I'm sure thoughtful readers see it as thought provoking and informative. Quality always speaks louder than mediocrity and content always trumps bluster (even bluster that "can [laughably] go link for link with you.")
Quote:
Originally Posted by CurtisEMayle
Please refrain from posting junk science links; this isn't a game. Instead, I'll re-post my comments from another thread, though it may be lost on you.
Illusory free-thinkers employ denialism though rhetorical tactics (conspiracy, selectivity, false experts, impossible expectations, moving goalposts, argument from metaphor, violations of informal logic) to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there are none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are only effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.
Behaviorally, climate denialism attracts a certain mind-set. They are delighted to be among the select few who have discovered the Big Secret - the Great Scientific Conspiracy. Only they can see through the lies. It's what sets them apart from the sheep around them.
An accepted scientific "consensus" is that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Therefore, according to junk science rationale, and the possible existence of any "free-thinkers" who may believe otherwise ? it doesn't. That's precisely why it's futile to engage in rational debates with climate change deniers ? the quality of their thought processes doesn't reward scrutiny. It's energy wasted that could otherwise be applied to solutions.
For those who feel that they have a valid scientific argument or uncertainties, I suggest taking them, along with supporting evidence, to a place where they can be held up to scrutiny with climate scientists ... e.g., RealClimate or SkepticalScience. Forewarning, noise will not be tolerated, but serious valid arguments, sound reasoning, and respectful questions to expand your knowledge are encouraged and will be accorded a professional response. For those who can't resist anonymous bloviating amongst the close-minded, link to junk science sites like ClimateAudit, Wattsupwiththat, or ClimateResistance ... many of whom are funded by special interests often under the cover of "think tanks", e.g., here, here, here, and here, to manufacture uncertainty rather than the pursuit of truth and solutions. They're known not for debate, but for the cloistering of the scientifically illiterate to keep each other warm by propagating their myths unthinkingly and uncritically by the willing media and those on blogs seeking their self-deluded genius moments. However, these diatribes serve no constructive purpose in a safe, unrelated forum, e.g., AI, with endless streams of techy-sounding gobbledegook, discredited junk science, emotionally charged accusations/innuendo, and/or noisy nonsense aimed at an audience who doesn't understand complex statistics and who are thought to be impressed by jargon, liberal-baiting, and/or ad hominem snarky asides.
Please don't obstruct those who passionately care and are enthusiastically willing to do more than engage in rhetorical gamesmanship. To be a responsible citizen and global neighbor, our call-to-action is to productively contribute and lead with dignity in "building a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. (Obama)"
With the aforementioned in mind, I sincerely hope that everyone can get onboard and join a worthwhile cause ... something larger than oneself.
You did exactly what I thought you'd do "your science sucks and mine is always right." I don't even understand how to get through to you people. I can link to scientific articles, I can link to scientific studies, I can link to scientific studies done by people who get no funding FROM ANYONE and you'll still claim it's crap because you don't like it.
I'll freely admit you've got a lot of scientific articles to back up your stance but the difference between me and you is that I recognize the otherside of a legitmate argument whereas you will not.
Your entire assertion is incorrectly presumptuous and predictable, though not laudable. I actually have researched the links cited (many hours a day for the last 24 months) in the pursuit of truth (assisting the establishment of a responsible energy policy), not selective Googling in the pursuit of bias confirmation.
If you wish to be taken seriously by me, it's inadvisable to merely fill in your knowledge gaps with anything that comes to mind or cut-and-paste from a junk science data (previously demonstrated false, discredited, or untested assertions).
Some of the postings call to mind H.L. Mencken's notable attacks on ignorance, intolerance, frauds, and the ignorant middle classes. They may be equally applied today by substituting the current topic for Mencken's.
The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame. True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge.
The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong.
All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant.
The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
The curse of man, and cause of nearly all of his woes, is his stupendous capacity for believing the incredible.
The world always makes the assumption that the exposure of an error is identical with the discovery of truth -- that error and truth are simply opposite. They are nothing of the sort. What the world turns to, when it has been cured of one error, is usually another error, and maybe one worse than the first one.
For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false.
That's my last comment on the matter. (applause from the peanut gallery)
I don't even understand how to get through to you people.
Perhaps the only way to really get through to people is some powerful symbolic act that will wake us all up and bring us all to our senses ? Self immolation might work. (Just trying to be helpful.
Your entire assertion is incorrectly presumptuous and predictable, though not laudable. I actually have researched the links cited (many hours a day for the last 24 months) in the pursuit of truth (assisting the establishment of a responsible energy policy), not selective Googling in the pursuit of bias confirmation.
If you wish to be taken seriously by me, it's inadvisable to merely fill in your knowledge gaps with anything that comes to mind or cut-and-paste from a junk science data (previously demonstrated false, discredited, or untested assertions).
Some of the postings call to mind H.L. Mencken's notable attacks on ignorance, intolerance, frauds, and the ignorant middle classes. They may be equally applied today by substituting the current topic for Mencken's.
The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame. True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge.
The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong.
All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant.
The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
The curse of man, and cause of nearly all of his woes, is his stupendous capacity for believing the incredible.
The world always makes the assumption that the exposure of an error is identical with the discovery of truth -- that error and truth are simply opposite. They are nothing of the sort. What the world turns to, when it has been cured of one error, is usually another error, and maybe one worse than the first one.
For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false.
That's my last comment on the matter. (applause from the peanut gallery)
Dude, seriously, the stuff I linked to isn't under the junk science link. Unless of course you think that anything that goes against what you believe is junk science then, yes, absolutely, it's junk science and thousands of scientists around the world are blindly wasting their time and effort on junk science. (which I'll point out here in a second is rather intersting that you'd be so brash as to believe to know exactly what's right and wrong)
Wait, so, in point number 3 you're kinda outting yourself there. You are, by your own admission, 100% certain on what is right and wrong whereas I, as I've said repeatedly, accept both sides of the scientific debate. So, I guess you're saying you're not very civilized? Ok, that's fine with me.
Then you do it again in point 4 - you're certainly not skeptical of global warming and you're definitely not tolerant of the sciences behind the dissenting views.
I guess I'll just say thanks for the compliments and I hope you're not so hard on yourself next time.
Interesting implicit perspective you have there - everyone who agrees with your hypothesis is using science and everyone who disagrees with your hypothesis is using pseudo science. Since you have been delegated the authority to declare what is science and what is pseudo science, I suppose that it your prerogative.
Since you speak for all science, how do you explain the discrepancies in weather station records? If you look at all weather stations, there appears to be a historical rise in temperatures. However, if you look at just the weather stations that are in rural areas there is no historical trend of increasing temperatures. If you look at those stations around which cities have grown up over time, there is a significant increasing temperature trend. In other words, our historical records of temperature show that if you build cities around weather stations they will be in a warmer environment, but those weather stations in locations that remain more or less unchanged do not show an increase in temperature. You've got a pretty classic proof of the well known urban island heat effect there, but no smoking gun proof of global warming.
The consequence is that we have to face the fact that the only meaningful direct measurements of temperature and temperature trends we have on a global scale have only come into existence in the age of modern weather & climate satellites over the past couple of decades or so. Since it is also well known that there are natural cyclical effects on global temperature of a similar time scale (such as the solar cycle and the Pacific ocean thermal cycle), it is simply impossible to determine at this time by direct measurement whether or not we are observing normal temperature fluctuations of a cyclical nature or a long term trend. At present global warming is only a conjecture that is supported by indirect and inconclusive evidence at best.
Of course I'm sure you're now going to tell me Im full of pseudo science and expose me for a heretic since I dared to question your dogma.
Here's the answer to your question about urban vs. rural temperature measurements:
As you can see, the scientists you so disagree with are not as dumb as you think. Do you honestly think they would overlook something as simple as urban heat island effects as the cause for global warming? Would several thousand researchers be so stupid?
Perhaps the only way to really get through to people is some powerful symbolic act that will wake us all up and bring us all to our senses ? Self immolation might work. (Just trying to be helpful.
Or just give up trying, I know I should by now. I could ask you the colors of the rainbow and if somebody told you it just alternated between red and blue you'd probably call me an idiot for saying ROY G BIV.
And here's the rub (this is akin to saying you can't prove God doesn't exist) "On the scientific evidence so far, according to Dr Kusano, the IPCC assertion that atmospheric temperatures are likely to increase continuously and steadily "should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis"."
Good practices towards keeping our environment good is the way to go.
Global warming is a farce being forced on us. Redistribution of wealth is the real truth. There's so much junk science we'll never know the real truth.
Read Atlas Shrugged for a little enlightenment.
I've read everything Ian Rand wrote. The Fountain Head and the rest.
Like I just said, if you wanna go link for link I'll do it but if you simply ignore the science of the other side because you think it's tainted how is that any less scientific than the findings of those who get their money from those who would benefit the most from climing significant global warming. I.E. Applying your argument just to the dissenters views is the most unscientific of all.
So, why don't you explain to us exactly why you think the overwhelming consensus in the climatology community rejects your position?
From Steve Jobs on down, Apple's always had a problem understanding people who work at less flashy jobs and don't have much money. That's why their products have traditionally be overpriced and their financial reserves bloated with cash. Their ratings with environmental groups may move up and down, but their "Compassion Index" has always been pitiful, like most of the Silicon Valley Companies, whether liberal or libertarian.
You see it in where the Silicon Valley makes its products. They go where the labor is cheapest. They are billionaires building their fortunes on the labors of far away people working for pennies an hour. Nike, who has joined this exodus of hypocrites, enriches their executives and major stockholders in much the same way. They find the cheapest labor and earn more in a day than many of their workers earn in a lifetime.
Similar behaviors exist in other industries, particularly on the West Coast. Back in the 1990s, REI, where I live in Seattle, shut down a local factory that made outdoor clothes. Where they losing money on the products? Not at REI prices. They could simply make more money by shifting their labor source from mostly Asian immigrant women here in the U.S. to mostly Asian women living in Asia. And a friend of mine knows some top REI executives from college days. They may not be as rich as Apple's board members, but they are very well paid. And they are callous jerks, although certainly environmentally correct jerks.
This brings up one of the strangest facts in present day politics--the absence of a modern day William Jennings Bryan to blast the coastal rich who care about no one but themselves. In Bryan's day, it was Eastern banks who preyed on Midwestern farmers. Today it's West Coast high tech firms who don't bother to make the gadgets we need in our own decaying industrial belt. From the data I have seen, in the case of Apple, employing people in the Rust Belt to make Macs and iPods wouldn't even keep them from making a profit, it'd just mean smaller profits. Like REI, Apple execs are not only jerks, they're rather stupid jerks. Eventually, we'll pay a price for letting one of the world's greatest industrial regions decline into oblivion.
A recent scientific study explains what's going on. It found that "buying Green" made people more likely to lie and cheat. The arrogance they felt from the first made them less interested in showing concern for others.
I suspect that's what's happening at Apple, particularly in the last couple of years. "Greener than thou" has morphed into "Holier than thou." And since Apple manufactures in China, which isn't foolish enough to adopt these policies, it can have it both ways. Apple can grow rich polluting and it can feel smug about how "Green" it is.
So, why don't you explain to us exactly why you think the overwhelming consensus in the climatology community rejects your position?
ooo, busted. You didn't read my links, bad bad bad. The consensus you refer to was conducted in 1992, as I'm sure you're aware was quite a while ago and a lot of new scientific data has become available. As such you now have thousands upon thousands of scientists coming out saying, wait not so fast. I'm not saying there wasn't a percieved consensus in 1992. Given the data we had at the time it's completely understandable but give a whole decade and a half of new data many scientists are starting to think maybe we should, ya know, do our jobs and continue to evaluate what's going on. (here's 31k more dissenters http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...0-deniers.aspx) (that's not on Curtis' list of "junk science" either, sorry C)
I suspect that's what's happening at Apple, particularly in the last couple of years. "Greener than thou" has morphed into "Holier than thou." And since Apple manufactures in China, which isn't foolish enough to adopt these policies, it can have it both ways. Apple can grow rich polluting and it can feel smug about how "Green" it is.
I suspect you simply have an anti-Apple, or anti-greenhouse-gas-emissions-control, axe to grind.
You did exactly what I thought you'd do "your science sucks and mine is always right." I don't even understand how to get through to you people. I can link to scientific articles, I can link to scientific studies, I can link to scientific studies done by people who get no funding FROM ANYONE and you'll still claim it's crap because you don't like it.
I'll freely admit you've got a lot of scientific articles to back up your stance but the difference between me and you is that I recognize the otherside of a legitmate argument whereas you will not.
Do you even understand the process by which knowledge-creation and dissemination works in today's world? Heard of peer-reviewed scientific journals? Heard of high-quality versus low-quality journals?
The consensus you refer to was conducted in 1992, as I'm sure you're aware was quite a while ago and a lot of new scientific data has become available.
I don't quite how to break this to you, but a consensus is not something that is "conducted", it's something that exists at a point in time. (Perhaps you were thinking of "census"?) And the overwhelming consensus in the climatology community, at this point in time -- i.e., now, today -- is that the threat of global warming is real.
So, can you please explain to us why you think they reject your position?
I suspect you simply have an anti-Apple, or anti-greenhouse-gas-emissions-control, axe to grind.
He probably does but it's interesting in that it speaks to most US industries as a whole. There are tons and tons (I think most actually) that do all of the pollution making practices overseas in a country where they aren't restricted but then do things here in the states that let them claim "going green." I'm not saying Apple did it for that reason but I think a lot of US Corporations have slowly figured out a great way to play both sides of the don't pollute/we want things cheaper situation.
I don't quite how to break this to you, but a consensus is not something that is "conducted", it's something that exists at a point in time. (Perhaps you were thinking of "census"?) And the overwhelming consensus in the climatology community, at this point in time -- i.e., now, today -- is that the threat of global warming is real.
So, can you please explain to us why you think they reject your position?
You still didn't read the link did you? Seriously, how can we have this conversation if you won't even click? The consensus was a result of a poll at a UN meeting in 1992.
The year was 1992 and the United Nations was about to hold its Earth Summit in Rio. It was billed as — and was — the greatest environmental and political assemblage in human history. Delegations came from 178 nations — virtually every nation in the world — including 118 heads of state or government and 7,000 diplomatic bureaucrats. The world’s environmental groups came too — they sent some 30,000 representatives from every corner of the world to Rio. To report all this, 7,000 journalists converged on Rio to cover the event, and relay to the publics of the world that global warming and other environmental insults were threatening the planet with catastrophe.
Honestly, do you want me to just post all the verbiage from the links or can you click them? I've linked to peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study and yet nobody will even bother to click to actually see what's there.
Do you even understand the process by which knowledge-creation and dissemination works in today's world? Heard of peer-reviewed scientific journals? Heard of high-quality versus low-quality journals?
Wait for it - I'm sure you're going to say it's from the UK or something so it's crap or some other excuse. That's just one of dozens, if you'd like I'll link to more but, it would be nice if you guys would actually read the links before jumping to the conclusion that you know what they say.
EDIT: I'll tease myself here but here's a link to a letter sent to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon co-authored by a handful of scientists, 3 of which are actually on the IPCC. http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Lett...an_Ki-moon.pdf So, you may argue that it's not very many people so the IPCC findings hold. Ok, fair enough, but what about the fact that members of the IPCC signed this as well? Either they both have merit (which is my assertion) or they are both sketchy. Either way it, to quote myself, throws a wrench into the system.
You still didn't read the link did you? Seriously, how can we have this conversation if you won't even click? The consensus was a result of a poll at a UN meeting in 1992.
[...]
Honestly, do you want me to just post all the verbiage from the links or can you click them? I've linked to peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study and yet nobody will even bother to click to actually see what's there.
Regarding the "consensus", see my comments above. (You know, the ones you responded to but don't seem to have actually read.)
No, I don't want you to post "verbiage" (which is exactly what it is), I'd like you to tell us why you personally believe the climatology community overwhelmingly rejects your position (which it does). Not that you think they are wrong, not even why you think they are wrong, but why you believe they reject all the "evidence" contained in all the links you can produce.
Based on the last 400,000 years we are not seeing anything out of the ordinary.
Talk a bout weak science.
As has been pointed out before, even though this web page is not obviously attributed (and is just a web site not a scientific peer reviewed paper,) other then having some fossil knowledge, the author is known to have no particular standing in the scientific community (especially in climatology.) He has a BS in geology, and is a retired historical geologist who worked in the West Virginia coal industry.
Perhaps you would link us to his peer reviewed work? Didn't think so.
Please premit yourself to click a link, really. ...
You keep repeating assertions that have been discredited for quite some time and therefore are not scientifically accepted today. That is why your links are derided. They are sheer nonsense at this point in time for purposes of scientific argument. Refer back to my statements about "illusory free-thinkers", the definition of junk science (this time no link to the definition, since comprehension does not seem to be your strong suit), and where you can go amongst climate science professionals to appropriately elaborate on any new evidence you have to suggest.
On a more sarcastic vein, permit me to recommend
Frankfurt, Harry (2005). On Bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691122946.
In the essay, Frankfurt sketches a theory of bullshit, defining the concept and analyzing its applications.
Quote:
"The liar deliberately makes false claims, the bullshitter is simply uninterested in the truth. Bullshitters aim primarily to impress and persuade their audiences. While liars need to know the truth, the better to conceal it, the bullshitter, interested solely in advancing his own agenda, has no use for the truth. Bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are."
Comments
I'm sure thoughtful readers see it as thought provoking and informative. Quality always speaks louder than mediocrity and content always trumps bluster (even bluster that "can [laughably] go link for link with you.")
Please refrain from posting junk science links; this isn't a game. Instead, I'll re-post my comments from another thread, though it may be lost on you.
Illusory free-thinkers employ denialism though rhetorical tactics (conspiracy, selectivity, false experts, impossible expectations, moving goalposts, argument from metaphor, violations of informal logic) to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there are none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are only effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.
Joseph Romm has stated:
Behaviorally, climate denialism attracts a certain mind-set. They are delighted to be among the select few who have discovered the Big Secret - the Great Scientific Conspiracy. Only they can see through the lies. It's what sets them apart from the sheep around them.
An accepted scientific "consensus" is that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Therefore, according to junk science rationale, and the possible existence of any "free-thinkers" who may believe otherwise ? it doesn't. That's precisely why it's futile to engage in rational debates with climate change deniers ? the quality of their thought processes doesn't reward scrutiny. It's energy wasted that could otherwise be applied to solutions.
For those who feel that they have a valid scientific argument or uncertainties, I suggest taking them, along with supporting evidence, to a place where they can be held up to scrutiny with climate scientists ... e.g., RealClimate or SkepticalScience. Forewarning, noise will not be tolerated, but serious valid arguments, sound reasoning, and respectful questions to expand your knowledge are encouraged and will be accorded a professional response. For those who can't resist anonymous bloviating amongst the close-minded, link to junk science sites like ClimateAudit, Wattsupwiththat, or ClimateResistance ... many of whom are funded by special interests often under the cover of "think tanks", e.g., here, here, here, and here, to manufacture uncertainty rather than the pursuit of truth and solutions. They're known not for debate, but for the cloistering of the scientifically illiterate to keep each other warm by propagating their myths unthinkingly and uncritically by the willing media and those on blogs seeking their self-deluded genius moments. However, these diatribes serve no constructive purpose in a safe, unrelated forum, e.g., AI, with endless streams of techy-sounding gobbledegook, discredited junk science, emotionally charged accusations/innuendo, and/or noisy nonsense aimed at an audience who doesn't understand complex statistics and who are thought to be impressed by jargon, liberal-baiting, and/or ad hominem snarky asides.
Please don't obstruct those who passionately care and are enthusiastically willing to do more than engage in rhetorical gamesmanship. To be a responsible citizen and global neighbor, our call-to-action is to productively contribute and lead with dignity in "building a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. (Obama)"
With the aforementioned in mind, I sincerely hope that everyone can get onboard and join a worthwhile cause ... something larger than oneself.
You did exactly what I thought you'd do "your science sucks and mine is always right." I don't even understand how to get through to you people. I can link to scientific articles, I can link to scientific studies, I can link to scientific studies done by people who get no funding FROM ANYONE and you'll still claim it's crap because you don't like it.
I'll freely admit you've got a lot of scientific articles to back up your stance but the difference between me and you is that I recognize the otherside of a legitmate argument whereas you will not.
Your entire assertion is incorrectly presumptuous and predictable, though not laudable. I actually have researched the links cited (many hours a day for the last 24 months) in the pursuit of truth (assisting the establishment of a responsible energy policy), not selective Googling in the pursuit of bias confirmation.
If you wish to be taken seriously by me, it's inadvisable to merely fill in your knowledge gaps with anything that comes to mind or cut-and-paste from a junk science data (previously demonstrated false, discredited, or untested assertions).
Some of the postings call to mind H.L. Mencken's notable attacks on ignorance, intolerance, frauds, and the ignorant middle classes. They may be equally applied today by substituting the current topic for Mencken's.
- The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
- The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame. True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge.
- The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong.
- All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant.
- The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
- The curse of man, and cause of nearly all of his woes, is his stupendous capacity for believing the incredible.
- The world always makes the assumption that the exposure of an error is identical with the discovery of truth -- that error and truth are simply opposite. They are nothing of the sort. What the world turns to, when it has been cured of one error, is usually another error, and maybe one worse than the first one.
- For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false.
That's my last comment on the matter. (applause from the peanut gallery)I don't even understand how to get through to you people.
Perhaps the only way to really get through to people is some powerful symbolic act that will wake us all up and bring us all to our senses ? Self immolation might work. (Just trying to be helpful.
Your entire assertion is incorrectly presumptuous and predictable, though not laudable. I actually have researched the links cited (many hours a day for the last 24 months) in the pursuit of truth (assisting the establishment of a responsible energy policy), not selective Googling in the pursuit of bias confirmation.
If you wish to be taken seriously by me, it's inadvisable to merely fill in your knowledge gaps with anything that comes to mind or cut-and-paste from a junk science data (previously demonstrated false, discredited, or untested assertions).
Some of the postings call to mind H.L. Mencken's notable attacks on ignorance, intolerance, frauds, and the ignorant middle classes. They may be equally applied today by substituting the current topic for Mencken's.
- The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
- The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame. True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge.
- The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong.
- All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant.
- The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
- The curse of man, and cause of nearly all of his woes, is his stupendous capacity for believing the incredible.
- The world always makes the assumption that the exposure of an error is identical with the discovery of truth -- that error and truth are simply opposite. They are nothing of the sort. What the world turns to, when it has been cured of one error, is usually another error, and maybe one worse than the first one.
- For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false.
That's my last comment on the matter. (applause from the peanut gallery)Dude, seriously, the stuff I linked to isn't under the junk science link. Unless of course you think that anything that goes against what you believe is junk science then, yes, absolutely, it's junk science and thousands of scientists around the world are blindly wasting their time and effort on junk science. (which I'll point out here in a second is rather intersting that you'd be so brash as to believe to know exactly what's right and wrong)
Wait, so, in point number 3 you're kinda outting yourself there. You are, by your own admission, 100% certain on what is right and wrong whereas I, as I've said repeatedly, accept both sides of the scientific debate. So, I guess you're saying you're not very civilized? Ok, that's fine with me.
Then you do it again in point 4 - you're certainly not skeptical of global warming and you're definitely not tolerant of the sciences behind the dissenting views.
I guess I'll just say thanks for the compliments and I hope you're not so hard on yourself next time.
Guess you'd better add the BBC to your hate list:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
Interesting implicit perspective you have there - everyone who agrees with your hypothesis is using science and everyone who disagrees with your hypothesis is using pseudo science. Since you have been delegated the authority to declare what is science and what is pseudo science, I suppose that it your prerogative.
Since you speak for all science, how do you explain the discrepancies in weather station records? If you look at all weather stations, there appears to be a historical rise in temperatures. However, if you look at just the weather stations that are in rural areas there is no historical trend of increasing temperatures. If you look at those stations around which cities have grown up over time, there is a significant increasing temperature trend. In other words, our historical records of temperature show that if you build cities around weather stations they will be in a warmer environment, but those weather stations in locations that remain more or less unchanged do not show an increase in temperature. You've got a pretty classic proof of the well known urban island heat effect there, but no smoking gun proof of global warming.
The consequence is that we have to face the fact that the only meaningful direct measurements of temperature and temperature trends we have on a global scale have only come into existence in the age of modern weather & climate satellites over the past couple of decades or so. Since it is also well known that there are natural cyclical effects on global temperature of a similar time scale (such as the solar cycle and the Pacific ocean thermal cycle), it is simply impossible to determine at this time by direct measurement whether or not we are observing normal temperature fluctuations of a cyclical nature or a long term trend. At present global warming is only a conjecture that is supported by indirect and inconclusive evidence at best.
Of course I'm sure you're now going to tell me Im full of pseudo science and expose me for a heretic since I dared to question your dogma.
Here's the answer to your question about urban vs. rural temperature measurements:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011105/
As you can see, the scientists you so disagree with are not as dumb as you think. Do you honestly think they would overlook something as simple as urban heat island effects as the cause for global warming? Would several thousand researchers be so stupid?
Perhaps the only way to really get through to people is some powerful symbolic act that will wake us all up and bring us all to our senses ? Self immolation might work. (Just trying to be helpful.
Or just give up trying, I know I should by now. I could ask you the colors of the rainbow and if somebody told you it just alternated between red and blue you'd probably call me an idiot for saying ROY G BIV.
EDIT: In other news Canadians must be stupid: http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...ada5df&k=65311
citation for Curtis - that's not a link to any of your junk science sites so you can, really, truly, honest to God, click on it.
EDIT 2: Crap - it seems as tho the Canadians stupidity has somehow infected Japan as well:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...0-2703,00.html
And here's the rub (this is akin to saying you can't prove God doesn't exist) "On the scientific evidence so far, according to Dr Kusano, the IPCC assertion that atmospheric temperatures are likely to increase continuously and steadily "should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis"."
Good practices towards keeping our environment good is the way to go.
Global warming is a farce being forced on us. Redistribution of wealth is the real truth. There's so much junk science we'll never know the real truth.
Read Atlas Shrugged for a little enlightenment.
I've read everything Ian Rand wrote. The Fountain Head and the rest.
The question is "is man an island"?
Like I just said, if you wanna go link for link I'll do it but if you simply ignore the science of the other side because you think it's tainted how is that any less scientific than the findings of those who get their money from those who would benefit the most from climing significant global warming. I.E. Applying your argument just to the dissenters views is the most unscientific of all.
So, why don't you explain to us exactly why you think the overwhelming consensus in the climatology community rejects your position?
You see it in where the Silicon Valley makes its products. They go where the labor is cheapest. They are billionaires building their fortunes on the labors of far away people working for pennies an hour. Nike, who has joined this exodus of hypocrites, enriches their executives and major stockholders in much the same way. They find the cheapest labor and earn more in a day than many of their workers earn in a lifetime.
Similar behaviors exist in other industries, particularly on the West Coast. Back in the 1990s, REI, where I live in Seattle, shut down a local factory that made outdoor clothes. Where they losing money on the products? Not at REI prices. They could simply make more money by shifting their labor source from mostly Asian immigrant women here in the U.S. to mostly Asian women living in Asia. And a friend of mine knows some top REI executives from college days. They may not be as rich as Apple's board members, but they are very well paid. And they are callous jerks, although certainly environmentally correct jerks.
This brings up one of the strangest facts in present day politics--the absence of a modern day William Jennings Bryan to blast the coastal rich who care about no one but themselves. In Bryan's day, it was Eastern banks who preyed on Midwestern farmers. Today it's West Coast high tech firms who don't bother to make the gadgets we need in our own decaying industrial belt. From the data I have seen, in the case of Apple, employing people in the Rust Belt to make Macs and iPods wouldn't even keep them from making a profit, it'd just mean smaller profits. Like REI, Apple execs are not only jerks, they're rather stupid jerks. Eventually, we'll pay a price for letting one of the world's greatest industrial regions decline into oblivion.
A recent scientific study explains what's going on. It found that "buying Green" made people more likely to lie and cheat. The arrogance they felt from the first made them less interested in showing concern for others.
I suspect that's what's happening at Apple, particularly in the last couple of years. "Greener than thou" has morphed into "Holier than thou." And since Apple manufactures in China, which isn't foolish enough to adopt these policies, it can have it both ways. Apple can grow rich polluting and it can feel smug about how "Green" it is.
So, why don't you explain to us exactly why you think the overwhelming consensus in the climatology community rejects your position?
ooo, busted. You didn't read my links, bad bad bad. The consensus you refer to was conducted in 1992, as I'm sure you're aware was quite a while ago and a lot of new scientific data has become available. As such you now have thousands upon thousands of scientists coming out saying, wait not so fast. I'm not saying there wasn't a percieved consensus in 1992. Given the data we had at the time it's completely understandable but give a whole decade and a half of new data many scientists are starting to think maybe we should, ya know, do our jobs and continue to evaluate what's going on. (here's 31k more dissenters http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...0-deniers.aspx) (that's not on Curtis' list of "junk science" either, sorry C)
I suspect that's what's happening at Apple, particularly in the last couple of years. "Greener than thou" has morphed into "Holier than thou." And since Apple manufactures in China, which isn't foolish enough to adopt these policies, it can have it both ways. Apple can grow rich polluting and it can feel smug about how "Green" it is.
I suspect you simply have an anti-Apple, or anti-greenhouse-gas-emissions-control, axe to grind.
You did exactly what I thought you'd do "your science sucks and mine is always right." I don't even understand how to get through to you people. I can link to scientific articles, I can link to scientific studies, I can link to scientific studies done by people who get no funding FROM ANYONE and you'll still claim it's crap because you don't like it.
I'll freely admit you've got a lot of scientific articles to back up your stance but the difference between me and you is that I recognize the otherside of a legitmate argument whereas you will not.
Do you even understand the process by which knowledge-creation and dissemination works in today's world? Heard of peer-reviewed scientific journals? Heard of high-quality versus low-quality journals?
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
The consensus you refer to was conducted in 1992, as I'm sure you're aware was quite a while ago and a lot of new scientific data has become available.
I don't quite how to break this to you, but a consensus is not something that is "conducted", it's something that exists at a point in time. (Perhaps you were thinking of "census"?) And the overwhelming consensus in the climatology community, at this point in time -- i.e., now, today -- is that the threat of global warming is real.
So, can you please explain to us why you think they reject your position?
I suspect you simply have an anti-Apple, or anti-greenhouse-gas-emissions-control, axe to grind.
He probably does but it's interesting in that it speaks to most US industries as a whole. There are tons and tons (I think most actually) that do all of the pollution making practices overseas in a country where they aren't restricted but then do things here in the states that let them claim "going green." I'm not saying Apple did it for that reason but I think a lot of US Corporations have slowly figured out a great way to play both sides of the don't pollute/we want things cheaper situation.
I don't quite how to break this to you, but a consensus is not something that is "conducted", it's something that exists at a point in time. (Perhaps you were thinking of "census"?) And the overwhelming consensus in the climatology community, at this point in time -- i.e., now, today -- is that the threat of global warming is real.
So, can you please explain to us why you think they reject your position?
You still didn't read the link did you? Seriously, how can we have this conversation if you won't even click? The consensus was a result of a poll at a UN meeting in 1992.
The year was 1992 and the United Nations was about to hold its Earth Summit in Rio. It was billed as — and was — the greatest environmental and political assemblage in human history. Delegations came from 178 nations — virtually every nation in the world — including 118 heads of state or government and 7,000 diplomatic bureaucrats. The world’s environmental groups came too — they sent some 30,000 representatives from every corner of the world to Rio. To report all this, 7,000 journalists converged on Rio to cover the event, and relay to the publics of the world that global warming and other environmental insults were threatening the planet with catastrophe.
Honestly, do you want me to just post all the verbiage from the links or can you click them? I've linked to peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study and yet nobody will even bother to click to actually see what's there.
Based on the last 400,000 years we are not seeing anything out of the ordinary.
Do you even understand the process by which knowledge-creation and dissemination works in today's world? Heard of peer-reviewed scientific journals? Heard of high-quality versus low-quality journals?
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Please premit yourself to click a link, really. I've linked to peer-reviewed studies. What's that? You want another one, ok, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...climate130.xml
Wait for it - I'm sure you're going to say it's from the UK or something so it's crap or some other excuse. That's just one of dozens, if you'd like I'll link to more but, it would be nice if you guys would actually read the links before jumping to the conclusion that you know what they say.
EDIT: I'll tease myself here but here's a link to a letter sent to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon co-authored by a handful of scientists, 3 of which are actually on the IPCC. http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Lett...an_Ki-moon.pdf So, you may argue that it's not very many people so the IPCC findings hold. Ok, fair enough, but what about the fact that members of the IPCC signed this as well? Either they both have merit (which is my assertion) or they are both sketchy. Either way it, to quote myself, throws a wrench into the system.
You still didn't read the link did you? Seriously, how can we have this conversation if you won't even click? The consensus was a result of a poll at a UN meeting in 1992.
[...]
Honestly, do you want me to just post all the verbiage from the links or can you click them? I've linked to peer-reviewed study after peer-reviewed study and yet nobody will even bother to click to actually see what's there.
Regarding the "consensus", see my comments above. (You know, the ones you responded to but don't seem to have actually read.)
No, I don't want you to post "verbiage" (which is exactly what it is), I'd like you to tell us why you personally believe the climatology community overwhelmingly rejects your position (which it does). Not that you think they are wrong, not even why you think they are wrong, but why you believe they reject all the "evidence" contained in all the links you can produce.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
Based on the last 400,000 years we are not seeing anything out of the ordinary.
Talk a bout weak science.
As has been pointed out before, even though this web page is not obviously attributed (and is just a web site not a scientific peer reviewed paper,) other then having some fossil knowledge, the author is known to have no particular standing in the scientific community (especially in climatology.) He has a BS in geology, and is a retired historical geologist who worked in the West Virginia coal industry.
Perhaps you would link us to his peer reviewed work? Didn't think so.
Please premit yourself to click a link, really. ...
You keep repeating assertions that have been discredited for quite some time and therefore are not scientifically accepted today. That is why your links are derided. They are sheer nonsense at this point in time for purposes of scientific argument. Refer back to my statements about "illusory free-thinkers", the definition of junk science (this time no link to the definition, since comprehension does not seem to be your strong suit), and where you can go amongst climate science professionals to appropriately elaborate on any new evidence you have to suggest.
On a more sarcastic vein, permit me to recommend In the essay, Frankfurt sketches a theory of bullshit, defining the concept and analyzing its applications.
"The liar deliberately makes false claims, the bullshitter is simply uninterested in the truth. Bullshitters aim primarily to impress and persuade their audiences. While liars need to know the truth, the better to conceal it, the bullshitter, interested solely in advancing his own agenda, has no use for the truth. Bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are."