Posted on 06/14/2006 5:40:56 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Willful ignorance is the stock-in-trade of demogogues.
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: 1dem·a·gogue
Function: noun
1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
The very definition of Algore.
From the article that you obviously didn't read:
In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."
"Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field...
...Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
So there is no political agenda behind the draconian social policies that proponents of global warming want to hoist on the rest of society?
Gore....speaks with forked tongue? Nah! He's not a snake. That's an insult to snakes everywhere.
It's just that he's the spawn of Satan! Haha!
If my opinions are "faith-based," then I must be an agnostic as my plainly stated opinion on global warming (which you quoted verbatim) makes clear. I did, however, read the entire article you posted, which was circulating freely on the internet yesterday and which (perhaps not so coincidentially) I had also received yesterday by email from a friend. Out of curiosity, I conducted a little cursory research to find the opposing point of view. Lo and behold, I easily found the contradictory opinions of qualified reputable scientists who specialize in the subject. Apparently, you did not follow the links I provided for you or, if you did read those articles, have your own scientific religion.
Anyway, I think you have confused cause and effect. The "draconian policies" you perceive the global warming proponents want to "hoist on society" are caused not by a political agenda, but by their obvious acceptance of the global warming theories propounded by reputable qualified scientists. Thus, I think you have erroneously confused policy with motive.
By the way, I really liked the way you turned my phrase "willful ignorance does not make for good public policy" by replying "willful ignorance is the stock-in-trade of demagogues." That was quite clever (and I mean it as a compliment). How about this one as a compromise? Willful ignorance in the pursuit of self-interest is to be expected. That should cover all bases here.
I get it.
You have policies, people who disagree with you have agendas.
How Democrat of you.
I seem to recall that not I, but you, had either ignored or summarily dismissed the qualified reputable scientists who support with my "faith-based" opinion. An opinion, I should add, that literally was no opinion at all, but an expression of uncertainty. And because I asserted that those supporting policy changes to address global warming were doing so based on the opinions of reputable qualified scientists, you concluded, again without any apparent basis or logic, that "[I] have policies, people who disagree with [me] have agendas."
Rather than trade insults, I will leave you with this appropriate quotation: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident.” Arthur Schopenhauer
"There're people like [Lindzen] in every field of science. There are always people in the fringes. They're attracted to the fringe . . . It may be as simple as, how do you prove you're smarter than everyone else? You don't do that by being part of the consensus," Held says.
The other skeptics are portrayed as loonier than Lindzen (i.e. not to be taken seriously as scientists. The argument against human-caused warming is the one being ridiculed here. The AGW proponents who predict doom via tipping points invite ridicule since there is zero science in those scenarios, just speculation and rigged computer models. There's ridiculous statements by the other side as well.
As for violently opposed, that exists on both sides, for example peer review by skeptics is sorely lacking causing Gray and others to lash out at the publications. The violence on the human-caused side is often subtle since political correctness on the environment and other issues has thoroughly infected the mainstream. I used to read Scientific American 20 years ago and it's astounding to read it today.
Garbage in, garbage out. That about covers it.
I would say "leftist Al Gore" typified by his books like Earth in the Balance, only government control and socialism can save us. Once science has been selectively processed into political arguments, you have to expect that the political (with us, against us) type arguments are going to infect the scientific debate. Both sides are guilty of trivializing, exaggerating, repeating non-facts over and over, etc.
You ought to have the luxury of suggesting that the (AGW) science is correct without suggesting Al Gore is fully correct. Cogitator does a pretty good job of arguing the science alone without endorsing (and explicitly criticizing) the leftist solutions proposed by Gore like Kyoto (redistributing wealth from us to socialist dictators in Africa). My only suggestion is to do as much of your own research as possible rather than rely on the media which generally presents only one side.
Any links to sites or blogs that have denunked his movie are welcome.
"But I do know enough not to ridicule the reputable qualified scientists studying global climate change simply because their views or conclusions do not fit cleanly into my political agenda."
I agree with you, but you that in response to a poster calling Al Gore a demagogue...
Where do you get the nutty idea that Al Gore is a 'reputable qualified scientists studying global climate change'?
Yes, lets get the data and let's not have wilful ignorance and discuss it fairly ... but the position of many here (myself included) is that Gore's efforts are propoganda that spreads ignorance not information.
Try to stand up for the right side.
(I'm not registered there.)
Your points are all spot-on. The attacks on global warming skeptics is mainly ad hominem - they dont like the message so they attack the messanger.
"I used to read Scientific American 20 years ago and it's astounding to read it today."
SciAm has degenerated into being a font of agenda-driven political clap-trap. Very sad.
"I asserted that those supporting policy changes to address global warming"
... the only policy change that makes any sense wrt global warming is to build 1,000 nuclear power plants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.