Global Warming

[Chuck S. Greanoff]

Of course, it should read did not prefer/want to

[Dustin James]

[Kenneth Warren]

Jim:

Yes, definitely facetious. I did like your point.

Kenneth Warren

[dl meckes]

I appreciate Dr. Chuck looking to the community for a little participation because I distantly remember that it felt good to know that students weren't only noticed by the community when we did something bad and that having people take some sort of interest in us (who weren't parents or family) was a pretty big deal (even if we didn't really act like it).

[Dustin James]

Jim:

Yes, definitely facetious. I did like your point.

Kenneth Warren

Thanks Ken.

You weave a tight fabric, while I unraveled a mere thread.

Also agree with DL. I would add that the era in which we grew up, lacked a real time, interactive channel like this -to even allow teachers a voice into the community with any degree of success. More interesting to me is that kids would want to hear from adults. I felt certain at the time, there was only a handful of adults that had any clues. I'm pretty sure now, I may have misjudged. It would also be a big deal if some of that has changed!

*

[Bill Call]

This should be fun and (hopefully) informative.

[Kenneth Warren]

New Scientist gathers up in “Climate change: A guide for the perplexedâ€Â￾ materials useful for pro debaters to consider:

See:

http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... th/dn11462

Kenneth Warren

[Dustin James]

[Kenneth Warren]

Tonight’s event was an immense pleasure, a tribute to both the LHS debate club and Lakewood Observers Brent Callentine and Bill Call. I felt proud to be a member of a community wherein students and adults can debate together in a public library, while educating all of us on how climate change issues are framed and understood in the heat of their cross-fires.

We learn so much in these experiences.

The adult debaters advised skepticism about consensus on the current state of scientific knowledge and caution with respect to global political interests; the student debaters seemed surprised at the degree of skepticism adults held with regard to the institutional power of the United Nations.

Trust and skepticism over framers of issues. Faith and doubt over man’s power.

It boiled down to ideology – one’s conceptual frame of man and nature for past, present and future.

The adult debaters seemed conservative, complex and skeptical about the power of man vis a vis cycles and nature. I think that surprised the students. One student called the adult position on UN power and the global warming agenda "paranoid."

The students seemed to hold a sense of moral agency, one holding man accountable, on the basis of trust in the consensus documents, which the adults qualified through the pole of suspicion.

Thanks Dr. Chuck and the LHS Debate Team. You said we can make this a tradition.

Brent and Bill set a very high standard for LO debaters.

I look forward to more.

Kenneth Warren

[Stan Austin]

This was a very good event, perhaps a precursor of many more to come.

The LHS debaters came with "staff" for research and classmates for support.

Brett and Bill struck just the right note of seriousness by wearing jacket and tie without being ponderous about it.

The actual debate was serious and polite with both sides demonstrating good preparation which benefited the audience.

And, in such a refreshing contrast to the TV shouting matches, the quick fire cross examination was illuminating!

Also, I think the most significant aspect was that two viewpoints represented by "disparate" Lakewoodites showed that we are all interested in civic discourse and hence, not different.

Stan Austin

[Jim O'Bryan]

Of course, it should read did not prefer/want to

Chuck

Very nice event to a full room of people. Very nice event, I hope the Observer can help to sponsor more of them.

All of us on the Observation Deck know that C & C, Call and Callentine bring it, when it comes to discussing anything. This is one reason we all enjoy them. Speaking with Brett this week, Bret said to me, "I can argue either side of anything, just let me know what I am debating."

This why the message both Bill and Bret hammered home to good effect. Don't believe everything,, do you homework, seek out both sides of a discussion, then have some lively civil discourse.

Favorite line of the night comes from Bill Call, to paraphrase. "If they say it is 99%, 90%, 80% or even 60% they are just guessing. Even 90% is not a sure thing." Of course he is right.

Chuck, thanks again to all that helped put this on.


.

[ryan costa]

I am glad to read the debate was productive.

Here is an idea for a future debate exercise. Some Creation Science advocates suggest dinosaurs went extinct because they couldn't fit on Noah's Ark. Others suggest there were dinosaurs on the ark, but they were killed off later(maybe by fred flintstone?). A good exercise would be for kids to debate each assumption.

[Kenneth Warren]

In “The Greenhousers Strike Back and Out,â€Â￾ Alexander Cockburn provides several insights. He brings critical pressure to carbon credits, which he compares to papal indulgences for carbon sinners. This insight connects us to an ostensibly magical, medieval and faith-based mitigation practice.

Other key points:

1. “The greenhousers endlessly propose that the consensus of "scientists" on anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming. By scientists they actually mean computer modelers. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and their computer-modeling coterie include very few real climatologists or atmospheric physicists. Among qualified climatologists, meteorologists and atmospheric physicists, there are plenty who do not accept the greenhousers' propositions. Many others have been intimidated into silence by the pressures of grants, tenure and kindred academic garottes.â€Â￾

2. “As for the alleged irrefutable evidence that people caused the last century's CO2 increase… the claim is based on the idea that the normal ratio of heavy to light carbon-that is, the Carbon-13 isotope to the lighter Carbon-12 isotope, is roughly 1 to 90 in the atmosphere, but in plants there's a 2 percent lower C13/C12 ratio. So, observing that C13 in the atmosphere has been declining steadily though very slightly since 1850, they claim that this is due to man's burning of fossil fuels, which are generally believed to be derived from fossilized plant matter. On the naïve and scientifically silly assumption that the only way that plant-based carbon can get into the atmosphere is by people burning fuels, they exult that here indeed is the smoking gun: decreases of C13 in the atmosphere mean that our sinful combustions are clearly identifiable as major contributors to the 100 ppm increase in CO2 since 1850.â€Â￾

Cockburn then goes onto to address diffusion of plant-based carbon in oceans, forests, etc. He concludes: “The 100 ppm increase in CO2 can't be uniquely attributed to humans because at least as plausibly it could be the effect, not the cause, of the warming that started after the Little Ice Age….â€Â￾

Cockburn is a good writer, though one from the left. He promises more scrutiny.

For more:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05262007.html

Kenneth Warren

[Tom Bullock]

Folks, from a friend--a funny/serious excerpt about the premeditated strategy by industry to create doubt about scientific findings inconvenient to its profits:

Wanted to pass on this little nugget I managed to get while on a trip to Dallas to the ExxonMobil shareholder meeting (I was down there reporting for my next book). I caught the company's CEO channeling Don Rumsfeld when talking about global warming. Here's the YouTube link - it's pretty hilarious/sad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7P3eVCAUZQ

As they said at the end of G.I. Joe cartoons, "Now we know, and knowing is half the battle!"

[Bill Call]

As they said at the end of G.I. Joe cartoons, "Now we know, and knowing is half the battle!"

[/quote]

We had the Brown Shirts then the Black Shirts then the Red Shirts and now the Green Shirts. The current global warming hysteria is based on weak science. It is simply being used as a vehicle to implement social, political and economic changes that people would otherwise refuse to accept.

We have reached the point where otherwise intelligent people are denying the role of the sun in warming the Earth.

We have reached the point where reliable science that casts doubt on the anthropogenic model for warming is not challenged it is silenced. Death threats, funding threats, job threats etc.

It seems as if industry on Neptune is warming their planet as well. See:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html