An Open Message To Global Warming Scare-Mongers From A Skeptic

Majic, you might not see it but you are guilty of some of the same things you are saying that those who you call fear mongers are doing. Let me reiterate my point.

In you first post one of the points you make is the following.

Global Warming is a theory, and it is an unproven theory.

Yet it is repeated like a gospel truth by people who ought to know better, despite the fact that it may well turn out to be just another form of phlogiston.

I'm not saying Global Warming isn't occurring, nor am I saying that human activity can't be causing Global Warming.

That's because I don't know.

You are first saying that Global warming is an unproved theory, and yet it is repeated as gospel by those who should know better. Then, in that same paragraph you claim that you are not saying that global warming isn't occurring, nor that human activity can't be causing global warming, because you don't know.

How can you prove that something is an unproven theory if you don't know? Remember, you can't prove a negative, much less if you confess that you don't know whether it is happening or not, that's a first when trying to reach a conclusion.

You talk about me and others speculating on false assumptions, yet you also state the following.

You can take potshots at my skepticism and suspicions all you want. All that tells me is that you don't even believe your own stories, and thus fear reasonable skepticism.

You are speculating in that sentence, concluding that people must fear reasonable skepticism. Yet you have not given one piece of evidence of your reasonable skepticism. In fact you depend on your emotions, which are obviously controlling you, when dealing with this topic.

You are saying that people are not presenting any reasonable proof that makes you think global warming is real, and that people are being taken away by emotions instead of logic. Yet when i presented evidence from NASA, who is one of the agencies that now is actually saying Global warming is real, and i gave a logical reason of why they don't have an agenda when they talk about this topic, you decided to ignore a logical explanation. In fact this is what you said.

NASA is not a disinterested party, nor are its employees, so arguments to that effect are meaningless to me.

There are no disinterested parties with respect to Global Warming, so I ain't buying that line. Period.

So pretty much you are saying that even thou you have not presented proof to back up your claim, you know better, and NASA must have an agenda for doing this, because you say so. Where is the scientific method you claim people are discarding when you made this and other unfounded claims?

Another of your claim, which is repeated by most people who say global warming is not real is the following.

It's a very big planet, and as wonderful and technologically advanced as we humans are, the amount of power we actually have to control global weather is infinitesimally small, despite dubious claims to the contrary.

We are human beings, not God.

First of all, we are not discussing that humans have a power to control global weather, and neither is any scientist whom state that global warming is real.

Second of all, your argument that since we are not God, human activity cannot have any adverse effect on global climate, is fallible, because we know for a fact that human activity has caused many problems around the world, changing the environment as a direct result from human activity.

Now, since you have been unable or unwilling to present evidence to back up your claim that NASA is not exempt from having an agenda on global warming, I will continue to use sources from NASA to make my point.

across the globe have shown that over the last 100 years the
surface temperature of the Earth, which includes the lower atmosphere
and the surface of the ocean, has risen dramatically
over the past century. The IPCC estimates the increase
has been between 0.4°C and 0.8°C. Worldwide measurements
of sea level have shown a rise of 0.1 to 0.2 meters over the
last century. Readings gathered from glaciers reveal a steady
recession of the world’s continental glaciers. Taken together,
all of these data suggest that over the last century the planet
has experienced the largest increase in surface temperature
in 1,000 years.

Excerpted from.
eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The data according to NASA sugest the largest increase in surface temperature in 1,000 years, so temperatures are rising which contradicts your statement which i quote below.

The Long View

Global temperatures have fluctuated wildly ever since the Earth was formed, and that does not seemed to have changed in my lifetime -- although methods of observing and measuring global temperatures most certainly have.

You are accusing people of discarding the scientific method, yet you are the one disregarding the scientific method, and instead relying on your emotions to make conclusions without presenting any proof to your claims.




[edit on 15-4-2005 by Muaddib]

Making My Point, Again, By Posting Falsehoods

Originally posted by Muaddib
You are accusing people of discarding the scientific method, yet you are the one disregarding the scientific method, and instead relying on your emotions to make conclusions without presenting any proof to your claims.

Unless you have psychic powers I am not aware of, you don't have any idea what my emotions are, so please don't make false claims about them.

I have said in as many words, repeatedly, painstakingly, that I have not reached a conclusion about Global Warming, yet you insist on falsely claiming that I have reached a conclusion.

I have plenty of suspicions -- some of which you are bolstering -- and some theories, but no conclusions I would be comfortable declaring as such.

The Ownership Of My Opinion

I need nothing to prove my opinion other than my statement of it. My opinion is mine to decide, not yours or anyone else's.

I am the absolute authority on what my opinion is, and anyone misrepresenting it is a liar. I have stated my opinion in this thread, and that's all the proof of it you or anyone else should need.

If you are trying to claim my opinion is something other than it is, you are doing so on false grounds and libeling me.

My opinion is that I don't know and have therefore not reached a conclusion on Global Warming. Anyone claiming otherwise is a liar.

I have, however, reached a conclusion about Global Warming Scare-Mongers, and it is that they should not be trusted, as I have stated from the beginning of this thread.

What You Can Do To Promote Truth Instead Of Falsehoods

Stop posting lies about me, misrepresenting my position and trying to put words in my mouth.

All you are doing is proving my point by doing so.



P.S. Anyone who is paid to perform research is by definition not a “disinterested party”, regardless of unconvincing misrepresentations to the contrary. Wherever money is involved, there is interest.

Originally posted by Majic
Making My Point, Again, By Posting Falsehoods


Unless you have psychic powers I am not aware of, you don't have any idea what my emotions are, so please don't make false claims about them.

Absolutely missing whatever point you pretend to have had

Actually, it takes no psychic powers to discern your emotions. You have gleefully, willingly - and with no provocation, may I add - proffered them for all of us to have to endure.

I have said in as many words, repeatedly, painstakingly, that I have not reached a conclusion about Global Warming, yet you insist on falsely claiming that I have reached a conclusion.

You can say it till the cows come home - and by the way, they're part of the global warming problem - but your words in actual dissertation versus deflecting cya's say otherwise. You dismissed the NASA work. There's not much you can do to undo that bias.

I have, however, reached a conclusion about Global Warming Scare-Mongers, and it is that they should not be trusted, as I have stated from the beginning of this thread.

The weak link in this statement is that you have already offered evidence that part of the "scare-mongering" apparently is legitimate research organizations...which leads the rest of us - you know, those who are trying to wade through both sides of the data versus the one we like? - leery of anything you have to say. You've reached a conclusion - bully. Apparently you've got an inside track none of the rest of the world has.

P.S. Anyone who is paid to perform research is by definition not a “disinterested party”, regardless of unconvincing misrepresentations to the contrary. Wherever money is involved, there is interest.

There's the proof - out of your own mouth.

But I Repeat Myself

Originally posted by Majic
For those inclined to do so, feel free to keep insulting me for not buying into your sanctimonious bullcrap. It helps me keep track of who the false prophets, junk scientists, corporate pawns and bald-faced liars are.

Meanwhile, baseless attacks on my credibility for refusing to choose one side or the other in this debate are a great way to ensure that I will never agree with the scoundrels promoting them.

If the truth is on your side, then use it.

Feel free to keep attacking me for expressing my honest opinion.

I'm learning a lot from the exercise, as can anyone following this thread who finds the phenomenon as intriguing as I do.

My opinion on Global Warming itself remains unchanged, but my opinion on Global Warming Scare-Mongers is being strongly reinforced with ample evidence from this thread alone.


P.S. I was trying very hard to hold my tongue, but ultimately can't resist pointing out the breathtaking irony of seeing respectable ATS members citing a U.S. Government Agency, in this case NASA, as an unassailable source of truth.

My, how things have changed around here.



[edit on 4/15/2005 by Majic]

Originally posted by Majic

Unless you have psychic powers I am not aware of, you don't have any idea what my emotions are, so please don't make false claims about them.

Then you must have incredible psychic abilities since you so eloquently said, let me quote:

And I intend to continue evaluating theories and statements on their merits, rather than their emotional content.

Since you have stated that no matter what evidence others or I present you don't seem to find much merit in them, then it stands to reason that according to what you said in the excerpted quote I am giving above, from your your own writing, that evidence is just "emotional content."

Originally posted by Majic
I have said in as many words, repeatedly, painstakingly, that I have not reached a conclusion about Global Warming, yet you insist on falsely claiming that I have reached a conclusion.

On the contrary, you are dismissing evidence because, on your word and not based on any evidence you have provided, everyone including NASA is not exempt from having an agenda. Yet, without any proof to back up your claim you are merely willing to dismiss all data on a hunch.

Originally posted by Majic
I have plenty of suspicions -- some of which you are bolstering -- and some theories, but no conclusions I would be comfortable declaring as such.

So, you are saying that you have suspicions, which you have just declared in the above sentence, because i am willing to believe the evidence and data instead of a hunch of yours?....

Originally posted by Majic
The Ownership Of My Opinion

I need nothing to prove my opinion other than my statement of it. My opinion is mine to decide, not yours or anyone else's.

Yes, that is true, you are entitled to your opinion, but since we are here to deny ignorance when an opinion has no merit at all because the evidence provided proves the contrary to what you are saying, it stands to reason that your opinion is all yours to keep, but it is wrong. Unless you happen to have actual evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by Majic
I am the absolute authority on what my opinion is, and anyone misrepresenting it is a liar. I have stated my opinion in this thread, and that's all the proof of it you or anyone else should need.

Yes, you are the "authority on your opinion," noone is denying that. Yet you have not proven that your opinion is anything more than speculation. If you had evidence to back up your opinion, then your opinion would be taken a bit more seriously. Yet, all you seem to be saying is that, without presenting any proof to back up your opinion, all data presented by NASA is biased because according to your "opinion," even NASA has a hidden agenda.

Originally posted by Majic
If you are trying to claim my opinion is something other than it is, you are doing so on false grounds and libeling me.

My opinion is that I don't know and have therefore not reached a conclusion on Global Warming. Anyone claiming otherwise is a liar.

Yet you are willing to dismiss evidence and data because in your opinion NASA has a hidden agenda, even thou it stands to reason that on the contrary, NASA would be one of the first agencies to be extremely happy that their dumping billions of tons of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is not accelerating and worsening global warming.

Originally posted by Majic
I have, however, reached a conclusion about Global Warming Scare-Mongers, and it is that they should not be trusted, as I have stated from the beginning of this thread.

What you are saying is that anyone who would rather believe evidence instead of your opinion which is based on just speculation, is what you call a "global warming scare-monger." Where is the scientific method in making claims based only on assumptions?

Originally posted by Majic
What You Can Do To Promote Truth Instead Of Falsehoods

Stop posting lies about me, misrepresenting my position and trying to put words in my mouth.

Lies? i quoted from your own writing what you have been saying...how is that lying?....

Originally posted by Majic
All you are doing is proving my point by doing so.

P.S. Anyone who is paid to perform research is by definition not a “disinterested party”, regardless of unconvincing misrepresentations to the contrary. Wherever money is involved, there is interest.

Actually, what has been proven is that you decide to dismiss all evidence and data because you say everyone has an interest, or hidden agenda, even though you haven't presented any evidence to back your claim.

Originally posted by Majic

P.S. I was trying very hard to hold my tongue, but ultimately can't resist pointing out the breathtaking irony of seeing respectable ATS members citing a U.S. Government Agency, in this case NASA, as an unassailable source of truth.

My, how things have changed around here.

I guess you prefer to dump all the evidence because it does not fit your "opinion," but those of us who are actually looking for the truth do not dismiss the evidence as easily as you do based on opinions alone.

The "Crime" Of Not Jumping To Conclusions

I continue to be fascinated by just how irksome it can be to some people that I claim not to know enough about a topic to draw a conclusion on it.

The mere act of saying so, and saying so honestly, seems to drive some people nuts.

Meanwhile, I do claim to know enough about fear-mongering to condemn it in no uncertain terms.

That seems to bother some people too. I discourage the use of fear as a tool of argument wherever I can, and again, that really seems to offend some people for reasons beyond my comprehension.

From the responses this thread is getting, I would accuse myself of being a troll if I didn't know that I am simply stating my honest points of view on Global Warming and the fear-mongery associated with the topic.

While I expected some disagreement on that, what amazes me is how maintaining a reasoned, principled and undecided point of view as a matter of personal integrity truly seems to offend some people.

A Case Where I Proudly Declare My Ignorance

I refuse to take a position “yea” or “nay” on Global Warming because I don't know enough to make a rational decision on the matter.

That's right, I am too ignorant about the topic to decide one way or another.

And I am not ashamed of that because most of what I have seen regarding the subject is too inconclusive, specious or downright false to serve as a foundation for a decision I can be comfortable making.

The attempts to bully me into agreement serve only to establish that people are trying to deceive me. I've seen it before, and I am very disappointed to see it so rampant on a discussion forum devoted to unmasking deception.

I urge those engaging in this intellectual shoving match to carefully consider what they are doing -- and what they are saying about themselves and their “cause” by doing so.

Assumptions founded upon other assumptions founded upon speculation are not proof of anything, except deceit and dishonesty.

Shouting such things louder and trying to intimidate dissenters does not make a position correct. It is, in fact, almost exclusively limited to positions founded in dishonesty and falsehoods.

I've been wrong enough times to know when I'm being led down the primrose path, and I'm seeing way too much familiar scenery on the Global Warming trail.

Honest people don't use dishonest tactics, nor do they use insults, defamation and intimidation to “prove” their cases.

The “Problem” Is Intellectual Liberty

My recommendation for those offended by my position is to give some serious thought to the meaning, nature and importance of both intellectual honesty and intellectual liberty.

To disregard those is to dismiss the foundation upon which any meaningful discussion can take place.

I'm not screwing around here. I'm dead serious about this, because this speaks to the heart of why we're here.

This is a vital point, and I advise considering it carefully before condemning me for standing firm on principles all ATS members would do well to respect and apply in their own quests for truth.

Okay, apparently you posted an "OPEN LETTER TO..." a group of people and what I have been able to discern is that you were declaring your right to maintain ownership of your own opinion. That's all I can gather from this entire thread. Because not once have you engaged in discussion about the content of your statements - you've just argued to be allowed to make them.

Apparently you don't realize that ownership of your opinion does not require a public manifesto in order to be finalized - it's one of them there inherent thingies.

But, since you seem very adamant about going through this public process, I will leave you - and this thread - with my final thoughts on the subject.

When you have "won" the battle for ownership of your opinion (and I'm assuming you're fighting yourself for it, because I see no one else actually fighting you for it), you will be able to walk away from this thread with exactly what you came to it with....your opinion.

As for me and mine, I usually engage in discussion to see what the other fellah brings to the table, and to see if I can bring something as well. And I usually walk away with a little more than I came with...some times a lot more.

I'm going to go off and find one of them there discussions now. **

[edit on 4-16-2005 by Valhall]

Ownership Of My Opinion Is Only Part Of The Message

Declaring ownership of my opinion is only part of the message, and no, it's not assumed. Some of my fellow ATS members seem to think they have the authority to put words in my mouth and decide my opinion for me.

To that I say “Nay nay!” and I will always challenge such charlatans wherever they rear their ugly and misinformed heads.

The Original Message Remains Unchanged, And Apparently Overlooked By Some

Hearken back to the very first words of the very first post and you will see that the openly declared purpose of this thread is to directly address Global-Warming Scare-Mongers, who are people who use fear to try to bully people into believing in their version of Global Warming.

My message to such people is that I don't trust them, and will never be persuaded by such dishonest tactics.

The message for non-Global-Warming Scare-Mongers is to avoid using those tactics, because they are self-discrediting and wrong.

I myself raised the point that perhaps the “Global-Warming Scare-Monger” is a straw man, but in truth they do exist -- examples abound right here on ATS -- and that's why I want them to know that I'm on to their game.

I want to discourage fear-mongering and the use of fear tactics in the Global Warming debate, because they disgust me, and I am making no secret of that.

In particular, it is my opinion that fear-mongering and intellectual dishonesty have no legitimate place on ATS.

An Off-Topic Aside About My Own Opinions Regarding Global Warming

Ironically, my own opinions regarding Global Warming are actually somewhat off-topic. There are plenty of other threads for that sort of thing.

I started this thread to send a message to the fear-mongers and liars who are polluting what should be a serious and important debate.

I am not dismissing Global Warming theory out of hand. Far from it. I have many very serious concerns about the data and the phenomena, and I consider it important to find out more.

What pisses me off is that my earnest search for reliable information is constantly being thwarted by liars and charlatans who see fit to massage data and draw erroneous conclusions for me.

I don't need that. What I need is information I can trust, and that is damn hard to come by.

No one in the Global Warming debate is a disinterested party. No one.

And that's because we all live here, and all must live with the consequences of whatever the hell is going on regardless of what our opinions may be.

There's also a hell of a lot of money riding on Global Warming. Trillions and trillions of dollars.

Anyone who claims money has nothing to do with it is either a liar or a fool.

That makes the truth about Global Warming a scarce commodity, and thus all the more valuable.

For those of us who embrace intellectual honesty, there is no acceptable substitute for the truth, regardless of its scarcity or its cost.

Why I Am Undecided On Global Warming

I have a lot of concerns about global climate change, and I think some very bad things are happening.

However, I do not know enough about what is going on to make a decision that is informed enough to satisfy my own standards of intellectual integrity, and I refuse to make a “leap of faith”.

So I choose to remain undecided for now, and to hell with anyone who has a problem with that.

I've spent enough of my life being lied to, believing lies and lying to myself to know what lies are, and have made a conscious and deliberate decision to try to minimize lies in my life.

That starts with me, then extends to my diet of information. If something tastes like a lie, I spit it out. If something tastes like truth, then maybe I'll swallow it.

But anyone trying to force-feed me bullcrap is going to have it spit back in their faces.

It took me far too long to adopt this policy, which is why I never intend to change it.

The Executive Summary

Don't try to scare me, don't lie to me and don't give me grief for having an independent mind, and we'll get along just fine.