• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hitchens on AGW

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Please supply evidence for "we were confidently predicting". Who was doing that?

Do you think that we went straight from that (fictional) belief to Al Gore? Do you have any idea what Gore's place is in all this?

Please do some basic reading before you expose your ignorance further.

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
 
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
We all know that there were media stories. I remember them.

There was never anything more than a small minority of scientists predicting a new Ice Age.
 
There was never anything more than a small minority of scientists predicting a new Ice Age.

Most likely true.

Oh.

By the way.

There isn't anything more than a small minority of scientists prophesizing drastic results of global warming now.
 
Then why feign ignorance of what kallsop was talking about?
How is asking for evidence feigning ignorance? Should we just assume what he meant?

Why make personal attacks against him rather than addressing his argument?
How can there be an argument when the basic premise is false?

Don't assume he is new here. He has made posts in the past and then failed to respond to replies. This drive-by tactic is not the behaviour of someone who wants to learn, or even discuss the topic.
 
In "God is not Great", Hitchens contends (if I read it correctly) that it is immoral for a person who doesn't really believe in in God, to decide to prostrate to god just on the off-chance there is going to be an post-mortem-judgment day... A so-called "hedge-on-Heaven" approach to religiosity.

Then, I saw this youtube vid in which Hitchens appears to use the "hedging" logic with regard to how to approach the question of whether Global warming is human-caused or not....

Don't get hung up on the question of whether GW is caused by man, lets set that aside b/c there are other threads already regarding that debate.

How is it (if at all) Immoral to hedge on heaven, but not immoral to hedge on the question of the possibility of human-causation of GW...?

Thanks in advance for your insights.

Cheers.

Because, one would presume (could be wrong) that God is smarter than the hedger and will know that the hedging is just cheap self preservation, hence you are screwed if you do and screwed if you don't as far as a God is concerned.

With GW, if it is true, you are screwed if you don't hedge, but if it is not true you are not screwed by hedging you just end up with a cleaner more efficient environment than you perhaps absolutely needed.
 
How is asking for evidence feigning ignorance? Should we just assume what he meant?

If you're already aware of the evidence you're asking for, then asking for it is not debating, it's just being a jerk. We all know that thirty years ago the fear was global cooling, so if your point is that we didn't have the consensus then that we have now, just say that.

How can there be an argument when the basic premise is false?

If two people disagree, presumably at least one of them is working from a false premise. Asking for evidence you're already aware of doesn't advance anything.

Don't assume he is new here. He has made posts in the past and then failed to respond to replies. This drive-by tactic is not the behaviour of someone who wants to learn, or even discuss the topic.

If in the past the issue has already been raised, addressed and he's failed to respond, then remind him. Or just ignore him. Sometimes I like to even link to the event in the past where they haven't addressed the issue, that kinda rubs their nose in it.

Just insulting the guy makes you look bad, not him.

He raises a valid point. What if we had taken extraordinary measures to combat global cooling thirty years ago, where would we be today? This thread and this topic, which is essentially a variation of Pascal's wager only applied to the real world instead of the abstract world of religion, is worth discussing.

I personally would like to see some actual debate on AGW where reasonable representatives of both sides lay out their reasons for holding their opinions. I personally am skeptical of arguments I've heard from both sides and would like a better understanding, but every time I pop over into one of these AGW threads, I always find the same thing; one or two AGW critics doggedly taking on all challengers without really imparting much information and a half-dozen or so proponents meeting them with condescension and insults, and generally treating them like pariahs for not joining the bandwagon. The most common argument I see for AGW is an argument from popularity, and I don't find that convincing.

But hey, carrying the torch for science and reasonable debate isn't your responsibility. If all you're looking for is the visceral thrill of putting down someone whom you feel righteously superior too, then carry on. If you happen to run across someone who actually understands the science and might be willing to answer a few questions without being insulting about it, I'd like to talk to that person.
 
How is it (if at all) Immoral to hedge on heaven, but not immoral to hedge on the question of the possibility of human-causation of GW...?

Methinks you put far too much import on what Hitchens thinks. One of the great things about being an atheist is not having to look towards "moral leaders" to determine what is right or wrong; there is no "movement" (or shouldn't be). We are not a "group".

In that context, his apparent contradiction may be entertaining, but certainly not worthy of being pondered for more than a few minutes to philosophically weigh his credibility as a sound critical thinker. Nothing more. His opinion has no bearing on anything other than perhaps his own popularity. Feel free to disagree. With him. With me. Whomever. Doesn't change reality. Most people don't "get" that. :)

-Dr. Imago
 
Most likely true.

Oh.

By the way.

There isn't anything more than a small minority of scientists prophesizing drastic results of global warming now.
Pile all the straw you want. It won't change the fact that likening the state of the science in the 70's re a coming ice age to the state of the science today re agw is akin to likening a pebble in a pond to a tsunami.

The ice age (non) scare was a media generated (non) event that today is plastered all over the internets by propagandists trying to discredit agw. And then, per usual, we get the echo effect courtesy of the suckers and zealots.
 
He raises a valid point. What if we had taken extraordinary measures to combat global cooling thirty years ago, where would we be today?
I don't know where we'd be but I know what we'd be: mindless buffoons. That's because only a mindless buffoon would take extraordinary measures lacking a scientific foundation.
 
If you're already aware of the evidence you're asking for, then asking for it is not debating, it's just being a jerk. We all know that thirty years ago the fear was global cooling, so if your point is that we didn't have the consensus then that we have now, just say that.
What? Someone repeats a nonsense claim we're all sick of hearing, and you appear to be repeating it now. What is the correct response? Please enlighten me.

If two people disagree, presumably at least one of them is working from a false premise. Asking for evidence you're already aware of doesn't advance anything.
Eh? I would like to know where the poster got that idea.

If in the past the issue has already been raised, addressed and he's failed to respond, then remind him. Or just ignore him. Sometimes I like to even link to the event in the past where they haven't addressed the issue, that kinda rubs their nose in it.

Just insulting the guy makes you look bad, not him.
You haven't seen much of how these "sceptics" behave, have you?

He raises a valid point. What if we had taken extraordinary measures to combat global cooling thirty years ago, where would we be today? This thread and this topic, which is essentially a variation of Pascal's wager only applied to the real world instead of the abstract world of religion, is worth discussing.
How is it a valid point when global cooling was never accepted by more than very few scientists? How could that have been translated into action on an international scale?

I personally would like to see some actual debate on AGW where reasonable representatives of both sides lay out their reasons for holding their opinions. I personally am skeptical of arguments I've heard from both sides and would like a better understanding, but every time I pop over into one of these AGW threads, I always find the same thing; one or two AGW critics doggedly taking on all challengers without really imparting much information and a half-dozen or so proponents meeting them with condescension and insults, and generally treating them like pariahs for not joining the bandwagon. The most common argument I see for AGW is an argument from popularity, and I don't find that convincing.
If that is how you see things you need to read more. "Doggedly"? "Condescension and insults"? How strange that you can't see who's doing most of each.

But hey, carrying the torch for science and reasonable debate isn't your responsibility. If all you're looking for is the visceral thrill of putting down someone whom you feel righteously superior too, then carry on. If you happen to run across someone who actually understands the science and might be willing to answer a few questions without being insulting about it, I'd like to talk to that person.
Really? Try reading more.
 
Yes, condescension. I see the error of my ways now. Thank you for your enlightening response. :oldroll:
I'm sorry if it seems that way. I meant that you should read more posts to see how people behave, not read more on the subject. :)

If some of us are cynical about GWSceptic claims and posts it is because we've seen a lot of them. ;)
 
Al Gore has nothing to do with the science, he is just a public figure who has decided to present the issue more widely than scientists are able to do.

"What are the consequences to humanity of climate change" is an economic issue, as is "what to do about it". Neither Al Gore nor climate scientists are in a very good position to judge either of these.
 
"What are the consequences to humanity of climate change" is an economic issue, as is "what to do about it". Neither Al Gore nor climate scientists are in a very good position to judge either of these.

That is an arguable point, at least. What we get instead is a rearguard action by deniers that argues the science it self with non-science, before we even get to decide what are the actions we should take on climate change, which are a political issue.

At least Michaels and McIntyre now state that climate change is happening due to CO2, they just debate the extent of that change.
 

Back
Top Bottom