- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 63,578
- Reaction score
- 28,947
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The "study" was a rigged compilation of papers by an agenda driven group conducted to prove a point of view that was determined prior to the start of the exercise.
"The abstracts from these papers were randomly distributed between a team of 24 volunteers recruited through the "myth-busting" website skepticalscience.com, who used set criteria to determine the level to which the abstracts endorsed that humans are the primary cause of global warming. Each abstract was analyzed by two independent, anonymous raters."
I defy you to find an article in the Skeptical Science Web site that gives full throated support to the idea that man has had no impact on the climate or that man cannot affect the climate.
This is an agenda driven site that has only one view point on this topic.
It is odd to me tat you so clearly see, in your mind, that scientist must be getting rich by claiming man contributes to GW, but cannot see way to question those paid by groups who's bottom line depends on it not being true as being possibly inaccurate. Not only that, you can't see how that might point to your bias.
There are too many, an overwhelming majority, for it to be the type of thing you suggest. The fringe element that you so reverently accept is much more likely to be influenced by money. Odd you can't see that.
Also, arrogance nor ignorance has not been the main argument in any way. Your either over sensitivity or inability to grasp the what is really being argued is more the problem. I personally think it is over sensitivity. Looking so hard to be insulted, so hard to see some one "ordering" you that you don't really engage what us being said.
Today, people still choose to smoke for example. All evidence clearly makes that a poor choice, but some see pointing hat as being insulting. It isn't. Some people do drugs or drink and drive, and there is plenty if evidence to show the hazards of both. Pointing the arrogance of ignoring the evidence is justified. Thinking that you or me as untrained people who cannot know everything are more informed, more knowledgable, and less, corrupt than the overwhelming bulk of scientist is true arrogance. If you or I can't see that we are ignorant, we can't know as much, we lack the education or training to know, makes us both arrogant and more than just ignorant.
All I can say is I am disappointed in your response here.
About me again. You still haven't addressed the point that has continued for three exchanges.
What is your point Joe?
The article's point was that there are reasons people ignore evidence. It's a rather common issue. They rationalize away the evidence. They showed examples of people doing that, and I showed a few more. You went with insulted and forced, which was not the point. The point is people do rationalize away evidence they don't want to accept. It's rather normal.
This is what your side is doing with GW.
I also made clear that it is arrogant to assume we know everything. It is our ignorance that allows us to be fooled. Neither you nor I, nor Code or lop know enough to pretend we know more than the experts. It's easy to parrot a hacks questions, but it's another thing to understand the answers.
So we are all dependent on people who have put in the years of study and work.
And I told you that I didn't believe that there are as many people as you think that are doing this rationalizing away of GW, in fact I told you that right or left I believe that people do accept when scientists say that climate is changing, even to some extent that man plays a role, but how significant that role is, or what we are doing about it, and things are being done, is a matter of what makes sense.
For instance, I started driving trucks 20 years ago....They were belching black smoke, and got about 4 miles a gallon of diesel. Today, I get double that, and the truck I drive touts that it emits cleaner air than it takes in. There are other things over the years in that particular industry that I've seen, Hell, in the 90s I drove for Schwan's, their trucks ran off of propane. So I don't think that people are rationalizing away anything, or at least not to the degree you see.
I think you see it as such a problem because you think that if people don't agree with everything you say that somehow they are just wrong on everything, and instead of seeing the agreement, you pick away constantly at the minor disagreements.
Well, I don't know code, or lop personally, just as I don't know you personally, or you me, so I won't presume to make that judgement about their education, or ability to have a grasp on the subject at that level. But what I do know is the common sense of the matter, and that is even if I believe that GW exists, and that man has played a role, I am not arrogant enough to believe that at this point it is a catastrophic crisis, nor do I think we can necessarily change it by planting a tree then continuing our actions. This is a long term thing...Hell Joe, I am old enough to remember as a kid the talk of being able to nearly walk across portions of Lake Erie in the summer because of the pollution, and growing up in Lansing I remember the Grand River being so polluted that the fish were off limits to eat if you caught anything other than Carp. Today that has all changed, the Grand River is beautiful again, and Lake Erie is if not totally cleaned up, then well on its way. Mother Nature is a wonder, it seems to repair the damage we cause on its own.
I also remember when the scientists whom you are putting your faith in were screaming about a looming Ice Age, and that we were all going to freeze, and starve. I remember books that gained traction in liberal circles called the population bomb that touted that we had to slow, if not reverse the amount of people on the planet. And I remember in this latest 'the world is ending' panic, how the world seized on the science to push wealth redistribution globally, through the creation of so called 'carbon credits', or another fiat currency if you will, where you don't really do anything to change your behavior, but rather buy worthless paper to "offset" your behavior. It's a scam, and people know this. And it is this sort of thing that has put the dagger in the heart of anything substantive coming out of the science at the moment, and I would say that silly schemes like this have damaged the credibility of science, and certainly hyperbolic scientists like Hensen and their wild claims.
And I told you that I didn't believe that there are as many people as you think that are doing this rationalizing away of GW, in fact I told you that right or left I believe that people do accept when scientists say that climate is changing, even to some extent that man plays a role, but how significant that role is, or what we are doing about it, and things are being done, is a matter of what makes sense.
For instance, I started driving trucks 20 years ago....They were belching black smoke, and got about 4 miles a gallon of diesel. Today, I get double that, and the truck I drive touts that it emits cleaner air than it takes in. There are other things over the years in that particular industry that I've seen, Hell, in the 90s I drove for Schwan's, their trucks ran off of propane. So I don't think that people are rationalizing away anything, or at least not to the degree you see.
I think you see it as such a problem because you think that if people don't agree with everything you say that somehow they are just wrong on everything, and instead of seeing the agreement, you pick away constantly at the minor disagreements.
Well, I don't know code, or lop personally, just as I don't know you personally, or you me, so I won't presume to make that judgement about their education, or ability to have a grasp on the subject at that level. But what I do know is the common sense of the matter, and that is even if I believe that GW exists, and that man has played a role, I am not arrogant enough to believe that at this point it is a catastrophic crisis, nor do I think we can necessarily change it by planting a tree then continuing our actions. This is a long term thing...Hell Joe, I am old enough to remember as a kid the talk of being able to nearly walk across portions of Lake Erie in the summer because of the pollution, and growing up in Lansing I remember the Grand River being so polluted that the fish were off limits to eat if you caught anything other than Carp. Today that has all changed, the Grand River is beautiful again, and Lake Erie is if not totally cleaned up, then well on its way. Mother Nature is a wonder, it seems to repair the damage we cause on its own.
I also remember when the scientists whom you are putting your faith in were screaming about a looming Ice Age, and that we were all going to freeze, and starve. I remember books that gained traction in liberal circles called the population bomb that touted that we had to slow, if not reverse the amount of people on the planet. And I remember in this latest 'the world is ending' panic, how the world seized on the science to push wealth redistribution globally, through the creation of so called 'carbon credits', or another fiat currency if you will, where you don't really do anything to change your behavior, but rather buy worthless paper to "offset" your behavior. It's a scam, and people know this. And it is this sort of thing that has put the dagger in the heart of anything substantive coming out of the science at the moment, and I would say that silly schemes like this have damaged the credibility of science, and certainly hyperbolic scientists like Hensen and their wild claims.
J I want you to separate for just a second. You get too caught up in stereotypes.
1) Science = what is (GW with man playing a role in it) and 1/2 what to do about it.
2) politics = 1/2 what to do about it.
So, when you say GW isn't real...
The political 1/2 who gets affected and what people benefit and who is hurt. Not that those are the reasons for doing anything, but that those consequences have to be addressed.
You tend to deal in what seems like absolutes like all liberals kick puppies, everything the EPA does is bad, all regulations are bad, and anyone who says GW is real and man plays a role wants to order you to do something. Rarely do you get specific or acknowledge that good people can take the real information and still disagree, honestly disagree, on what needs to be done. When they disagree, they're not fascists or destroying America or hate success. They just see the what should be done differently.
And yes, if someone today is saying man doesn't play a significant, not complete, role in GW, they are in denial. With that thought, I link this article:
Today, however, it is politically effective, and socially acceptable, to deny scientific fact. Narrowly defined, “creationism” was a minor current in American thinking for much of the 20th century. But in the years since I was a student, a well-funded effort has skillfully rebranded that ideology as “creation science” and pushed it into classrooms across the country. Though transparently unscientific, denying evolution has become a litmus test for some conservative politicians, even at the highest levels.
Meanwhile, climate deniers, taking pages from the creationists’ PR playbook, have manufactured doubt about fundamental issues in climate science that were decided scientifically decades ago. And anti-vaccine campaigners brandish a few long-discredited studies to make unproven claims about links between autism and vaccination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/op...of-denial.html
Now, much of the regulations you denounce led to many of the improvements you talk about.
Here's one I'm sure you can remember seeing before:
Matalin said, "for the last decade the climate has been cooling." That suggests there has been a distinct reversal of the steady warming that scientists have documented for many years. But a review of the data shows that's not the case. The numbers show that in the past 10 years, global temperatures have not continued their sharp increase. But they have not cooled either. In fact, some years in the last decade have been hotter than the previous years. At most, they could be described as hitting a plateau. But they haven't cooled as Matalin said. We find her claim False.
PolitiFact | Matalin claims the Earth is cooling
You will likely ignore this again as you did last time, and as you have the others. But try not to forget that you got this one. And maybe go back and read the other posts you forgot.
Hmm. You went from " the statistics are misrepresented" to " the data is biased". I guess when someone shows you you're wrong, you can always go back to the old conspiracy theories.
The article's point was that there are reasons people ignore evidence. It's a rather common issue. They rationalize away the evidence. They showed examples of people doing that, and I showed a few more. You went with insulted and forced, which was not the point. The point is people do rationalize away evidence they don't want to accept. It's rather normal.
This is what your side is doing with GW.
I also made clear that it is arrogant to assume we know everything. It is our ignorance that allows us to be fooled. Neither you nor I, nor Code or lop know enough to pretend we know more than the experts. It's easy to parrot a hacks questions, but it's another thing to understand the answers.
So we are all dependent on people who have put in the years of study and work.
J I want you to separate for just a second. You get too caught up in stereotypes.
1) Science = what is (GW with man playing a role in it) and 1/2 what to do about it.
2) politics = 1/2 what to do about it.
So, when you say GW isn't real, you're addressing the science and not the politics. That's what we've been debating.
When you ask what can we do about it, the science 1/2 is only about what is possible. The political 1/2 who gets affected and what people benefit and who is hurt. Not that those are the reasons for doing anything, but that those consequences have to be addressed.
You tend to deal in what seems like absolutes like all liberals kick puppies, everything the EPA does is bad, all regulations are bad, and anyone who says GW is real and man plays a role wants to order you to do something. Rarely do you get specific or acknowledge that good people can take the real information and still disagree, honestly disagree, on what needs to be done. When they disagree, they're not fascists or destroying America or hate success. They just see the what should be done differently.
And yes, if someone today is saying man doesn't play a significant, not complete, role in GW, they are in denial. With that thought, I link this article:
Today, however, it is politically effective, and socially acceptable, to deny scientific fact. Narrowly defined, “creationism” was a minor current in American thinking for much of the 20th century. But in the years since I was a student, a well-funded effort has skillfully rebranded that ideology as “creation science” and pushed it into classrooms across the country. Though transparently unscientific, denying evolution has become a litmus test for some conservative politicians, even at the highest levels.
Meanwhile, climate deniers, taking pages from the creationists’ PR playbook, have manufactured doubt about fundamental issues in climate science that were decided scientifically decades ago. And anti-vaccine campaigners brandish a few long-discredited studies to make unproven claims about links between autism and vaccination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/welcome-to-the-age-of-denial.html
Not trying to dissect sentence by sentence here but just a couple of things I have to point out on their own....
If I am guilty of 'stereotyping' in this argument, then so are you my friend. As for your what Science equals, and what politics plays a role, I would disagree only to degrees...Science is continually figuring out what has gone on, and using that data to attempt to predict what may occur in the future. On the point of 'what to do about it', I think that is the part where it is politicized, and that has hurt the findings.
On the political front, when you have spokespeople like Al Gore out there, putting out there how everyone should react to these revelations while living a lifestyle himself that he would condemn if talking about someone else, it is just too disingenuous to take seriously. Then there is the Chicago Climate Exchange he tried to get going not too long ago, and the reveal of what a scam that was.
R.I.P.: Al Gore's Chicago Climate Exchange Has Died | National Review Online
As the opinion piece points out, CCX was nothing but a redistribution scam, and the UN plays into this trying to take it global in creating this fiat money called carbon credits, and fleece the wealthier nations, to benefit poorer nations in essence punishing successful nations for their success.
This is where you fly off the rails...I have, (ahem, now listen up) NEVER SAID that GW wasn't real. I do question the role man plays in it, and I do question just what you think we should be doing about it, but to continually read what I post, then come back with this kind of crap is either intentional lying about what I say, or a serious miscomprehension of same.
Let's stick to climate change shall we? I think that using a politically charged term like "climate deniers" not only mischaracterizes the opposition to progressive tax based scams like carbon credit trading, but is a terribly offensive label to use against your opponents in a debate. To liken the opposition as something similar to holocaust deniers is despicable and worthy of scorn. If you think that you can have a reasoned discussion with someone that uses this type of slur against people that they disagree with, you are mistaken.
I am fully aware of that, but we must also be vigilant to make sure that regulations make sense, and are not used as weapons of the state against the peoples rights either.
I will have to look back, but I think and others have said GW and mans role was largely made up. Yes, I did use short hand, but that was the part I was addressing.
As for the National Review, a publication that skews things badly, Al Gore is not an scientist. When talking science, his name should never come up. Real scientist thank him drawing attention to the issue, but do not consider his presentation to be equal to a scientific report. And this is where these sources let you down. They blurr the science and the politics, leaving a false impression.
Btw, if you read the entire article I linked, I believe you'll find climate change in there.
The point is, the science alone says man plays a role. The science alone suggests we can help with some actions. But don't confuse politicians with scientist. And understand, money if not politics plays a larger role with skeptics who work for companies that want there to be skeptism. Never from get the lessons from big tobacco. Make a false controversy, and th willing will follow.
You'll never get through to those faithful of the dogma their religion dictates.The "study" was a rigged compilation of papers by an agenda driven group conducted to prove a point of view that was determined prior to the start of the exercise.
"The abstracts from these papers were randomly distributed between a team of 24 volunteers recruited through the "myth-busting" website skepticalscience.com, who used set criteria to determine the level to which the abstracts endorsed that humans are the primary cause of global warming. Each abstract was analyzed by two independent, anonymous raters."
I defy you to find an article in the Skeptical Science Web site that gives full throated support to the idea that man has had no impact on the climate or that man cannot affect the climate.
This is an agenda driven site that has only one view point on this topic.
You'll never get through to those faithful of the dogma their religion dictates.
If that's what you believe.And as those things have been answered and shown false, you're the ones taking faith over evidence. :coffeepap
And as those things have been answered and shown false, you're the ones taking faith over evidence. :coffeepap
If that's what you believe.
Your faith is strong!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?