|
|  |
| |
|
| | The Innovation Network Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts | | That Human Activity is a Significant Cause of Global Warming. | Views: 766 | | Jan 20, 2010 8:24 am | | That Human Activity is a Significant Cause of Global Warming. | # | 
John Stephen Veitch | | Thomas Holford claims that:
"The burden of proof is on the AFFIRMATIVE proposition, and the AFFIRMATIVE position has not provided compelling, unambiguous evidence based on the scientific method and sound epistemological principles that human activity is a significant cause of global warming."
OK, let me see what I can find.
From my own experience, I like Reg can cite lots of evidence from my own life where human activity has severely impacted negatively on the environment. Regarding climate change I've seen that we have fewer days of snow now than when I was a child. Often zero snow days now, when there used to be a week or more. (NZ has a mild climate.) There is no doubt that the NZ glaciers are retreating, and have been doing so for at least 30 years. There is also evidence of birds changing habitat as it gets warmer.
The standard science as I understand it, fits very well with what I've seen with my own eyes. Global warming is occurring, and give then changes I've seen in New Zealand in the last 60 years I've every confidence that human beings are directly causing most of it.
So, what do scientists say?
From Climate Progress we get.
How do we really know humans are causing global warming?*
http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/11/how-do-we-really-know-humans-are-causing-global-warming/
Wikipedia:
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, 2004.
"Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and secondarily the clearing of land, have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping ("greenhouse") gases in the atmosphere...There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
There are hundreds of scientific and quasi-scientific organizations that support that view.
Wikipedia quotes only FIVE (in some detail) that are said to nave neutral views.
"Statements by dissenting organizations
With the release of the revised statement[77] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change."
So apparently there are ZERO scientific bodies of "national or international" which support Thomas Holford's stance.
From http://www.skepticalscience.com
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming.
"Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming."
Wikipedia Again:
"The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[2][3][4][5] The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 75 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
From the BBC.
"Dr Geoff Jenkins, of the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, said recently: "Over the last few decades there's been much more evidence for the human influence on climate.
"We've reached the point where it's only by including human activity that we can explain what's happening." "
An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by AMS Council on 1 February 2007)
"Why is climate changing?"
"Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth arising from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. In recent decades, humans have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.), which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean, land ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.
Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as greenhouse gases. Enhanced greenhouse gases have little effect on the incoming energy of the sun, but they act as a blanket to reduce the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by Earth and its atmosphere; the surface and atmosphere therefore warm so as to increase the outgoing energy until the outgoing and incoming flows of energy are equal. Carbon dioxide accounts for about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas contribution to warming since the late 1800s, with increases in the other greenhouse gases accounting for the rest; changes in solar output may have provided an augmentation to warming in the first half of the 20th century.
Carbon dioxide concentration is rising mostly as a result of fossil-fuel burning and partly from clearing of vegetation; about 50% of the enhanced emissions remain in the atmosphere, while the rest of the Earth system continues to absorb the remaining 50%. In the last 50 years atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than any rates observed in the geological record of the past several thousand years. Global annual-mean surface temperatures are rising at a rapid rate to values higher than at any time in the last 400 (and probably in the last 1000) years. Once introduced in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide remains for at least a few hundred years and implies a lengthy guarantee of sustained future warming. Further, increases in greenhouse gases are nearly certain to produce continued increases in temperature. Such changes in temperature lead to changes in clouds, pressure, winds, and rainfall in a complex sequence of further effects.
Human activity also affects climate through changes in the number and physical properties of tiny particles (aerosols) suspended in the atmosphere, and through changes in the land surface. Aerosols arise from dust, sea salt, and air pollution. They absorb and redirect radiation emitted by the sun and Earth. They also modify the ability of clouds to reflect sunlight and to form precipitation. Most aerosols originating from human activity act to cool the planet and so partly counteract greenhouse gas effects; this effect will diminish as clean-air legislation leads to reduced emissions of fine aerosols. Stratospheric aerosols emitted by occasional large sulfur-rich volcanic eruptions can cause temporary (1–3 years) reductions in surface temperature. By contrast, carbon soot from wildfires and biomass burning warms the planet, so that decreases in soot would reduce warming. Aerosols have much shorter lifetimes in the atmosphere than most greenhouse gases and exhibit large regional variations in concentration and properties. A deeper understanding of their global and regional roles is a high priority for climate science.
Changes in the land surface also change the surface water and energy budgetsand act to redirect the incoming solar energy. Humans alter land surface characteristics through irrigation practices, removal and reintroduction of forests, agricultural changes to vegetative cover, reduction of soil water recharge by soil compaction, and modification of heat storage by cities and reservoirs. Many of these lead to changes in the reflectivity of the surface. Although net global effects are not expected to be large, such changes can have significant effects on regional and local climate patterns.
The interaction of all these effects on climate is complex. For example, decreases of stratospheric ozone have likely contributed to the recent contraction and intensification of the polar vortex around Antarctica, producing warming in the Antarctic Peninsula, the northern most peninsula that points toward South America, and cooling over Antarctica. As a further example, the east–west difference in U.S. temperature trends may be tied to the spatial patterns of global ocean warming, or to differences in aerosol distribution and effects, or to natural climate variations that affect atmospheric circulation, cloudiness, and precipitation within the nation. Accurate characterization of the influence of each of the greenhouse gases, of aerosols, of oceans and natural climate variability, and of land-surface influences, along with their combined effects, is a high priority for the climate science research community."
A links from Climate Progress.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/02/realclimate-gavin-schmidit-what-fraction-of-global-warming-is-due-to-human-causes-vs-natural-causes/
http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/17/positive-methane-feedbacks-permafrost-tundra-methane-hydrates/
I expect that none of this extensive evidence meets Thomas Holford's exacting standard of proof. Frankly that's not my problem. I'm more than satisfied that I stand on the scientifically valid side of the debate.
John Stephen Veitch; The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.co.nz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch | | Jan 20, 2010 10:53 am | | re: That Human Activity is a Significant Cause of Global Warming. | # |
John Stephen Veitch | | I've found the scientific papers.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm
You need Chapter 9.
You get a PDF of 84 pages numbered from 663 to 746.
The question "Can the Warming of the 20th Century be explained by Natural Variability?" is answered on pages702-703
A summary of the evidence for MAN MADE Climate Change is on pages 727-728.
Better still there is a table 9.4 which is only four pages long and lists all the effects and the likelihood that this effect is caused by human action. Pages 729-732
Now even Thomas should be happy.
John Stephen Veitch; The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.co.nz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch | | Jan 20, 2010 12:32 pm | | re: That Human Activity is a Significant Cause of Global Warming. | # | 
James Booth | | .
I believe all of us can cite "evidence from my own life where human activity" which has to some degree "impacted negatively on the environment."
Here, specifically, we are talking about "impacts" which affect temperature.
Anecdotal evidence is not science, yet even as anecdotal evidence may indicate "climate change," that does not equate to *global warming.*
Neither does anecdotal evidence indicative of "climate change" locally offer anything necessarily conclusive on a global scale.
I think we need to be careful about exactly what we are saying as we proceed.
As I recall, Thomas Holford is one of many who have readily conceded there is *climate change.*
The question central to the scheme which intends to tax us all for our contribution of CO2 to our atmosphere - obsessively focused on one one "pollutant" - is not just whether there is *global warming* but whether that warming is human-caused.
Climate change is shown historically as an unending cycle of natural ups and downs dependent on causes greater than human input - at least so far.
We need unadulterated data which can show just what human contribution of "pollutants" IS and what that input may cause - whether it may cause actual change as compared to "reversal" - which requires a far better understanding of the complex systems which produce "weather" than we have at the present time.
Could we at least be clear in our terminology as we continue ?
JBPrivate Reply to James Booth | | Jan 21, 2010 6:51 am | | re: That Human Activity is a Significant Cause of Global Warming. | # | 
Thomas Holford | | John Stephen Vietch sayeth:
> So, what do scientists say?
Well, we're making progress here . . . sort of.
> From Climate Progress we get.
How do we really know humans are causing global warming?*
http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/11/how-do-we-really-know-humans-are-causing-global-warming/
At least this guy STARTED by asking the relevent question. And then proceded to muddle the answer by posting reams of disorganized statements, links, opinions, etc. etc. which don't seem to focus on a coherent thesis.
It could be in there. I just can't tell. And I'm not going to wade through his filing cabinet to find out. I can just send him the contents of my filing cabinet and we can compute the masses of the respective filing cabinets and see who wins.
I would like to know what this guy believes to be the SEMINAL paper or argument or research finding that establishes that human activity causes global warming.
> Wikipedia:
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, 2004.
Ugh. Wikipedia is junk. Throw it out.
It is well known that the wikipedia gatekeepers agressively monitor the global warming pages and exclude global warming skeptic postings. Wikipedia is very POLITICALLY CORRECT on global warming. Useless.
> "Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and secondarily the clearing of land, have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping ("greenhouse") gases in the atmosphere...
This is just a laundry list of things that theoretically might cause global warming. This is not evidence that they DO cause global warming.
Where is the experimental evidence that establishes an UNAMBIGUOUS, QUANTIFED chain of causality that demonstrates that these activities ACTUAULLY and CONSEQUENTIALLY do cause global warming?
If there is no such data, then it just "hand waving."
> There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
This is where science and politics part company.
Science is based on experimentation and evidence. It doesn't matter how many people think or don't think something. The experimental evidence is determinative.
Consensus is a political concept. It is simply what a majority of people believe irrespective of the quality and adequacy of evidence.
Over the history of science the "consensus" of the moment has again and again been shown to be wrong.
There was at one time a consensus that Newton's laws of physics applied to everything in the universe. Einstein showed that the consensus was wrong.
I know that science-politicians like James Hansen, Michaeal Mann, AAAS, Scientific American, etc. etc. love the "consensus" argument because to seems so plausible to the ignorant masses of non-scientists.
But in the world of real science, scientists know that "consensus" does not validate the existence of scientific phenomena; experimentation does.
I am rather interested in what you can come up with as a concise, coherent statement of what evidence or findings the global warming enthusists believe is the foundation of their case. Everything I've heard of has, so far, seemed to be some combination of faulty theorizing combined with confirmation bias, bad data, inept application of scientific methods, and/or submission to irresistable temptations for scientific or political celebrity, or worse, greed.
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jan 21, 2010 8:02 pm | | re: re: That Human Activity is a Significant Cause of Global Warming. | # |
Thomas Holford | | John Stephen Veitch sayeth:
> A summary of the evidence for MAN MADE Climate Change is on pages 727-728
OK.
Page 727
"9.7 Combining Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change"
"The widespread change detected in temperature observations of the surface, ... free atmosphere ... and ocean ..., together with consistent evidence of change in other parts of the climate system ..., strengthens the conclusion that greenhouse gas forcing is the dominant cause of warming during the the past several decades. This combined evidence, which is summarised in Table 9.4, is substantially stronger than the evidence that is available from observed changes in global surface temperature alone (Figure 3.6)."
First of all, let's recognize that this is the OFFICIAL position of the UN IPCC. This is GOSPEL!!!!!
Question number 1: How reliable and authoritative is the UN IPCC?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece
"UN climate chief admits mistake on Himalayan glaciers warning"
"The UN’s top climate change body has issued an unprecedented apology over its flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said yesterday that the prediction in its landmark 2007 report was “poorly substantiated” and resulted from a lapse in standards. “In drafting the paragraph in question the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly,” the panel said. “The chair, vice-chair and co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of IPCC procedures in this instance.” "
Moving right along, the U.N reports "widespread change detected in temperature observations of the surface, ... free atmosphere ... and ocean ...."
Where do these temperature observations come from?
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2465231
"Scientists using selective temperature data, skeptics say"
. . . .
"Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada."
. . . .
"The result, they say, is a warmer-than-truthful global temperature record.
"NOAA . . . systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler," the authors say. "The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs."
The NOAA database forms the basis of the influential climate modelling work, and the dire, periodic warnings on climate change, issued by James Hanson, the director of the GISS in New York."
This, to be clear, is a data integrity scandal SEPARATE and DISTINCT from the Hadley CRU data scandal.
http://newsfromrussia.com/world/europe/14-12-2009/111117-climagatefraud-0
"Climategate - The Great Scientific Fraud"
"Someone from the IPCC decided to tamper with data so that the curve of the graph of temperatures over a thousand years in 2000 reflected a sudden and unexpected heat they called "hockeystick" due to the shape of a "stick" used in ice hockey."
Question number 2: Assuming for the sake of argument that the data data were not fraudulent or manipulated, how consistent is the data?
Answer. It ISN'T consistent. If "global warming" were truly global, EVERY temperature reporting station in the globe would manifest a similar underlying increasing temperature trend.
They do not. Some reporting stations show increasing temperture trends. Some report stable trends. Some actually report DECREASING trends.
Moreover, the temperature data from surface station shows a DIFFERENT overall trend than data gathered from satellite measurements.
And the tree ring data from which historical temperature trend data has been inferred, has recently been shown to be inconsistent with temperature trends measured at surface stations.
So, which measurement is right? The quality of the data is so poor and so inconsistent and so flawed that no CREDIBLE scientist would make any sweeping generalizations or conclusions about the state of the earth's climate.
And this does not even take into consideration that much of the original raw data has been "lost", and only the "value added" (i.e. "manipulated" data exists") and the nature and rationale of the manipulations cannot be determined.
The historical temperature record is a mess.
Question number 3: What greenhouse gases are responsible for "greenhouse gas forcing" and are those the greenhouse gases the result of human activity.
The predominant greenhouse gase is not CO2, but water vapor.
A recent, peer reviewed paper by Hungarian scientist Ferenc Miskolczi has asserted that the "Basic Greenhouse Equations are 'Totally Wrong'", and shows how the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are in a stable balance. The affects of increased CO2 are offset by changes in water vapor. Runaway global warming or falling over a "tipping point" are not possible. So, it doesn't matter what part of the trivial amoung of CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity. The dynamic climate system is self-balancing.
And this is only the criticisms that can be made of the FIRST TWO SENTENCES of the IPCC's supposed "proof" of human caused global warming.
I have no doubt the, based on the faulty science already exhibited and well-known, the rest of the IPCC's report would just be more of the same.
Bottom line. The IPCC has not convinced me that human activity is the main cause of global warming.
Do you have any other evidence that would be more compelling?
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jan 22, 2010 2:01 pm | | re: re: re: That Human Activity is a Significant Cause of Global Warming. | # |
abbeboulah | | “Thomas Holford claims that:
"The burden of proof is on the AFFIRMATIVE proposition, and the AFFIRMATIVE position has not provided compelling, unambiguous evidence based on the scientific method and sound epistemological principles that human activity is a significant cause of global warming."
OK, let me see what I can find.”
This exchange looks to me like a situation where somebody A warns another person B of the danger involved in B’s activity of sawing away on the branch of a tree -- the branch both are sitting on: “That sawing off the branch one is sitting on will have unpleasant consequences for the persons sitting on it”. B reminds A sternly that the burden of proof rests on the Affirmative position. Instead of quickly changing the proposition to the its negated version, (which would shift the burden of proof to the person affirming it by engaging in the activity) A meekly goes online to find urls to support his position, while B continues sawing.
Private Reply to abbeboulah | | Jan 22, 2010 5:03 pm | | re: re: re: re: That Human Activity is a Significant Cause of Global Warming. | # |
Thomas Holford | | > This exchange looks to me like a situation where somebody A warns another person B of the danger involved in B’s activity of sawing away on the branch of a tree -- the branch both are sitting on: “That sawing off the branch one is sitting on will have unpleasant consequences for the persons sitting on it”. B reminds A sternly that the burden of proof rests on the Affirmative position. Instead of quickly changing the proposition to the its negated version, (which would shift the burden of proof to the person affirming it by engaging in the activity) A meekly goes online to find urls to support his position, while B continues sawing.
Not sawing the branch you are sitting on is the negative proposition. I don't have to prove that there are consequences.
Sawing the branch you are sitting on is the affirmative proposition. The consequences of sawing a branch you are sitting on are, for most people, easy to prove.
That's why the burden of proof is on the affirmative proposition.
A laboratory demonstration of the operation of a saw and a the laws of gravity would satisfy most scientists.
I think you might be confusing "burden of proof" with "refusing to accept any proof".
Private Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jan 22, 2010 7:51 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: That Human Activity is a Significant Cause of Global Warming. | # |
abbeboulah | | Nice try at twisting things around.
“Sawing the branch” -- as the now affirmative position -- is incompletely stated. The negation of the first claim is “Sawing off the branch will NOT have ...consequences” which is implied in the action. This would, according to the T.H. etiquette, put the burden of proof on the actor with the saw. If we are worried about the niceties of placing proof burdens. The issue here is not refusal to accept proof, it’s the refusal to provide (or refusal to accept the self-invoked burden of) proof. A is trying (misguidedly), B Keeps sawing; I’ll get off the branch. Private Reply to abbeboulah | | Jan 23, 2010 2:31 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: That Human Activity is a Significant Cause of Global Warming. | # |
Thomas Holford | | > Nice try at twisting things around.
Just trying to rescue you from the swamp of tortured syntax.
If you're going to try to argue that the burden of proof ISN'T on the affirmative proposition, you're argument isn't with me, it's with Socrates.
And I admire your fearlessness and intellectual boldness in inventing an entirely knew rhetorical system for western civilization.
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jan 23, 2010 3:13 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: That Human Activity is a Significant Cause of Global Warming. | # |
abbeboulah | | Tortured syntax? Huh? Who has chopped off the essential part of the proposition here ? (which in the proprer torture-context would qualify as somewhat more than torture?)
Don’t put words in my mouth. I am not arguing about the burden of proof. I suggested -- in case you missed it -- it is the entirely wrong question to quibble about. But if you insist that it is what we ought to adhere to, why refuse to accept that burden (“I don’t have to prove anything”) when the reversed corrected question is put to you?
I am not sure what in Tate’s Hell’s tortured syntax swamp you are referring to in your last non-sequitur sentence. I’d accept it as an undeserved overblown compliment if you were referring to my proposals for evaluating planning arguments (none of which we have nbeen dealing with in this thread so far) which indeed are, in my humble opinion, an innovative addition to the traditional body of knowledge about argumentation (about planning proposals) which has been neglected by both logic and rhetoric -- but very far from any pretension of an entirely new rhetorical system. But I don’t think you even know about that. So, if it’s just about suggesting a different proposition as the Affirmative one that needs defending: Straw man argument? In which case you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Again, John, my apologies for allowing myself to deviate from the thread topic here. But you and T. H. asked for it, kindasortadidntya?Private Reply to abbeboulah | | Jan 23, 2010 5:16 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: That Human Activity is a Significant Cause of Global Warming. | # |
Thomas Holford | | > But you and T. H. asked for it, kindasortadidntya?
Well, I dunno.
In all, candor, I found your train of logic somewhat discursive and hard to follow. Maybe there was a point in there that I missed. But, whatever.
Returning to the main topic:
Would you care to offer up some compelling scientific evidence that human activity is a significant cause of global warming?
My criteria for "compelling scientific evidence" is pretty stringent.
No opinion polls. No consensuses of experts. No "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after, therefore, because of). No coincidentally varying unrelated variables.
I want to see an unambiguous, tight chain of causality between human activity and sustained, irreversible, climatic warming encompassing the entire planet.
There is no shortage of people who say this evidence exists. Show me the money!
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jan 23, 2010 4:31 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: That Human Activity is a Significant Cause of Global Warming. | # |
abbeboulah | | Among the points that seem to be consistently missed: my insistence that a) we on this forum do not have the means of producing the evidence needed to unequivocally establish the truth of this or that proposition, and b) that it is therefore the ‘wrong question’ to discuss, when the real problem we could and should argue about is what our actions should be. (This may be because essentially the same discussion is now going on in two different threads).
It seems rather pointless, however, to argue any such questions with someone who has convincingly demonstrated a firmly made-up mind and unwillingness to provide support for his position, hiding behind the rhetorical etiquette point of obligation of providing burden of proof while insisting on rigorous scientific evidence of ‘tight causal chain’ of effects. Is it possible that such a stalwart defender of scientific rigor does not know of Popper’s demonstration that it is impossible to conclusively prove the truth of a hypothesis no matter how much supporting evidence is assembled (the fallacy of inductive reasoning) -- but perfectly possible to show by contrary evidence that it is NOT true? And that it therefore would be as plausible, if not more so, to ask for contrary evidence as it is to insist on supporting data? No: here the rigorous scientific debater evades the question by insisting that according to the burden of proof rule, he does not have to prove anything? It seems implausible and impolite to even suspect such an all-knowing person of such unfamiliarity with the logic of science -- but then: what is the intention behind pretending so?
The discussion also seems pointless because to someone whose scientific rigor is amply demonstrated by his wholesale dismissal of collections of information like Wikipedia (“useless...throw it out” etc.) not on the grounds of any flaws in the data it purveys but on the basis of the supposed ideological stance of its editors, it appears that no evidence or data would be acceptable that contradicts his made-up mind. Would the same reasoning pattern allow some evil environmentalist to argue -- since there is some evidence for it; and the slip of the tongue ‘show me the money ‘ opens even the most impartial mind to such vile heretical thoughts -- that most of the opposition against adopting measures aimed at reducing the impact of humanity’s activities on the environment is promoted and financed by the entities that are now making the most money from the continued sawing off the branch? Far be it from us to even entertain such ideas.
I urge once more: let’s hear some suggestions about what ought to be done (instead of the steps that seem so objectionable), and discuss those. This particular debate, I'm afraid, won’t help or resolve anything.Private Reply to abbeboulah | | |
| |
| |
