Oh Jon, your argument about global faking is breaking down from the inside. This movement by scientist is to continue being funded and to service the Left's agenda to get filthy rich. A businessman who makes millions of profit is far better that a Liberal like Gore and others who take money through fear.Please read:http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/01/19/left-wing-environmental-physicist-bails-out-of-global-warming-movement-declares-it-a-corrupt-social-phenomenon-strictly-an-imaginary-problem/
Even one of the founders of Greenpeace has come on over to the "right" side of this argument.Like one scientist said, to think that we have any significant affect on this earth which is so large and complex is arrogant - ding ding ding!
Chad, Chad, Chad. When are you going to learn that you need to have at least an ounce of skepticism when you read your right wing sources? Seriously.I checked your link. What I do, which apparently you don't do, is I just check the first couple of claims. Do a little background work. Takes about 10 seconds and it kind of lets you know whether there is value in reading a long article like this. Denis Rancourt, professor of environmental science at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed on global warming myths and is blowing the lid on the whole conspiracy.OK, let's at least Google Denis Rancourt. What do you find? He is not a professor of environmental science. He's a professor of physics. He did not just bail on global warming. He wrote a piece in 2007 detailing his conspiracy theories. Financiers and banksters concocted a global warming scam in order to distract people from their theft. OK, that's kind of weird. Your article is just completely wrong from the very start. Rancourt was removed from teaching duties in 2008 after he gave A+ to all 23 of his students and in other ways acted erratically.Did you watch the video?
Sure did, that is why I sent you that article. I figured you would attack the weakest link in the chain of names saying Global Warming is not a proven fact. How about the other big names - what part of their educational pedigree do you not like - maybe they stole groceries from a grandma making their opinions invalid? You see that is the Liberal playbook that I am use to - make a great argument and they will attack the pedigree of the person making the argument against their beliefs.Fact - Not one single Scientist can say with absolute truth that Global Warming or climate change has been 100% caused by humans, they can't say 25%, they can not say 2% - they have no positive evidence one way or another.This is a big scam to make money for the Liberal Left and to validate the need for scientists, environmentalist while at the same time trying to destroy the big money capitalist on the right. This game is above both of us - this is only an attempt by the Left to once again take money that they have not earned from those who have earned it. If they can't take it from the earners then they will try to destroy them through propaganda like Global Warming. The biggest problem for Liberals is that all their big brain thinkers have no idea how to make one damn thing - solar BUST, wind BUST, electric cars - HUGE BUST so they need something to slow Nuclear, Drilling for Oil, Natural Gas and the biggie Coal - this is it. Scare the hell out of people that if we use all those evils we will die some horrible death to slow down progress.Wake up my friend, this is a war to gain power from one group to give to another. The Right has the money, the job creators, the energy know-how, the guns, the Constitution and the inventors - that is every place the Left attacks and will attack. It's about power.
No one single scientists can say with absolute proof that smoking causes lung cancer. Seriously. You can't prove it. You are following the old tobacco playbook.The way everyone actually acts in the real world is they make decisions on what is most plausible. Because you can't prove anything with mathematical certainty. Like it's not a certainty that you'll contract an illness, but you get insurance anyway. If you get sick without it it can be catastrophic.We have to make a decision. Do we believe your theories of a grand conspiracy amongst the scientific community, combined with liberals that just get so mad at the success of the "job creators" and innovators? It's all a big scam because after all the co-founder of Greanpeace and the founder of the Weather Channel are skeptics? Or do we believe the virtual entirety of the scientific community, which has reached a consensus rarely possible on controversial questions?Because if I'm wrong, but deal? We develop renewable energy, maybe consume less. Probably develop new technologies via public subsidy, as was done for the war and other reasons. You act like these methods rarely lead to technological breakthroughs. Ever heard of computers, the internet, satellite communications, commercial aviation, semiconductors, nano technology, factory automation, mass transport, lasers? Publicly financed R&D has had some decent successes.But if you're wrong and the exponentially increasing fossil fuel emissions actually impact the environment (a strange idea I know), then the consequence is death on a large scale.So though we don't know with 100% certainty, this doesn't mean we shouldn't make rational choices like we do normally.
You know what I find a little bizarre? You're quick to conclude that this is all a part of some big scientific money making scam and scientific need to crush big money people. But as far as the money making incentives of the global warming opponents, whether the fossil fuel industry or media that is owned by mega corporations and sells advertising to other mega corporations, it's like their financial incentives never occurred to you.And it's not like it's a conspiracy with them. We know why these mega corporations exist. To make money. They don't hide it. We see the BP commercials and Shell Oil commercials. They have a direct and open incentive to convince you that it's all a liberal hoax. And yet rather than think that is what's happening you think there's a conspiracy amongst the entire scientific community to scam people. Do you know any of these scientists?Al Gore is not a scientist by the way.
No - I am not of the opinion that the Scentific Commuty banded together on this. What I believe is that big money people on the left got together and said we need to slow down this industrial energy monster that is controlled by the Right. What better way to raise revenue, better wa to add more extremist to your base than to point scientist in a certain direction. Big money said to scientist, this is what we want to show and here is the cash to find answers we want. Scare the hell out of people with doomsday result while using the government as a tool to steal from the energy producers to spend foolishly with the 'Green' ideas that have proven to be a big time joke. Imagine for a moment if every dollar spent on this idiotic green movement was used to improve nuclear or natural gas - we would not be looking at $5/ gallon fuel prices and we would have lower energy costs overall.
So big money just showed up to scientists for the taking and they decided one by one to produce thousands of peer reviewed research papers. Those papers were published and where applicable tests were duplicated. They all decided to throw their reputation and methods to the wind because the "left" showed up with a few bucks and said "Here, we're really mad that certain people make a lot of money selling fossil fuels. We really hate the easy life of big cars and all the electricity we want to use. We love paying taxes. Take some money and fix us up." The scientists agreed. To hell with our reputations. The left obviously would prefer to live in squalor. Let's go with it.The converse, which is that the fossil fuel industry has an incentive to keep us in the dark, that seems too implausible to you. Fortunately there's no pressure on Shell Oil or BP to pursue profits. It's those money grubby scientists.
Let me help Chad out, he really meant this post and this presentation. Btw, Richard Lindzen, an MIT climate scientist, IS an authoritative figure on Climate Science. It would be the equivalent of say, Paul Krugman, in economics.Though, unlike you, I still don't put much trust in one or two rogue scientists. I want consensus...something like 25%+ to be considered "debatable".
Guys, I'm on vacation, so perhaps a bit hit and miss in my replies, but HP, Chad and I are not debating whether or not there is an individual legitimate scientist that goes against the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. That's obviously true and true of just about every scientific question. Legitimate scientists question relativity and other issues which are considered settled science.But what about the 197 out of 200 scientists that think Lindzen is wrong (BTW, did you happen to see Friedman bring up Lindzen recently)? Is it millions of data points and thousands of peer reviewed papers all just kind of made up? Scientists ready to throw their reputations to the wind in order to make a few bucks, with the end goal being trying to prevent certain people from getting to rich, which just makes these other rich people doling out the cash mad. It's really quite bizarre.James Delingpole is not a source you should be citing, HP. He's Ann Coulter without the fame. Just a troll. I can't believe they let him write for The Telegraph, but maybe The Telegraph is more like the Weekly World News than I realized.
You are preaching to the choir here...you know I dont buy it. I just like to see how you react when the tables are turned.Of course if this were economics, you would be the one quoting rogue economists and I would be the one saying...well basically, what you say here.Enjoy your vacation man! This stuff can wait.
Oh and yes, I saw this on Friedman's blog. That's where I got the source from. Check for me in the comments there...they probably think I am some crazy leftwinger with the comments I leave.
If economics were science and also some kind of economic consensus existed you'd have a point but it's not and you don't.Here's an article about a guy that read 21 books that purported to explain the cause of the economic crisis by economics type people. No consensus at all of course.http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/23/145661552/what-an-economist-learned-from-reading-21-books-about-the-crisis
Oh the irony Jon. I love it that it is all in one post. When its global warming, scientific consensus counts. When its economics, it's not science and there is no consensus. You switch between the two so easily. But I consider it progress. 2 years ago you would have dismissed evolution and global warming. Little by little you are coming over to the scientific consensus side...I can be patient.
I switch between non-scientific subjects, like astrology, and scientific ones, like physics, very easily. Why shouldn't I switch easily? These are very different things. Consensus matters more in one than the other.It's true that I've changed my opinions. I'm proud of that, not ashamed. I mean, I read right wingers when I was young. Sowell says "If you prevent prices from rising you get shortages." Wow, what an astonishing insight!! He's a genius. What I could do at that point is assume he's right about everything else. I'm 22 years old. I guess I have it all figured out. I'll never allow additional information to sway me.I think this is how a lot of cults work. Scientology will tell you that our society is over medicated. Seems plausible. Maybe they are pretty smart. So people take one plausible insight and allow that to suck them into a whole worldview. And for some reason, stubborn creatures that we are, even when they later learn that they are required to believe absurd things, they still manage to believe them. Mentally rejection of absurd things means rejection of foundational principles, and that's too painful.I see you as the Scientologist and me as the ex-Scientologist. You point to me and say ah-ha. Look at you. You change your opinion too easily. Maybe. But maybe you don't change your opinion easily enough.They said trickle down economics will improve things. It didn't. They said Clinton's tax hikes would collapse the economy. It didn't. They said Bush's tax cuts would lead to an astonishing boom. It didn't. They said financial deregulation would lead to another boom. It didn't. They said Krugman was an idiot to see doom and gloom on the horizon. He wasn't. You said a few months back that Ireland is proof that austerity works. It wasn't. They said Spain's balanced budgets would be a huge benefit for them. It wasn't. They said austerity would reduce unemployment in Greece. It didn't. Now we're supposed to trust them when they say there's no reason to do anything at all about global warming except get out of the way of capitalism as Shell Oil and BP pump more CO2 into the atmosphere. They haven't learned from their past mistakes. You want us to keep listening to them and I change my mind to easily. I allow reality to inform my views. That's not something to be embarrassed about.
You change your opinion too easily. Maybe. But maybe you don't change your opinion easily enough.Think about who you are talking to here Jon. I am the Mexican guy that grew up in Compton....in California! Based on pure statistics, I should be more leftist than you!But here I am. Rightwinger. You probably wont find ANYBODY else like me. One of a kind. A true break away from my stereotypical political destiny.That's the sign of an independent thinker. I give you credit though. You HAVE changed. But your change isn't complete yet. Every single transition you consider worthy (from non-belief in evolution, to belief in evolution; non belief in global warming to belief in global warming; even belief in the inerrancy of scripture to the errancy) involves giving experts their due. It's the Scientologist that goes against academic community. So if that is your analogy, it is still you that is the Scientologist. But that's to be expected. You went from giving experts NO credit to giving them SOME credit. That's big. You cant expect you to go from fundamentalist to completely not. It takes time. ANd I am patient.(Btw, when you say "they", you have to distinguish between Rush Limbaugh conservatives and true thinkers...most of your claims of "they" including what you attribute to me on Ireland, is not true - an outright lie or an exaggeration, at best...but I can understand why confirmation bias might lead you to think otherwise)
The beginning of my post above, where I wrote: You change your opinion too easily. Maybe. But maybe you don't change your opinion easily enough.Was meant to be italicized. I was quoting you.
Post a Comment