Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by mufcdiver:
quote: Jello Biafra
KILL THE POOR
Boy, The Dead Kennedys did some good stuff!  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TrueSceptic:
[3. I wasn't aware that GW "sceptics" have been so concerned about the poor all this time. I must have missed that, so could you show me examples of them campaigning to end world (or even local) poverty?
Yes, folks, here it is in black & white. "We, the liberal, socialist, marxist, elitist environmentalists care about the poor. You right-wing, sexist, homophobic, Christian, bigoted, racist, AGW sceptics, on the other hand, don't." Does anyone really doubt that politics drive the GW debate? The people spearheading the AGW movment couldn't care less about the poor or anyone else. They are driven my a hatred for western civilization in general and seem to share common traits. Most are pathalogically self-loathing, guilt-ridden, humorless souls. Did I mention they are hypocrites?....Sad, really. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by phlipper:
Yes, folks, here it is in black & white. "We, the liberal, socialist, marxist, elitist environmentalists care about the poor. You right-wing, sexist, homophobic, Christian, bigoted, racist, AGW sceptics, on the other hand, don't."
Does anyone really doubt that politics drive the GW debate? The people spearheading the AGW movment couldn't care less about the poor or anyone else. They are driven my a hatred for western civilization in general and seem to share common traits. Most are pathalogically self-loathing, guilt-ridden, humorless souls. Did I mention they are hypocrites?....Sad, really.
Excuse me! You were the one accusing AGW proponents of sacrificing the poor for idealogical reasons. I point out the hypocrisy and we get this rabid diatribe. Nice. |
| |
|
New Member
|
["Serious scientists in the 1960s made predictions for what would be found if human emissions of greenhouse gases were to continue. They said the planet would warm. It has. They said the water vapor measurements would show rises. They do. They said that hos— ocean heat content would rise. It has. They said the stratosphere would cool. It did."
There's a subtle difference between predictions and projections but it looks like the experts are on the right track.
As for your money grab claim I'm sure there's an opposite claim. Like maybe the profit margins of oil and gas company's would be reduced by a move to a post-carbon era. So they ram the scientific uncertainties down our necks until, well doubt produces inaction which suits the oil boys just fine thank you.[/QUOTE]
|
| |
|
|
quote: As for your money grab claim I'm sure there's an opposite claim. Like maybe the profit margins of oil and gas company's would be reduced by a move to a post-carbon era. So they ram the scientific uncertainties down our necks until, well doubt produces inaction which suits the oil boys just fine thank you.
[/quote] The oil boys were onside with the flat-earthers before the major governments could get in on the act I'd like to use my signature to remind everyone that at this time of year there will be a lot of toads crossing the roads so be careful when you're driving, especially at night. Thank you |
| |
|
|
Dudes, just been been following a thread offa some other forum to some crappy canadian prog. about how the US is goosing the planet Think that might get you there, you,ve gotta see it to believe it. make channel 4's program look very credible I'd like to use my signature to remind everyone that at this time of year there will be a lot of toads crossing the roads so be careful when you're driving, especially at night. Thank you |
| |
|
|
why is'nt this getting any older? I'd like to use my signature to remind everyone that at this time of year there will be a lot of toads crossing the roads so be careful when you're driving, especially at night. Thank you |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by phlipper:
The "Coming Ice Age" theories immediately come to mind(I hugely doubted that one).
I thought the same, but for other reasons. It was never more than a fringe idea that the mass media ran with. Disaster sells papers, doncha know? So, that was not an example of your hunch going against the scientific consensus at all. quote:
"Silicon breast implants cause maladies" theories.(Silicon is totally inert. I knew it was lawyer driven--convince a jury, you win.) Cell phones cause cancer theories. EM waves so close to our brains!(Mine must be totally baked, by now).
I really don't know if there was a consensus over either of those. I'll have to leave those for now. quote:
DDT causes Death!! Well, not using it surely has. You can eat and bath in DDT but kills mosquitos better than anything else on the market. Thank God African countries have started using it again.(It does not make egg shells thinner causing bird extinction.)
The story of DDT is a little more complicated. A snippet from wiki However, DDT has never been banned for use against Malaria in the tropics. In many developing countries, spraying programs (especially using DDT) were stopped due to concerns over safety and environmental effects, as well as problems in administrative, managerial and financial implementation. Perhaps DDT deserves its own topic? quote:
You can alway tell by the cast of characters parading in the "Great Social Concerns of Our Times" marches, what is real and what is trumped up political or lawyer driven attacts on western civilization. Liberals and Socialists hate prosperous, productive, and moral societies. Then there is the peanuts/black mold scares. The list goes on and on and on and on.
The usual unsupported accusations and insults! |
| |
|
|
to true sceptic sorry mate we seem to have lost the tread on this one to answer your question is to say why I call this current bunch flatearthers. Because it harks back to the days when consensus pointed to the earth being flat. In its day that was also called science and as I mentioned before one Brilliant Scientist was excommunicated for daring to go against "consensus".Notice any parallel?  I'd like to use my signature to remind everyone that at this time of year there will be a lot of toads crossing the roads so be careful when you're driving, especially at night. Thank you |
| |
|
|
quote: Because it harks back to the days when consensus pointed to the earth being flat. In its day that was also called science
That was called religion. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I a number of Greek philosophers used more scientific like arguments to show the earth wasn't flat (shape of the earth's shadow on the moon during eclipses, changes in lengths of shadow as you move north and south. Perhaps we could replace god with oil and retell the story in terms of a dogmatic Republican administration suppressing and threatening the brave scientists who want to publicise their findings that threaten the Republican interests in the oil industry |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mufcdiver: to true sceptic sorry mate we seem to have lost the tread on this one to answer your question is to say why I call this current bunch flatearthers. Because it harks back to the days when consensus pointed to the earth being flat. In its day that was also called science and as I mentioned before one Brilliant Scientist was excommunicated for daring to go against "consensus".Notice any parallel?
I assume you are referring to Galileo. Let's just get some basics down first. At the time of Galileo, "science" as we now know it didn't exist. In fact, Galileo is often called the "father of science" or the "father of physics". He did not oppose any scientific consensus. What he opposed was the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, which would not tolerate any idea that contradicted (their interpretation of) the Bible. In this case, the Church's dogma was that the Earth, not the Sun, was the centre of the Universe. (We later learned that the Sun wasn't the centre either, but the crucial breakthrough was in removing the Earth from its Biblical status as the centre of Creation.) Galileo was not the first to claim that the Earth orbited the Sun, of course: Copernicus and Kepler had already done so, as had some astronomers in ancient India and ancient Greece. In this sense, Galileo agreed with the scientific consensus, insofar as such a thing existed. It was the dogma of the Church that he disagreed with. This had nothing to do with a "Flat Earth", although it seems to me that a Flat Earther is more likely to believe in a geocentric universe than a heliocentric one. Educated people had known that the Earth was spherical from the time of Pliny The Elder (1st C AD), and Eratosthenes had calculated the size of the Earth with surprising accuracy around 240 BC. The Church had long accepted Ptolemy's model: a spherical Earth with the Earth at the centre of the Universe. So, even given that you are mistaken about the facts, how does comparing a GW "sceptic" with Galileo make any sense? |
| |
|
|
Just to expand a little on what TrueSceptic has to say about the flat earth (off topic, I know, but I think it's interesting):
He's right that no one of any consequence has believed in a flat earth since classical times. Some people who didn't know better (i.e. not navigators, sailors, philosphers, scientists etc.) have misread descriptions of a "round" earth as being a flat circle and perpetuated the myth. The Church (being composed of well educated men) knew perfectly well that the earth was a sphere but argued about whether there were people living on the southern hemisphere (as the Greeks believed). It was believed that the equator was far too hot to be crossed, so any men in the southern hemisphere could not have descended from Adam which was against church doctrine. Bishop Vergilius of Salzberg (the person mufcdiver may have been thinking of) was persecuted over this question, not over whether the earth was flat.
Columbus (and his potential sponsors) knew full well that the world was spherical - what he didn't know was how large the circumference was. He made a string of errors that meant he thought it was only a short hop across the Ocean to Japan, rather than the impossibly long journey that it would have been if they hadn't hit the Americas. Spain was desperate so they took a gamble on a madman - and got lucky.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Here are some reasons:...
Robroy I think what you are saying is that the well-funded denier industry is feeding the public lies and misinformation about the state of the scientific consensus, and people are falling for it. Sounds reasonable to me, but are people so easily led? People are cynical about politicians and journalists, how come they believe a bunch of well-paid PR people? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M:
... are people so easily led? People are cynical about politicians and journalists, how come they believe a bunch of well-paid PR people?
Very easily led (on both sides). Most people swallow headlines wholesale - I tried yesterday asking one particularly vociferous AGW-supporting colleague what he actually meant by an "average global temperature". This brought him spluttering to a halt in mid-invective! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M:
Robroy
I think what you are saying is that the well-funded denier industry is feeding the public lies and misinformation about the state of the scientific consensus, and people are falling for it. Sounds reasonable to me, but are people so easily led? People are cynical about politicians and journalists, how come they believe a bunch of well-paid PR people?
That is why I started this thread: why are people so ready to believe the propaganda instead of the scientific consensus? My guess, already stated, is that accepting AGW means a change in the way we live and in our perceptions of how we use what our planet provides. It is almost on a religious level, which is why I see the closest parallel being the Creationist/ID vs. Evolution debate. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TrueSceptic: quote: Originally posted by Steve_M:
Robroy
I think what you are saying is that the well-funded denier industry is feeding the public lies and misinformation about the state of the scientific consensus, and people are falling for it. Sounds reasonable to me, but are people so easily led? People are cynical about politicians and journalists, how come they believe a bunch of well-paid PR people?
That is why I started this thread: why are people so ready to believe the propaganda instead of the scientific consensus? My guess, already stated, is that accepting AGW means a change in the way we live and in our perceptions of how we use what our planet provides. It is almost on a religious level, which is why I see the closest parallel being the Creationist/ID vs. Evolution debate.
It really isn't as simple as you're making out in terms of what the debate is actually about. Terms like consensus are appeals to authority. They do not belong in science. I suggest that reading some Karl Popper might be a good starting place to get into the philosophy of science. Likewise, this idea that there is black propaganda is equally risible. Treat those with different opinions with respect. Debate the scientific basis for the arguments. If you do, then you will find weaknesses across the spectrum. There is no certainty in science, it merely moves towards a position of being less wrong. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TrueSceptic:
why are people so ready to believe the propaganda instead of the scientific consensus? My guess, already stated, is that accepting AGW means a change in the way we live and in our perceptions of how we use what our planet provides. It is almost on a religious level, which is why I see the closest parallel being the Creationist/ID vs. Evolution debate.
1 My reason for not believing in "the scientific consensus" is that I distrust virtually any consensus, particularly when it is couched in terms which gives the adherents power over my life 2 Much of the "consensus" actually fails to answer the questions I ask. I look for measures of the fit between model predictions and outcomes - all I get is vague answers about "a good fit". 3 Both sides seem to argue almost on a religious level. I am being told that I MUST believe in "global warming" (as I was at a Friends of the Earth meeting recently). Why do I have to BELIEVE in something abstract? Why am I not allowed simply to look at the figures and draw my own conclusions? I resent being treated as an idiot by both camps. 4 I would actually quite like to know what this supposed "scientific consensus" consists of. Is it merely that temperatures have risen a bit in the recent past? I have no problem with that! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:
It really isn't as simple as you're making out in terms of what the debate is actually about.
Terms like consensus are appeals to authority. They do not belong in science. I suggest that reading some Karl Popper might be a good starting place to get into the philosophy of science.
I agree that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. However, when it comes to complex science that requires specialist knowledge, we are foolish and arrogant to think that we know better. Would we ignore the findings of, say, the medical science consensus in a similar fashion and instead believe some quack from the world of pseudoscience? quote:
Likewise, this idea that there is black propaganda is equally risible. Treat those with different opinions with respect. Debate the scientific basis for the arguments. If you do, then you will find weaknesses across the spectrum. There is no certainty in science, it merely moves towards a position of being less wrong.
It is not risible in the slightest: most of the "sceptical" claims have been clearly and repeatedly shown to be the work of paid propagandists who use distorted and selective data. I realise that there are genuine dissenters, and I respect their views, but they are very few and their findings have not stood up to scrutiny by other scientists. Why does a paid liar deserve any respect from anyone? |
| |
|
|
AGW = Blind faith with the threat of eternal Doom forever more.
Religion = Blind faith with the threat of eternal DOOM forever more.
I am not into blind faith and never will be.Instinct tells me whats right and whats wrong.Man made GW requires me to give it blind faith.....
|
| |
|
|
quote: Likewise, this idea that there is black propaganda is equally risible. Treat those with different opinions with respect.
Mostly I treat people here with respect even if they are inadvertently repeating anti-global warming memes that originally came from a "black propaganda" site. Though I know I tend to respond to "robust" messages with "robust " replies. eg I hate people telling me that I have "blind religious faith". Before you decide whether there is no black propaganda, read the co2science.org site. Read their summaries of scientific papers, and then read the scientific papers themselves. Similarly follow up the references in the pamphlet by Christopher Monckto n published in the Telegraph last October. I won't give you my opinion because the moderators are trigger happy when certain names are used. Of course GGWS was full of black propaganda. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TrueSceptic:
However, when it comes to complex science that requires specialist knowledge, we are foolish and arrogant to think that we know better.
It's not that 'we' know BETTER TrueSceptic, it's that the scientists - with all their 'specialist knowledge' - clearly don't know anywhere near ENOUGH. | |
