Maybe we don't have man made global warming after all! forums forums Politics and other things Maybe we don't have man made global warming after all!

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 50 total)
  • Author
  • #6407
    Deane Johnson
    Andy Brown

    A not quite two year old study looked at nearly 12,000 professional scientific journal papers about global warming, and found that—of the papers expressing a stance on global warming—97 percent endorse both the reality of global warming and the fact that humans are causing it.

    That’s generally called a consensus.

    It’s been think tanks funded by fossil fuel interests and Republican politicians that have made climate change a political issue. Scientists typically have neither a liberal nor conservative agenda in their research; they simply try to understand reality as it is. Deniers, on the other hand, reject that, turning their backs on reality if it disagrees with their predisposed ideology.

    Never mind the fact that we just had the hottest year on record and the oceans are warmer then they ever have been since they started taking data.

    It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

    Mark Twain


    The sky is falling.


    Master of Disaster


    Anybody who ignores scientific FACT on this matter should be avoided at all costs.


    Herb, you do realize that you posted the exact same article as Deane, right?

    As MoD says: Fail.


    This all has to do with economic ideology.

    Recognition of things being finite also requires recognizing the cyclic nature of things. Supply side breaks down right along with a lot of other things.

    Infinite ability to pillage the planet for resources means taking the low cost option always makes the most sense which reinforces a pure market regulation model.

    That model breaks down when there actually are limits and consequenses.

    Regulation is needed to insure we are actually adding a net value, not doing more harm than good.

    Again, fact based data driven economic policy disagrees with the market ideology and very large and consistent flows of money and power provide considerable motivation to advance the cause of denial.

    Gonna be a long, painful, ugly, deadly fight before we see real reform.

    Deane Johnson

    I assume “reform” means adopting the liberal viewpoint, which is presented as being infallible.


    Not at all.

    The same bullshit argument is used against science by religious types.

    Science brings understanding. When there are questions we do more science to improve understanding.

    We question everything.

    We act on our understanding to get things done, and when the outcome aligns with what understanding tells us, then we know that understanding is good.

    When those outcomes do not align we need better understanding.

    Anyone who questions these things need only show how they arrived at better understanding so that others can repeat it.

    This is basic, rational behavior and we know it works because the process is critical and the product of it real.

    At this point it time, liberals value fact based, data driven policy.

    We want outcomes to align with understanding. We know it can be better and we have identified how that can happen and we share our methods, facts, etc…

    You and other conservatives can bitch and whine about that all you want, but the real question isn’t one of infallibility at all.

    Our understanding is always incomplete and can always be improved.

    Anybody wanting it better wants to see that happen and it only happens when we make rational policy choices.

    There are lots of potentially rational choices too.

    So it is simple. If anyone thinks they have better understanding they need only make their case, show their methods and see others arrive at the same understanding.

    For some reason, conservatives are consistently not doing that.

    Liberals are far more consistently, but not always doing that.

    Why is it that way Deane?

    Why do conservatives make such regular and substantial investments in misinformation?

    Do they want to be right or have their way, or do they want it to actually be better?

    One does wonder…


    Soaring emissions from Asia, scientists say, are increasing baseline levels of ozone in the western U.S.


    Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

    As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

    Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.


    It’s hard to find a reputable scientist who will endorse our current policy regarding fossil fuels and pollution.

    Again, per my post above, smart, data driven, fact based policy tells us that we need to diversify energy and improve how we manage our environment.

    Those things really aren’t in question. Not seriously.

    In science, we call that kind of thing a high confidence statement.

    For an example of how that works, let’s take evolution as a high confidence statement. We have a growing body of peer reviewed work supporting the case for evolution.

    Anyone who lacks confidence in evolution is completely free to question all of it, and any reputable scientist as well as concerned, rational citizen, would encourage them to do just that.

    They can bring their methods, data, results and understanding to the body of science and scientists, who will then evaluate those methods, check to see that they are consistent with our science understanding and will publish their findings, which will also be reviewed.

    From there, we do tests, gather data, do experiment, whatever it takes to test that information in an attempt to falsify it to better understand it. We also will seek consistency. The same methods should yield the same results for different scientists. Where any of that breaks down, the ideas are wrong. Really. Just wrong. And new ideas are needed, or our confidence in the established ideas improves.

    Here again is Feynman on that method:

    One minute flat. 🙂 All you need to know to understand how most liberals look at this kind of thing. And we have extremely high confidence in that method because it has rendered to us our entire body of understanding to date. If the method didn’t really work, we would not be here talking on this magical Internet on fantastic devices kind of thing.

    Given something compelling, we then would have competing ideas and the confidence would vary according to the strength of those ideas.

    A little word smithing really doesn’t cut it.

    Our science tells us a lot about the impact of our actions. Those impacts have costs and risks, which we’ve also done a good job identifying, though not all are known. We understand that better every day.

    Currently, that growth in understanding does not trend away from the idea that we need to diversify energy and manage our environment better. The more we learn right now, the more confidence we have in those policy ideas.

    In order to step away from those ideas, somebody needs to present a case for growing pollution being good, or some other such thing. That’s not likely to result in high confidence statements, though it may. Who knows?

    That is where fact based, data driven policy comes into play.

    We may want it to be some specific way, but the information and understanding we have may not align well with those wants, and the politics of that all boil down to whether or not we want to act rationally or not and whether we want to recognize science or not.

    Again I ask, why do conservatives make such significant and consistent investments in misinformation? Why are they consistently attempting to put religion and other voodoo into education?

    Could it be as simple as they just want to be right or have it their way without regard to the merits of either?

    To me, the case for that being true is growing nicely. Let’s say my confidence is growing daily.

    One could argue, as an alternative, that conservatives are just stupid. Frankly, my confidence in that is diminishing, given the smart way misinformation and religion is being used to impact policy.


    People don’t like being manipulated and tricked and will push back if something smells fishy.

    The touted study does more than it’s fair share of misinforming.

    People like Al Gore bring out cynicism. Obviously the climate change industry is rewarding him handsomely. So one can’t help but wonder what’s in it for the climate changers.


    …and as far as climate change, global warming, etc… goes, we are refining our understanding daily. The trend isn’t toward ignoring the thing. Confidence is improving through peer review and data and so on…

    Some matters aren’t a real science.

    Economics is one of these matters. Economics isn’t a science. We can approach it with a scientific mind, and we can establish the dynamics, some rules, etc… but economics is as human as humans are, and how people value things, trade, etc… varies as people do.

    Plus, we don’t really have the means to experiment like we do with physics.

    What we can do is collect data, do analysis, make changes, collect that data, do more analysis, and see what happens and ideally measure key things to improve.

    It’s mostly a science.

    This is enough to demonstrate that tax cuts do not create jobs, or that raising the minimum wage destroys jobs and drives costs up.

    We have lots of data demonstrating neither of those are true, and in fact, we’ve got data demonstrating what believing those things are true actually does!

    One look at Kansas tells the story there. Or a look at regions where there are minimum wage differences and political boundaries. Costs and such can be seen, jobs, other activity can be measured and impacts can be quantified.

    The recent SeaTac minimum wage increase has not produced the negative impacts most conservatives say will happen. Changes in other places at other times have not produced those negative impacts either.

    In a basic sense, the data does not support those statements in a way that would justify having high confidence in them.

    Despite this, we have lots of information, theories, charts, rules, all supporting those statements, and they are often framed as laws, and presented as if they are scientific.

    However, an INCLUSIVE analysis does not seem to support those laws, leaving us with lower confidence in them and higher confidence in the implied laws, observed outcomes, etc… seen in the economic data we collect.

    There is also how we value people, our society, and other general human expectations. This also varies as people do, and the desired outcomes aren’t givens, unless you are one who holds true to the absolutist market decides all ideology.

    So here is the slippery thing. If we all want to agree on those outcomes being the desired outcomes, many of the laws, ideas, etc… work in the desired ways, but we have to be honest about the outcomes and what they mean for people and their lives.

    The data tells us that the middle class won’t really exist as many of us remember it given a pure market policy. Yet that is framed as a better outcome, often laced with misinformation, incomplete data analysis, and so forth.

    A policy decision based on the selling of the idea, not really bolstered by the data and the best reason we can apply is just a sales job, not really a rational policy decision.

    Liberals have a problem with this.

    We would much rather see the data and facts honestly presented, those known likely outcomes quantified and choices made on higher confidence information.

    Only one problem with that, and that problem is many wealthy people and corporations best interests conflict directly with the outcomes most ordinary people would find desirable.

    And there we are, circled back once again.

    Why do conservatives make such significant and consistent investments in misinformation, emphasize religion as authority, despite the law of the land clearly contrary, and dilute, attack, mangle, and generally hose up solid public education while at the same time attempting to promote private and home school education?

    Why do so many conservatives attack science in general, despite it’s clear advantages and wealth of understanding that has brought us awesome lives with great potential?

    Are they stupid? I often write stupid party, but really, are they?

    Some are, but the movers, shakers?

    No. Hell no.

    Are they just needing to have it their way? Or be right?

    I think the case for that is clear. But it’s just me. You may differ, and that’s OK.

    What other explanations are there?


    People like Al Gore bring out cynicism. Obviously the climate change industry is rewarding him handsomely. So one can’t help but wonder what’s in it for the climate changers.


    You don’t like Al Gore, so fuck the science?

    Yes, he’s being funded. He’s doing good advocacy. Good advocates get paid well and they are often a nexus of opportunities. Al was Vice President. He’s well connected and doing good advocacy. Why the fuck should he not be well funded. We need that.

    Here’s the thing about science. Scientists and well educated and interested lay people follow science and they understand the method, and all that.

    They need very little advocacy. In general, policy recommendations well supported by high confidence science are a no brainer. Scientists want it better and they seek rational actions to actualize rational outcomes. So do many well educated lay-citizens.

    But, there are a lot of people who are not so well educated, or who really haven’t had exposure to the scientific method.

    They still need to understand and we need them to consider the policy choices with the rest of us because we are all in this together. It’s not like we’ve got extra planets queued up should we botch this one.

    Call it basic human consideration. It’s the rational, selfless thing to do.

    Advocates like Al Gore, and Carl Sagan, that Cosmos guy today, Bill Nye the Science Guy and others all do populist advocacy to make some of the understanding accessible to ordinary people, or pique their interest in the hopes they become scientists, or at least follow science and it’s methods for all the benefit that can bring to their lives and the world overall.

    What is in it for them?

    Better, more rational outcomes. We live in a nicer place, we see fewer risks, maybe we live longer, or other things living here with us don’t die, etc…

    And there is opportunity. Diversifying our energy sources is good science driven policy, and getting it done means a ton of jobs, infrastructure changes, additions and improvements. Research means new materials science, means, methods, processes that can take us away from older, established ones heavy on pollution and fossil fuels.

    I find it simply amazing that the mere thought of there being opportunity or financial incentive is enough to dismiss the understanding and data driven, fact based, policy recommendations so easily.

    Science has always brought opportunity to some while it fades from others. This is no different.

    You might pay more for some things, or you might see some changes in your life, be a little bit inconvenienced, just like people have throughout the advancement of the human race overall.

    There is nothing nefarious there at all.

    In fact, it’s extremely hard to make that case, unless one flat out dismisses science, the method, the understanding it brings, and the implications of data and facts collected.

    Maybe it’s simpler to say God says, “Drill baby drill”

    There is a strong case for it being simpler, but no case at all for it being rational, just or true.

    So where do you want to be on that stuff?

    Honestly, thinking about it the way you and other conservatives often do isn’t really a whole lot different from the “God hates fags” kinds of thinking.

    Does anybody here actually think those asses have any rational basis or merit for that kind of thing?


    I think not, so why entertain that in other policy decisions?

    Seems to me the more important question is what is in it for the conservatives who make substantial and consistent investments in anti-science misinformation?

    I’ll tell you what’s in it for them. Lots of money and it comes right out of your ass, shits up the world for your kids, and they could give zero fucks because they are wealthy enough to isolate themselves and live nicely while everybody you know and your kids know get to pay the price directly.

    Isn’t that just a little fucked up?

    Doesn’t even compare to Al Gore. Not really.


    Oh, and here’s something!

    You say people don’t like being manipulated and tricked.

    Truth. Totally agreed.

    Do you have any idea at all what the best defense against that actually is?


    If you embrace the science, understand the method, learn to be a potent skeptic, you too can avoid the vast majority of manipulation and tricks.

    Any wonder why liberals push back against that shit?


    Conservatives, for whatever reason, seem to have serious and consistent problems with that.


    Shall I go through the lists again?

    Which party has more corruption? Which party has more serving members convicted while in office? Which party has the lead in sex, girl, related crimes? Which one has the higher divorce rates while in office?

    I could go on and on, and Andy and I have put very solid, detailed, well supported lists here over and over.

    And as always, I write stupid party why?


    And if you turn away from fact based, data driven policy, frankly you are stupid.

    Talk to the Kochs about this. They are strong liberitarians, because freedom and small government.

    Know what that means? It means they actually will do whatever it takes to preserve their freedom to fuck you over for profit, lie to you about it, criminalize your friends and loved ones, and do it because they just want to and they are wealthy.

    And they will tell you all of that makes for great outcomes for them and those close to them, or that they need. But that doesn’t extend to you at all. Yet somehow that idea of being them one day, is just enough to want a lot of us to preserve “freedom” in case we get that golden ticket, so we get our turn, or some other garbage when the truth is the very vast majority of us are going to just live in a more shitty place, making less than we need to, working harder than we need to.

    Who really wants that? Better, do you really think you are going to make it? Really?

    If you don’t like being manipulated or tricked, how the hell can you entertain those clowns?

    That’s about all they do. Because freedom.

    Here is where I say think about it. Again.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 50 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.