Paris, France: Freedom of the Press, or poking the bull?

[JTB]

jD

adjusting data

I allowed myself to get sucked into this predictably pointless side discussion about global warming using information from dodgy sources. So it’s on me and I’ll confine myself to comments relevant to the OP.

[JoB]

jTB

Lennyvtook on Billy Graham who was NOT amused;)

[JoB]

Captain Dave

lOL…Cruise lined don’t allocate resources to a once in a lifetime one off maybe we can make it maybe we will be icebound leftist propaganda.

They are very efficient at processing human cargo and even more proficient at enhancing their bottom line.

[JoB]

Should we talk about the incidence of extreme weather patterns instead of parsing temperature?

Perhaps we could move on to drought and its impact on food supplies.

This conversation could get lively..

[captainDave]

JTB: The question is whether or not there is a bias in the “mainstream” science community towards “proving” the hypothesis of CO2 caused global warming. Clearly, there is when you simply look at the names of most climate research projects, grants, organizations and their associated mission statements. Catastrophic global warming has so far been a self fulfilling prophecy that can only live in the virtual world of biased computer models.

For many people today, “Science” is no longer science in a traditional sense. Science has become a measure of popular opinion driven by those who can capture minds and imaginations with fear of impending doom. From a political point of view, “Science” no longer has anything to do with science. How many studies do you think would get funded for investigating the causes for climate stability or investigation into glacier expansions around the globe? Or how about the positive effects of increased CO2 in reforestation of arid lands?

Like Islam, climate Science has become an unchallengeable religion designed to conquer, subdue and control the masses. People who question the validity of biased “Global Warming” propaganda are considered infidels by the believers.

[captainDave]

JOB wrote: “Perhaps we could move on to drought and its impact on food supplies. This conversation could get lively..”

Increased CO2 makes plants and trees grow:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/nov09/carbon1109.htm

How are we supposed to have droughts if it is widely hypothesized that global warming increases atmospheric moisture?

Increased CO2 and warmer temperatures could feed more people, not less. Do you believe in keeping healthy food a scarce resource for third world countries?

Here is another link you might find interesting if you are willing to take your blinders off: http://www.co2science.org

[VBD]

captainDave, your two posts above appear to contradict each other. One suggests you think global warming is some sort of hoax, then you post about how increasing CO2 causes warmth and moisture, and can help plants grow.

[captainDave]

VBD: Empirical evidence seems to suggest that the earth is always either cooling or warming and that climate has always been changing long before industrialized society. Yes, I believe that there is substantial evidence of politically motivated misinformation and fraudulent representation of scientific data. The earth does not seem to be in a severe warming cycle as has been touted by government regulators for the last three decades. And, even if temperatures were to increase, empirical evidence seems to indicate more benefit than harm to humans.

Like Islam, Climate Change religion is being used to lead people into a specific belief system that surrenders control to centralized authority. Environmental pharmaceutical pollution, for instance, is one of many far more serious problems that are being strategically overshadowed by the creation of climate fallacies. Government leaders and big industry alike love the Climate Change story because, when coupled with centralized banking, it has been a powerful tool for transferring wealth from the masses to the elite through regulated carbon “tithing”.

[VBD]

I agree that the framing of climate change is politically influenced. But it is being overblown equally from both sides. The deniers are every bit as political as the doomsdayers. This is a topic that is best observed from the point of consensus, rather than extremes.

The consensus among climate scientists is that there is slow but certain warming going on. The predictions of the severity of the warming vary, but it is clear that some regions of the earth will benefit from the change and others will find it detrimental.

Generally, higher latitudes will see agricultural benefits, and lower latitudes will likely have greater negative effects. Overall, the population of the Earth is MUCH higher in lower latitudes, and that means more people will suffer than benefit. Also, a substantial portion of the Earth’s population lives near sea level, and even a small rise could cause economic hardship as millions of people will be forced to move.

The question is what, if anything, should we do? We should at the very least, be prepared for some change.

And I can assure you that climate scientists are not a religions cult. That suggestion is just plain insulting.

[JoB]

Captain Dave..

you might want to look at the current droughts and their impacts.. say in California for instance..

or in the entire southwest of the United States..

drought combined with catastrophic rainstorms.

all you have to do is pay some attention to the weather almost anyplace elsewhere in the US and you will notice some patterns that are impacting agriculture in a really negative way.

but hey.. you hold onto that Co2 makes plants grow theory… reality bites

[JoB]

Captain Dave

” I believe that there is substantial evidence of politically motivated misinformation and fraudulent representation of scientific data.”

lets say you are correct.

Are you really willing to bet the future of the planet that you are right?

I’m not.

I am one of those “hippy” folks who fought in the late 60s and 70s to clean up our rivers and our environments… so we all had clean air to breathe and clean water to drink.

i didn’t do it so that we could recreate the sewers we started with

[captainDave]

VBD: Science by consensus is not an appropriate answer for discovering truth unless all sides are funded equally–otherwise it’s too easy for deep pockets to stack the deck (as they currently do). With that said, true science doesn’t take sides. Most scientists will tell you that the science community at large, does not yet fully understand the complexities of earth sciences.

Few scientists will tell you that squeezing humans into tiny urban boxes and taking away their cars and freedoms is going to make a bit of difference in the climate. Yet, that is the central focus of Seattle’s urban planning campaign to fight global climate change. It is also been the focus of the UN through programs like IClIE and Common Core since the inception of Agenda 21 in 1992. There is not two equal sides. There is a well-funded offense against a common sense defense. Pretty much like Islam.

It’s not the scientists that are the cult, it is the people that they work for who deliberately misinterpret their findings into a common religious theme for their own benefit. Take a look at the funding sources and management of the global warming data.

Sea level is a critical indicator of global temperature averages. I work on the water and know many others around the world who do as well. I have yet to see the effects of the predicted sea level rise that was supposed to have occurred by now–not even an inch. Now we are being told about the “Great Global Warming Pause”. Give me a break. I could have more belief in Linus’s Great Pumpkin.

[captainDave]

JoB: The evidence of politically motivated manipulation of climate data is so overwhelming. I am not denying that there are a lot of well-intentioned people who care greatly for our amazing planet and humanity. However, I think a great many of them are working from faulty assumptions.

Your work in the 60’s and 70’s lead to critical awareness of pollution. Consequently, the EPA made great strides in the early years to reduce environmental pollutants that drastically reduced contamination of our air and water. As you know, this was not done by a centralized world authority, but rather by localized and regional efforts focused directly on the real problems. Today’s EPA is just a lap dog for the United Nations.

[VBD]

captainDave, you are arguing 2 different things. There is the topic of global climate change and the topic of government imposed responses.

Suggesting you don’t believe in human induced climate change because you don’t like the political response is like saying you don’t believe in property ownership because you don’t like property tax.

I agree that many of the proposed “solutions” to climate change are ludicrous. Carbon taxes and the like are not going to do much, except cost us all a lot of money. But my dislike for bad political policies does not influence my trust in my fellow scientists.

Contrary to the denialisit propaganda, there is no flow of corrupt money into the pockets of climate researchers. The lies come from the politicians, not the scientists.

Consensus is very important in science. Consensus does not mean voting on what feels good to you. Consensus means that, after looking at the available evidence, the same conclusion is obtained by multiple researchers. Repeatability is a fundamental part of the scientific process.

Also, the suggestion that since there are unknowns in a scientific field it follows that any conclusion is invalid, also displays substantial scientific ignorance. There are many unknowns in astrophysics, but that does not mean we don’t understand anything about orbits and mass.

Climate science is indeed complex, but we do have some pretty solid and provable theories on it’s mechanics.

[captainDave]

Scientists should stand up and protest the improper use of their findings in the same way I think peaceful muslims should stand up to islamic extremism. But they won’t because much of their funding sources are tied to a pre-determined outcome dictated by the U.N.

Who is tallying the unified scientific conclusion about man-caused global warming and sea level rise when the IPCC touts consensus among all scientists? I rarely meet scientists that are in full agreement about anything that has so many unknowns left to resolve.

Most of the publicly promoted “consensuses” over the last 35 years have been enormously wrong so far. Don’t you think we should be able to trust the IPCC and U.N.?

Here is a very relevant article to this discussion:

“Climate change science far from settled”

http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2015/jan/12/0112_online/

Can you see the irony here?:

“Global warming believers are like a hysterical ‘cult’: MIT scientist compares ‘climate alarmists’ to religious fanatics”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2922553/Global-warming-believers-like-hysterical-cult-MIT-scientist-compares-climate-alarmists-religious-fanatics.html

vs.

Climate change pushes doomsday clock closer to midnight

Better get your checkbook out.

[VBD]

captainDave, you are pretty sure of yourself for someone who doesn’t seem to have a clue how scientific research is funded and conducted.

There are many scientists who “stand up” to the extremists on both sides. We have a local climatologist, Cliff Mass, who frequently voices his opinion on climate change and public policy. In fact, just last Tuesday, he took Governor Inslee to task for his proposed climate policies:

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2015/01/what-should-governor-inslee-do-about.html

And last fall, he wrote a piece warning that many of the “extreme” weather events in the northwest were due to natural variations, and not a sign of climate change:

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2014/09/why-is-northwest-us-warming-natural.html

He is clearly a supporter of the theory of human induced climate change, but falls far short of an “alarmist”. I would argue that he is typical of the vast majority of the scientists advocating the consensus on climate change.

[JoB]

Captain Dave

“Today’s EPA is just a lap dog for the United Nations.”

You did mean United Corporations, didn’t you?

The United Nations has absolutely nothing to do with the EPA.. which is an exclusively American institution.

as for those scientists.. most of them are publicly funded.. you know.. employed by our public governmental bodies and public universities…

while those on the denier side are funded by primarily by Conservative think tanks and oil companies..

so i have a really difficult time understanding why you think publicly funded university accredited scientists working in their fields and publishing in peer reviewed scientific journals are more biased than scientists who may or may not actually work in this field and are funded by conservative businessmen?

this really makes sense to you?

i don’t think so.

[JTB]

JOB and VBD. No it doesn’t make sense. I think it’s obvious Capt. Dave has learned to parrot standard terminology put out by anti-climate change interests without any real understanding of the actual science surrounding the issues. That’s why so many predictable pejorative phrases pop up in his comments along with no real faculty with the details. That’s also why I’ve decided to withdraw from the exercise in futility.

[JoB]

JTB..

i had the “exercise in futility” discussion with another long time forum member just this week.

The argument i made to her (i miss her voice here) is that we aren’t just speaking to or with the dissenting position but to those who read without posting.

Something we say might help more of us reach the common ground necessary to find solutions..

but… i will admit that it is also true that on occasion something someone says does cause someone else who is posting to stop and think about buying their own personal party line hook line and sinker…

even me :)

in my not so humble opinion.. any exercise which causes us to think can’t be futile..

even if the thinking we are doing is that involved in examining our own arguments :)

[JTB]

JoB, Yeah, I similarly have a disposition to draw attention to some of the fallacies or deliberate deception contained in some of these discussions precisely because I don’t want them to be perpetrated uncontested on readers who may not pick up on something I might notice. But I’ve learned that after a certain point, one in which the main intent of someone, where they are coming from, has become pretty clear, there’s little point in continuing the charade that there is a well-intended attempt to have a thoughtful discussion. The pejorative slurs, assertions not supported by the information presented, and use of known poseurs as references are pretty good indicators that the poster is propagandizing or carping rather than discussing the substance of an issue. There is a wealth of information and misinformation available online to buttress virtually any position, no matter how incredible, and a learned tendency to keep parroting even a discredited line these days with determined allegiance to a “party line” that defies basic intellectual integrity. So I’ve learned over time that once it’s pretty clear that’s where a poster is coming from, I might as well withdraw from the exchange because it will never come to a resolution.

I do believe that in the discussion about I 594 some time ago, one of the opponents quite admirably presented their position then actually followed a fair-minded, logical conversation identifying where the meaningful differences were highlighted and the discussion more or less wound up with respect for those differing opinions. I’m not going back to look right now, but I believe the username was jD or JDSeattle if my recall is right (which it often is not). Would that everyone had that respect for honest discourse.

I do learn from these interesting exchanges on the WSB and there have been times where I’ve had to acknowledge my thought process was faulty or information inaccurate. I try to be forthcoming whenever that happens and I trust on the sharp minds of folks in this community to hold me to it. Makes it all the better.

[JoB]

JTB..

i enjoy the rambling way these conversations go from topic to topic…

as well as the onpoint nuances that point out the differing thinking processes of even those of us who agree :)

[Smitty]

You may be right JoB, but I firmly believe that:

1) About 90% of WSB readers never visit the forums (or even know they exist for that matter). WSB is the only one who can really answer that though.

2) 90% of people are so set in their ways that nothing that anyone says will sway them. SO, 10% can be “influenced”.

That means 10% of the 10% of WSB readers might change their minds based on what they read here.

Kind of a pessimistic viewpoint, I know!

[Jd seattle]

Smitty – as with any forum, usually the ones that care enough and make time to post on such topics usually are pretty invested in their opinion.

All – I typically only post if I feel I have something useful to add to a discussion. I spent so much time in the 594/591 thread because I am passionate about it, done a ton of research and well versed in the world of firearms. Sure I have had a few small topics within the larger discussion on firearms that have made me question myself and sometimes change my stance. But it took some very in depth debate and overcoming my pride that maybe I had fallen for one side or the others propaganda. I am still very pro gun, but within that I have some differing opinions from the mainstream gun rights side.

I’ve stayed out of the other decisive topics because I remain open to both sides of the discussion and don’t know enough about the topics to start voicing a position on the forum.

While I don’t care for many of the proposed ways to combat climate change, I don’t deny that it’s happening. But I do remain open on how critical it is claimed to be. With nothing more than high school science classes, I am in no position argue opposing positions between scientists.

Islam, all I can do is go with my gut feeling. Don’t judge others by the acts of few. Same way I hope others will do with responsible law abiding gun owners such as myself.

[JoB]

LOL Smitty..

you know i think any glass with any liquid in it is better than an empty glass ;->

well, almost any glass… last night i would have settled for any amount of the merlot my husband was drinking.. but alas i had to be content with a very full glass of freshly made cucumber and kiwi water.

that may have been the preferred choice for you but last night it seemed a poor substitute to me :(

to the point, i am always surprised by the people i meet out in the world who seldom post but still know who i am.

i am even more surprised that people who won’t post anonymously will approach me in public and speak their mind quite clearly in person.

and even though i know it would make an amusing story..

those meetings have yet to result in a brawl ;-)

in fact, people who seem to hate me in print find we get along in person.

which i think is my point… sometimes the distance between us is not nearly as wide as the rhetoric would suggest.

or maybe there really is something in that cute little old lady card after all :)

[Smitty]

“sometimes the distance between us is not nearly as wide as the rhetoric would suggest.”

Agree completely.

BTW, I had a very nice Walter Clore cab last night! Next time we can share it!

[Author]

Posts