Post Reply
Page 5 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
5 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2009 - 1:54PM #41
Erey
Posts: 18,690

Nov 26, 2009 -- 4:34AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Nov 24, 2009 -- 7:49PM, Erey wrote:


yep - but why is it such a wet dream?  Why was it so important to lie about.  From a psychological persepective this fascinates me.  Why did so many people blindly and beligerently cling to this?



The global warming issue perfectly aligns with real political factions, that's why.


On the one hand, we have the establishment, who lull everybody into a "don't rock the boat" stupor.


On the other hand, we have those who hate this stasis and want to overthrow it by whatever means.


Global warming is the perfect good reason for social change. That's why social progressives embrace it beyond reason, and why social conservatives fight it beyond reason.


It's a pity when a serious scientific issue gets politicised this way. It forces scientists, who typically are apolitical by their very profession, to take a political stand - which doesn't become them.


(Same is true for this evolution-creationism sickness, or the dispute around abortions, btw.)




 


Well said,  really quotable response.


But I see very little of fighting against it beyond reason.  Most conservatives want less pollution but they want a bit more ballance.  If it costs a seemingly insignificant extra cpu's of carbon output to put in a manufacturing facility that can employ hundreds of people - then maybe we should seriously think about allowing that. 


I really think when people want to overthrow society they usually want to make themselves (or people just like them) more powerful and in control.  They are not advocating all this upheaval for the freedom and prosperity of humankind. They are advocating for the same reasons the fascists advocated or the soviets. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2009 - 3:25PM #42
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,744

Nov 27, 2009 -- 12:39PM, Mlyons619 wrote:


Nov 27, 2009 -- 11:34AM, mountain_man wrote:

...t conservatives would rather make money than actually deal with honest science...




Do you define "honest science as AGENDA-driven?


Condider this.  Phil Jones, head of Britain's Climate Research Unit wrote this e-mail to his Penn State colleague, Michael E. Mann:


"...I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.  Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is...!"


 www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar.


Would not "honest science" stand up before alternative observations, or is the actual evidence so weak that any dissenting research muct be suppressed?




BTW, are folks equally skeptical about Patrick Michaels's ethics and motivations?  Consider this. Does that make you want to question his objectivity? Christopher Horner, a lawyer not a scientist, is one of the numerous anti-GW skeptics who have received generous funding from Exxon-Mobil. (Although I have read that Exxon is no longer funding Horner or CEI, the think tank that he works for). Do you wonder at all about the rigor or objectivity in his research?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2009 - 3:59PM #43
mountain_man
Posts: 39,363

Nov 27, 2009 -- 3:25PM, newsjunkie wrote:

BTW, are folks equally skeptical about Patrick Michaels's ethics and motivations?  Consider this. Does that make you want to question his objectivity? Christopher Horner, a lawyer not a scientist, is one of the numerous anti-GW skeptics who have received generous funding from Exxon-Mobil. (Although I have read that Exxon is no longer funding Horner or CEI, the think tank that he works for). Do you wonder at all about the rigor or objectivity in his research?



Lawyers do not so scientific research. They get paid to represent their clients, not to tell the truth. Exxon does not have to fund any more "research." They've gotten the ball rolling and now they can step back and watch... and laugh all the way to the bank.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2009 - 4:04PM #44
mountain_man
Posts: 39,363

Nov 27, 2009 -- 1:54PM, Erey wrote:

But I see very little of fighting against it beyond reason.  Most conservatives want less pollution but they want a bit more ballance.  If it costs a seemingly insignificant extra cpu's of carbon output to put in a manufacturing facility that can employ hundreds of people - then maybe we should seriously think about allowing that.



Again, all you're doing is putting profits ahead of the environment.


I really think when people want to overthrow society they usually want to make themselves (or people just like them) more powerful and in control.  They are not advocating all this upheaval for the freedom and prosperity of humankind. They are advocating for the same reasons the fascists advocated or the soviets.



True, fascists and the USSR put profits ahead of the environment. They also put profits and such ahead of people. What the USA has now is fascism. No one wants to "overthrow" society. The conservatives want business to go about unchecked, hence all the deregulation.  We all know what happens then they do that; things go bad for people and great for profits. It is not sustainable in the long term.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2009 - 4:23PM #45
Erey
Posts: 18,690

Nov 27, 2009 -- 4:04PM, mountain_man wrote:


Nov 27, 2009 -- 1:54PM, Erey wrote:

But I see very little of fighting against it beyond reason.  Most conservatives want less pollution but they want a bit more ballance.  If it costs a seemingly insignificant extra cpu's of carbon output to put in a manufacturing facility that can employ hundreds of people - then maybe we should seriously think about allowing that.



Again, all you're doing is putting profits ahead of the environment.


I really think when people want to overthrow society they usually want to make themselves (or people just like them) more powerful and in control.  They are not advocating all this upheaval for the freedom and prosperity of humankind. They are advocating for the same reasons the fascists advocated or the soviets.



True, fascists and the USSR put profits ahead of the environment. They also put profits and such ahead of people. What the USA has now is fascism. No one wants to "overthrow" society. The conservatives want business to go about unchecked, hence all the deregulation.  We all know what happens then they do that; things go bad for people and great for profits. It is not sustainable in the long term.




Well eventually MM, if your people get to take over then indeed your people will also be guilty of putting profits ahead of the environment and ahead of people.  For those in power (whomever they might be)  solid profits are a measurable way to maintain power.


funny how that happens. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2009 - 7:24PM #46
mountain_man
Posts: 39,363

Nov 27, 2009 -- 4:23PM, Erey wrote:

Well eventually MM, if your people get to take over then indeed your people will also be guilty of putting profits ahead of the environment and ahead of people.



Uh....  no, they won't. Progressives take the environment into account. We realize that we have no where else to live except this Earth. That means we have to keep it clean so we, and our descendants, can live.


For those in power (whomever they might be)  solid profits are a measurable way to maintain power.


funny how that happens.



No, it doesn't work that way. What good are profits if you can't breathe the air or drink the water? Using the profits of today to measure anything is extremely shortsighted. Doing so ignores the future and is the cause of the economic problems we have today.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 28, 2009 - 1:04PM #47
Marcion
Posts: 2,883
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 28, 2009 - 2:28PM #48
mountain_man
Posts: 39,363

Nov 28, 2009 -- 1:04PM, Marcion wrote:

More from wsj


From that article; "They're ignoring the damage they've done to public confidence in the arbiters of climate science."


Uh... these scientists have done no such thing. Those that stole the emails, misrepresented then, and other lies about them, are the ones that did the damage... and not much at that. No one that understands science gave those emails a second thought. Those that wish to continue to deny AGW would believe anything anyway.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 28, 2009 - 3:05PM #49
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Nov 28, 2009 -- 2:28PM, mountain_man wrote:


"They're ignoring the damage they've done to public confidence in the arbiters of climate science."



Funny quote indeed, MM.


Spoken by those whose track record consists of 100% destruction of public confidence in science.


These guys change their arguments against AGW theory as quickly as a mother of a newborn changes diapers, and for similar reasons...

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 28, 2009 - 5:15PM #50
Marcion
Posts: 2,883

"These guys change their arguments against AGW theory as quickly as a mother of a newborn changes diapers, and for similar reasons.."


Nice paraphrase from Babylon V Char.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 8  •  Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook