I carried out the following conversation at http://hannamade.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/love-miles/
Hanna seems to feel guilty about flying, presumably because of the carbon footprint, although I am not absolutely sure if she really knows why she is feels guilty.
In spite of her assertion that she discusses AGW issues all the time, it appears to me that she discusses it only with like minded people .
When I tried to find from her why she believed in AGW all she could do is point me to the skeptical science website which she appears to have swallowed without question.
She also appears unable to distinguish between “sustainability” in reference to the worlds diminishing resources, “Carbon Footprint”, and conservation of the environment.
Of course these things are delivered to such sheep as Hanna and she simply interprets that she must feel guilty whenever she does something to please herself.
Maybe she would be happy with some self flagelation? 🙂
As I did comment on her site that without thinking for herself, she is just like a sheep in Orwell’s “Animal Farm.
I saved most of my comments but after the last one of mine on her site, she deleted most of my comments and her replies. Hence this record is just a little one sided.
I think most of her comments that are missing can be infered by my answers and I have also extended an invitation to her to correct anything that has slipped my memory.
In summary though, she appears to me to have no real beliefs at all, just some sort of wishy washy religious faith in things green, of what she is told is green and is unable to depart from that.
On her site she says her qualifications are :- Bio MSc at Sussex in Climate Change & Policy. Researching Green Jobs for Otesha UK So her responses are doubly disappointing.
Sorry if I offend you with my views which obviously differ from your own.
I comment on your blog because I can see from your implicit admissions of guilt in your post, that you have accepted the anthropogenic global warming mixed with terms such as “sustainability” without any critical or analytical questioning on your part.
I do not ask you to believe anything that I tell you, but I hope I can stimulate your and your readers to start thinking about things objectively rather than believing blindly what you are told from so called “green” or any other sources.
You do not need to be a scientist to be able to recognise what is fact or fiction, likely or unlikely, but just need to think for yourself.
Of course I am familiar with the skeptical science website. It is very well written and presented. (Makes you wonder how it was funded actually). However one thing to look out for is any actual evidence for AGW which does not rely on either correlations of data or correlations with mathematical models of some sort.
If you ever studied statistics in your freshman year, you would have been told at some length that correlations never constitute proof in any shape or form although it may lead ones research towards seeking for any causal link.
The guilt that you are experiencing is based entirely on correlation, so I am suggesting you relax your guilt and enjoy your life more.
I disagree completely that you need to be a scientist to be able to evaluate whether the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis is valid.
People who tell you otherwise are simply trying to relegate you to the status of the sheep in Orwells book “Animal Farm”.
All you need is a reasonable mind.
It is a historical fact that the world has been warmer than the present, a number of those times when anthropogenic CO2 was non existent. Both historical archaelogical and proxy records show this clearly.
No one has tried to explain why this warming is different from those events, which incidently are the norm for our planet anyway.
“To be able to read the data” is a red herring, because if you studied freshman statistics, you will know that data can only expose correlations, and you would also know that correlations are never proof or evidence.
What is missing is some empirical evidence to show that CO2 actually causes this so called warming.(How have the last two winters been in your part of the world anyway?)
You would think that the IPCC and all the scientists, after 20 years and their huge budgets, would have found some empirical evidence over the last 20 years, but the truth is, none has been found.
Few admit this but the president of the Czech Republic is not afraid to come out with it.
I also would point out that the statistic that 99% of the scientific community support the above hypothesiss is simply not true. Tens of thousands of scientists and initiated people have petioned the UN and other agencies about the lack of proof for Global Warming. Would you like me to direct you to lists and petitions from these people?
Your analogy about the doctors , which I have heard many times before; All I can say is that no matter how many doctors tell me I have a lethal disease, unless they can show me logically that what they suggest is the best option, no one would take a knife to me.
Efficient heating etc. No problem with that providing it IS efficient heating etc. For instance Bio Fuel is expensive and competes with our food supply. Some say people are dying from starvation for that reason today.
Do not mix up the word efficiency with “carbon neutral”.
Like I said earlier, there are a number of issues that have been deliberately mixed with this AGW thing that effectively confuse the undiscerning.
My back ground is in economics. Here is what I think and I am not alone!
If the IPCC has its way and carbon emissions are reduced by 60% (40% below 1990 levels) the price of energy will sky rocket. An increase of 500% is probably a reasonable estimate. This would render your car basically useless and air travel will be impossible for normal people. But worse still, everything we eat, consume, use for heating will be effected. Your salary (should the organisation that you work for is still able to operate in this environment) will be consumed by basic needs to survive.
This will be the cost of trying to prevent climate change.
There is no analysis of this in the IPCC reporting – a terrible omission – but my aim in mentioning it here is that this is the reason that we must get this “CO2 causes Global Warming” thing absolutely correct before we act. It would be so futile to ruin the world economy (read starvation and poverty) if AGW was not true don’t you think? If AGW is true and we need to save the world, well I have just outlined the cost.
I personally do not care what you believe, but it horrifies me that you accept what you read without question.
PS I have references for all of this in my blog, but if you are interested to see a particular one, I can direct you to it.
“I personally do not care what you believe” – the time and energy you put into commenting on my blog suggests otherwise. When the comment is longer than the actual blog post, you have to wonder who you’re trying to convince.
““I personally do not care what you believe” – the time and energy you put into commenting on my blog suggests otherwise.”
Thanks for emphasising my last sentence but you left off the part that does actually concern me.
“but it horrifies me that you accept what you read without question.”
And then you indicate that you are STILL happy to accept what skeptical science and co tell you without question.
You seem unable or unwilling to discuss it with me then!
I hope you do not mean a reference to the skeptical science website constitutes a question and debate.
I personally have no deep seated beliefs on this subject, this is no religious exercise – I am reacting to facts and responding to assertions of which I am unable to detect fact or evidence etc. and on which there are usually conflicting facts.
If I thought that trying to reduce anthropogenic CO2 was going to save the planet, I would be right along with you.
My values are with humanity – you may have noticed that my training and careful reading of the IPCC reporting lead me and others to believe that we are in danger of an artificially induced poverty and starvation without reasonable evidence that shows it being the least bit neccesary.
Where are your values then?
In the interests of transparency, I should tell you that I have removed some comments on this post, according to my new comments policy – http://hannamade.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/comments-policy/
The reasons for doing this is that a climate denier named Roger (one comment of his remains above) was 1) derailing the conversation by not talking about love miles, but the likelihood of anthropogenic global warming instead and 2) making wildly unsubstantiated claims about climate science.
I will steal a quote from the comments policy over at Irregular Climate:
“Carl Sagan was known for saying “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. If you make an extraordinary claim (such as saying that mainstream science on global warming is wrong) then I will require extraordinary evidence. Failure to provide such evidence is grounds for your comment to be edited or deleted. And if you have some extraordinary evidence, you owe it to all of us to submit it to real scrutiny and publish it in the scientific literature. Fame and fortune await you… if you are correct.”
You really need to take a step backwards and look at yourself.
“And if you have some extraordinary evidence, you owe it to all of us to submit it to real scrutiny and publish it in the scientific literature. Fame and fortune await you… if you are correct.”
This is exactly what we are doing with the so called evidence for AGW about which YOU will publish no negative facts or questions.
We do not have any new evidence, you guys are the ones putting forward the hypothesis and we are demanding evidence for your claims, because the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis is full of holes.
You are the one intent on deflecting questions about these holes, and it is obvious you have no answer.
I mentioned already some of your claims and if you want I will provide references, so please do not claim that what I say is unsubstantiated.
1. There is no scientific consensus. (would you like to see a few lists of scientists who have put their names to public documents to record that they do not share the views of “official” climate scientists?
2. The science is NOT settled. (would you like to see some peer reviewed, published scientific papers which criticise ever aspect of AGW claims?)
3. Do you know about some empirical proof/evidence of the causation mechanism between CO2 and Global Warming in the atmosphere, that no one else knows about?
As you know our comments are being published elsewhere, and your continual efforts to deflect valid questions are apparent on that site.
Yes we did read your “CV” and we know that your job appears to be dependent on AGW being true and accepted.
Hope you can live with yourself especially when you are alone at night.