[Accept2]

This one will piss off quite a few of you............

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

 

[traynor_garnet]

Give it up already :zzz:

 

[mandocaster]

This one will piss off quite a few of you............

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

Nope, I'm not pissed off.

But, as a refereed & peer reviewed scientist, I'm furious. The amount of CRAP these imposters call science is, well, frightening.

But this is a guitar forum, and I'm gonna plug into my squirrel-driven alternator and crank the bejeezus outta my old Super.

 

[traynor_garnet]

I hear ya mandocaster,

I am working on an article right now and people have no idea of the amount of work you have to do to get published in a legit journal.

I'm a social scientist with an ever increasing interest in media studies and science. What is passed off to the public as "scientific research" is just frightening. It's not that the public is stupid, most people simply lack the knowledge, "vocabulary", or "literacy", to make sense of this stuff.

I almost have my PhD but I don't pretend I understand the science behind this. However, I know enough about methodology and research design to weed pseudo-science from real research and know this is just a PR campaign and media flak for big oil and industry.

TG

Nope, I'm not pissed off.

But, as a refereed & peer reviewed scientist, I'm furious. The amount of CRAP these imposters call science is, well, frightening.

 

[mrdylan]

I stopped watching when one guy said that if Global warming went away 10's of thousands of jobs would go away as well.

Sounds like something straight out of the Cheney/Bush administration to me. The majority of politicians are or were trying to hide Global warming not the other way around.

We are force fed so much crap on a daily basis it is impossible to know what is actually happening or going to happen for that matter.

 

[coyoteblue]

Ditto.

Here's a politiely worded attack on Al Gore in the New York Times, and its less polite deconstruction in Grist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/12/233737/021

 

[mandocaster]

I almost have my PhD but I don't pretend I understand the science behind this. However, I know enough about methodology and research design to weed pseudo-science from real research and know this is just a PR campaign and media flak for big oil and industry.

TG

Sorry, I think you misunderstand me....

Umm, I don't perscribe to the idea of Big Oil per se, and at the risk of being a scientific pariah, I did watch the whole program, and I am of the informed opinion that the pseudo-scientists are the ones ascribing significance to CO2 in the Earth's thermal budget.

Unfortunately, or fortunately (for me) I do have a good understanding of the physical science behind Global Smarming (or utter lack thereof), as it is a large component of my doctorate in Earth Science. The bandwagon effect has swept all good science (and critical thought) under the carpet as regards this issue. The issue of global warming has NOT undergone the rigorous scrutiny of science, because to do so is to practically guarantee banishment by the people holding vested interest in "proving" that it is a real threat. And nobody from "Big Oil" is paying me to say this. The physical facts simply do not support the theory. If someone were to present them as, for example, the contents of a doctoral dissertation (in the absence of the colossal political pressure associated with the issue), the dissertation would fail miserably. That is the point presented so well in this documentary.

....now back to my Super. I need to play some music to negate the aghast feeling I have every time I see some folk science pundit leaping onto the wagon. It sickens me, no, it terrifies me.

 

[Wild Bill]

"I'm right, you're mistaken, he's crazy"

Sorry, I think you misunderstand me....

Umm, I don't perscribe to the idea of Big Oil per se, and at the risk of being a scientific pariah, I did watch the whole program, and I am of the informed opinion that the pseudo-scientists are the ones ascribing significance to CO2 in the Earth's thermal budget.

Unfortunately, or fortunately (for me) I do have a good understanding of the physical science behind Global Smarming (or utter lack thereof), as it is a large component of my doctorate in Earth Science. The bandwagon effect has swept all good science (and critical thought) under the carpet as regards this issue. The issue of global warming has NOT undergone the rigorous scrutiny of science, because to do so is to practically guarantee banishment by the people holding vested interest in "proving" that it is a real threat. And nobody from "Big Oil" is paying me to say this. The physical facts simply do not support the theory. If someone were to present them as, for example, the contents of a doctoral dissertation (in the absence of the colossal political pressure associated with the issue), the dissertation would fail miserably. That is the point presented so well in this documentary.

....now back to my Super. I need to play some music to negate the aghast feeling I have every time I see some folk science pundit leaping onto the wagon. It sickens me, no, it terrifies me.

Don't speak too loudly, MC! Scientific pariahs may not be allowed to graduate!

What immediately struck me about the David Roberts "rebuttal" CoyoteBlue posted was the tone: "...there's really a lot of trash here to shovel through."

Is that the kind of language we usually see in a scientific debate? All the opposing points are "trash"?

He then proceeds to the claim of an unnatural speed of change. "Double hockey sticks", anyone? I'm referring of course to the infamous and discredited curve of recent historical temperature variations purporting to show steep spikes like the blades of hockey sticks.

He sites the IPCC report as a source from "scientific mainstream", yet that source is PRECISELY the most contested by many climatologists! What is the IPCC report? The latest stones from Mount Sinai? It came from the UN, for Pete's sake! We are supposed to believe it's not at all political? This is the organization that puts the worst offenders at the head of human rights commissions!

Take a look at many of the names of scientists on that report and google their backgrounds. It's quite interesting...

He then attacks a man named Kevin Vranes. I hadn't heard of Mr. Vranes before but apparently since he's not famous enough by Mr. Roberts' standards his words can't possibly be true.

What are we supposed to do to judge the truth of a source, count how many articles someone has published? Science by concensus?!!

Eppur se move!

This Mr. Roberts reminds me of Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern. Very entertaining in small doses but hardly a reliable source. He smells like just another zealot to me.

I notice there are a few "pariahs" popping up in the media these days with contrary views on climate change. The man who helped found GreenPeace and the man who coined the Gaiea concept, for just a couple.

Unfortunately, I haven't taken the time to count how many articles they've had published but I didn't hear a trace of ad hominem in their words. That in itself lends credibility to my ears.

 

[coyoteblue]

Sounds like some people haven't been outside for a few years. Just so you know, in Canada we've had about 8-9 of the hottest years on record in the past decade. This is even more than a hockey stick of escalation.The ice caps are melting. The boreal forests are being destroyed by bugs that would never have survived this far north ten years ago. Australia is suffering a skin cancer epidemic. And the list goes on.

And to dismiss the IPCC report because it's sponsored by the UN...please... what is their agenda by reporting that global warming is occuring? To destroy the gas guzzling nations of the world? There are always dissenters...some people think the US never went to the moon and that cigarette smoking does not cause cancer and that being gay is "unnatural" and that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and so on.

It's interesting to see how misinformation starts/continues. It was suggested that the scientist who create the Gaia theory was a skeptic. The opposite is true...here's the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5150816.stm

 

[Accept2]

The sky is falling! Were all gonna die! Send money through UN agents to Africa, and buy our wind power and all will be magically fixed.............

 

[Wild Bill]

And to dismiss the IPCC report because it's sponsored by the UN...please... what is their agenda by reporting that global warming is occuring? To destroy the gas guzzling nations of the world?

No, to get more of their money! Isn't that what Kyoto is really all about?

To exempt countries like China as "developing" when they have atom bombs and space programs...

It's interesting to see how misinformation starts/continues. It was suggested that the scientist who create the Gaia theory was a skeptic. The opposite is true...here's the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5150816.stm

I stand corrected on Professor Lovelock's stand on climate change. I did find it interesting that he's a champion of nuclear power as a positive agent to resist global warming. Must drive a lot of the pack schizo as to how they feel about him...:wink:

 

[Wild Bill]

The sky is falling! Were all gonna die! Send money through UN agents to Africa, and buy our wind power and all will be magically fixed.............

Exactly!

I still stand by my point that any one who argues in a shrill and strident ad hominem manner should be distrusted...

 

[traynor_garnet]

The guy who made this documentary (Martin Durkin) is also the same guy who made a documentary claiming that breast implants reduce the risk of cancer and are therefore a health benefit to women! :confused-smiley-010

His last documentary on the Environment received so many complaints (from people in the documentary and those watching) that the Independent Television Commission ruled Durkin had purposely distorted, via editing, interviewer's comments and misled participants about the content and purpose of the documentary.

In the film linked to this post, Professor Carl Wunsch (professor of physical oceanography at the MIT) has this to say about his appearance in the film:

"I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them . . . I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on . . . [it is] an almost inescapable conclusion if man adds excess CO2 to the atmosphere, the climate will warm"

It seems Durkin has a history of taking a contentious point, and then using it as "proof" for a completely different and spurious conclusion.

TG

 

[traynor_garnet]

I still stand by my point that any one who argues in a shrill and strident ad hominem manner should be distrusted...

And yet here are two quotes from your previous posts in this thread:

"No, to get more of their money! Isn't that what Kyoto is really all about?"

(i.e. Something Cannot be true simply because it was touched by the UN)

"Don't speak too loudly, MC! Scientific pariahs may not be allowed to graduate!"

(Directed at me, a supposed scientific pariah and therefore not worth listening too although, yes, you did borrow this term from another person's post].

What are we supposed to do to judge the truth of a source, count how many articles someone has published? Science by concensus?!!

Like or not, a person's publishing record is a large part of their credentials. Getting published in legit, mainstream, peer reviewed journals is hard.

Your flippant remark about "science by consensus" is, ironically, fairly accurate. In all these debates (past and present) you rely upon a naive ontological realism that most scientists abandoned 300 years ago. Science just doesn't work that way . . .

TG

 

[traynor_garnet]

It is hard to overlook the connection to Big Oil and those who are "skeptical" of global warming. Of course, I am not suggesting everyone/anyone who questions the science is an oil puppet!

I do, however, find it hard to overlook that video's from the "Friend's of Science", Fred Singer's work, the Marshall Institute etc all have direct links to oil and/or "free market" organizations. Many of these people are not publishing in academic journals (no peer review), do not do research, and are liked to every "contra position" going (smoking, cancer, etc etc). Again, this isn't to suggest any contra position is linked to such interests.

From what I have read, there IS empirical support for global warming but, like any theory, there are some anomalies and the causal inference for data is open to interpretation. Read my previous post regarding the people interviewed in the movie and how their views were portrayed.

BTW, what is your article called and where is it published? I wouldn't mind taking a look at it. Where are you doing your PhD?

TG

Umm, I don't perscribe to the idea of Big Oil per se, . . .
Unfortunately, or fortunately (for me) I do have a good understanding of the physical science behind Global Smarming (or utter lack thereof), as it is a large component of my doctorate in Earth Science. The bandwagon effect has swept all good science (and critical thought) under the carpet as regards this issue. The issue of global warming has NOT undergone the rigorous scrutiny of science, because to do so is to practically guarantee banishment by the people holding vested interest in "proving" that it is a real threat. And nobody from "Big Oil" is paying me to say this. The physical facts simply do not support the theory. If someone were to present them as, for example, the contents of a doctoral dissertation (in the absence of the colossal political pressure associated with the issue), the dissertation would fail miserably. That is the point presented so well in this documentary.
e.

 

[david henman]

Exactly!
I still stand by my point that any one who argues in a shrill and strident ad hominem manner should be distrusted...

...even if they're right?

i especially enjoy the claims that global warming is a liberal conspiracy to attack big business. stephen harper fell for that one big time.

-dh

 

[Accept2]

Its not attacking big business its creating new busnesses. Dion even ranted that this was an opportunity to make mega bucks, when he was Environment minister. Last week they released a report that a new interprovincial carbon market to trade carbon emissions could be cretated and generate $12B for transfer payments to and from the provinces. It said Quebec (surprise, surprise) has clean power, and Albeta has dirty power. I never saw that coming, but hey, these guys are brilliant when it comes to shifty deals............

 

[Wild Bill]

...even if they're right?

-dh

How can I tell, David? Many of them spout out their premises in an elitist arrogant manner and dismiss any criticism as coming from "climate change DENIERS!"

We've all seen posts implying that anyone who disagrees with the posted premise must be either ignorant or in the pocket of big business/oil/whatever.

If you won't accept their premise then you're immediately brushed off. The idea that perhaps you didn't make a good proof of your case is never considered. If their premise asks me to disregard what I've learned for myself over the years of course I'm gonna balk! I need it explained to me in a way I can understand. Just because someone has lots of footnotes to his paper or initials after his name doesn't mean I'll just turn off my own brain and allow him to wash in his own beliefs. The worst at this are those that believe their own BS. Give me an honest con artist any day! It took me a number of years to learn the difference between sincerity and truth. A lot of folks are very sincere and thus are easy to trust. You still have to weigh their premises. Nice folks can still be wrong!

Yes, "they" could be right but I've never been one to change my mind just because I've been insulted or declared a "pariah". Usually I've found that if someone can't give me a good reason to change my opinion he either doesn't have one or worse yet, doesn't feel he needs one!

If someone doesn't agree with me it doesn't bother me a whit. I can still have a beer with them. My prejudices lean more towards the musical than political. I don't like to drink with whining cowboys or disco players.:2guns:

 

[Accept2]

Not only do they attack people as being in bed with big business, they claim that anyone who disagrees with them is against the environment. I am a Libertarian. Libertarians dont believe in Kyoto. Libertarians dont buy into the whole climate change idea. They must be evil anti environment right? Libertarians believe ALL pollution is illegal, and the government has a responsibility to fix ALL pollution. The ideal Libertarian solution is to utilize the best (nuclear) technology on this planet regardless of where it comes from or what it costs. We dont care if we have to buy from China, France, Russia, or even Iran. Libertarians see no VFM from Kyoto, wind power, carbon markets and all of this bullshit. We must simply be evil creatures who want to see the earth destroyed.......

 

[Wild Bill]

Not only do they attack people as being in bed with big business, they claim that anyone who disagrees with them is against the environment. I am a Libertarian. Libertarians dont believe in Kyoto. Libertarians dont buy into the whole climate change idea...We must simply be evil creatures who want to see the earth destroyed.......

Libertarian, eh? Thought you might be. Libertarians tend to be quite rational in their arguments. Myself, I guess I'm similar but more like a classic Liberal. This of course is nothing like what calls itself a liberal today.

One of Heinlein's characters described himself as a "rational anarchist". This is someone who gives blind obedience to no law at all but rather makes a conscious choice in every situation for himself. This type of personality views blind obedience as abdication of being a moral or ethical being - an escape of personal responsibility.

I wouldn't go so far as to call myself such but I do feel guilty if I find myself hiding behind the excuse that "I did what I was told!" or "Everyone else was doing it!"

Anyhow, when you mention how "they" view all who disagree as "being in bed with big business" reminds me of a native spokeswoman from Caledonia in our local paper. She categorized the townspeoples' resentment of the native protest actions as being "racism".

This just blew me away! Personally, I agree with the bulk of the native's grievances but their actions towards the townspeople were and continue to be unfair harassment. They used the townspeople as pawns in their dispute with the government. They blocked convenient travel through the town, beat up not just some tv cameramen but an old man and his wife who inadvertently drove too close to the protest line, set fire to a Hydro transformer and killed the power to the town for a day or two and continue to harass folks who live adjacent to the disputed lands by driving through their backyards on ATVs at night, with music blaring and shining headlights into bedroom windows.

It's equivalent to me punching you in the face and then telling you that you have no right to get angry at me because someone else (in this case the government) MADE you do it!

And if you're still angry at me, then you must be a racist!

Everybody's a victim today, it seems. And everybody's claiming victim's rights...