorry for the man but I'll bet he never spent one minute demanding spinal cord research prior to his accident. There are only a finite number of dollars and wasting it on maybes (especially SIGNIFICANT maybes) versus definites is tragic.
From what I saw, the sources on the wikipedia were from peer-reviewed articles and journals and such (for the most part). Again, like I said, you can go on Google scholar (which is all from scientific journals) and find 240,000 articles.
Michael, I’ve taken a closer look at the Wikipedia sources. They seem to be mostly made of left-leaning groups that, oddly enough, have a financial stake in the promotion of man-made global warming. Go figure. I’ve also noticed that you have yet to comment on the list of cold weather events I painstakingly compiled for you (and the anon army) that pretty much trashes the “Hockey Stick” model that the man-made global warming types have made their central conclusion. To quote the U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007,”Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears ‘bite the dust.’”
IPCC Scientists to Brief Senators, Staff and Press on Latest UN Global Warming Report
Last Friday, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 4th Summary to Policymakers, “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis,” which characterizes the evidence of global warming as “unequivocal” and states that there is a 90% certainty that human activities are responsible for most of the increase in global temperatures since 1850.
The report you referred me to is surprising. It doesn't change my personal opinion though, because 400 scientists is a drop in the bucket compared to how many there are in the world. This report very recent, and there are already a lot of news reports about it. I have a feeling that the the next few weeks of news will concern this report.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? A good source? I would sooner trust monkeys to pick my nose than trust this merry little band of leftist UN bureaucrats. One more point in judging a source's credibility. If the organization has a checkered past, say like the biggest bribery scandal in the history of the world (oil for food), their believability can easily be called into question.
say like the biggest bribery scandal in the history of the world (oil for food), their believability can easily be called into question
-------------
Like 70 years of supporting 'right wing dictators', Enron, oil wars, etc?
You make me laugh!
Nemo - here is the link to the Senate report with comments from all the scientists:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
There are a number of links and very interesting comments directly from the scientists not only on the "hypothesis" but also the politics of the "hypothesis". It would take a long time to go through all of these, but even a survey of these will prove educational. There is even a link to the homepage of Dr. Richard Lindzen, who holds an endowed chair at MIT -he looks like a bald version of Stanley Kubrick.
One very interesting line of data analysis indicates that the timing of data aquisition is crucial. For the greenhouse gas hypothesis to be correct, daytme and nightime variability of temperatures would be equal. The quote: " If the sun was a major cause of global warming then we would see no or limited changes at night, an increase in the rate of change approaching the middle of the day, and then a decreasing rate of change of temperature anomalies when the sun starts to lose its daytime strength," he explained. "So what do we find when looking at the data?" he asked. "The data points heavily towards sun induced global warming," he concluded."
My favorite quote so far comes from Dr. Thomas Lavin: "I first published a peer reviewed paper in 1981 [for comparison, I published my first in 1986 with my first 1st author paper in 1987], and have been looking at data for 30 years [only around 25 for Pariah]. I am somebody who has designed experiments and looked at data. And if you simply freeze Al Gore's movie when he introduces the CO2 and temperature relationship through geologic time, and look at the graph, the temperature goes up before the CO2 in every one of the six or seven elevations recorded geologically. And this time gap is on the order of a few hundred years. Add this to the NASA temperature revision (making 1934 the hottest year in the U.S.) and then add that many of the climate models which predict doom use the old, unrevised NASA data, and you have total garbage in/ garbage out. Before we start regulating who gets to build a factory, and who gets to fly on a private jet, or drive to work, I think the data has to be real and convincing. This episode in history I think will go down as marking the reverse of Galileo and Copernicus, the end of the Age of Reason, and it's frightening".
Good post Pariah Jeep! Plenty of useful information and ideas I've overlooked. Thanks. Has anyone ever seen Dr. Richard Lindzen and Stanley Kubrick in the same place at the same time?
anon, 70 years of Enron? Enron was formed in 1985. That would be 22 years by my count.
Thanks Nemo! What? No rebuttals from anons or the snotty, arrogant prepubescent little puke?
. . .not that I read anything from them anyway. MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL!
I don't feel like anyone has responded to anything I said. You have only continued to bring up distractions. I will respond when someone explains to me why I am wrong about the greenhouse theory.
Blah, blah, blah, blah...
I hope everyone had a nice Christmas!
It was great, warmer than usual though BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Someone bought me a gift that included a low-energy long-life fluorescent light bulb that is meant to save the planet. She really meant well – she was giving them to everyone so that they would “know what kind to buy” - but I asked her if she knew that bulbs like that one currently contain mercury. Her response was so what - it will last a long time. I assured her that the mercury would too.
GOD!! I HATE TEH TRUTH!! IT IS SIMPLY TO PAINFUL TO BEAR!!
Post a Comment