If you listen to Fox’s talking heads, talk-radio, or if you read blogs of the ideological right-wing, you would sense that global warming is an ever increasingly discredited scientific assertion. We have a number of bloggers on MD who present arguments from the people who are contrarian in the scientific community. Now, Al Gore’s Nobel has been so inspirational that one of our Jewish MD brethern is arguing the validity of the Catholic Pope’s stance on climate change science. Can it get more…odd? Jews looking to the Pope for guidance in science?
Whenever science meets capital, and shows that Big Capital and its role in our lives is dangerous to our well-being, there springs up a massive effort to discount the science that would disrupt inflow to the coffers of the elite (e.g., Big Tobacco). You discount science by finding scientists and talking heads who will go to the press again and again to create a noise that overwhelms reasoned debate, so as to give years if not decades to the continuing cash cows of the status quo.
One of the leading cash-cows of status quo, is the energy industry, and while some oil members like BP, Shell, and Occidental, have been turning their PR and public face towards getting a hold of carbon emissions, Exxon-Mobil has gone the opposite direction, spending nearly $16M over the last 7 years in a disinformation campaign that takes all of its learning curve from the disinformation campaign of Big Tobacco. An investigative exposure of Exxon’s role in the contrarian community can be found in the publication ‘Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air,’ released by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Exxon produces roughly 138 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, a sum that is exceeded by only 5 countries. Recognizing their exposure to the gaining momentum of the global concern over climate change, they borrowed strategy from Big Tobacco – it’s not necessary to disprove the science of global warming (or that smoking kills) but only necessary to sew enough doubt as to make political action dubious at best (took decades to bring Big Tobacco to heel, sort of).
To cast this doubt, in 1998, Exxon helped create a task force called the Global Climate Science Team. A team memo that year asserted, “Victory will be achieved when average citizens understand (recognize) uncertainties in climate science” and when public “recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’”Team members included Randy Randol, (then Exxon-Mobil’s senior environmental lobbyist); Joe Walker, (public relations representative for the American Petroleum Institute); and Stephen Milloy. Milloy is most interesting because he once headed a Big-Tobacco front organization called ‘The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition’. Hear that concept in the name - “Sound Science?”
To make an idea seem more important than it is, you need to create lots of noise. A tried and true method of governmental and business interests to create ideological noise, is you create and fund a myriad of groups, staffed by the same people, managed by the same people on different boards, and using the same information base, all posing as very serious, rigorous groups. When given so many different group identities, the average person’s experience of the noise is that it must have merit…”I’m hearing it everywhere.” Most people don't research who is saying what and what are their biases.
Recently there was a lot of publicity surrounding the group “Freedom’s Watch” which is one such ‘noise’ group – mainly former government political appointees of the White House, closely aligned with Cheney, to make noise over US war policy and environment. It serves to ‘echo’ the ideological rhetoric of the White House.
Exxon helped fund 43 such ‘echo chambers.’ A few of these include - American Council on Science and Health; American Legislative Exchange Council; Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy; Atlantic Legal Foundation; Cato Institute; Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow; Centre for the New Europe; Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change; Competitive Enterprise Institute; Consumer Alert; Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies; Fraser Institute; Frontiers of Freedom; George C. Marshall Institute; Global Climate Coalition; Heartland Institute; Heritage Foundation; Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace; Independent Institute; International Policy Network; National Center for Policy Analysis; Science and Environmental Policy Project; Tech Central Station; Weidenbaum Center
These groups then use the output of their ‘experts’ to introduce ‘doubt’ into the debate. An example of the use of such experts/scientists is the case of Sallie Baliunas. Baliunas attraction for Exxon is found in a 2003 paper alleging that the global climate has not changed significantly in the past 100 years. The paper draws heavily on the peer-reviewed, published work of other scientists. Though 13 of these scientists said she misrepresented their work, and three editors of the scientific journal that published the paper resigned in protest, Exxon-Mobil-funded groups continue promoting the paper, with at least 9 of the high profile groups promoting it heavily, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation.
By focusing the language of their argument on ‘sound science’ Exxon fogs the room by making ‘their science’ seem as valid as the opposing view. Any given layperson, who knows little of scientific method, peer-review process, philosophy of science or any of the mechanisms that shape and hold science’s knowledge-manufacturing, accountable, hear the Exxon-funded argument, and in true cultural style, give equal weight to opposing arguments. That’s all Exxon needs in order to prevent political action. Hold the arguments as equally valid, thereby introducing doubt, and thereby making it much easier for legislative protectors of Big Oil, Big Energy, Big Industry, to hold legislative action at bay.
So why do everyday people get so invested on arguing against the accepted science? What does the average person gain? For those driving gas-guzzlers, time to continue to live in denial. Hummer, pollution, war in Iraq all linked? Nah. “See…Scientists don’t agree.” All sorts of lifestyle questions, jobs, all sorts of daily impact. And then, with a nation so tuned to ideological blather, you simply tie the dominant science to ‘liberals’ and reasoned debate falls right off the stage into the usual gutter of name calling, labeling, strawman, red herrings and so on.
Today, no scientific bodies of national or international standing (in the scientific community) are known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. Yes, there are some individual scientists who take a contrarian position, much like one can find scientists who don’t support the theory of evolution. (below)
Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)
|
|
read more blogs!
Blogs by observed50:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| When Science is Pseudo-Science |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
observed50
|
Dec 13 @ 12:26PM
|
|
Science is ALWAYS about the best, simplest explanation and prediction of phenomenona, and most often there are a number of contrarians.
But science is not about ‘proof’, or ‘100% certainty.’ It’s about explanations that best encompass data, and make predictions that are testable and hold up to peer-review and repeat predictability. So yes, the American Association of State Climatologists (political appointees) takes a non-commital role on the causes of climate change while the American Meteorological Society (a-political organization) accepts the role of human activity as a ‘major source of environmental change.’
So why would a Jewish voice argue that the Pope has any value in the arguments of science? Because ideology trumps reasoning, i.e., science, anyday. That’s the level of disagreement, the role of disinformation, and ideological support of pseudo-science.
|
|
Philosopher8659
|
Dec 13 @ 12:30PM
|
|
I think that one of the contributing factors to the whole of the disinformation system in America, is call Freedom of Speech. People believe that anything that comes out of thier mouth or anyone elses is speech.
If a statement does not comply with the conventions of grammar, starting with a convention of names, predication based on that convention, then it is not language. People seem to think that simply heaping words together, being ingorant of grammatical fact, is speech.
That is one of the foundations of judgment, which must be taught.
A heap of words, does not mean it is speech. 
|
|
eastham
|
Dec 13 @ 12:36PM
|
|
The Daily Mail's piece on global warming (as is now being discussed in the forums) was found to be a hoax. The Vatican, both this Pope and his predecessor, have issued statements strongly supportive of the science of global warming and initiatives to curb, which is why I found The Daily Mail story unbelievable on its face.
|
|
DeeLaMarie
|
Dec 13 @ 12:37PM
|
|
|
To cast this doubt, in 1998, Exxon helped create a task force called the Global Climate Science Team. A team memo that year asserted, “Victory will be achieved when average citizens understand (recognize) uncertainties in climate science” and when public “recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’”Team members included Randy Randol, (then Exxon-Mobil’s senior environmental lobbyist); Joe Walker, (public relations representative for the American Petroleum Institute); and Stephen Milloy. Milloy is most interesting because he once headed a Big-Tobacco front organization called ‘The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition’. Hear that concept in the name - “Sound Science?”
O.K. so we get it, global warming, climate change. I also get the fact that gas prices are rising, that no one goes through what a presidential candidate goes through for the salary of the President, unless there are some huge monies behind this and huge favors to be paid back. I don't give a hairy rats ass which party it is. I also know that although I would feel really, really good about leading a crusade to bring down gas prices and limit monies flowing through the most powerful office in the world, there ain't no way walkin its going to happen. Sooooo, us "average citizens" get it. Now what? I am not going to stop driving my car and I am not going to buy a little Hugo that would be a speed bump underneath a logging truck so I can save a drip on an iceberg. Who the hell do they think their fooling? Oh, oh, I know, but what if everyone did it. When I see congressmen/women, senate, oil company CEOS, etc. put their money and lifes where their mouths are, I'll do it. promise. 
|
|
mordru
|
Dec 13 @ 12:38PM
|
|
I asked in another blog about the same subject.Now i will ask it again here.How much did Lurch Gore and his cronies make off that piece of disinformation movie. 
|
|
jimbo242
|
Dec 13 @ 12:43PM
|
|
First of all, what do you expect to get from the "fair and balanced" network? It sure as hell isn't going to be either one of those.
I'm really surprised you would mention science as if it was a valid argument. Haven't you heard of "Inteligunt Dezine"? When you have superstition running as strong as i does in this silly country, scientific discussion is not a option...
Home schooling is tough enough without going into the details....
|
|
Philosopher8659
|
Dec 13 @ 12:45PM
|
|
This is a country almost of single parents, if I had the option, I would be one of them.
Superstition itself starts from ignorance of the foundation of grammar, convention of names, which is established by shared environment.
|
|
Philosopher8659
|
Dec 13 @ 12:49PM
|
|
|
One of the reasons I started my geometry project, as an exersize to habitualize the saying of what we see. This parallel with equation and geometric figure is just another method of teaching it.
|
|
lefthandedluckie
|
Dec 13 @ 12:53PM
|
|
It has been posted recently that the POPE condemns the climate change prophets of doom! This is a lie! It was taken from the Daily Mail, a Murdoch Fox News paper, and it originally came from the Drudge Report another lying site!
Link to a forum post that exposes what really happened...the truth about what the pope did not say
here is a link pointing out the lie told the truth from Deltoid
another blogger posting the fake report a fake report on the pope
|
|
observed50
|
Dec 13 @ 12:55PM
|
|
Philosopher> I think we tend to treat all speech as if equal, and as if simply opinion, rather than expertise, and deduced conclusions. In a public square in which all speech is treated so minimally, then grabbing for one 'opinion' that sounds good to the ear of the listener is the end result.
Eastham> You cheated. You checked on something. You're only suppose to go to a favorite blog then blast an echo. Get with the game! 
Dee> Environmental activism has always been easiest to focus at the personal level, because it is where some form of change is most easily acquired, and it avoids addressing the larger phenomena, which are giant polluters, giant resource hogs, all underpinning our social fabric. So we look like we're doing good things, while as you point out, changing little. One feels good, while water and air are polluted.
Mordru> I have no idea what Gore might have benefited from the film. A quick excursion into the web to find such information gave no quick answers. May I urge you to do the research, and report back? But I think no one would argue that if Gore benefited from it financially at all, it doesn't compare with one of the globe's largest companies, nor does it alter the voice of every national and international scientific body.
Jimbo> I think I had heard somethin about that 'dezine' thing... 
|
|
RareQuestor
|
Dec 13 @ 12:59PM
|
|
O.K. so we get it, global warming, climate change. I also get the fact that gas prices are rising, that no one goes through what a presidential candidate goes through for the salary of the President, unless there are some huge monies behind this and huge favors to be paid back. I don't give a hairy rats ass which party it is. I also know that although I would feel really, really good about leading a crusade to bring down gas prices and limit monies flowing through the most powerful office in the world, there ain't no way walkin its going to happen. Sooooo, us "average citizens" get it. Now what? I am not going to stop driving my car and I am not going to buy a little Hugo that would be a speed bump underneath a logging truck so I can save a drip on an iceberg. Who the hell do they think their fooling? Oh, oh, I know, but what if everyone did it. When I see congressmen/women, senate, oil company CEOS, etc. put their money and lifes where their mouths are, I'll do it. promise.
So you are basing your personal morality on the fact that other people are immoral? That's an interesting stance. One could use such an argument to justify almost any behavior. It would be perfectly acceptable to lie, cheat, steal, kill, rape, et cetera simply by pointing out that others do it too. 
|
|
observed50
|
Dec 13 @ 1:10PM
|
|
Leftie> You brought forward links to further support Eastham's same point...the story is a hoax. Again, thanks for doing the kind of research that helps illuminate, rather than obfuscate.
Rare> Doesn't morality boil down to choosing a herd we can agree with regarding its justifications for action? We belong to religious groups, or political parties, because we agree with what they say we have a right to do in the world? We don't choose groups because they ARE right, but choose them because to us, they FEEL, or SEEM right, or more accurately, are most like I already am....i.e., most like me.
When are people most often likely to get involved in any socio-political action? When it is supported by others most like oneself. 
|
|
yashaenka
|
Dec 13 @ 1:23PM
|
|
Factoid - overseas in oil and gas producing countries the companies have what is known as burn off, which produces more hydrocarbons than all the cars in the USA, China and Europe combined. In terms of Global warming or cooling [as thought a decade ago] a large part of this is the normal cycle of the planet, but, Big But, the trapping of gases caused by all sources does not help in the normal environmental cycle.
The news from any and all sources is a business, they highlight things for cause and affect which will produce the most viewers or readers.
Just who has the largest environmental footprint most likely China and India, along with those countries allowing Burn off to continue as mentioned above.
|
|
Philosopher8659
|
Dec 13 @ 1:28PM
|
|
[QUOTE]I think we tend to treat all speech as if equal, and as if simply opinion, rather than expertise, and deduced conclusions. In a public square in which all speech is treated so minimally, then grabbing for one 'opinion' that sounds good to the ear of the listener is the end result.[QUOTE]
Yes, but as Confucius pointed out over 2400 years ago, one can neither govern the self, nor others until such a rectification of names is accomplished.
When .lie or truth is considered speech, and its consequences not recognized, than any discussion is no more than pissing on a forest fire.
|
|
Philosopher8659
|
Dec 13 @ 1:34PM
|
|
|
The same idea was put in a metaphor by another wise man, 'It is not what goes into the mouth of man that defiles him, but what comes out of it.'
|
|
thenewguy295
|
Dec 13 @ 1:38PM
|
|
The politicizing of the topic from all sides doesn't help. Nor does the FACT that scienticians are so often wrong whether it's our daily weather forecasts, or the last two hurricane seasons that were supposed to be the worst ever due to global warming but weren't or the ice age (1970's predictions) that we were supposed to be entering by now or the world oil supply that would be exhausted by the year 2,000 or the Y2K scare that nobody could really prevent or the average life span in the U.S. of 28 years due to all the pollutants we were releasing (late 1960's grade school scare prediction there) or any of the other crap we've been spoon fed by the know-it-alls over the years.
Why should we think we aren't just being manipulated for someone else's gain again?
Good stewardship of the planet is just common sense and I agree that we need to do better at it, it should be a basic principal with no other reason attached to it.
|
|
observed50
|
Dec 13 @ 1:50PM
|
|
Yasha> thanks for pointing out the role of burn off. The impact is large, but not as large as you point to..."the emissions from global gas flaring send 400 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year -- equivalent to the emissions from all the vehicles in Great Britain, France, and Germany." This comes from a report completed by scientists at the US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration in Colorado with the use of Air Force meteorological satellite images dating to 1995.
Russia appears to be the worst of these burn-off emitters.
Philosopher> Human's love the smell of urine on fire, no? 
Newguy> The challenge of acting beyond oneself, is that it becomes an act that is political - i.e., an act that brings together groups, often with competing interests, who then struggle for the domination of their desired outcomes over the desired outcomes of others. Life in large numbers is unavoidably, political.
So then the question becomes...what are 'we' to do, not just what am 'I' to do. A friend of mine died two years ago of colo-rectal cancer. He thought he could eat well, and avoid the painful death path of his father. He was a vegan for years, avoiding all sorts of things we know contribute to formation of the cancer, but he couldn't avoid genetics. He did choose to avoid doctors, even when pain started, because he wanted so to believe he could eat right and survive. He died emaciated by the cancer, and recognizing that doing something alone, wasn't enough. It took a 'we' to accomplish the goal of healthy survival.
When the biggest pollution sources are industries underpinning our life together, doesn't it seem to make sense that you or I can't really do enough to alter the balance?
|
|
eastham
|
Dec 13 @ 1:51PM
|
|
I don't think this is freedom of speech per se, but the notion that one opinion is equally valid with another. Freedom of speech allows someone to voice an opinion, no matter how odious or unpopular, but discernment is necessary to determine if the views have any merit. What is lacking in our society is discernment.
For those of you who glean your science education on these blogs and forums (eek!!!), you would think that there are a relatively equal number of scientists who support or oppose global warming. That could not be further from the truth. The overwhelming number of climate scientists support global warming; those who do not are a very small number and are outliers in their profession.
Another point. The mean of the word "theory" by laymen and by scientists are very different. And some have argued on these blogs that global warming is just a theory.
For a layperson, a theory is the equivalent of a guess. For a scientist a theory is a self-consistent, logical and testable framework. Scientific theories include the theory of gravity, sometimes called the law of gravity, but the use of the term law in science is honorary not a declaration of absolute.
|
|
RareQuestor
|
Dec 13 @ 2:06PM
|
|
|
Rare> Doesn't morality boil down to choosing a herd we can agree with regarding its justifications for action? We belong to religious groups, or political parties, because we agree with what they say we have a right to do in the world? We don't choose groups because they ARE right, but choose them because to us, they FEEL, or SEEM right, or more accurately, are most like I already am....i.e., most like me.
When are people most often likely to get involved in any socio-political action? When it is supported by others most like oneself.
I suppose it depends upon how we define morality. I define morality as answering the the question of how my actions affect other people. It may not be illegal for me to burn leaves, for example, but it would be immoral because it threatens my neighbors health. As much as we may wish otherwise, the truth of the matter is that we are all members of a community. Even if we live in an isolated house in a rural area, we still benefit from the community whenever we use a product that would otherwise be impossible to produce by ourselves (computers and televisions, for example.) We benefit from medicines that are created in laboratories and factories around the world. We benefit from discoveries made in distant universities by people that we never heard of and almost certainly will never meet. Marshall McLuhan defined it as a "global village" not because it is easier to communicate than at any time in our history, but rather because that communication has altered our society in such a fashion that it is no longer possible to ignore our responsibilities.
The rapid and free exchange of information has resulted in a wealth of ideas and technological advances that was would have been almost inconceivable a century ago. That technology and the benefits that it provides comes at a price, however. The more we rely on our fellow human beings, the greater our commitment to the security and survival of the community becomes. In other words, how many of us could sew our clothes, grow our own food, build our own shelter? It is possible to do all of these things yourself, but only if you are willing to invest all of your time and energy to such tasks. That option does not exist with the technology that now enriches our lives. How many of us could operate a nuclear power plant or contain a toxic spill or repair an oil pipeline? The obvious answer is that we rely on people who have been trained to do these tasks. Anything that threatens the existence of these people inevitably threatens our own existence. We are now more than ever one species, one world.
That's why global warming is as much a moral issue as it is a scientific issue. There is no such thing as absolute freedom; we must consider the consequences of our actions on other people if only to preserve our own existence and that of our children. That is why I consider it immoral to deny that we have no responsibility to solve the problem of global warming or to deny that our actions have any effect on the environment or that we do not have an obligation to examine our own actions and lifestyles.
|
|
yashaenka
|
Dec 13 @ 2:08PM
|
|
Russia is but one of the countries, primarily in Siberia, I have seen it first hand, not to mention the environmental destruction. For those who do not know what Burn Off is here is a short video.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/842508/natural_gas_burn_off_from_oil_well/
|
|
Injuneer
|
Dec 13 @ 2:16PM
|
|
In all of the debate and relative disagreements, my greatest concern is the absence of privately owned, non-conglomerated, independent news sources. In a day when there were so many private publications, the relative facts were eventually published .... or perhaps there was just a lot less "misinformation" and intentional disception. The amount of money spent attempting to close down the few remaining independent news outlets is nothing less than astounding and finding so many that want to squelch desenting opinions strongly points to the need for certain groups to maintain absolute control of both information as well as those that would hear it.
The fact that we have this need to label all decenting opinions as left wing, right wing, red or blue, etc, etc show our own deminishing ability to hear contrary information and give it serious thought. We have falling into the habit of quoteing many, many sources as authoratative without so much as a second thought ... just because the proclaim that which we want to believe. The real danger is the continued supression of free thought, free speech, and opinions that may be contrary ... no matter if they are right or wrong.
Politicians, businessmen, terrorists, and idealogs will always promote their own tightly focused theology that promotes their own best interrests; but it is the thinking person that must be able to promote arguments both pro & con to any idea, else we shall certainly follow our brothers in bovine, easily lead to slaughter ...
|
|
Kat_luvr
|
Dec 13 @ 2:17PM
|
|
|
Mans wisdom is so comical.........IT is SAD!
|
|
HighlandsLass
|
Dec 13 @ 2:24PM
|
|
Elegance.... 
|
|
thenewguy295
|
Dec 13 @ 2:27PM
|
|
|
Newguy> The challenge of acting beyond oneself, is that it becomes an act that is political - i.e., an act that brings together groups, often with competing interests...
I was taking a more narrow definition of political in that individual politicians and some special interests, factions, movements etc obfuscate the debate for their own personal agenda having nothing really to do with the issue. The net effect being that the average person with little or no access to professional data or publications can't sort fact from fancy and the 6 o'clock news reports the 'research' with the same credibility as the new cancer fighting fad diet and the water skiing squirrel.
Good blog, a meaty one!
|
|
eastham
|
Dec 13 @ 2:43PM
|
|
|
In all of the debate and relative disagreements, my greatest concern is the absence of privately owned, non-conglomerated, independent news sources. In a day when there were so many private publications, the relative facts were eventually published .... or perhaps there was just a lot less "misinformation" and intentional disception.
There are peer-reviewed journals. What is telling is that most of the global warming naysayers are not published in peer-reviewed journals. For those not familiar with the process, scientific journals have panels which review submitted articles for publication. The panels are comprised of individuals with expertise (not simply knowledge) of the material to be published. Many of the articles submitted for publication do not wind up in print, because they cannot make the grade.
In a cynical abuse of scholarship, global warming naysayers have taken a page from the playbook of the proponents of intelligent design and are publishing through financially struggling university presses. A third party, such as the front group for an oil company, pays the publisher for a limited print run. Following the book's publication, the author implies that his work has been endorsed by the university in question, when it was all a simple business transaction.
|
|
SweetNapaGuy
|
Dec 13 @ 2:47PM
|
|
@ observed: I do believe the propagandist in question (i.e. the one posting the inaccurate blog) claims to be only ethnically Jewish. I believe his stated Religion is "Spiritual," but that he tends to side with Christians (at least when they're attacking liberals and moderates).
In any event, if the KKK came out with a news release in support of one of his positions, I am sure he'd call them a bastion of moral righteousness...
|
|
redtigr
|
Dec 13 @ 3:16PM
|
|
|
If you listen to Fox’s talking heads, talk-radio, or if you read blogs of the ideological right-wing, you would sense that global warming is an ever increasingly discredited scientific assertion. eastham said:
For those of you who glean your science education on these blogs and forums (eek!!!), you would think that there are a relatively equal number of scientists who support or oppose global warming. That could not be further from the truth. The overwhelming number of climate scientists support global warming; those who do not are a very small number and are outliers in their profession.
This has been something that has concerned me on this site; a tiny minority of largely misinformed persons spouting rhetoric that is made to sound like science - but has no basis in evidential history, current global conditions or recent scientifically measurable findings. I am pleased to see the increasing number of posts that recognize the importance of knowing the sources of the information that is being thrown at us by commercial media and biased or misinformed "spokespersons".
Thank you for clearing the air... (pun intended..)
|
|
jayej
|
Dec 13 @ 3:37PM
|
|
It seems to me that propaganda comes in all shapes and sizes. I really quit worrying about who was saying what and started just trying to follow the links, then goggle it, and read the other side of the story.
It all depends on which report uses which quotes. I pointed out in the blog in question that even with the quotes the author had chose to use the Pope did not "condemn" the theories on global warmng. He just did not put it at as high of a priority as others do.
Perhaps I have become jaded by all the arguments for and against, but for me, it does not take a scientist to tell things are changing, be it a natural change or a man made change. My bigger concern is can we adapt to those changes? At this point I think not because we get so overboard fighting who said what and for what agenda.
Why do people get so up in arms about who is reporting what? Because for all our knowledge on any given subject we do accept these people as leaders. The problem with that is they have their agendas too. Because of that we have a tendency to fall in behind the leader that speaks out about "our" particular agenda. Be it environmental, spiritual, or political. Sometimes we even try to mix and match and come up with the best fit for us.
It is not working for me anymore. I can't seem to find a leader that has any match to my environmental, spiritual, or political agenda. So perhaps maybe it is a cosmic issue....perhaps the planet has come up with a way to scratch a few of us fleas off it's back until it can come up with a workable number that can speak in one accord.
|
|
Nightowl001
|
Dec 13 @ 3:42PM
|
|
The fact is there are some scientists who do disagree with SOME of the conclusions about the causes of global warming.
The scientific community is as susceptible to the "herd mentality" as any other community. Too many researchers on either side of the question are approaching data collection seeking to verify a position, rather than critically examine data and THEN reach a conclusion. In a way, you can't blame them. Research dollars are usually awarded by grants, and grant applications are written in such a way so as to convince someone that they will derive benefits from the findings of the research they are funding. Unfortunately, that's not always the best way to do pure research to arrive at unbiased conclusions.
Personally, I have not been absolutely convinced of the extent of human contribution to global warming or increases in greenhouse gases; however, I agree with Mr. Gore that the internal combustion engine driven by petrochemical fuel is effectively a cancer on the planet for a large number of reasons and that alternatives should be found/developed.
|
|
LongRanger278
|
Dec 13 @ 5:12PM
|
|
If the proof is so overwhelming pro global warming then (1) where is it? (2) why do they go to such lengths to taint the intel?
Where are all the dooms day hurricanes they have been professing for the last 3 years? Now they are purposely categorizing storm levels that don't even meet the
minimum criteria.
What I don't understand is these people and organizations are outright lying but it appears that many of the American people don't care. Billions and billions of taxpayers dollars being poured into fiction. I wonder if these believers handle their own finances so carelessly.
|
|
kjac
|
Dec 13 @ 9:06PM
|
|
The lie about the pope's statement makes one wonder how many other lies are being told by the people trying to deny global warming.
LR is right SOMEONE is lying and people don't care. I wonder if these liars handle their personal lives in this matter. So willing to lie about anyone and anything to get an invalid point across.
|
|
RareQuestor
|
Dec 13 @ 10:11PM
|
|
I consider people who strive to deny the reality of global warming the modern equivalent of the 19th century slaveholders who were so desperate to cling to the economic system which had sustained them for so long that they invoked everything from biblical authority to racial superiority to state's rights to justify the enslavement of millions of men and women.  I only hope and pray that we can avoid the bloodshed that accompanied the Civil War and the final abolition of slavery. 
|
|
carpediem48
|
Dec 14 @ 2:45AM
|
|
I felt very uncomfortable when I read the Op's reference to
'one of our Jewish MD brethren'
Being Jewish is not just being an adherent to a particular religion
I find myself reacting negatively to the 'distinction' the OP made .
I would have the same reaction if the OP had said,,,,
'one of our BLACK MD brethren'
|
|
observed50
|
Dec 14 @ 12:54PM
|
|
Injun> I agree with your view on the concentration of ownership of media. Local ownership left media sensitive to local concerns, and especially, local voices. Today, one can only guess what some of the agendas of the ownership are. But it's a driving dynamic of capitalism - concentration. Concentration yields economies of scale, and that means cost cutting, margin improvement and more. It happens in all areas of the economy. One of those great insane concentrations of human community...we want to pay for everything with nothing, we want to earn more than ever, we want no taxes, yet great streets, clean water, effective schools and more. We want great dividends on our stock, and we want it everyday.If one doesn't step up and compete, one is wiped off the map.
Humans have yet to learn the cost of the ideology of cheap and free.
Newguy> I actually think we are pointing at the same politics, but what I am suggesting is that our group associations by their nature have 'private agendas. We can't escape that. With the end of the 'Cold War', the Pentagon looked to stop the production of Trident submarines in Groton Conn. Been a big pork barrel contract for years for Groton shipyards. Despite the Soviets being no more and the Chinese unable to mount a similar threat, the shiyard workers argued that the Trident still had an important strategic role to play and we still needed to be building subs. Being someone with a house, and kids in school, and looking at losing a job, trumped any sense of national pride, patriotism, communal or social responsibility. That is what groups do in the political arena...sacrifice the many for the few.
Napa> thanks for the clarification...I'd missed that in previous posts when he uses serving in the Israeli army as a basis for some of his views.
Red> Glad to help clear the air. Single people sporting misinformation/disinformation isn't so problematic. Its the number of people step up to say 'I believe too' that makes is potent. Doesn't matter if it's me or others doing the misleading.
|
|
observed50
|
Dec 14 @ 1:23PM
|
|
JJ> In some ways, you are right...propaganda does come in all shapes and sizes.
So what is such a point meant to share? Ultimately, the issue is that as humans, we want to believe before we doubt, follow before we lead, and bend before we push back. We, as large mammals, want to do as little as possible, be disturbed as little as possible, and be able to eat as much as possible in case tomorrow our food supply is shut off. Oh...and practice breeding.
Within this environment of minimalism, it is exceedingly important to know how to determine who benefits most by the points of view being expressed and supported, and most importantly, who benefits most by the policies and money that follows policy. But because we're minimalist animals, we'd sooner have our teeth pulled than do the work necessary to figure things out. So we lean into 'our sources' which is where sources matter.
Nightowl> It's also important to remember that one doesn't make a name by deriving findings supporting the accepted, but by either building larger theories that encompass more sub-theories, or by devastating a theory with counter findings non-explainable and contrary to predictions of the theory of the day. So many human beings hate change, and though science is largely about change, nonetheless, it is still being done by humans. Unlike ideology though, change is always the winning paradigm of conclusion in science.
Long> For someone who supports a President whose legacy in history will be his and his cronie's ability to mislead a nation, I'm surprised you find it surprising that people a.) accept lies, and b.) shell out billions, heck, trillions of dollars for them.
But also, I posted this blog to dismantle the disinformation you and your brethern keep posting about science and global warming. If you were a student coming to my office and once again claiming history's best research tools now at the everyday person's fingertips, I would tell you that your grade rests on your work in research, not mine. But since I also recognize that this is a rhetorical question, not really looking for an answer (or you would already have it with such tools available) , maybe the best question I can ask of you, is what supporting evidence would have to look like for you to accept it as showing the conclusion of all major scientific bodies in the world, that the globe is warming and it is doing so as a consequence of human activity, activity that can be altered to change the path of the impact of global warming?
Cuz if ya simply want evidence...try....
http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm, http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagid=1344
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm, and be sure to remember...science isn't looking for proof...it's looking for either supportive or nullifying evidence.
|
|
observed50
|
Dec 14 @ 1:32PM
|
|
Kjac> isn't politics called 'the art of the lie'? Many do it inadvertently, so mislead, because they are simply repeating what they've been told. Others do so with intent, and they are the disinformation machines.
And where do we first learn the art of the lie? In our families as we seek survival techniques, thriving techniques in an environment of such unequal power.
Rare> Isn't the Iraq war one of the salvos of the dying paradigm of such high petroleum dependency and addiction? Not just local slaveholders, but global, and the US had to insure the longterm access to the dependency drug?? They speak of a 30-yr presence in Iraq. Not because the mess made by the NeoCons, but because that was the goal for the last decade...overthrow Saddam, and establish a military presence to 'stabilize' the region.
And in the NeoCon eyes...all very moral..righteous...and god blessed.
|
|
observed50
|
Dec 14 @ 2:34PM
|
|
Carpe> my apologies if I offended you in referencing the identity characteristics of a blogger. Most often, I too would be disturbed. But at times, one's social identities are germaine to an argument. If all the blogger had argued was to one more time offer his contrarian position on global warming, it would never occur to me to lift a social-identity. But he was using a religious leader, to support a point about science, and the absurdity of that was amplified by his referencing a religious leader outside his own socio-religious identity, and in deep contrast to his own socio-religious identity. In the depth of that absurdity lies a picture of how far we'll reach for ideological wins.
Sometimes who we are is germaine to what and how we argue...
|
|
Nightowl001
|
Dec 14 @ 3:29PM
|
|
|
What (would) supporting evidence have to look like for you to accept it as showing the conclusion of all major scientific bodies in the world, that the globe is warming and it is doing so as a consequence of human activity, activity that can be altered to change the path of the impact of global warming?
This question is kind of a catch-22 for me. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are varialbe due to a number of factors, including air temperature, location and wind direction, just to toss out a couple. There is valid speculation that gas absorption into surrounding ice is different for different gases, and that ice core air bubble samples may not be as valid an indication of atmospheric gas content as once believed. Unfortunately, we don't have any several-thousand-year-old control samples to compare with, and we don't have several thousand years to establish controls and check them.
I don't deny that the evidence is overwhelming that global warming is occurring. But there really is enough scientific question about the cause(s) that I can't point and say "Man is responsible for this!" There is sufficient evidence already for me to believe that we are a contributing factor, but the science is less sure about what changes we should make and how much that will affect the current and short-term future trends. Again, however, I think mankind has developed a sick codependency on carbon-emitting sources of energy and living Greener is a good thing to strive for, no matter how much or how little effect it might have on global warming. And I think investigation into the possible causes should continue.
|
|
|