Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Conflicting Science in Global Warming/Cooling
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 7, 2013 at 9:11 pm #746541
wakefloodParticipantAnd another basic question for you. One of logic. Using Occam’s Razor, who do you believe?
One group with pockets stuffed with record profits year after year, spends its money to produce science that coincidentally reinforces their status quo.
OR
Another group of separately funded researchers use science that reach independent conclusions that something really bad is happening and potentially difficult changes need to happen to prevent worldwide catastrophe.
Occam wouldn’t hesitate to answer…
May 8, 2013 at 6:09 pm #746542
wakefloodParticipantJoB, Dobro, one of the most telling symptoms of the conservative/authoritarian mindset is the bunker mentality they display.
Seems like every time that someone is considered “on the team” and whose opinion is espoused because it supports their position, they immediately jettison and becomes persona non-grata when they change their mind.
All one has to do is look at the GOP Primary of 2012. Everybody took the most whack job positions they could stake out just to stay in the fold. Doesn’t matter what the topic, you’re not allowed to break from the hive mind.
Pretty soon all you have left to defend is extreme outlying opinions offered by folks who don’t use logic and science to reach their conclusions…simply belief.
And those still in the hive with $ use whatever they need to produce bits of reaffirming “evidence” to support the ongoing craziness.
Witness the recent Heritage Foundation bunk on immigration. Barely released and already disowned by some of their own. Same with the blather on austerity & debt whose primary scientific evidence was just plain wrong and is still clung to by the true believers.
May 8, 2013 at 10:23 pm #746543
WorldCitizenParticipantSorry, been busy the last few days and not really internet focused…some good days, really.
Anyway, I’d like to thank WF for trying to reiterate my question. ZOne, I think you honestly believe what you say and aren’t here as a troll (a title I’ve given a poster no linger with us). Getting “bitch slapped” by responses, as you put it, is a total bummer, but one that should be expected on a forum such as this with membership so heavily tilted toward the left. Obviously this doesn’t invite a healthy debate or attract many people from the other side of the isle to participate…something this forum is supremely lacking in.
The problem you seem to be having as I see it is the inability or unwillingness to find sources to back your information which are “quality” sources. I agree with what was being said above in that the sources which you and so many others point toward are just funded by self-interested parties with an agenda in mind. This flies in the face of actual scientific skepticism. I find this statement below to be helpful:
“Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on faith or anecdotal evidence. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds – rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity.”
(Wudka, Jose (1998). “What is the scientific method?”.)
The sources you cite have absolutely no credibility in the scientific world and are funded by people who’s job is to protect their own interests. Therefore, I must reject them outright. I realize this creates a situation where it seems I’m being closed-minded. However, I find the opposite to be true. I’m in fact VERY interested to read any and all information supporting the opposing views of the overwhelming majority of qualified science professionals. There’s only one catch…it has to be credible, testable, verifiable information.
That answers the question I posed to you earlier…I need info from reputable sources to begin to change my mind. The question still stands for you. What would it take for your mind to be swayed from it’s current stance? I’m not trying to start a fight here or insinuate anything…honest. I just want to know and to see if common ground can indeed be found.
May 8, 2013 at 10:34 pm #746544
WorldCitizenParticipantZOne:
Also, please stick around. I can’t tell you how nice it is to hear opposing points of view on the WSB Forums pages. There were a couple more in the past which either 1) were discouraged beyond belief and left out of frustration (can’t say that I blame them) or 2) broke the rules repeatedly and were (most likely) asked to leave or just booted from the site for their infractions. I can’t say which is actually the case, but let’s just say it’s quite a bit more dull around here with them gone.
Also, I wouldn’t blame you if you left either. With the views you’re espousing, your gonna take quite a bit of grief from the regulars here (me included). It takes a certain amount of patience or masochism to routinely be inundated with such negativity. Kudos to you for trying thus far.
May 9, 2013 at 3:25 pm #746545
wakefloodParticipantAnd potentially at the risk of sounding hypocritical, I too want to see you, Zone stick around and attempt real dialogue across the divide.
I’m sure I sound less open than WC on some level but our positions are very much the same – he’s just better at unemotionalizing it than me. Not that I don’t try but my smartassness overrules me more often than it should.
Maybe we find a communication path that allows us to get to the specifics of what leads us both to doubt the other’s positions, maybe we don’t. But it is worth trying!
May 9, 2013 at 3:37 pm #746546
wakefloodParticipantI’m sure I sound like a broken record here but I keep looking for analogs or metaphors for this situation that might help break through to folks on the other side.
I’ve already used the doctor’s opinion story, and I can continue that theme with a REAL example that I think is quite analogous. I’d be interested if Zone or others can dispute the similarity of it?
Remember how Liggett & Meyers and every other major tobacco company spent decades producing in-house or funded “science” that indicated that cigarettes were both non-addictive AND didn’t cause cancer? All the while they were sitting on PLENTY of evidence to the contrary on both counts.
It took someone from inside their establishment to break rank, combined with tons of independent research, and YEARS of being sued to eventually overwhelm them. And they went down fighting to the last – all the while knowing they were dead wrong. The money was just too good.
How is that different than Big Oil and Climate Change? We’re all dying to know…literally. (Damn, that snarkiness is hard to suppress!) ;-)
May 9, 2013 at 3:56 pm #746547
JoBParticipantwell put..
zone..
objectivity matters
context matters
sourcing the sources matters
and using those little grey cells of yours matters
i think there is one little question here that isn’t being asked…
what do we as a people have to lose by believing the evidence and moving towards limiting human caused global warming?
The technology to do this already exists and is being used elsewhere efficiently and effectively in the rest of the world..
we know why certain financial interests would be opposed… they bet too heavily on fossil fuels and don’t want to give up a good thing..
but what do we as a people have to lose?
and conversely..
what do we have to lose if those who defend the interests of big oil are wrong?
May 11, 2013 at 7:55 am #746548
WorldCitizenParticipantMay 13, 2013 at 2:52 pm #746549
wakefloodParticipantUgh…
Saw this sad data point the other day. We humans are capable of such foolishness. Having a big brain doesn’t do you much good if you refuse to use it.
May 13, 2013 at 3:08 pm #746550
JoBParticipantunfortunately.. very true
May 13, 2013 at 5:25 pm #746551
wakefloodParticipantJust today, more data on how much we are told about the climate research and who funds it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/unreliable-sources-how-th_b_3255192.html
Again, Zone or others, how does this situation differ from Big Tobacco?
May 16, 2013 at 3:51 pm #746552
dobroParticipant97% of 12,000 peer reviewed studies agree…
http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html
May 16, 2013 at 4:44 pm #746553
wakefloodParticipantThey must be playing golf with their 3 doctors…
May 16, 2013 at 5:27 pm #746554
VBDParticipantI wonder if once the global warming deniers were aware of this, their defense of fossil fuels would wane:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
May 16, 2013 at 5:37 pm #746555
wakefloodParticipantI wish facts and data was at the core of the denier’s denial but I suspect it isn’t. One only needs to look at other issues where reality doesn’t sway the argument – and the list is long.
I go back to the discussion of differences in how brains are wired. There are physical differences and this is one of the manifestations of them.
We either figure out different ways to frame the argument for them or we bypass them with simple majorities. Personally, on many issues, I’m for the latter, time waits for no one, and the our little lifeboat is sinking…
May 16, 2013 at 5:47 pm #746556
VBDParticipantWhen someone is basing their position on faith and belief, rather than facts and data, there is no evidence that will be effective in an argument. It becomes a religious issue on one side and a scientific one on the other.
Evolution is not even remotely questionable to a physical anthropologist, but there are many who, regardless of the scientific evidence presented, will simply disregard the evidence in favor their “belief” that evolution is false.
Another common component to these types of arguments is that when presented with an abundance of evidence, the opposition will attempt to suggest the is an organized conspiracy to push a political agenda.
And around and around we go….
May 16, 2013 at 6:10 pm #746557
wakefloodParticipantHence my desire to just get off the teeter totter with them and do what is right and indicated by logic.
It seems when the other side wields just enough power to turn their beliefs into action, they do it. Witness all the crap that Bush II got enacted into law by appointments, unenforcing laws on the books, changing/eliminating govt regulations, and signing statements. Governing by fiat. And we’ll be spending decades trying to unravel all that.
Unless we use the same methods. Do the ends justify the means? When it comes to the environment, it sure does to me. I wouldn’t mind if the POTUS declared a state of emergency nation-wide and instituted a national gas tax of $.50/gallon tomorrow and plowed it all into renewables and funding mass transit. Sure it would hurt some folks but we’re staring at the abyss.
May 16, 2013 at 6:12 pm #746558
JoBParticipanti am with wakeflood..
it’s too late to try to bring them around
it’s time to simply go around them
May 16, 2013 at 8:51 pm #746559
VBDParticipantI’m not sure if anyone’s posted this link yet, but it’s a nice collection information presented in a easy to research format:
May 16, 2013 at 10:02 pm #746560
dobroParticipantpost 212
May 16, 2013 at 10:13 pm #746561
VBDParticipantAh ha, 212 – there is is! I guess I’m late to this party….
May 17, 2013 at 3:21 pm #746562
KenParticipantexcerpt from the article cited above:
Why is this important?
Several studies have shown that people who are aware of scientific consensus on human-caused global warming are more likely to support government action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. This was most recently shown by a paper just published in the journal Climatic Change. People will generally defer to the judgment of experts, and they trust climate scientists on the subject of global warming.
However, vested interests have long realized this and engaged in a campaign to misinform the public about the scientific consensus. For example, a memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 advised Republicans,
“Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate”
This campaign has been successful. A 2012 poll from US Pew Research Center found less than half of Americans thought scientists agreed humans were causing global warming. The media has assisted in this public misconception, with most climate stories “balanced” with a “skeptic” perspective. However, this results in making the 2–3% seem like 50%. In trying to achieve “balance”, the media has actually created a very unbalanced perception of reality. As a result, people believe scientists are still split about what’s causing global warming, and therefore there is not nearly enough public support or motivation to solve the problem.
attribution link (also posted on slashdot today.
September 30, 2013 at 9:27 am #746563
HMC RichParticipantHmmm, MIT scientist finding the IPCC report Hilariously Flawed.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-mit-scientist-un-climate-report-is-hilariously-flawed/
You deniers of science really should start opening your eyes and see that science is always changing.
Funny that the AP (Not Fox News) has evidence of governments wanting to play with or even omit findings.
September 30, 2013 at 1:59 pm #746564
JoBParticipantRich..
I don’t understand why you think cherry picking results makes your case.
There may or may not be inconsistencies in individual results..
but The body of evidence speaks for itself.
this one MIT scientist definitely doesn’t speak for the rest.
September 30, 2013 at 2:59 pm #746565
wakefloodParticipantJoB, Rich will soon find that he’s out of step with others on his side of this issue as they have a new strategy. Since it’s becoming less and less tenable to deny climate change on its face, the deniers are contemplating a change of tune.
And that is essentially to no longer deny that change is happening (and it might be human-caused but whatever) BUT the REAL issue is that nothing you’re proposing will stop it.
This is the natural next step in running out the clock until it IS too late. They’ll slowly concede to funnelling $ to the military and national old energy companies to ensure those guys stay fat, happy and funding their election campaigns but it will have little to do with solutions.
Nice planet you guys trashed. Does that make you happy? It makes me sick to my stomach.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.