Posted on 12/20/2006 7:46:46 PM PST by ancient_geezer
There's a lot of power at stake. If this is true, or accepted as true, and we decide to take the corrective action they want, it vests a trmendous amound of power in individuals who get their rocks off telling people what to do. Also, they want most of the reductions in emissions from the places that make them most efficiently already, the US. This is very appealing to people who hate business and/or hate the US. This is one way you can see their hypocrisy for yourself; the exemption of countries that pollute so much more egregiously than the ones where they want to reduce emissions.
How are they accomplishing this feat of mass manipulation?
Some Nazi, Goebbels or maybe Hitler himself said "If you tell people something often enough and long enough, they will believe it." The pro crowd, as the article notes, has an almost complete lock on favorable or at least unbiased media coverage, so this is what people are told, almost exclusively. Also, I think people have a bias toward believing scares, despite the lessons of history, even that of their own lives.
I'm one of the few "believers" in GW here, at least to a certain extent, however, this silencing of the opposition is quite creepy..
Exactly. That fuels my skepticism more than any specific scientific evidence against anthropogenic GW. They're not behaving like people do when they have obvious truth on their side. There are what seem to me, an ignorant but intelligent layman on climate, reasonable questions, and they won't answer them. They want to demonize even discussing the issue objectively, which leads me to wonder why they're so worried. It reminds me of the Wisard of OZ "Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain..."
Actually, if Gore is the one talking, he may have a point about the man behind the curtain being irrelevant. It's probably x42 getting an emergency hummer.
Good point. I wonder if Al Gore would recognize the reference if he was called a Lysenkoist.
Global Warming Theory is extremely robust with respect to data. All observations confirm it with probability 1.0.
Global warming is about bring capitalism to it's knees.
Global Warming justifies the Left's romance with power. Leftism attracts people (think Hillary) who like to tell other people what to do. Since almost everyone has given up on State control of the economy, at least on economic grounds, environmentalism is the one remaining pretext.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H. L. Mencken
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." --H. L. Mencken
"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review,"
Have you seen this allegation, ancient geezer?
Don't know. Has he called for criminalizing climate skeptics?
When you find yourself arguing with zealots, it helps to leave logic out of the discussion and go straight to motive.
Disengenuous; how long do you suppose would it take for a dedicated decrease in global temperatures detectable at all levels before somebody was able to convince the crusaders that they just may be wrong?
1998 seems to be a peak year in the agreed upon warming trend and since then we have been a bit cooler and then a bit closer to warmer and back and forth for almost nine years now and the band plays on.
There is a political paradigm being created right now and some really big players want to cash in while the fervor is fully pitched; nothing short of Hell freezing over will shut these folks up.
Rowland and Cicerone are the two biggest publicity hounds in the entire scientific community.
Neither of them has been a practicing meteorologist since 1985, they have been on the rubber chicken circuit.
Give us the source on that, okay?
I know Singer well enough from phone conversations if he was in disagreement with his position then that he would publically change it now.
Cogitator needs to show us where he got this and where it was published (peer-review?) before we go off on posters.
Don't you mean post 38?
And to follow on cogitator's question at the end of post 38, why take seriously a petition with such poor quality control?
p
Cogitator provided a link. Why would the allegation need peer review? But you raise a legitimate concern, OP, if you question the authenticity of the NAS Council statement.
I've tried finding the NAS Council statement, denouncing the Oregon petition, from the NAS itself. But its search engine didn't help, and Googling doesn't help. Perhaps poor keywords.
On the other hand, I haven't Googled any rebuttals to the (alleged) NAS slam of the Oregon Petition, so...?
BTW, I didn't "go off" on ancient_geezer. I just asked for his comment
I'd say about a decade, because the warming trend is so pronounced now. 3-4 year trends aren't enough.
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.