NEW! Google Custom Search

Loading
Napie's picture

Hummm?? (post #48793)

I wonder how we got in the position of 90% of Westerners being carefully taught the opposite of the truth.  It is very common for intelligent, educated people to be almost completely misinformed on very large important issues, even where actual data is readily available.


 



  • What they believe:  man is destroying the environment by overpopulation.  The truth:  Western man is depopulating.

  • What they believe:  man is destroying the environment by CO2 emissions.  The truth:  man creates just 5% of all CO2 emissions.  Approximately equivalent to the contribution from Moose Farts.

  • What they believe:  man is destroying the environment causing polar bears to go extinct.  The truth:  there are more polar bears than in 1950.  Or 1900.  It's a good time to be a polar bear.

 

CookiM0nster's picture

(post #48793, reply #53 of 73)

Thank you for providing those links to show where you got your information.

Both of those sites, however, don't seem to be particularly objective. Even when they seem to be reporting "facts" from scientific sources, they're only reporting a select information. Yes, of course there is a lot of disagreement about the details of how warming is happening. That's just the way the scientific process works. Just because they disagree about the details does not mean that the majority disagree that change is happening.

As a scientist who has received government funding I can promise that this is not why scientists continue to publish reports supporting the existence of global climate change. The review process that scientists go through to get their funding is set up in such a way that political pressure does not affect who gets what, except perhaps at a very, very broad level. No matter what these scientists found, they would still get funded.


Edited 10/30/2007 2:29 pm by CookiM0nster

gmunger's picture

(post #48793, reply #60 of 73)

As a scientist who has received government funding I can promise that this is not why scientists continue to publish reports supporting the existence of global climate change. The review process that scientists go through to get their funding is set up in such a way that political pressure does not affect who gets what, except perhaps at a very, very broad level. No matter what these scientists found, they would still get funded.


Thanks Cooki. This is what I wanted to say, but not feeling too articulate today.


I would also add that a few scientists manage to get quoted in the media despite the political pressures that inhibit them from doing so. Most scientists I know get very nervous about communicating through the MSM because not only are there potentially severe penalties for rocking the wrong political boats (regardless of what the science says), but the MSM often ends up getting the science wrong anyway.


It's partly an issue of science literacy. The media, the politicians, the public, mostly understand too little and care too little. It's not that people are stupid, it's that science (as in evidence-based enquiry) is too little valued in our society. And yet, despite the dearth of science literacy, everyone seems to have an "opinion" about "which side" is "right or wrong".


Of course, it's also partly an issue of who stands to make or lose money. And yet it's the scientists whose motives are most often questioned. Especially the ones getting rich off the government dole?


 


It is as if we are living inside of a dream, sleepwalking toward oblivion, while self-serving, shortsighted interests encourage our slumber with managed news, celebrity culture and other weapons of mass distraction.

 

We are truly what we eat, and too many people are fast, cheap and easy. Who owns your food owns you, and it is unwise to let that power rest in the hands of a very few wealthy corporations.
gmunger's picture

(post #48793, reply #61 of 73)

Regarding the British judge and his judgement of An Inconvenient Truth, you may find some interesting reading here.


Here's the concluding paragraph (but the details are worth checking out the link):


Overall, there are a couple of points where I wish Gore would have talked about timescales and probabilities (sea level rise and thermohaline circulation), and a couple of examples that could have been better chosen (Kilimanjaro and Lake Chad). Burton (the UK High Court judge) was mistaken on the other points where he felt that Gore went past the consensus. I don't think that there is any harm in the Guidance Notes on Burton's nine points, but the usual suspects will, of course, ignore the fact that the judge found that Gore was "broadly accurate" and try to make it look as if there are serious problems with AIT and climate science.


 


It is as if we are living inside of a dream, sleepwalking toward oblivion, while self-serving, shortsighted interests encourage our slumber with managed news, celebrity culture and other weapons of mass distraction.

 

We are truly what we eat, and too many people are fast, cheap and easy. Who owns your food owns you, and it is unwise to let that power rest in the hands of a very few wealthy corporations.
Heather's picture

(post #48793, reply #62 of 73)

To add to what you just posted, the judge clearly agreed with the main thrust of the hypothesis in the movie--this is from the London Times:

"Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts."

Ozark's picture

(post #48793, reply #47 of 73)

Actually, they are not few and far between, they are just not in the mainstream media hyping fear. 


Funny I was just getting ready to edit and add that.


Not that I don't agree we can't help the environment instead of hurting it, I just feel that 'global warming' is a natural trend.    


 I totally agree.


 Wonder who caused the ice age and resulting warm up?


Several times.


 


 


 I have made a lot of money in my life. Most of it I spent on women and boats. The rest I simply wasted!!

 

Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional!

CookiM0nster's picture

(post #48793, reply #54 of 73)

Even if you don't believe that the current warming trend is caused by human activity, you must agree that the results of drastic change would be pretty devastating to us. After all, look at what happened to the plants and animals alive when the last ice age hit.

Adele's picture

(post #48793, reply #58 of 73)

I agree with that, drastic change will not be good.  I also agree that we should be careful with our resources.  I just don't think it's ALL on humans, and that nature has cycles too.

But, but, it's SUPPOSED to taste like that!

But, but, it's SUPPOSED to taste like that!

MadMom's picture

(post #48793, reply #59 of 73)

I don't think that scientists who support global warming (the vast majority of them) are saying that it is ALL on the humans, and I doubt that anyone here feels that way.  Still, we can control what we do.  We can reduce our destructive habits and take care of this planet, or we can put our heads in the sand, claim it's "not my fault" and then hope like hell we're right.  I find it inconceivable that people want to continue down the path we're on.  In our current home state, we're faced with drought.  People have seen the possible consequences, and have reduced their water consumption dramatically.  Why does it take a crisis before we are ready to act?  Wouldn't it make sense to try to conserve this planet, regardless of whether global warming exists or not?  I, for one, worry about the world we're leaving to our children and grandchildren.



Not One More Day!
Not One More Dime! Not One More Life! Not One More Lie!

End the Occupation of Iraq -- Bring the Troops Home Now!

And Take Care of Them When They Get Here!

thecooktoo's picture

(post #48793, reply #28 of 73)

"It's really a matter of choosing what you want to believe. "


I thought I made it clear.


Jim

TracyK's picture

(post #48793, reply #32 of 73)

You made that clear with respect to global warming, but your post in response to Jean made it sound as if you were speaking for "all of us" on the subject of God creating the earth.  You aren't.


CT poster in bad standing since 2000.

thecooktoo's picture

(post #48793, reply #35 of 73)

I certainly did not intend to speak for everybody on the subject of God creating the earth.  But somebody needs to, just not me.


Jim

TracyK's picture

(post #48793, reply #36 of 73)

No, in fact nobody needs to.


I'm perfectly happy with my beliefs, thanks.


CT poster in bad standing since 2000.

thecooktoo's picture

(post #48793, reply #38 of 73)

Tracy - please forgive me...I did not mean to infer that you required any such assistance.

smslaw's picture

(post #48793, reply #34 of 73)

Read it again folks, this is the world the Lord has made, let us rejoice in it and be glad !!


If there is a God, and he made the earth, and we wreck it, He won't be happy with us, will He? He seems willing enough to let us screw things up without intervening. See, e.g. WW II.  Perhaps He'd like us to use our intelligence to weigh the risks and alternatives. 


Are you suggesting that there is no possibility that climate change is real, caused by human activity, and may have dire consequences?  If you aren't positive, wouldn't it be prudent to do something, just on the off chance that Al Gore is right?  Do you want to explain to your grandchildren why we failed to act and now it's too late? 


Would giving up our (God-given?) right to drive a Hummer be such a sacrifice?


 

jkvogel's picture

(post #48793, reply #18 of 73)

So you don't believe in cancer or drastic global climate change?


How cute.


K

Regality's picture

(post #48793, reply #19 of 73)

My advice (which is free to all) is to take anything you read or hear in the media in this great country of ours with huge grains of salt. 

 While you and I do not necessarily agree, I am reminded of one of my life's mottos:  "Believe nothing--and then only half of that."

 


“For me, patriotism is the love of one’s country, while nationalism is the hatred of other peoples.”–Dmitri Likhachev


http://regality3.livejournal.com/



samchang's picture

(post #48793, reply #8 of 73)

>I think . . . the stats are absolutely right.<

The statistics *are* right . . . which tells us just how slippery statistics are. They are only a computational tool that measures whatever it is you are measuring. It does not tell you the relative value of the measure, and it is prone to selective measurement. A good statistic is based on as non-selective a set of criteria as possible, all of which means that there IS a difference between a *right* statistic and a *good* statistic.

madnoodle's picture

(post #48793, reply #9 of 73)

Thank you for saying that.  I'm going to copy and paste that into my notes for an upcoming course, if you don't mind.

Saskatchewan:  our mountain-removal project is nearly complete.

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

 

RuthWells's picture

(post #48793, reply #14 of 73)

I've said it before and I'll say it again... Samchang for President!

Ruth Wells


"Gardening is the only unquestionably useful job."
 - G.B. Shaw


www.cookiesforacure.blogspot.com

Ruth Wells

"Gardening is the only unquestionably useful job."
 - G.B. Shaw

www.lemonade-and-kidneys.blogspot.com

www.ruthssweetpleasures.com

http://www.pkdcure.org/Default.aspx?TabI...

gmunger's picture

(post #48793, reply #16 of 73)

Napie, I don't know where your stats came from, don't care.  I think  you and the stats are absolutely right.


Thanks Jim. The above two sentences perfectly encapsulate the troubles we face.


How do you reconcile these two statements? On what basis do you make decisions in life? Doesn't proof matter?


 


There are 2 kinds of people in this world; those who believe there are 2 kinds of people, and everyone else.

 

We are truly what we eat, and too many people are fast, cheap and easy. Who owns your food owns you, and it is unwise to let that power rest in the hands of a very few wealthy corporations.
thecooktoo's picture

(post #48793, reply #23 of 73)

Yes, absolutely proof matters...there, surprised you didn't I?  My problem is that the proof that is being offered is one sided, never considers any other alternatives and is totally one sided.  I would use as an example Mr. Gores recent Academy Award for a hoax of a movie, that even the most liberal courts in the world (my opinion only, don't hit me for that as a statement of fact), those of Great Britain has ruled that the schools must distribute an addendum spelling out the 9 total falsehoods in the movie that are made as statements of fact.


The tongue in cheek comment that I made concerning not caring where the facts come from was meant to emphasize just that...at least here are some facts (true or not) that repute what we commonly are force fed by the media and lock step followers of "the sky is falling believers."  It doesn't really make any difference where they come from, they are just as accurate, in my opinion, as all the others we get from the "dark side." 


It's really a matter of choosing what you want to believe.  I choose on the side of realism and history, not the hoaky mental masturbatory hype put forth by the media and those who want us to retrench in our life style to a century ago...and, by the way, if you think using gasoline causes a problem, wait till you have to get rid of the equivalent amount of horse manure.


Horse manure, wow, what a relavent comment.

gmunger's picture

(post #48793, reply #30 of 73)

Forget the media. Forget Al Gore. What about the scientific community?


I don't want to argue the details of climate change science. I simply don't have time, and it's a complex thing.


All I'm going to say is, there are not "two sides" to this issue. There are rarely just two sides to any issue. Turn off the boob tube mentality for a minute. What the science says, to date, is that humans now have a significant, perhaps almost total control over the earth's climate system. And there's a strong likelihood that we're really screwed. ESPECIALLY if we don't change our ways. That's reality.


That said, if we listen to what the scientists are saying, we probably CAN mitigate disaster, and do so in a way that leads to a better way of living. It takes some imagination to get beyond the horse manure paradigm.


I am not a climate science expert. But I do have a good deal of scientific training. And I engage almost daily with some awfully smart scientists. I wish I knew how to convey, in a brief time, why I am convinced that catastrophic anthropogenic global climate change is real. Read the IPCC reports. They are written by serious, well-trained, brilliant scientists. Scientists are generally, by nature, not prone to hyperbole. The reports are the result of carefully vetted, thorough, thoughtful work. These people have little to nothing to gain from this. As opposed to the professional obfuscators.


Examine the motivations. Examine the qualifications. This stuff is real, it's serious, and it's sobering. It may be easy to dismiss for some, but we do so at our peril.


By the way, I should apologize Jim, for my snide language. I simply have become intolerant of the naysaying. I would say the same to my father.


 


There are 2 kinds of people in this world; those who believe there are 2 kinds of people, and everyone else.

 

We are truly what we eat, and too many people are fast, cheap and easy. Who owns your food owns you, and it is unwise to let that power rest in the hands of a very few wealthy corporations.
thecooktoo's picture

(post #48793, reply #31 of 73)

I acknowledge that many in the scientific community believe as  you do...and that is perfectly OK with me.


And there are just as many scientist that don't believe as you do...and that, too, is perfectly OK with me.


There is no need to apologize.  I believe what I believe; and you believe what you believe.  I am not a scientist, but I am a pretty well educated, well read individual that does not necessarily accept spoon feeding without some measure of resistance.  And I am not implying that you are trying to spoon feed me anything, but I am convinced that many others are.


I am sure that you are as strongly convinced that you are right as I am convinced that I am right.  That does not make either one of us a bad person.  While I don't agree with you I certainly acknowledge that you have every right to believe and espouse your beliefs.  You have allowed me to do the same, and for that I thank you.


My daddy used to say that disagreeing with him did not make somebody a bad person, maybe a little misguided, but not bad (said with tongue firmly planted in cheek!).

gmunger's picture

(post #48793, reply #33 of 73)

I acknowledge that many in the scientific community believe as  you do...and that is perfectly OK with me.


And there are just as many scientist that don't believe as you do...and that, too, is perfectly OK with me.


This is simply wrong. There are NOT "just as many" scientists who deny the reality of impending catastrophic anthropogenic global climate change. There are a few. But not many. There is plenty of quibbling about the details, which of course is what scientists do. But on the questions of is there warming?, are humans responsible?, and is what's happening unprecedented and potentially catastrophic?, the evidence is strong and compelling.


To "believe" otherwise is to deny evidence and reason, in favor of superstition and dogma.


 


There are 2 kinds of people in this world; those who believe there are 2 kinds of people, and everyone else.

 

We are truly what we eat, and too many people are fast, cheap and easy. Who owns your food owns you, and it is unwise to let that power rest in the hands of a very few wealthy corporations.
thecooktoo's picture

(post #48793, reply #37 of 73)

"With my already developed reputation for creating hate and discontent on this forum I should really stay away from this topic. But I just can't."  That was my first post on this topic and I should have left it alone then.


YOU ARE FREE TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE, AND I WILL NOT TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE WRONG.  I WOULD APPRECIATE THE SAME.


I may be in illiterate, uneducated fool; but I have developed the ability to locate, read, digest and interpret information on my own.  I do not need for you to tell me that my beliefs are not up to your standards.  I tried to be as diplomatic as I could in my previous post...I honestly do not want to create any more hate and discontent, but you are now making me pound the damned keyboard.


The next time that I need interpretive assistance in reading and understanding complex issues, I will make sure that i call on you.  Until then, please let me just suffer in my ignorance.  It is so rewarding to know that there is help available when I can no longer reason on my own.


Jim


 

gmunger's picture

(post #48793, reply #41 of 73)

I acknowledge that many in the scientific community believe as  you do...and that is perfectly OK with me.


And there are just as many scientist that don't believe as you do...and that, too, is perfectly OK with me.


Let me reiterate, for you Jim, and for others. The above logic is wrong. Belief is irrelevant. The vast majority of scientists are convinced of the basic points I outlined earlier. It is a fact. Repeating your denialist mantra over and over does not change what is a demonstratable fact. I am not saying this out of arrogance. I am simply stating what is TRUE.


You can make the argument that the vast majority of the scientific community is wrong. It doesn't strike me as compelling in the least, but you could make that suggestion and I could not absolutely deny the possibility that you could be correct.


However, you cannot say that black is white.


 


 


There are 2 kinds of people in this world; those who believe there are 2 kinds of people, and everyone else.

 

We are truly what we eat, and too many people are fast, cheap and easy. Who owns your food owns you, and it is unwise to let that power rest in the hands of a very few wealthy corporations.
Adele's picture

(post #48793, reply #45 of 73)

Repeating your denialist mantra over and over does not change what is a demonstratable fact


Gee, sorta like repeating it's true doesn't make it a fact.   Check the cycles of the earth since they have been recorded.  Check the temperature changes.  Check your facts.


But, but, it's SUPPOSED to taste like that!

But, but, it's SUPPOSED to taste like that!

gmunger's picture

(post #48793, reply #48 of 73)

I was talking about the fact that the vast majority in the scientific community are on-board with this global warming mumbo jumbo. And the fact that very few scientists have the wherewithall to question the godless majority. But the majority are apparently all a bunch of pointy-headed liberals on the government dole, so what should I expect?

 


There are 2 kinds of people in this world; those who believe there are 2 kinds of people, and everyone else.

 

We are truly what we eat, and too many people are fast, cheap and easy. Who owns your food owns you, and it is unwise to let that power rest in the hands of a very few wealthy corporations.
gmunger's picture

(post #48793, reply #49 of 73)

As for the science....I've been checking.....yep, I still think we're in deep doodoo.

 


There are 2 kinds of people in this world; those who believe there are 2 kinds of people, and everyone else.

 

We are truly what we eat, and too many people are fast, cheap and easy. Who owns your food owns you, and it is unwise to let that power rest in the hands of a very few wealthy corporations.
Ozark's picture

(post #48793, reply #40 of 73)

"This is simply wrong. There are NOT "just as many" scientists who deny the reality of impending catastrophic anthropogenic global climate change. There are a few."


That's because the ones supporting are on the government dole. Sure they support it or they would lose their grants and their jobs.


"But not many. There is plenty of quibbling about the details, which of course is what scientists do. But on the questions of is there warming?, are humans responsible?, and is what's happening unprecedented and potentially catastrophic?, the evidence is strong and compelling."


It is compelling only if you ignore all but the last 70 to 100 years of the cyclical changes the earth has gone thru.


 


 I have made a lot of money in my life. Most of it I spent on women and boats. The rest I simply wasted!!

 

Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional!