Like this guy do you believe that nothing can be done to sway people on this matter?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/mar/08/belief-in-climate-change-science
Quote
The trouble with trusting complex science
There is no simple way to battle public hostility to climate research. As the psychologists show, facts barely sway us anyway
* George Monbiot
*
o George Monbiot
o guardian.co.uk, Monday 8 March 2010 20.30 GMT
o Article history
There is one question that no one who denies manmade climate change wants to answer: what would it take to persuade you? In most cases the answer seems to be nothing. No level of evidence can shake the growing belief that climate science is a giant conspiracy codded up by boffins and governments to tax and control us. The new study by the Met Office, which paints an even grimmer picture than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, will do nothing to change this view.
The attack on climate scientists is now widening to an all-out war on science. Writing recently for the Telegraph, the columnist Gerald Warner dismissed scientists as "white-coated prima donnas and narcissists ... pointy-heads in lab coats [who] have reassumed the role of mad cranks ... The public is no longer in awe of scientists. Like squabbling evangelical churches in the 19th century, they can form as many schismatic sects as they like, nobody is listening to them any more."
Views like this can be explained partly as the revenge of the humanities students. There is scarcely an editor or executive in any major media company – and precious few journalists – with a science degree, yet everyone knows that the anoraks are taking over the world. But the problem is compounded by complexity. Arthur C Clarke remarked that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". He might have added that any sufficiently advanced expertise is indistinguishable from gobbledegook. Scientific specialisation is now so extreme that even people studying neighbouring subjects within the same discipline can no longer understand each other. The detail of modern science is incomprehensible to almost everyone, which means that we have to take what scientists say on trust. Yet science tells us to trust nothing, to believe only what can be demonstrated. This contradiction is fatal to public confidence.
Distrust has been multiplied by the publishers of scientific journals, whose monopolistic practices make the supermarkets look like angels, and which are long overdue for a referral to the Competition Commission. They pay nothing for most of the material they publish, yet, unless you are attached to an academic institute, they'll charge you £20 or more for access to a single article. In some cases they charge libraries tens of thousands for an annual subscription. If scientists want people at least to try to understand their work, they should raise a full-scale revolt against the journals that publish them. It is no longer acceptable for the guardians of knowledge to behave like 19th-century gamekeepers, chasing the proles out of the grand estates.
But there's a deeper suspicion here as well. Popular mythology – from Faust through Frankenstein to Dr No – casts scientists as sinister schemers, harnessing the dark arts to further their diabolical powers. Sometimes this isn't far from the truth. Some use their genius to weaponise anthrax for the US and Russian governments. Some isolate terminator genes for biotech companies, to prevent farmers from saving their own seed. Some lend their names to articles ghostwritten by pharmaceutical companies, which mislead doctors about the drugs they sell. Until there is a global code of practice or a Hippocratic oath binding scientists to do no harm, the reputation of science will be dragged through the dirt by researchers who devise new means of hurting us.
Yesterday in the Guardian Peter Preston called for a prophet to lead us out of the wilderness. "We need one passionate, persuasive scientist who can connect and convince ... We need to be taught to believe by a true believer." Would it work? No. Look at the hatred and derision the passionate and persuasive Al Gore attracts. The problem is not only that most climate scientists can speak no recognisable human language, but also the expectation that people are amenable to persuasion.
In 2008 the Washington Post summarised recent psychological research on misinformation. This shows that in some cases debunking a false story can increase the number of people who believe it. In one study, 34% of conservatives who were told about the Bush government's claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction were inclined to believe them. But among those who were shown that the government's claims were later comprehensively refuted by the Duelfer report, 64% ended up believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
There's a possible explanation in an article published by Nature in January. It shows that people tend to "take their cue about what they should feel, and hence believe, from the cheers and boos of the home crowd". Those who see themselves as individualists and those who respect authority, for instance, "tend to dismiss evidence of environmental risks, because the widespread acceptance of such evidence would lead to restrictions on commerce and industry, activities they admire". Those with more egalitarian values are "more inclined to believe that such activities pose unacceptable risks and should be restricted".
These divisions, researchers have found, are better at explaining different responses to information than any other factor. Our ideological filters encourage us to interpret new evidence in ways that reinforce our beliefs. "As a result, groups with opposing values often become more polarised, not less, when exposed to scientifically sound information." The conservatives in the Iraq experiment might have reacted against something they associated with the Duelfer report, rather than the information it contained.
While this analysis rings true, the description of where the dividing line lies isn't quite right. It doesn't describe the odd position in which I find myself. Despite my iconoclastic, anti-corporate instincts, I spend much of my time defending the scientific establishment from attacks by the kind of rabble-rousers with whom I usually associate. My heart rebels against this project: I would rather be pelting scientists with eggs than trying to understand their datasets. But my beliefs oblige me to try to make sense of the science and to explain its implications. This turns out to be the most divisive project I've ever engaged in. The more I stick to the facts, the more virulent the abuse becomes.
This doesn't bother me – I have a hide like a glyptodon – but it reinforces the disturbing possibility that nothing works. The research discussed in the Nature paper shows that when scientists dress soberly, shave off their beards and give their papers conservative titles, they can reach to the other side. But in doing so they will surely alienate people who would otherwise be inclined to trust them. As the MMR saga shows, people who mistrust authority are just as likely to kick against science as those who respect it.
Perhaps we have to accept that there is no simple solution to public disbelief in science. The battle over climate change suggests that the more clearly you spell the problem out, the more you turn people away. If they don't want to know, nothing and no one will reach them. There goes my life's work.
First of all, we need to stop citing to that idiot Monbiot.
Second, getting the public behind dealing with climate change is easy. Just convince enough influential preachers to start saying CO2 kills off angels.
Moonbat is definitely hit-or-miss.
It's not that he science is hard to understand, so people disbelieve. It's that people don't trust the motives of the scientists and so they disbelieve their conclusions. 4 out of 5 doctors surveyed say smoking Lucky Strikes is good for you. We didn't pay the 5th one.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment
Second, getting the public behind dealing with climate change is easy. Just convince enough influential preachers to start saying CO2 kills off angels.
I thought Global Warming could be tackled just by handing over a wad of cash to Al Gore... then the problem will go away, right? :unsure:
The problem is that global warming has been exposed as a hoax. Every day there are more and more revelations of widespread tampering with evidence, if not outright manufacturing of it by the "scientists" in the global warming field.
It's the fraudsters that have replaced science with gaia-worship, they should stick to watching Avatar instead of pretending to be scientists. We are now experiencing a return to science in a field long devoid of it as more and more critical eyes are looking at the hype and the hysteria with concerning eyes and shooting apart their manufactured "consent".
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 08, 2010, 07:11:00 PM
The problem is that global warming has been exposed as a hoax. Every day there are more and more revelations of widespread tampering with evidence, if not outright manufacturing of it by the "scientists" in the global warming field.
It's the fraudsters that have replaced science with gaia-worship, they should stick to watching Avatar instead of pretending to be scientists. We are now experiencing a return to science in a field long devoid of it as more and more critical eyes are looking at the hype and the hysteria with concerning eyes and shooting apart their manufactured "consent".
So you honestly believe there is a global conspiracy of scientists to create an issue of global warming? What is this cabal's goals? When did they get started? I'm really interested in this.
The cabal's goal is clearly to take away Hans' guns, bible, and freedom.
I think people mistrust journalists more than scientists
I trust Sarah Palin.
I'm not optimistic. There is a concerted effort to endumben the public and turn them into anti-intellectual, uncurious drones. As a result, anything that doesn't fit in a soundbite is very unlikely to get through.
This is the result of the Conservative movement, and especially types like the Tea party group.
Lets move away from science, away from fact, away from anything that could insult God and rely on prayer to get us through the tough times.
:yuk:
Quote from: DGuller on March 08, 2010, 07:24:11 PM
I'm not optimistic. There is a concerted effort to endumben the public and turn them into anti-intellectual, uncurious drones. As a result, anything that doesn't fit in a soundbite is very unlikely to get through.
There is a reason cigarette companies and oil companies fund creationist "research".
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on March 08, 2010, 07:17:20 PM
I think people mistrust journalists more than scientists
Yeah, I think you're right.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2010, 07:30:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 08, 2010, 07:24:11 PM
I'm not optimistic. There is a concerted effort to endumben the public and turn them into anti-intellectual, uncurious drones. As a result, anything that doesn't fit in a soundbite is very unlikely to get through.
There is a reason cigarette companies and oil companies fund creationist "research".
If you're referring to research into the abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons, the science there isn't remotely creationist.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2010, 07:15:14 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 08, 2010, 07:11:00 PM
The problem is that global warming has been exposed as a hoax. Every day there are more and more revelations of widespread tampering with evidence, if not outright manufacturing of it by the "scientists" in the global warming field.
It's the fraudsters that have replaced science with gaia-worship, they should stick to watching Avatar instead of pretending to be scientists. We are now experiencing a return to science in a field long devoid of it as more and more critical eyes are looking at the hype and the hysteria with concerning eyes and shooting apart their manufactured "consent".
So you honestly believe there is a global conspiracy of scientists to create an issue of global warming? What is this cabal's goals? When did they get started? I'm really interested in this.
It's funny that there are still a lot of people that pretend that the last few months of revelations of massive fakery didn't happen.
The reason is very simple" Money and power. Lots of it. And it only took a small cabal of "scientists" in key positions to corrupt the process, since by withholding the data from the scientific community at large they forced them to accept their facts at face-value. Now that more and more of the data has been forced into the open people can see that their science was fake all along. The IPCC and the East Anglia Climate Center have now been discredited. The 2007 IPCC report will have to be withdrawn since much of what was included was not based on science at all but on press releases by lobby groups, articles of enviro reporters, and even college papers. We now know that the computer programmers who wrote the climate model thought their program was crap. We now know that they used a fake study of chinese climate data to argue that there was no Urban Heat Effect so that they don't have to adjust the data for it (Once you do global warming disappears). We now know that they were using their bully pulpit to surpress scientific research that didn't conform to their opinion. And on and on and on.
Global warming is a massive industry that was about to go gigantic with cap-and-trade. Luckily that will now come to an end. Religious nutjobs will of course still cling to their believe in the apocalypse, but their credibility is rapidly approaching that of the Jehovah's Witness.
This thread delivers.
*pops popcorn*
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2010, 08:41:20 PM
This thread delivers.
*pops popcorn*
Tomorrow it will get all gayed up when Mart discovers it.
Quote from: PDH on March 08, 2010, 08:52:57 PM
Tomorrow it will get all gayed up when Mart discovers it.
True. Things really get shrilluminating when Marti and Hans shrillustrate how divergent their views are on a topic like this. I can't wait.
That guardian article seems really poorly written.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 08, 2010, 07:11:00 PM
and shooting apart their manufactured "consent".
I am not sure you appreciate how ironic this statement is coming from you.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 08, 2010, 07:11:00 PM
The problem is that global warming has been exposed as a hoax. Every day there are more and more revelations of widespread tampering with evidence, if not outright manufacturing of it by the "scientists" in the global warming field.
It's the fraudsters that have replaced science with gaia-worship, they should stick to watching Avatar instead of pretending to be scientists. We are now experiencing a return to science in a field long devoid of it as more and more critical eyes are looking at the hype and the hysteria with concerning eyes and shooting apart their manufactured "consent".
Monbiot might be cooky, but as the cliche goes, "even a broken clock is right twice a day." You yourself are amazing proof of the lengths people will go to simply to only believe what they want to believe.
Your convenient lapses of memory, for example, that it turned out East Anglia's data was the only one affected, and that it was a matter of poor archival of original data, not "taking numbers out of the ether," as you're so quick to accuse. That several other countries' climatologists have copies of original data corroborating East Anglia's just doesn't penetrate the layer of propagandic firmament surrounding your private little world.
Huh. Money and Power. Lots of it. I didn't know climatologists were in it for the money and power. Also I wonder what the expressions of this money and power were. I bet the Jews and the Lizard People released this information to stop the climatologists from muscling in on their turf.
Hans is funny. If there is no global warming then tell me why its so gosh darn hot! grr, ignorant people piss me off.
Quote from: Jaron on March 08, 2010, 11:21:10 PM
Hans is funny. If there is no global warming then tell me why its so gosh darn hot! grr, ignorant people piss me off.
I'm cold. :(
Anorexia is a bitch, ain't it ? :P
Will you sell me some of your blubber?
Quote from: garbon on March 09, 2010, 01:09:59 AM
Will you sell me some of your blubber?
Yes. Yes I will.
Pishtaco!
Climate change scientists crave money and power?
Then what on earth are they doing in academia. :lol:
Perhaps as I write this PDH is sniffing coke off a $7,000-a-night hooker's breasts while his fixer scores him a new Bentley.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 08, 2010, 08:32:17 PM
Global warming is a massive industry that was about to go gigantic with cap-and-trade. Luckily that will now come to an end. Religious nutjobs will of course still cling to their believe in the apocalypse, but their credibility is rapidly approaching that of the Jehovah's Witness.
While some of the research is wrong or even fraudulent you can't discount the fact that icecaps/glaciers all over the world are melting away.
Quote from: barkdreg on March 09, 2010, 09:14:19 AM
While some of the research is wrong or even fraudulent you can't discount the fact that icecaps/glaciers all over the world are melting away.
You'd be surprised at how much he is willing to discount! :lol:
Quote from: Warspite on March 09, 2010, 09:02:55 AM
Perhaps as I write this PDH is sniffing coke off a $7,000-a-night hooker's breasts while his fixer scores him a new Bentley.
My hero. :)
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 08, 2010, 07:11:00 PM
The problem is that global warming has been exposed as a hoax. Every day there are more and more revelations of widespread tampering with evidence, if not outright manufacturing of it by the "scientists" in the global warming field.
It's the fraudsters that have replaced science with gaia-worship, they should stick to watching Avatar instead of pretending to be scientists. We are now experiencing a return to science in a field long devoid of it as more and more critical eyes are looking at the hype and the hysteria with concerning eyes and shooting apart their manufactured "consent".
I see . . .
Would you change your mind if told you CO2 makes angels cry?
Quote from: Warspite on March 09, 2010, 09:02:55 AM
Climate change scientists crave money and power?
Then what on earth are they doing in academia. :lol:
Perhaps as I write this PDH is sniffing coke off a $7,000-a-night hooker's breasts while his fixer scores him a new Bentley.
What real academics crave is grants, tenure and ripe graduate students to do all the work - in bed, in the lab and teaching. :D
Evidence that global climate change is happening is very strong.
Evidence that global climate change is happening due to human activity is less convincing, but still pretty good.
Evidence that Hong Kong should do something about global climate change is, however, very weak.
Evidence that I personally should lower my standard of living for the off chance that a sufficiently large number of people in the rest of the world will do the same thing just so global climate change can be averted is absolutely nil :contract:
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 09, 2010, 09:29:38 AM
Quote from: Warspite on March 09, 2010, 09:02:55 AM
Perhaps as I write this PDH is sniffing coke off a $7,000-a-night hooker's breasts while his fixer scores him a new Bentley.
My hero. :)
The man knows me, what can I say?
Quote from: Monoriu on March 09, 2010, 10:05:24 AM
Evidence that global climate change is happening is very strong.
Evidence that global climate change is happening due to human activity is less convincing, but still pretty good.
Evidence that Hong Kong should do something about global climate change is, however, very weak.
Evidence that I personally should lower my standard of living for the off chance that a sufficiently large number of people in the rest of the world will do the same thing just so global climate change can be averted is absolutely nil :contract:
Attitudes like that is why your people will soon forget what it feels like to have the penis of a tiger in your mouth.
Quote from: barkdreg on March 09, 2010, 09:14:19 AM
While some of the research is wrong or even fraudulent you can't discount the fact that icecaps/glaciers all over the world are melting away.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdsc.discovery.com%2Fconvergence%2Fglobalwarming%2Fslideshow%2Fgallery%2F3_alaska_retreat.jpg&hash=cebe01b8b0cd00b9f3f023f87f3287fd71569579)
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2010, 10:44:11 AM
Attitudes like that is why your people will soon forget what it feels like to have the penis of a tiger in your mouth.
Something you've been wondering about?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 09, 2010, 11:37:42 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2010, 10:44:11 AM
Attitudes like that is why your people will soon forget what it feels like to have the penis of a tiger in your mouth.
Something you've been wondering about?
He is wondering if he will soon forget.
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2010, 10:44:11 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 09, 2010, 10:05:24 AM
Evidence that global climate change is happening is very strong.
Evidence that global climate change is happening due to human activity is less convincing, but still pretty good.
Evidence that Hong Kong should do something about global climate change is, however, very weak.
Evidence that I personally should lower my standard of living for the off chance that a sufficiently large number of people in the rest of the world will do the same thing just so global climate change can be averted is absolutely nil :contract:
Attitudes like that is why your people will soon forget what it feels like to have the penis of a tiger in your mouth.
^_^
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 08, 2010, 07:03:59 PM
It's not that he science is hard to understand, so people disbelieve. It's that people don't trust the motives of the scientists and so they disbelieve their conclusions. 4 out of 5 doctors surveyed say smoking Lucky Strikes is good for you. We didn't pay the 5th one.
I don't know why we trust the conclusions of the dissenter more than the rest though. And the media are more interested in the controversial and sensational than the steadied conclusion of the majority.
Here's the wiki of the MMR Saga which is absurd and, I think, captures the worst of people gullible to disbelieve and tabloid journalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy
Quote from: barkdreg on March 09, 2010, 09:14:19 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 08, 2010, 08:32:17 PM
Global warming is a massive industry that was about to go gigantic with cap-and-trade. Luckily that will now come to an end. Religious nutjobs will of course still cling to their believe in the apocalypse, but their credibility is rapidly approaching that of the Jehovah's Witness.
While some of the research is wrong or even fraudulent you can't discount the fact that icecaps/glaciers all over the world are melting away.
Gee, the earth has warmed since the end of the mini ice age. What a shocker. Of course most of the warming occured prior to WWII, when there wasn't enough human CO2 emmission to cause global warming. There is no evidence of any warming outside of historical norms, indeed the world is still colder than during the medieval warming period.
Of course there is no scientific evidence that CO2 even causes global warming. there is absolutely no correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, nor any observable impact of CO2 on climate.
But other than the complete absence of any evidence whatsoever the global warming science is airtight. That is except of the widespread use of fake data, the surpression of evidence contrary to their hype, their unworkable computer models, and the fact that none of their predictions have even been remotely correct. Other than that it is a slam-dunk.
It is amazing how gullible people will believe anything simply based on somebody's assertion of expert authority.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 09, 2010, 05:38:19 PM
It is amazing how gullible people will believe anything simply based on somebody's assertion of expert authority.
I agree. It is amazing how you vomit out such information as if it were absolutely true.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 09, 2010, 06:05:06 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 09, 2010, 05:38:19 PM
It is amazing how gullible people will believe anything simply based on somebody's assertion of expert authority.
I agree. It is amazing how you vomit out such information as if it were absolutely true.
You might want to pick up reading instead of relying on blind faith. Who knows, you might learn something. Then again just going with the flow is so much easier, no need to examine facts, no need to challenge authority.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 09, 2010, 06:19:28 PM
You might want to pick up reading instead of relying on blind faith. Who knows, you might learn something. Then again just going with the flow is so much easier, no need to examine facts, no need to challenge authority.
:lmfao:
I'm always amazed that in this country a politician or pundit can say "don't believe anyone but me. Anyone who contradicts me (such as the media or scientists or whatever), is a liar", and people will actually do what he says. Soviet leaders didn't have that kind of control over their people.
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2010, 06:22:18 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 09, 2010, 06:19:28 PM
You might want to pick up reading instead of relying on blind faith. Who knows, you might learn something. Then again just going with the flow is so much easier, no need to examine facts, no need to challenge authority.
:lmfao:
http://www.nationalreview.com/
Your first, last, and only stop for reading facts and not relying on blind faith.
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2010, 06:22:18 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 09, 2010, 06:19:28 PM
You might want to pick up reading instead of relying on blind faith. Who knows, you might learn something. Then again just going with the flow is so much easier, no need to examine facts, no need to challenge authority.
:lmfao:
Good, persuasive argument. Exactly what I expect from the envirofundies.
I am disappointed. Only half of the Shrillustrious Brigade is here, and so the Shrillumination is only half as bright as it should be. Where is Martinus?
My popcorn grows cold.
QuoteShrillumination
You have to be a 10th level poof to cast that.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 09, 2010, 06:58:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2010, 06:22:18 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 09, 2010, 06:19:28 PM
You might want to pick up reading instead of relying on blind faith. Who knows, you might learn something. Then again just going with the flow is so much easier, no need to examine facts, no need to challenge authority.
:lmfao:
Good, persuasive argument. Exactly what I expect from the envirofundies.
What do you expect? Not only did you provide the setup for the joke, but you then also went ahead and told the joke itself. How can I say anything to top the quoted text?
In case it's not clear to you what I mean, let me elaborate. As a poster, you have a reputation for regurgitating the most extreme of viewpoints, and only doing that. The kind of sick mind that would come up with the stuff you parrot certainly is not capable of rationally analyzing facts on their own, and neither does the sick mind that blindly adheres to it. Therefore, to hear you lecture people about thinking on their own invites uncontrollable laughter.
Is it completely fair to characterize you in this way, to imply that you're nothing but a drone? Of course, without a doubt. The only time you employ critical thinking is when trying to decide which NRO talking point applies to the thread in question.
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2010, 07:13:56 PM
What do you expect? Not only did you provide the setup for the joke, but you then also went ahead and told the joke itself. How can I say anything to top the quoted text?
In case it's not clear to you what I mean, let me elaborate. As a poster, you have a reputation for regurgitating the most extreme of viewpoints, and only doing that. The kind of sick mind that would come up with the stuff you parrot certainly is not capable of rationally analyzing facts on their own, and neither does the sick mind that blindly adheres to it. Therefore, to hear you lecture people about thinking on their own invites uncontrollable laughter.
Is it completely fair to characterize you in this way, to imply that you're nothing but a drone? Of course, without a doubt. The only time you employ critical thinking is when trying to decide which NRO talking point applies to the thread in question.
Wow. Irony is not just the opposite of wrinkly.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 09, 2010, 10:05:24 AM
Evidence that global climate change is happening is very strong.
Evidence that global climate change is happening due to human activity is less convincing, but still pretty good.
Evidence that Hong Kong should do something about global climate change is, however, very weak.
Evidence that I personally should lower my standard of living for the off chance that a sufficiently large number of people in the rest of the world will do the same thing just so global climate change can be averted is absolutely nil :contract:
http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/
Quote from: Razgovory on March 09, 2010, 06:36:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2010, 06:22:18 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 09, 2010, 06:19:28 PM
You might want to pick up reading instead of relying on blind faith. Who knows, you might learn something. Then again just going with the flow is so much easier, no need to examine facts, no need to challenge authority.
:lmfao:
http://www.nationalreview.com/
Your first, last, and only stop for reading facts and not relying on blind faith.
More like the famous, right-wing Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese)
Or Der Spiegel http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,674087,00.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,674087,00.html)
Or the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_cracking.html (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_cracking.html)
Or the Tines of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ramesh-turns-heat-on-Pachauri-over-glacier-melt-scare/articleshow/5474586.cms (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ramesh-turns-heat-on-Pachauri-over-glacier-melt-scare/articleshow/5474586.cms)
Or the Times of London http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece)
Or the Daily Telegraph http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/)
The UK Spectator http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/politics/all/5749853/the-global-warming-guerrillas.thtml (http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/politics/all/5749853/the-global-warming-guerrillas.thtml)
etc, etc. Only the cool-aid drinkers still buy the global warming hoax.
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2010, 07:13:56 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 09, 2010, 06:58:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2010, 06:22:18 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 09, 2010, 06:19:28 PM
You might want to pick up reading instead of relying on blind faith. Who knows, you might learn something. Then again just going with the flow is so much easier, no need to examine facts, no need to challenge authority.
:lmfao:
Good, persuasive argument. Exactly what I expect from the envirofundies.
What do you expect? Not only did you provide the setup for the joke, but you then also went ahead and told the joke itself. How can I say anything to top the quoted text?
In case it's not clear to you what I mean, let me elaborate. As a poster, you have a reputation for regurgitating the most extreme of viewpoints, and only doing that. The kind of sick mind that would come up with the stuff you parrot certainly is not capable of rationally analyzing facts on their own, and neither does the sick mind that blindly adheres to it. Therefore, to hear you lecture people about thinking on their own invites uncontrollable laughter.
Is it completely fair to characterize you in this way, to imply that you're nothing but a drone? Of course, without a doubt. The only time you employ critical thinking is when trying to decide which NRO talking point applies to the thread in question.
And just like a typical lefty you are unable to make a coherent argument other than "if you disagree with me you're wrong".
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 09, 2010, 07:25:37 PM
And just like a typical lefty you are unable to make a coherent argument other than "if you disagree with me you're wrong".
Are we arguing about global warming? :unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2010, 07:27:47 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 09, 2010, 07:25:37 PM
And just like a typical lefty you are unable to make a coherent argument other than "if you disagree with me you're wrong".
Are we arguing about global warming? :unsure:
Surely not even you could believe that! The argument is about man's contribution to it, and therefor man's ability to influence it. Personally, I haven't made up my mind on the latter, and my faith in the former is quite shaken.
And you?
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2010, 07:30:39 PM
Surely not even you could believe that! The argument is about man's contribution to it, and therefor man's ability to influence it. Personally, I haven't made up my mind on the latter, and my faith in the former is quite shaken.
And you?
Honestly, I never really cared about the topic. The only exception was the effect of GW on hurricane frequency, but that was work-related. I don't like to pontificate about the subjects where it's impossible for me to have the tools to reason some things out on my own. Regardless of that, I know better than to put any stock into what people who embrace anti-intellectualism as a religion think about the subject.
I just joined this scramble when Hansy made himself the subject.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 09, 2010, 07:22:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 09, 2010, 06:36:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 09, 2010, 06:22:18 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 09, 2010, 06:19:28 PM
You might want to pick up reading instead of relying on blind faith. Who knows, you might learn something. Then again just going with the flow is so much easier, no need to examine facts, no need to challenge authority.
:lmfao:
http://www.nationalreview.com/
Your first, last, and only stop for reading facts and not relying on blind faith.
More like the famous, right-wing Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese)
Or Der Spiegel http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,674087,00.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,674087,00.html)
Or the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_cracking.html (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_cracking.html)
Or the Tines of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ramesh-turns-heat-on-Pachauri-over-glacier-melt-scare/articleshow/5474586.cms (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ramesh-turns-heat-on-Pachauri-over-glacier-melt-scare/articleshow/5474586.cms)
Or the Times of London http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece)
Or the Daily Telegraph http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/)
The UK Spectator http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/politics/all/5749853/the-global-warming-guerrillas.thtml (http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/politics/all/5749853/the-global-warming-guerrillas.thtml)
etc, etc. Only the cool-aid drinkers still buy the global warming hoax.
Hans, when are you going to be able to tell the difference between editorials and facts?
Digging a little deeper in the sources for the editorials Hans has cited we find this little ditty referring to climate change science.
"It's the new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity."
and then this
"Besides which, Australia's economy is peculiarly vulnerable to the effects of climate change alarmism. 'Though we have 40 per cent of the world's uranium, we don't have nuclear energy. We're reliant mainly on bucketloads of cheap coal. Eighty per cent of our electricity is coal-generated and clustered around our coalfields are our aluminium producers. The very last thing the Australian economy needs is the cap and trade legislation being proposed by Kevin Rudd. If it gets passed, the country will go broke."
btw the scientist in question is an Aussie. From the rest of the article its not that he can disprove the global warming theory its just that he doest trust the data. Given his particular bias - both religous and economic - I am not sure anyone should trust his assertions of misgivings.
The article in question is here. http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml
Going on a slight tangent, I'd say that the general public's insufficient understanding of science make them distrust more than just climate change. The other main victim of this is genetic engineering and all that stems from it, such as stem cell research, GM foodstuffs, biomedicine, etc. Lots of issues overlap, anti intelectualism, the politization of science, conspiracy theories, and the like.
You guys answered Tim's original question much better than you think: at this point, it is impossible to be reasonable on the man-made global warming topic because it has become full of politics.
First the pro-crowd gained the political upper hand and for some time used it to totally silence the sceptics. Still after recent controversies, voiceing concerns equals heresy. Having invested so many "street cred" and money on the issue, they obviously felt forced to make the issue as dramatic and urgent as possible. Hence the tampering with data, which luckily got out, so the sceptics got some room to breath. Of course, this in turn also gave an opportunity for the politial groups opposing those supporting the pro scientists, to run in all guns blazing, and declare that thinking there is global warming is heresy.
Judging by the leaked e-mails, and other stuff like their retreat on the ice melting issue on the UN report, probably the truth is somewhere in the middle, but in our days political and cultural climate, the "middle" is an impossible position to maintain. You must take a side and shout away or you are silenced.
Eh, it's not just global warming. Look at how Nevadans freaked out over Yucca Mountain.
Oh and as much as I hate the anti-genetics and anti-tech crowd, anti-man-made-global-warming-ism is not part of that. The radical greens are the anti-tech crowd in this case.
It's correct that people don't understand science. No need for the adjective "complex". It doesn't help that anti-science and luddite buffoons use the real contest and conflict of science to declaim the whole thing bunk and then create a false dichotomy to claim whatever the opposite of science says is true.
Judging by the 3 (out of tens of thousands) emails about frustration with luddites and suggestions on how to process data nothing should be inferred other than some scientists are frustrated with luddites and need suggestions on how to process data (the "trick" thing).
The IPCC and glaciers? WTF. It's conclusions do not require the glacier data. It's scientists (not climate sceptics) who found the glacier error. But more importantly, the fact that an error was found and corrected is not an argument for discarding the corrected conclusion.
It's less about politics then it is about economics. Would people care if it didn't have an economic impact?
I'm not going to sort my trash.
Quote from: Tamas on March 10, 2010, 08:51:01 AM
You guys answered Tim's original question much better than you think: at this point, it is impossible to be reasonable on the man-made global warming topic because it has become full of politics.
Of course it is possible to be reasonable. Many people apparently choose not to be, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 10, 2010, 10:12:13 AM
I'm not going to sort my trash.
You dont sort your trash. You sort your recycling. :smarty:
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 10, 2010, 11:44:08 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 10, 2010, 10:12:13 AM
I'm not going to sort my trash.
You dont sort your trash. You sort your recycling. :smarty:
I don't do that either. I used my recycling bin as a snow brick maker. :homestar:
Forts win wars.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 10, 2010, 10:10:09 AM
It's less about politics then it is about economics. Would people care if it didn't have an economic impact?
I think so. There is a large and growing number of people out there for whom believing conspiracy theories is its own reward.
Quote from: Tamas on March 10, 2010, 09:39:34 AM
Oh and as much as I hate the anti-genetics and anti-tech crowd, anti-man-made-global-warming-ism is not part of that. The radical greens are the anti-tech crowd in this case.
It's exactly the same thing, only coming from different crowds.
Quote from: The Larch on March 10, 2010, 11:52:52 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 10, 2010, 09:39:34 AM
Oh and as much as I hate the anti-genetics and anti-tech crowd, anti-man-made-global-warming-ism is not part of that. The radical greens are the anti-tech crowd in this case.
It's exactly the same thing, only coming from different crowds.
Well, maybe, but I am not sure. "genetic engineering is teh evöl, stay with the old ways" is cleary ludditism. "let the industry roam, fuck nature" is not nearly the same thing.
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2010, 08:59:43 PM
Quote from: PDH on March 08, 2010, 08:52:57 PM
Tomorrow it will get all gayed up when Mart discovers it.
True. Things really get shrilluminating when Marti and Hans shrillustrate how divergent their views are on a topic like this. I can't wait.
:lol:
thank you for creating my new favorite forum words! "shrillustrate" = :thumbsup:
Quote from: Tamas on March 10, 2010, 12:53:46 PM
Well, maybe, but I am not sure. "genetic engineering is teh evöl, stay with the old ways" is cleary ludditism. "let the industry roam, fuck nature" is not nearly the same thing.
yet another case of a false dichotomy
Quote from: The Larch on March 10, 2010, 08:14:32 AM
Going on a slight tangent, I'd say that the general public's insufficient understanding of science make them distrust more than just climate change. The other main victim of this is genetic engineering and all that stems from it, such as stem cell research, GM foodstuffs, biomedicine, etc. Lots of issues overlap, anti intelectualism, the politization of science, conspiracy theories, and the like.
Larchie speaks les truth.
Quote from: Viking on March 10, 2010, 09:41:01 AM
It's correct that people don't understand science. No need for the adjective "complex". It doesn't help that anti-science and luddite buffoons use the real contest and conflict of science to declaim the whole thing bunk and then create a false dichotomy to claim whatever the opposite of science says is true.
Judging by the 3 (out of tens of thousands) emails about frustration with luddites and suggestions on how to process data nothing should be inferred other than some scientists are frustrated with luddites and need suggestions on how to process data (the "trick" thing).
The IPCC and glaciers? WTF. It's conclusions do not require the glacier data. It's scientists (not climate sceptics) who found the glacier error. But more importantly, the fact that an error was found and corrected is not an argument for discarding the corrected conclusion.
POTM, right there.
The funny thing is that you can see the strategy being repeated that was used in the Creationism debate. By largely the exact same people.
Quote from: Tamas on March 10, 2010, 09:39:34 AM
Oh and as much as I hate the anti-genetics and anti-tech crowd, anti-man-made-global-warming-ism is not part of that. The radical greens are the anti-tech crowd in this case.
I don't buy this. I think many scientists are being rather consistent (which doesn't mean they're right) and we're the inconsistent ones. Which is right, scientists shouldn't be like a Laputan king. Science is useful for defining the parameters of debate about policy, no more.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 13, 2010, 07:05:08 PM
Quote from: Tamas on March 10, 2010, 09:39:34 AM
Oh and as much as I hate the anti-genetics and anti-tech crowd, anti-man-made-global-warming-ism is not part of that. The radical greens are the anti-tech crowd in this case.
I don't buy this. I think many scientists are being rather consistent (which doesn't mean they're right) and we're the inconsistent ones. Which is right, scientists shouldn't be like a Laputan king. Science is useful for defining the parameters of debate about policy, no more.
Science should not be politicised, it should be taken on it's own merits and strive to inform the decisions rather than make them. Though, in many cases the scientific information makes the highly expensive and difficult decision obvious. Denial is not an option.
Quote from: Viking on March 13, 2010, 07:10:18 PM
Science should not be politicised, it should be taken on it's own merits and strive to inform the decisions rather than make them. Though, in many cases the scientific information makes the highly expensive and difficult decision obvious. Denial is not an option.
Exactly. It should inform our decisions and our debate, but that's it really.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 13, 2010, 07:21:42 PM
Quote from: Viking on March 13, 2010, 07:10:18 PM
Science should not be politicised, it should be taken on it's own merits and strive to inform the decisions rather than make them. Though, in many cases the scientific information makes the highly expensive and difficult decision obvious. Denial is not an option.
Exactly. It should inform our decisions and our debate, but that's it really.
Yes, Multiple Stab Wounds Being Harmful to Monkeys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6CSIFi78Nw) is not up for debate though. Arguing for a policy that presumes that they aren't is not rational.
The public shouldn't get the vote. Film at 11.
Quote from: The Brain on March 13, 2010, 07:43:51 PM
The public shouldn't get the vote. Film at 11.
QuoteIt has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Sir Winston Churchill
British politician (1874 - 1965)