The Real Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming: Skeptics Have Valid Arguments

Capitalism Magazine ^ | December 19, 2006 | Tom DeWeese

[Old Professer]

And you can probably hold you own in a good game of poker, but that doesn't make you the arbiter of truth or the search for it.

What we're talking about here is wholesale change in the lifestyle and behaviour of the entire advanced world because some ninnies believe that a few million scrawny little lifeforms can do what 5 billion years of natural disasters have failed to do, namely, the destruction of our host planet - according to the crowd you prefer to run with, our welcome is over and the planet now needs to shrug off its peskiest parasites before it careers into the sun.

[cogitator]

Absolutely. Let the senators combat rhetoric with better rhetoric in the battle for public opinion. (Although in the case of tobacco, I hesitate to endorse any Congressional intervention at all).

Well, we disagree. For Congress to make proper policy decisions requires an informed electorate. A misinformed electorate may request that their Congressional representatives vote one way on a particular issue, whereas if they had been correctly informed, they would request a different vote.

I happened to see a piece on Headline News last night that was chilling. It was about how the Muslim media (particularly in Iran) manipulates public opinion. They said things like "Coca-Cola is contributing billions for the overthrow of Iran", Pepsi stands for "Pay Every Penny to Save Israel" -- stunning. The people who receive this unfiltered propaganda clearly have mistaken, widely mistaken view(s) about the West and the U.S., because they have been so misinformed and manipulated. Do we condone what the government run media is doing? I hope not.

Should I (or we) condone the deliberate conveyance of inaccurate information as fact, particularly if important policy decisions are at stake? I don't.

If ExxonMobil funded actual research that might investigate some of the wobbly pillars of AGW theory, I'd have little problem with that. What I have a problem with is ExxonMobil funding thinktanks who have employees who write inaccurate disinformation pieces like the one that kicked off this thread. That makes no contribution to science and it only serves to confuse the public on an issue that's already confusing enough.

So I don't have a problem with Snowe and Rockefeller having the same problem with ExxonMobil that I do. I got sick and tired of the "satellites don't show warming" argument six years ago, when they were showing warming and reanalysis shows more warming. How many years did it take to clear that one out of the public mind? (and due to the persistence of Web memory, it's still out there).

[Old Professer]

You, your; aargh! Shouldn't try to type when I'm eating a deli chicken sandwich that tastes like cardboard.

[cogitator]

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

[Old Professer]

Sociology?

[cogitator]

Sociology?

Not really. This was in response to your concern about the destruction of the planet. The planet and life on it will persist in some form for many millenia to come. But I think for many reasons -- including environmental stress -- human civilization will be challenged significantly this century. I wish I could figure out how to live to 2100 to see what happens.

[kidd]

Look.

Robinson prepares technical articles. Singer prepares technical articles. Your assertion that they purposely prepared these articles to bamboozle readers is absurd. They prepared the article in a fashion that they are accustomed.

And the idea that a former President of the NAS is not supposed to present his credentials is absurd.

The Petition is distinctly divided into different categories. It has always been clear to me that 17,000 refers to those with a technical background...and it has always been presented that 2100 of those have an advanced understanding of the subject. The "QC" has indeed been performed on the signatures. It is very curious that your oped hit piece had to refer to 2003 problems (before the signatures were reviewed) to make this ridiculous point. Of course the Petition was hijacked! Are you suggesting that thousands of these signatures are bogus? Does the hijacking by agenda-driven leftists reduce the impact of the Petition? NO!!

The article is NOT skewed. It is very well referenced. It may appear skewed to someone who reads it with a pre-skewed point of view.

"A lot of the signers may have just read the first paragraph and signed it." - cogitator

Who has a skewed point of view? Do you have a reference to back up this statement????

[Old Professer]

Those most determined to frighten you into precipitous action are counting on the very fact that you won't.

[cogitator]

Robinson prepares technical articles. Singer prepares technical articles. Your assertion that they purposely prepared these articles to bamboozle readers is absurd. They prepared the article in a fashion that they are accustomed.

Because it was in PNAS format, it looked like a peer-reviewed article. Did they intend for readers to take it seriously? Probably.

And the idea that a former President of the NAS is not supposed to present his credentials is absurd.

Sure he can; but the scientists objected to the potential for misperception of a link to NAS.

The article is NOT skewed. It is very well referenced. It may appear skewed to someone who reads it with a pre-skewed point of view.

OK, remove "skewed", insert "wildly wrong". And refer to:

Rabett Run, post entitled "Gift for John H.".

"A lot of the signers may have just read the first paragraph and signed it." Do you have a reference to back up this statement????

No. I looked at the petition and made a personal observation. The first paragraph of the petition is reasonable. The second is not (in my opinion). Signers could certainly agree with the first paragraph and not the second, and still sign it because they agree with the first paragraph.

[secretagent]

It was about how the Muslim media (particularly in Iran) manipulates public opinion. They said things like "Coca-Cola is contributing billions for the overthrow of Iran", Pepsi stands for "Pay Every Penny to Save Israel" -- stunning. The people who receive this unfiltered propaganda clearly have mistaken, widely mistaken view(s) about the West and the U.S., because they have been so misinformed and manipulated. Do we condone what the government run media is doing?

No, I don't condone what the government run media does in Iran.

I see two solutions to that. One: end the censorship in Iran of free speech so government lies can get disputed. Two: end government media in Iran and everywhere else.

Your example supports my argument for government not limiting discussion.

Should I (or we) condone the deliberate conveyance of inaccurate information as fact, particularly if important policy decisions are at stake? I don't.

Neither do I, but I don't want laws saying "If we're really sure we're right, we can force our opponents to shut up and admit their error". Sounds like Iran or any commie country.

So I don't have a problem with Snowe and Rockefeller having the same problem with ExxonMobil that I do. I got sick and tired of the "satellites don't show warming" argument six years ago, when they were showing warming and reanalysis shows more warming. How many years did it take to clear that one out of the public mind? (and due to the persistence of Web memory, it's still out there).

If Snowe and Rockefeller have a problem with "satellites don't show warming", then let them explain why they have a problem. Let them debate the advocates of error, or summon experts to do same.

[Doomonyou]

AL Gore Global Warming BS doink for later.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

I doubt that a class Roger Revelle was involved with was Elementary Basketweaving -- especially at Harvard.

It was an introductory survey science course for liberal arts majors, in fact. The "especially at Harvard" qualifier indicates that you have never really known anyone who graduated from Harvard.

I am about Al Gore's age, and guys I went to high school with would not even have bothered to apply to Harvard with SATs below 1400. (I knew one kid, a Columbian immigrant who didn't get into Columbia, friggin' worthless Columbia, with SATs above 1400.) Since it was the only college he applied to, one is tempted to believe that the fix was in.

Approximately one in sixty people of the population have an IQ of 133 or above. In my high school class of 440 people you'd expect about seven people to have higher IQ's. My high school was a selective Catholic high school. The lower cut off IQ was about 100, so in my graduating class of 440, there were probably around 14 people with higher IQs. None of them applied to Harvard.

[kidd]

I write technical articles for publication. They are written for EPRI, NACE and others. The format is quite similar to NAS. To claim that the format is exclusively a NAS format is incorrect. It is the format of a technical article. The idea that NAS comes out and makes a disclaimer on the format is a political ploy.

Those of us with a technical background are accustomed to seeing articles in this format. I was neither impressed nor mislead by the format of the article.

The fact that the attack against the Petition has to do with the damn format of the article, rather than its substance... is weak. It simply suggests a "second-hand" attack...if you cannot successfully address the issue directly, then make something up to attack. The "Macaca" attack was similar.

And you sent me to "Rabett Run" and you try to pass yourself as impartial??? Talk of "deniers" and personal attacks on Inhofe, followed by a weak attempt at humor in the form of a "12 days of Christmas format" attacking "deniers"??? And then praise for Al Gore's ridiculous movie???

Well, I found your reference. And I had to suffer through sentences like this: "There has been great laughter in the Bunny Bar about some recent attempts to deny this, by the Good Diplom Beck and before him by Zbigniew Jaworowski, whose fantasy has become food for the Boojum. But let us descend into the RBTR abyss. Please don you protective bunny suit so that you will not have to be sent to the full body cleaners." And after a claim that Robinson cherry-picked his references, I was treated to a set of the author's cherry-picked references.

Childish. No, it was...skewed. No... "wildly wrong"

I'm sorry that you have such a low opinion of those who hold technical degrees. Most of us read entire articles. I guess if we had studied hard, and worked towards our degrees in Climate Science that we would have been intelligent. Instead, we R stuk hear in Irak.

[kalee]

bttt

[metesky]

The author doesn't know that Snowe is a Senator from Maine, not Massachusetts or that the Inquisition occurred during the late Middle Age not the Dark Age.

Doesn't anybody have an editor anymore?

[cogitator]

Let them debate the advocates of error, or summon experts to do same.

I learned a long time ago that a clever debater can win a debate and still be wrong. (Ever hear of Duane Gish?) That's what this discussion is about: an honest and accurate presentation of facts, or skewed, biased, and polished presentations intended primarily to influence public opinion, accuracy be d*mned.

[cogitator]

The idea that NAS comes out and makes a disclaimer on the format is a political ploy.

The press release disclaimer was due to the format and the association of the petition with Seitz, past NAS president.

And you sent me to "Rabett Run" and you try to pass yourself as impartial???

I sent the link because it had a discussion of the errors in the article. It's the information that matters, not the source. Because I concentrate on the information, I can ignore the associated slant of the language.

[secretagent]

(Ever hear of Duane Gish?)

I just googled him. Wikipedia says he ignores data that contradicts his Creationism, gives some detail, and lists experts and links if one want more information. So?

Sounds like he "wins" debates only with true believers.

Clever debaters have their tactics, but Wikipedia and others can reveal their tricks.

That's what this discussion is about: an honest and accurate presentation of facts, or skewed, biased, and polished presentations intended primarily to influence public opinion, accuracy be d*mned.

I see no way to legislate against deceit as opposed to sincere error.

Just the opposite. When senators demand that citizens submit, even in their speech, to the truth of the day, then politics prevails over discussion. That includes honest discussion.

Senators don't need to limit their discussion to debate. They can request testimony, both written and oral. They can sit opposing experts at the same table and ask questions.

Ultimately they have to pick a side, but they don't to need censor the opposition.

[SunkenCiv]

Earth's Climate Changes in Tune with Eccentric Orbital Rhythms
Scientific American.com | December 22, 2006 | By David Biello
Posted on 12/22/2006 2:53:58 PM EST by aculeus
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1757447/posts