:') Thanks Arthur Wildfire! March.
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
Posted on 07/18/2010 11:24:25 AM PDT by RogerFGay
As I mentioned in Al Gore Appears–Note to Warmers: No More Do-Overs!:If at first they don’t succeed then they will deny and lie again! And that goes for the second time, the third, the fourth …. You get it – as never-ending as Florida recounts; it goes on and on until responsible people step in and put a stop to it.OK … now … certainly if you've tried to follow the warmers arguments at all, you remember the claim of a “scientific consensus.” It was showcased in Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth. Supposedly, all credible scientists were absolutely certain that the things he said in his movie were true; just as surely as gravity exists and the earth is round.From the ardent Internet believer in global warming “theory” who can’t provide any real scientific evidence, to the East Anglia researchers who insist that Climategate is merely a misunderstanding, to IPCC defenders who claim their reports are only in error by a few insignificant typos, to Al Gore still battling the imminent destruction of planet Earth by the evil “global warming pollutants,” there can never be too many chances to ignore defeat and start all over again – from the beginning.
It's part of the basic propaganda formula. Claiming that everyone who's anyone believes … is sometimes called the bandwagon technique. In this case, the “everyone” refers to scientists, and that adds an an appeal to authority, another propaganda ploy. (related article on these techniques and others) Al Gore was very direct. “This isn't me claiming these things,” he insisted. (I'm not going to watch the movie again to make sure I have this word for word, but it's accurate.) “These are scientists.” And he went on to quote figures from a published article on how many articles had been published that referred to global warming.
Then Al Gore's claims were reviewed. Lists of factual errors and speculations in his film were created, some longer than others. A British judge found misinformation and made it the law of the land to reveal and discuss them when showing the film to school children. It turned out that the paper on which the consensus claim was based misrepresented what scientists had said in their papers, and why they had even bothered to mention global warming. (Follow the money. The federal government was writing grant offerings in a wide variety of fields requiring its mention.) And even if the paper had been accurate, it had little very little to do with Al Gore's specific claims.
Over 30,000 scientists signed a petition urging the United States to reject the Kyoto agreement, stating:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.Additional petitions, such as the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change included scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders who had reviewed the evidence and affirmed that climate change is natural and normal and that carbon dioxide is not a “pollutant,” among other things.Various surveys were conducted among scientists and practitioners in earth and atmospheric sciences showing much weaker support than warming propagandists had claimed. And then came Climategate, exposing the fraudulent science that had some scientists and so many non-scientists believing that something more had been going on than actually was. Belief in catastrophic man-made global warming dropped like a rock in all quarters.
Did I say global warming propagandists always want to start over again no matter how many times they lose the debate? Yes I did, and here we go.
Before quickly commenting on the cause, take a look at the effect. USA Today titles a June 22 article Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real. Excerpts:
The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity.The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provided a hit-list of scientists whom the authors claim should not be believed on the subject of global warming. Holy politically motivated blacklist!!!! This is exactly the complaint made by credible scientists about the bias in scientific publications on climate; one of the elements of the scam highlighted by Climategate emails. Warming propagandists make systematic efforts to shut other scientists out to keep their fraudulent work from being exposed.The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is "very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century."
…..
As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates.
The authors hand picked the 1,372 scientists in their review, a small portion of the 10s of thousands of scientists who have weighed in on the subject, and made up their own criteria for determining agreement with the IPCC and for determining who's credible and who's not. If the public pays much attention to this paper – I personally guarantee you'll be hearing more about the bias, misrepresentations, and misleading illogic that this paper has to offer.
Meanwhile, the IPCC is in critical condition. Warmers are trying to save it, and start up the eternal do-overs to bring it some credibility in the eyes of the non-scientific public - or at least give cover to continuing political efforts on Cap-n-Trade and government takeovers through PR tricks like reorganization and instruction manuals for good conduct. Why isn't there a law demanding that these people let the dead horse rest in peace?
Nuh-uh!
Every scientist knows that 97.6438% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
tag
|
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
What?
It is very risky for any group of people to put all of their eggs into the basket of an extremely small minority of folks in the scientific community. Al Gore might be an blowhard (and a groper!), but in the end, that doesn’t matter; science always wins.
Scientific realities are not defined by party or ideological affiliations. If the conservative movement hitches its wagon to a poor hunch that ultimately becomes The Flat Earth Society, the conservative movement will cease to exist, and that is not good.
This fellow explains the danger quite well: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/science+Global+warming+deniers+liability+conservative+cause/3284292/story.html
Your linked article is crap. . . Just like anthropogenic global warming. I'd use stronger words but this is a family forum.
It's claim of 3% denialist scientists is based on the IPCC article using statistics based on a hand picked universe of "scientists" who were selected for their adherence to AGW, and then polled about whether they "believed" in AGW. The only "surprise" I see is that there were ANY deniers in the group at all!
The facts are that there have always been a majority of real scientists, many of them meteorologists and climatologists, who have questioned the evidence behind even the existence of Global Warming, and even more who have questioned the anthropogenic nature of it. I speak as one who was taking honors courses in college in the late 60s and early 70s in Anthropogenic Global Cooling. . . Leading to another ice age.
Looking at your ‘oh so scant’ posting history.... quite obvious you are a bleeding heart lib... hope that global warming scam doesn’t pan out for you.
“The Emperor’s New Clothes” - Two weavers persuade the king that the “invisible suit” they have made him cannot be seen by anyone who is unfit for his position or is stupid.
Naturally, no one among the “in-crowd” will admit that he cannot see the suit.
A child, however, blurts out: “But he isn’t wearing anything at all!”
Did you hear about the statistician who drowned in a river whose average was only 1” deep?
|
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
Roger, my point is that Al Gore is as irrelevant as is Rush Limbaugh. They are entertainers! While both of them have probably spent a couple of hours googling on the subject, it is clear than neither of them have any background in the sciences. And no, I am not trying to advise others on what to think; quite the contrary, I encourage people to become informed. It drives me nuts when somebody says, “I believe in global warming.” Right or wrong, that implies a blind faith, rather than an understanding of the issue.
Again, science knows nothing about ideology. Where ideology comes in is how to deal with these issues. I don’t believe that sticking one’s head in the sand is ever the way to deal with a growing problem, but I also don’t believe in many of today’s kooky proposals like “cap and trade” (which I liken to papal indulgences).
The author makes the case really well that people of all stripes often tend to go with that which makes them comfortable, rather than making an effort to understand an issue. BTW, the “3%” number comes from a variety of sources. I would take stock in any of them that are not political bodies long before I would the IPCC.
Fortunately, Swordmaker was wise to not hitch his wagon to a stupid star (those who some forty years ago thought that we were going to enter into another ice age). :-) I don’t know if he made the right choice because of his complete education, but again, the numbers of ice age believers (I don’t know what else to call them) were small, they were in the minority, and ultimately, science is always right and the history speaks for itself.
No, I am not saying that the majority (even a vast one) is always right. There was a time when a majority of folks were in support of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Sadly, many people didn’t engage their brains, and many followed him onto the ash heap of history.
In any event, I found the author’s insights engaging, and sadly, nobody here wanted to engage him (calling his writing ‘crap’ doesn’t count). One of the challenges of conservativism is the double-edged sword of being resistant to change. While it is a good trait, one has to accept that the world is a changing place. When I was born, the CO2 in the atmosphere was 330 PPM; it is now 390 PPM. There has undeniably been a change!
science is based on experiments, not opinion polls.
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.